Make your own free website on Tripod.com

 

600 words not including the initial three alternative suggested headings or titles and/or the closing contact data.

 

 

TERRORISM: CLOSER THAN YOU THINK.

 

or

 

ARE YOU PAYING THE SALARIES OF TERRORISTS?

 

or

 

THE “LEGAL” CARTEL: IT SHOCKS THE CONSCIENCE.

 

or

 

THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES: NO MORE FOOLS = NO MORE LAWYERS.

 

or

 

THE “LEGAL” CARTEL AND THEIR PRACTICE OF LAW: YOU ARE THE VICTIM.

 

Op-ed pieces on the need for reform in the “people’s justice courts” offer various suggestions based upon the premise that they are capable of administering justice, and belong to the people.  The courts are not capable of “justice” because they are, in actuality, not following any rules.  This is demonstrated by the fact that judges are free to violate “the rules” whenever they want to, i.e., there is no “rule of law.”  Also, the courts belong to lawyers and not to “the people.”  Take the case of CV1999-18701.  A poor, foreign-born grandmother, and senior citizen, with hearing problems, is sued for some money allegedly owed on a government-funded home rehab contract.  After two years of litigation the case is ready for trial, after passing through five lawyers (four judges, one arbitrator), all of which accepted paperwork drafted by her son, a non-lawyer, on her behalf.  Her son expects to see the “case” dismissed because it is meritless, and he can prove it easily, using Arizona precedent.  The final judge in question knows his mother cannot respond meaningfully at trial, indeed, cannot “respond” at all, without assistance, due to her lack of fluency in English, and ignorance of legal process.  Also, she cannot afford a lawyer, so, on his own motion, he gives permission to her son to “ask questions and offer argument” at trial.  The other side sues that judge, in the Court of Appeals, saying only a lawyer can help her and, even though lawyers often say “only a fool has themself as their own lawyer,” the higher court agrees.  Why?  The higher court wants to maintain the monopoly (“state bar”) that lawyers were granted, over the practice of law, in Arizona, in 1933.  This creates ethical challenges and conflicts of law too numerous to describe here.  For example, the “supreme” laws promise justice, fairness, equal protection under the law, due process, equal access to justice, freedom from discrimination, the right to contract, the right to privacy, human rights, etc..  See the U.S. and Arizona Constitutions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (two U.S. treaties).  Also, article 25 of Arizona’s Constitution, making its “state” Bar a nullity.)  Despite these facts, here, the end result is that “justice,” so-called, is transformed, from an unalienable right, that everyone can enjoy, into a commodity, that only a few can afford to buy, indeed, that people are forced to pay for, once sued.  Sadly, this proves that judges (i.e., bar members, or “lawyers”), will cast aside their own laws, in direct violation of their own oath of office, whenever they want, so, really, there is no “rule of law,” only anarchy.  This also proves that “We the People,” who, allegedly, had the original, “inherent power,” in 1776, to create the courts, and to then delegate the administration of the same to “their” public “servants,” have now been banned, from “their” “own” courts, as of 1933.  Do you live in fear?  What sacrifices have you had to make in the wake of the recent terrorist attacks?  Was the United States attacked because the “evil doers hate our values,” such as “freedom,” as its President has said?  And, if so, are Americans really free?  Could you stand the thought of losing your only home to pay lawyer’s fees for a demonstrably meritless case?  If not, and you want to know what you can do to help, and/or simply learn more, then visit http://remakethematrix.tripod.com/home.htm and, the next time that you see any state bar brochure that says, “Attorneys, Providing You A Voice in the Legal System,” don’t believe it.

 

Moses Shepard is a writer, webmaster, experienced litigator, and the son mentioned in this editorial.

 

2nd Draft:

 

suggested headline:

THE SO-CALLED UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW: YOU ARE THE VICTIM.

 

Two years ago, my mother, a poor, foreign-born grandmother, and senior citizen, with hearing problems, was sued for some money allegedly owed on a government-funded home rehab project.  After I personally litigated her case for two years it was finally ready for trial, after having passed before four judges and one arbitrator, all of which accepted paperwork that I, a non-lawyer, had researched and drafted on her behalf.

I expected to see the case dismissed because, as her primary witness, I knew it was meritless and I could prove it.  Because the final judge knew my mother could not respond meaningfully at trial, indeed, could not respond at all, without my assistance, due to her lack of fluency in English, and ignorance of legal process, and lack of funds to pay a lawyer, on his own motion, he gave me permission to “ask questions and offer argument” at trial.

The other side then sued that judge in the higher court saying only a member of the labor organization known as the local State “Bar” could help her, and what I was doing constituted the unauthorized practice of law, and the higher court agreed.  Why?  As it turns out, the “Bar” has mandatory membership, and to maintain their monopoly, on the practice of law, lawyers have seen to it that judges will not grant anyone the freedom to help someone else when they get sued, whether that person is getting paid or not.

Needless to say, this creates numerous ethical challenges, and conflicts of law, too numerous to mention here.  For instance, this goes against the supreme laws of this land promising fairness, justice, due process, equal protection, equal access, the right to contract, the right to privacy, freedom from discrimination, denial of human, civil and political rights.  Article XXV of Arizona’s Constitution even makes labor organizations, such as the Bar, a nullity, because Arizona is a right-to-work state but, still, no one is free to practice law unless they are a member.

Because of these facts, contrary to what you might currently believe, justice, so-called, at least, in this part of the “free” world, is not a so-called “unalienable” right, but a commodity, to be bought and sold, and an expensive one at that, and, by design, because legalized monopolies, and the “licensing and education” requirements tied to them, automatically raise the rates charged by its members.  The end result is only a few can afford “justice,” and everyone else that is sued, cannot get “justice.”

To make matters worst, judges are, almost always, themselves, members of these highly exclusive professional cartels, so it is impossible to get them to render a neutral decision on this issue because this would be politically incorrect, for them personally, so there goes their oath of office, to support the “supreme” laws, out the window, and never mind the so-called “rule of law.”

Believe it or not, in America, “We the People,” who, allegedly, had the original, “inherent power,” in 1776, to create the courts, and to then delegate the administration of the same to “our” public “servants,” have now been banned from “our” “own” courts, as of the 1930s, when these so-called appropriately named “Bars,” were “organized” into protection rackets.

Do you live in fear?  Could you stand the thought of losing your only home to pay a Bar member’s legal fees, for a demonstrably meritless case?  If not, and you want to learn more, visit http://remakethematrix.tripod.com/home.htm and, the next time that you see any State Bar brochure that says, “Attorneys, Providing You A Voice in the Legal System,” don’t you believe it.

 

 

3rd Draft:

 

suggested headline:

THE SO-CALLED “UNAUTHORIZED” PRACTICE OF LAW: YOU ARE THE VICTIM.

 

Two years ago, my mother, a poor, foreign-born senior citizen and grandmother, was sued for some money allegedly owed on a government-funded home rehab project.  After I, a non-lawyer, litigated her case for two years, it finally was ready for trial.  In that time, the case passed before four judges and one arbitrator (all lawyers), each of whom accepted my paperwork.

I expected the case to be dismissed, because, as my mother’s only witness, I knew it was meritless, and I could prove it.

Because the last of these four judges knew my mother, without my assistance, could not respond meaningfully at trial -- indeed, could not respond at all, because of her lack of fluency in English, ignorance of legal process, and lack of money to employ a lawyer – the judge, on his own motion, gave me permission to “ask questions and offer argument” at trial.

The plaintiff then sued that judge in the Court of Appeals saying that I was engaged in the so-called “unauthorized” practice of law, that only a member of the “Arizona State Bar” could help my mother -- and the Court agreed by ordering that judge not to permit me to help my mother verbally, or in writing.

Why did the “higher” Court do this?  Because, they don’t want any precedent to exist stating that someone that was not a member of the “Bar” had been allowed to assist someone else in matters related to the courts.  They say this is to protect consumers from incompetent assistance but it is more likely that this is merely to maintain a monopoly over an occupation.

Quite paradoxically, preventing me from helping my mother goes against the “supreme” laws of this land promising everyone fairness, justice, due process, equal protection, equal access, the right to contract, the right to privacy, freedom from discrimination.

This also contradicts Article XXV of Arizona’s Constitution making labor organizations, such as the State Bar, a nullity, because Arizona is a “right-to-work” – nevertheless, no one is able to “practice” law unless that individual is first a “bar member.”

Because of these facts, “justice” in this part of the “free” world is not a so-called “unalienable” right, but a commodity, to be bought and sold, and an expensive one at that.  The result is that only relatively few people who are sued can afford “justice” while  everyone else (you for instance?) cannot possibly get “justice.” 

To make matters worse, judges are almost always themselves members of these highly exclusive cartels.  This makes it literally impossible for them to render a neutral decision on this issue because it would be politically incorrect to go against fellow Bar members.  This also detracts from their supposed oath of office to support the “supreme” laws of this land and their so-called “rule of law.”

Believe it or not, in America, the “land of the free and the home of the brave,” “We the People,” who (allegedly) had the original “inherent power” in 1789 to create the courts, and then delegate the administration of the same to “our” public “servants,” have now been banned from “our” “own” courts, because in the 1930s, the appropriately named “Bars” were organized into thinly-concealed, state-sanctioned protection rackets.

Do you live in fear?  Could you stand the thought of losing your only home to pay some State Bar member’s attorney’s fees for a demonstrably meritless case?  If not, and you want to learn more, visit http://remakethematrix.tripod.com/home.htm and, the next time that you see any State Bar brochure that says, “Arizona Attorneys, Providing You A Voice in the Legal System,” don’t you believe it.