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 https://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 https://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 https://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.