Moses Shepard
3926 North 13
Place
Phoenix, Arizona
OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
|
IN
THE MATTER OF: PETITION
TO REPEAL Rules 31 – 74 of
the Arizona Rules of the Supreme Court AND
MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES |
SUPREME COURT NO. R- _______________ |
PETITION TO REPEAL ARIZONA SUPREME COURT RULES
31-74
Moses
Shepard petitions the Court, pursuant to Rule 28, Ariz. R. S. Ct., to repeal
Rules 31-74, Ariz. R. S. Ct., and all other related and/or pertinent
authorities, pertaining to the Court’s regulation of the practice of law in
Arizona. This Court is also petitioned
to suspend Rule 28 in part by invoking Rule 26, Ariz. R. S. Ct., and Rule 3, ARCAP,
by assigning a neutral body composed of individuals, acceptable to all
interested parties that wish to comment on this petition because, needless to
say, this Court cannot rule on this petition impartially pursuant to the
provisions of its code of judicial conduct, Rules 81-82, i.e., Canons 1-5,
because each one of its judges is also a member of the Arizona State Bar.
The
explanation for the need to repeal Rules 31-74, Ariz. R. S. Ct., and all other
related and/or pertinent authorities, are set forth in the accompanying
“Memorandum of Points and Authorities.”
The
purpose of this proposed rule change is to protect both consumers, and the
providers of legal services, from the State Bar of Arizona.
Respectfully
submitted this 23rd day of May, 2002.
________________________
Moses Shepard
3926
North 13 Place
Phoenix, Arizona
I. Rationale.
The purpose of this petition is to
protect both consumers, and the providers of legal services, from the State Bar
of Arizona, i.e., the bar. The bar has
alleged that the grounds for amending the rules regarding the practice of law
is the “public harm caused by
unauthorized practice of law … in 2001, alone, the State Bar of Arizona
received four hundred complaints, alleging that ‘non-lawyers’ were practicing
law in Arizona.”[1] The bar’s petition, however, relies on facts
not apparent by the record because it is not supported by affidavit or any
other supporting evidence. As such, its
alleged “complaints” should be subjected to careful scrutiny and analysis in
order to determine who filed those complaints and the degree to which they are
bona fide and/or frivolous complaints.
This is especially so when one considers the fact that, allegedly, a
great many more complaints were filed against bar members in the
same year. It is therefore the
contention of this petition that the bar has not, and cannot, present any hard
evidence to substantiate its claim of harm done to the public by so-called
unauthorized practitioners above and beyond any harm done by bar members
themselves raising a triable issue of fact.
Indeed, if it can be proven that bar members do greater harm than
non-bar members then the ongoing regulation of a mandatory bar serves no
purpose and the bar may need to be dissolved.
This is also demonstrated by the fact that 20 % of bar members
think that the UPL issue should be left alone.[2]
Arizona state is a right to work
state. Allegedly, this means that no
one can be compelled to be a member of any labor organization in order to work,
i.e., get paid for doing so, nor can any individual or entity, such as the
State Bar of Arizona, enter into any agreement which facilitates this practice.
II. Many Notable Authorities, Quoted in
Pertinent Part, Support this Petition:
A. The Arizona
Constitution, at Article 25 states:
“Right to work or employment without
membership in labor organization.
No person shall be denied the opportunity to obtain or retain employment
because of non-membership in a labor organization, nor shall the State or
any subdivision thereof, or any corporation, individual or association of
any kind enter into any agreement, written or oral, which excludes any
person from employment or continuation of employment because of
non-membership in a labor organization.”
B. The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the Magna Carta for all humanity
states:
Article 1 - All human beings are born
free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and
conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2 - Everyone is entitled to all
the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction
of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other
opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made
on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of
the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent,
trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3 - Everyone has the right to
life, liberty and security of person.
Article 7 - All are equal before the
law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.
All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of
this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8 - Everyone has the right to
an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the
fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9 - No one shall be subjected to arbitrary
arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10 - Everyone is entitled
in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent
and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and
obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 12 - No one shall be subjected
to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor
to attacks upon his honor and reputation.
Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference
or attacks.
Article 17 - (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in
association with others. (2) No one
shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 20 - (1) Everyone has the right to
freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled
to belong to an association.
Article 21 - (1) Everyone has the right to
take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen
representatives. (2) Everyone has the right to equal access to
public service in his country. (3)
The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this
will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by
universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent
free voting procedures.
Article 23 - (1) Everyone has the right
to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable
conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. (2) Everyone, without
any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. (3)
Everyone who works has the right to just and favorable remuneration
ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and
supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. (4)
Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the
protection of his interests.
Article 25 - (1) Everyone has the right
to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and
of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and
necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of
unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of
livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and
assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the
same social protection.
Article 28 - Everyone is entitled to a
social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in
this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 30 - Nothing in this
Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any
right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction
of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
C. The International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1976), at Part II, Article 14:
1.
All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In
the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and
obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and
public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal
established by law. The press and the public may be excluded from all or part
of a trial for reasons of morals, public order (order public) or national
security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of
the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of
the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the
interests of justice; but any judgment rendered in a criminal case or in a suit
at law shall be made public except where the interest of juvenile persons
otherwise requires or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship
of children.
2.
Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be
presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
3.
In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be
entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality:
(a) To be informed promptly and in detail
in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge
against him; (b) To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of
his defense and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing;
(c) To be tried without undue delay; (d) To be tried in his presence, and to
defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing;
to be informed, if he does not have legal assistance, of this right; and to
have legal assistance assigned to him, in any case where the interests of
justice so require, and without payment by him in any such case if he does
not have sufficient means to pay for it; (e) To examine, or have examined,
the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of
witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him.
D. Extensive
legal research done by law professors with juris doctorate degrees and/or bar
members supports an end to all mandatory bars throughout the world. This would of course include Arizona
state. See internet website address: http://humanrightsandupl.tripod.com/index.htm
and http://www.cato.org/.
III. Conclusion:
The Court
is therefore respectfully requested to repeal Rules 31-74 and, if it will not,
to please state its reason why.
Specifically, the petitioner would like to know, 1) both how and why it
can grant the bar’s April 30, 2002 petition to change the rules, pertaining to
UPL (No. R02-0017), without their presenting any hard evidence of harm done by
UPL, and, 2) how it was able to rule impartially when all of its judges belong
to the State Bar of Arizona. Leave is
also requested to submit written comment and or to appear before any committee,
and/or to reply to any comment submitted by any interested party.
Simply
put, if one removes all the opinions in the bar’s petition to change the rules,
there would be nothing left, because they offer no evidence of any
harm done by non-bar members, or bar members. A public trial should therefore be held at which harm done by
either side can be conclusively proven.
All complaints filed against bar members, and non-bar members alike,
should be put to the test of truth.[3]
Respectfully
submitted this 23rd day of May, 2002.
________________________
Moses Shepard
3926
North 13 Place
Phoenix, Arizona
Original and six copies filed with the
Arizona Supreme Court on this 23rd day of May, 2002.
By: ___________________________
[1] See In the Matter of Petition to Amend Rule 31, Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. and To Add Rule 32 and Rules 76 - 80, Ariz. R. Sup. Ct.
[2] See the Consumer Protection Committee Report and Recommendations Approved by the Board of Governors, at page one, paragraph 2, currently posted on the bar’s internet website, at http://azbar.org.
[3] This does not preclude a standard Rule 9(a), Ariz.R.Civ.P., challenge to standing.