Thursday, August 29, 2013

On Practicing Law

Updated License to give legal advice, play lawyer, represent, and annoy Judges.

1. THAT The practice of Law is an occupation of common right, the same being a secured liberty right. (Sims v. Aherns, 271 S.W. 720 (1925))
2. THAT No state may convert a secured liberty right into a privilege, issue a license and fee for it. (Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105 at 113 (1943)). The Supreme Court has broadly and unequivocally held that requiring licensing or registration of any constitutional right is itself unconstitutional. (Follett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 (1944))
3. THAT The practice of Law can not be licensed by any state/State. (Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 238, 239 (1957))
4. THAT Should any state convert a secured liberty right into a privilege, charge a fee and issue a license for it, one may ignore the license and fee and engage in the exercise of the right with impunity. (Shuttlesworth vs City of Birmingham 373 U.S. 262 (1962)) "A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing law. Indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law." (Bonnett v. Vallier, 116 N.W. 885, 136 Wis. 193 (1908); Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886))
5. THAT "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate or abolish them." (Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 at 491, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed. 2d 694 (1966)); "The State cannot diminish the rights of the people." (Hurtado v California, 110 U.S. 516)); Should any state convert any right to work into a privilege, issue a license and charge a fee, the same is unconstitutional, null and void, bears no obligation to obey, and is without effect in law. (Marburry vs Madison 5 US 137 (1803)),
6. THAT one who relies on prior decisions of the Supreme Court has a perfect defense for willfulness. (U.S. v. Bishop, 412 U.S. 346 (1973), as “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”(Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486, 489 (1956); "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights." (Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973)); "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are not to be defeated under the name of local practice." (Davis v. Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Stromberb v. California, 283 U.S. 359; NAACP v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 449)). “No public policy of a state can be allowed to override the positive guarantees of the U.S. Constitution.” (16 Am.Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, Sect. 70)

No comments:

Post a Comment