Luis Ewing

[wserra]

I quote him.

Garbage in, garbage out.

"Note: Luis Ewing has already met this requirement and was allowed to represent a client twice in the King County Superior Court in Cause No.: 01 2 00172 5 by the Honorable Dale Rammerman"

The name is "Ramerman", and he retired from the bench in 2003.

Earlier in this thread, I linked to (1) an accusation of the Washington State Practice of Law Board which refutes Ewing's WA statutory claims, and (2) an actual court proceeding in which Judge McMahon (NYSD) refused to allow Ewing to represent a defendant before her because he was not admitted in any state court. "Tribal courts" don't count in either case.

You may be right might need to look into the cause number. above...

I just linked to two authoritative sources: the people who regulate the practice of law in Washington State (where Ewing is) and a United States District Judge. Ewing's best response is to suggest I travel from New York to Seattle - the case is surely not on line - to pull the file on a case at least ten years old? Why doesn't he link to the order?

If you are a member of the bar can you leave it and still practice law afterwards?

Can a lawyer resign from the bar and still practice? No. Is there a point here?

I will admit he is an extremist.

That's one way to put it. "Batshit crazy, abusive fraud" is another.

Either way if you look here: http://www.luisewing.com/services/index.html

You will see that he only provides paralegal services.

I don't think so. "I specialize in serious criminal matters and I provide . . . effective assistance of counsel" followed by 56 enumerated legal services - if he in fact does what he says - is pretty clearly practicing law.

[notorial dissent]

More properly "pretending" to practice law, since he would not even pass muster as a para almost any place I have ever heard of. I've read some of his dreck, and it is just that. And, if that web site is still up, he is in violation of the WA orders against him and the WA statutes against UPL as well.

Basically Screwy Luis is a liar and a fraud in the best light you can shine on him, so why should anyone believe anything he claims?

I don't know why you are shilling for him, but I would suggest you do a little real research on your own before you make any more silly statements.

[webhick]

If you are a member of the bar can you leave it and still practice law afterwards?

Can a lawyer resign from the bar and still practice? No. Is there a point here?

I really like this analogy because it brings many images to my mind.

• Leaving the bar/retiring usually concludes with a funeral.
• Lawyers entering witness protection so the point above is moot.
• A lawyer entering a neighborhood storefront with a couple of burly baseball-bat toting paralegals and quoting case law while wrecking place when the law-abiding shop owner can't afford to pay the mandatory retainer.
• Lawyers meeting in back rooms to clean their tommy guns and discuss to how skirt the fuzz.
• Lawyers kissing the judge's gavel before a proceeding can commence.
• Pacer phrasing their billing statements to read "Research Fees for Honest Businessmen."
• Jack from Law & Order is an anti-hero.
• Law school is literally murder.
• The bar exam consists mainly of handgun certification, small weapon efficiency testing and practical testing of messy torture techniques.

[obadiah]

But it worked that way when I went to law school...

[Arthur Rubin]

But it worked that way when I went to law school...

Keyboard warning!!!! Fortunately, I was drinking a diet drink, so the keyboard doesn't need to be replaced.

[yahoo]

You also forgot killing somebody to become a member..

O wait, you didn't want to sound that ridiculous.. or did you?


How about a private organization that has no elected official that controls who and who can't do something extremely important.. like I don't know.... like practice law.


In order for anybody to practice law you must pay your bar dues.


if you are a member you are at their mercy...
they could take your privilege away..

They they go and with the supreme courts help in 2001 help catch people who aren't members do only what they think members should do.. and publicly show their names .
They do these things by making some court rules and they don't care what the legislative branch(government) has to say about it..

They don't sound like a mafia at all....

your right.

[AndyK]

"Yahoo" seriously needs some assistance in composing his/her posts.

Ignoring the major errors in grammar, the post(s) still fail to pass the Turing test.

However, if we apply Swift's (From Gulliver's Travels) definition of 'yahoo', everything falls neatly into place.

[Famspear]

How about a private organization that has no elected official that controls who and who can't do something extremely important.. like I don't know.... like practice law.

You don't say what state you're talking about, and your comments seem to indicate that you believe the rules are the same everywhere.

In most states, including California and Texas for example, the bar association is not a "private organization". In most states, the bar association is a component of state government. This is known as a mandatory, or unified, or integrated bar.

In Texas, the members of the State Bar are officers of the judicial branch of government -- although they are not state government employees (except for those who also happen to work for the state government). In Texas, the State Bar is an agency under the jurisdiction of the Texas Supreme Court. The State Bar in Texas has no legal power to control who can or cannot practice law. Other agencies of the Texas Supreme Court handle that task.

In order for anybody to practice law you must pay your bar dues.

Duhhhhh. Yeah. In states with a mandatory/unified/integrated bar, that's right.

In Texas, the state bar dues are really in substance the fee for the license to practice law (although there is a separate occupational license tax as well). Again, the State Bar of Texas is not a "private organization."

if you are a member you are at their mercy...

No. I'm a member of the State Bar of Texas, and the State Bar has virtually no control or influence over what I do. For example, the State Bar of Texas does not issue the rules for attorney conduct or discipline, nor does the State Bar handle the processing of grievances against Texas lawyers. Those kinds of things are done by other agencies of the Texas Supreme Court.

they could take your privilege away..

Again, no. I haven't researched every state, but in Texas, by law, the State Bar has no power to remove anyone's legal authority to practice law. Period.

They they go and with the supreme courts help in 2001 help catch people who aren't members do only what they think members should do.. and publicly show their names .

It's not a question of what someone thinks only members should do. We have laws in this country. The law in Texas, for example, is that you cannot legally practice law unless you are a member of the State Bar of Texas (with certain exceptions not material here). The State Bar of Texas does not enforce those rules. Those rules are enforced by other agencies.

They do these things by making some court rules and they don't care what the legislative branch(government) has to say about it..

Baloney. You're just engaging in delusional ranting.

Again, the laws on the practice of law and the powers of the state bar association vary from state to state.

[Famspear]

And yahoo, instead of ranting your emotions, you should pick a particular state, and then we can talk about what the rules are in that state.

Pick a state....

California?
Oregon?
Washington?
etc.

[Famspear]

By the way, yahoo, under the American legal system, which came from the English legal system, the power to regulate who can and cannot practice law is an inherent power of the judicial branch of government, just as the power to enact statutes is an inherent power of the legislative branch of government. In states such as Texas, the legislative branch of government has, however, enacted statutes on the practice of law and on the power of the courts to regulate the practice of law.

Incompetent dimwits like Luis Ewing are classic examples of why this American system -- of restricting who can and cannot legally practice law -- is a good idea.

[Famspear]

The American Bar Association (of which I used to be a member) has a page on its web site that is helpful:

http://www.americanbar.org/groups/bar_s ... tions.html

[wserra]

How about a private organization that has no elected official that controls who and who can't do something extremely important.. like I don't know.... like practice law.

How about it? Whatever "private organization" you're talking about, I'm not a member, and I've been practicing for 37 years.

In order for anybody to practice law you must pay your bar dues.

Wrong again. I joined the New York State Bar Association a few years ago, for various professional reasons. For the large majority of my career, I wasn't a member, and therefore didn't pay them dues.

if you are a member you are at their mercy...

Hardly. I could resign from the NYSBA tomorrow (well, Tuesday), and keep practicing as though nothing happened.

they could take your privilege away..

Not a chance. Only the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court can do that.

What are you - 0 for 4 now?

They they go and with the supreme courts help in 2001 help catch people who aren't members do only what they think members should do

You mean enforce the law against unauthorized practice? Yep, that's what happened to Ewing.

They do these things by making some court rules and they don't care what the legislative branch(government) has to say about it..

Who do you think enacted the laws against unauthorized practice? Hint: it wasn't a bar association.

They don't sound like a mafia at all....

No, it doesn't. Damn, you got one thing right.

your right.

If you mean "You're right" - thank you, I know. If you mean "Your right" - my right what?

[LPC]

They they go and with the supreme courts help in 2001 help catch people who aren't members do only what they think members should do.. and publicly show their names .
They do these things by making some court rules and they don't care what the legislative branch(government) has to say about it..

I'm not sure what you think happened in 2001, or what you're talking about generally, but I think you're misinformed.

As a general rule, every tribunal has the inherent authority to regulate those who practice before that tribunal. That "inherent power" is commonly confirmed in a statute or constitution, so (for example) there is a statute that gives the Tax Court the power to establish rules of practice (see 26 USC § 7452) and it has used that power to adopt rules as to who can practice before the Tax Court.

Some courts have exercised their inherent powers to enjoin unqualified people from preparing pleadings for that court. So, for example, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has enjoined non-lawyers that the court found had been preparing bankruptcy filings (and preparing them badly).

However, I don't think that courts have the inherent power to punish people like Ewing who hold themselves out as lawyers and give people legal advice until they (a) prepare something that is filed in court, (b) are enjoined by the court, and (c) violate the injunction.

In other words, the courts have the power to protect their own processes from the results of incompetent representations, but don't necessarily have the power to create a common-law crime of unauthorized practice of law to protect people against incompetent legal advice outside of the courtroom, any more than courts can give themselves the power to punish unlicensed plumbers or unlicensed beauticians. If people need to be protected against the unauthorized practice of law outside of the courtroom, I think that it's up to the legislature to create that remedy.

So, for example, the Pennsylvania Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to make rules regarding admission to the bar and the practice of law, but the crime of unauthorized practice of law is based on a statute enacted by the legislature.

Unfortunately (from my point of view), courts in Pennsylvania have ruled that state and county bar associations (private non-profit organizations) have standing to get injunctions against people engaged in the practice of law. I think that's a mistake because it looks more like enforcing a commercial monopoly than protecting the public, particularly when bar associations seem to be more concerned about CPAs preparing inheritance tax returns than about clowns like Ewing. But still only the government (e.g., county district attorneys) can enforce criminal penalties for UPL.

[Famspear]

Even passing the bar exam does not mean you're automatically going to be admitted to the bar. Passing the exam is just one of the requirements.

Reference please, for the state of Washington.

As is the case virtually everywhere in the United States, the general rule (i.e., there are exceptions) is that you must also have a law degree from an accredited law school to be admitted to the bar in the State of Washington. And that generally means you must first obtain a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university -- before you are even admitted to law school.

Same sort of thing in some other professions. To become a certified public accountant in most states, there are requirements in addition to passing the CPA exam.

For more information on admission to the bar in the State of Washington:

http://www.wsba.org/Licensing-and-Lawye ... e-Bar-Exam

And the Washington State Bar Association is not a "private organization." It is a part of the judicial branch of government of the State, "exercising a governmental function authorized by the Washington State Supreme Court to license the state’s nearly 35,000 lawyers", according to the web site. So, in the State of Washington, the State Bar Association apparently does have something to do with the licensing process. By contrast, in Texas, the State Bar of Texas (which is also a governmental entity) is not responsible for licensing.

[Kestrel]

For more information on admission to the bar in the State of Washington:

http://www.wsba.org/Licensing-and-Lawye ... e-Bar-Exam

I was just thinking that if Yahoo isn't aware of the rules for being admitted to the bar, and doesn't know where to find them himself, he's not in much of a position to make claims on whether or not someone should be able to be a lawyer.

After the rules for having your education recognized there's THIS little gem of a rule:

All applicants are subject to a character and fitness review prior to being admitted to practice law in Washington State. The practice of law is a privilege, not a right. Admission may be withheld pending a hearing before the Character and Fitness Board and final determination regarding whether the applicants have met their burden of proving that they are of good moral character and fit to practice law. Factors considered by Admissions staff and Bar Counsel when determining whether an applicant should be referred to the Character and Fitness Board are set forth in APR 24.2(a).

And what are some of those little factors in determining "good moral character," the violation of which will get you declared ineligible for a license? Guess how many of these a typical Luis Ewing follower might struggle with:

(1) unlawful conduct.
(2) academic misconduct.
(3) making of false statements or omitting material information in connection with an application to sit for a bar examination.
(4) misconduct in employment.
(5) acts involving dishonesty, making false statements, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.
(6) abuse of legal process.
(7) neglect of financial responsibilities.
(8) disregard of professional obligations.
(9) violation of a court order.
(10) evidence of a current substantial mental impairment, including without limitation, drug or alcohol dependency or abuse.
(11) denial of admission to the bar in another jurisdiction on character and fitness grounds.
(12) disciplinary action by any professional disciplinary agency of any jurisdiction.
(13) any other conduct or condition which reflects adversely on moral character or fitness of the Applicant to practice law.

[Duke2Earl]

Yahoo is like so many today, both in and out of public life.... Why interrupt your narrative with actual facts when it it so convenient to make up your own?

[wserra]

Screwy Louie is ranting about child protective services again. Now I agree, there can be much to rant about, but Ewing has his own reasons - which the discerning reader can glean from earlier in this thread. In any event, some of the usual batshit craziness:

CASH ONLY DONATIONS NEEDED TO HELP TAKE DOWN AND DESTROY THE CPS DIVISION OF DSHS BY FORCING THEM TO GIVE ALL PARENTS AND CHILDREN A JURY TRIAL IN ALL THE JUVENILE FAMILY COURTS!!!!

“JURY TRIALS” . . . ARE AVAILABLE IN THE JUVENILE FAMILY COURT SYSTEM!!!!

DO NOT LET ANY LYING PIECE OF SHIT STATE LICENSED BAR ATTORNEY OR JUDGE OR PROSECUTOR OR ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL TELL YOU OTHERWISE, THESE CHILD STEALING AND CHILD SELLING FELONS ARE ALL LYING TO ALL OF US AND WITH YOUR HELP I CAN PROVE IT!!!!
...
ALL CPS KIDNAPING VICTIMS HAVE BEEN FALSELY ARRESTED AND FALSELY IMPRISONED BASED UPON THE PERJURED TESTIMONY AND FORGED DEPENDENCY PETITIONS SIGNED AND FILED BY THE BRAINLESS BIMBOS WHO WORK AS CPS SOCIAL WORKERS AND THE JUST AS STUPID LYING BITCH GUARDIAN AD LITEMS!!!!
...
WE CAN DEMAND THAT THE COUNTY PROSECUTORS CHARGE . . . “ALL CPS SOCIAL WORKERS” . . . AND . . . “ALL GUARDIAN AD LITEMS” . . . WITH . . . “UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW”
...
THEY CAN’T USE . . . “TAX PAYERS MONEY” . . . TO PAY UNQUALIFIED . . . “BRAINLESS BIMBO CPS SOCIAL WORKERS” . . . AND . . . “JUST AS STUPID LYING BITCH GUARDIAN AD LITEMS” . . . TO ENGAGE IN . . . THE UNLAWFUL AND ILLEGAL . . . UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW!!!!

Ewing, complaining about someone else engaged in UPL?

THEY CAN’T USE TAX PAYERS MONEY TO PAY UNQUALIFIED BRAINLESS BIMBO CPS SOCIAL WORKERS AND JUST AS STUPID LYING BITCH GUARDIAN AD LITEMS TO SIGN AND FILE FORGED AND PERJURED DEPENDENCY PETITIONS AND FORGED AND PERJURED TERMINATION PETITIONS INTO A OFFICIAL COURT PROCEEDING WHERE THE JUDGES KNOWINGLY ALLOWED THESE DIP SHITS TO PLAY ATTORNEY BY ENGAGING IN THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW IN THEIR PRESENCE!!!!

Sure sounds like it. Louie doubtless thinks that money should go to him for "playing attorney".

[Famspear]

Given Screwy Louie's astronomical intellect and knowledge of the legal system, it's hard for a mere mortal such as I to understand the intricacy of his brilliance....

but in terms of fostering my understanding, his writing style -- and especially his CAPITALIZATION -- REALLY HELPS.

[.]

ALLOWED THESE DIP SHITS TO PLAY ATTORNEY

It's really hard to get excited about gibberish written by anyone who thinks that the colloquialism "dipshit" whether singular or plural is comprised of two separate words.

[LPC]

ALL CPS KIDNAPING VICTIMS HAVE BEEN FALSELY ARRESTED AND FALSELY IMPRISONED BASED UPON THE PERJURED TESTIMONY AND FORGED DEPENDENCY PETITIONS SIGNED AND FILED BY THE BRAINLESS BIMBOS WHO WORK AS CPS SOCIAL WORKERS AND THE JUST AS STUPID LYING BITCH GUARDIAN AD LITEMS!!!!

Someone seems to have sexism issues.

Although he didn't use the "W" word (or is it an "H" word?).