Anthony Williams - Private Attorney General

[Blackjack]

"The practice of law can not be licensed by any state/State. Schware v. Board of Examiners, United States Reports 353 U.S. pgs. 238, 239.

This is an incomplete and inaccurate quote. The full text reads:

A State cannot exclude a person from the practice of law or from any other occupation in a manner or for reasons that contravene the Due Process or Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A State can require high standards of qualification, such as good moral character or proficiency in its law, before it admits an applicant to the bar, but any qualification must have a rational connection with the applicant's fitness or capacity to practice law. [internal citations omitted]. Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 US 232 at 238, 239

So am I to understand that the quote I posted is not actually legal text? Based on your "full text" not actually including the "incomplete" text in question. Thank you for your input.

[Famspear]

However, I was able to find this:

12. "The practice of law can not be licensed by any state/State. Schware v. Board of Examiners, United States Reports 353 U.S. pgs. 238, 239....

That's also a fake.

The case is the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Schware v.Board of Bar Examiners of New Mexico, 353 U.S. 232 (1957). There is no such verbiage in that case or in any other case.

Some actual excerpts from the case:

The question presented is whether petitioner, Rudolph Schware, has been denied a license to practice law in New Mexico in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

New Mexico has a system for the licensing of persons to practice law similar to that in effect in most States.[1] A Board of Bar Examiners determines if candidates for admission to the bar have the necessary qualifications. When the Board concludes that an applicant qualifies it recommends to the State Supreme Court that he be admitted. If the court accepts the recommendation, the applicant is entitled to practice law upon taking an oath to support the constitutions and laws of the United States and New Mexico. An applicant must pass a bar examination before the Board will give him its recommendation. The Board can refuse to permit him to take this examination unless he demonstrates that he has "good moral character."

[ . . . ]

A State cannot exclude a person from the practice of law or from any other occupation in a manner or for reasons that contravene the Due Process or Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. [citations omitted] A State can require high standards of qualification, such as good moral character or proficiency in its law, before it admits an applicant to the bar, but any qualification must have a rational connection with the applicant's fitness or capacity to practice law....

See:

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?c ... s_sdt=3,44

Anyone who claims to believe that a state cannot legally restrict the practice of law to those who are licensed to practice law in that state, or that there is no such thing as a license to practice law, is either incompetent or full of baloney.

[Blackjack]

Wow. Fuck the internet... Thanks to all of your responses I'm sure that eventually I will be able to find credible information on my own. Until then all of the insight is greatly appreciated.

[fortinbras]

Blackjack wrote:
However, I was able to find this:

12. "The practice of law can not be licensed by any state/State. Schware v. Board of Examiners, United States Reports 353 U.S. pgs. 238, 239....

Funny thing, it's a fake quote. The decision itself dealt with the State Bar denying admission to the bar - not a license (the processes are different).

Here, try and find it for yourself:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... 4030669324

Blackjack wrote:
In Sims v. Aherns, 271 S.W. 720 (1925) "The practice of law is an occupation of common right."

Another fake quote. The legal profession isn't even mentioned in Sims, which upheld a state income tax. And the proper cite (and spelling) is Sims v. Ahrens (1925) 167 Ark 557, 271 S.W. 720.

Try to find your quote:
http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/autho ... SW720s.pdf

The simple fact is that courts in the US do not allow amateurs to represent anyone in court but themselves, no matter how they try to tangle themselves in a lawsuit.

[KickahaOta]

Wow. Fuck the internet... Thanks to all of your responses I'm sure that eventually I will be able to find credible information on my own. Until then all of the insight is greatly appreciated.

Whenever someone amasses a collection of quotes for the purpose of advocating a particular point of view, you should always start out from a position of skepticism.

Yes, this includes Quatloos, the esteemed Mr. Evans' FAQ, and the IRS list of frivolous arguments.

Of course, the advantage of Quatloos, the FAQ and the IRS list of frivolous arguments list is that they (almost) always include citations that can be fact-checked. When someone does not provide citations for such a list, that's a red flag.

Unfortunately, as you've just found, some people will happily provide citations that are backed only by fantasies or outright lies. So you can't succumb to the temptation (and the logical fallacy) of saying "Well, arguments based on sources without citations are bad, so arguments based on sources with citations must be good"; there's no substitute for doing the fact-checking yourself.

[rogfulton]

Wow. Fuck the internet... Thanks to all of your responses I'm sure that eventually I will be able to find credible information on my own. Until then all of the insight is greatly appreciated.

Says someone who apparently thinks the word 'license' has a special meaning that has to be investigated to be understood. Maybe, if it were spelled 'licence' it would be easier to understand?

I'm willing to bet my entire pile of Quatloos that he also thinks 'includes' does not mean the same as 'includes'.

Yes, I know I used the same word twice.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Wow. Fuck the internet... Thanks to all of your responses I'm sure that eventually I will be able to find credible information on my own. Until then all of the insight is greatly appreciated.

Finding veracity on the 'net is like seeing the wake of a boat going up-river.

So much water is flowing downstream and so many can launch their vessels without vetting that finding a rational authority and sticking with it is challenging - especially when you're standing on the bank without your own means of locomotion.

Then you have those that build their own watercraft and lure others to pull the oars.

We try to out them here.

[Blackjack]

Says someone who apparently thinks the word 'license' has a special meaning that has to be investigated to be understood. Maybe, if it were spelled 'licence' it would be easier to understand?

My interest in a "License" for law stems primarily from a "Freeman" argument used quite consistently that there is no such thing as a "License" to practice Law, only a certificate or whatever they claim. When it comes to law, It seems like the wording and terms used in a court are nearly more important than the facts of the matter.

Congratulations on being the first person on these forums to be more condescending than amicable.

[ProfHenryHiggins]

Blackjack, if you've been listening to the 'Freemen,' I have a word of warning for you.

In my experience, a great many 'Freemen' arguments are akin to standing in the midst of an orchard, and declaring it to be a tomato farm on the basis of a bit of a worker's lunch that had been dropped on the ground. Like the saying about missing the forest for the trees, but more so.

[grixit]

Sovcit: someone whose ideas fail the test of Cnut, but would rather drown than admit it.

[chronistra]

My interest in a "License" for law stems primarily from a "Freeman" argument used quite consistently that there is no such thing as a "License" to practice Law, only a certificate or whatever they claim.

Different states use different terminology. In my state (Kansas), the term 'license' is not generally used, but the end result is the same: one is authorized to practice law when the Board of Law Examiners approves your application on the basis that you have demonstrated you possess sufficient character and legal knowledge. Those authorized are called "registered'; those not authorized cannot practice law in the Kansas courts. That meets the common definition of license ("permission granted by competent authority to engage in an activity, business, or occupation").

[fortinbras]

My experience tells me that, while a "license" is not the official term for a person's authorization to practice law, it is commonly used, especially when talking among non-lawyers, because it is the most familiar analogy to the peculiar situation in the legal profession.

In the US, nowadays (it was different when I was young, and in that brief span of American history that occurred before I was born) the following is required in most states: (1) graduation from a law school (a law school accredited by the American Bar Assn), (2) an interview and/or personal questionnaire to determine something of the applicant's fitness in a variety of ways, (3) an acceptable score on the Multistate Bar Exam and (4) an acceptable score on that state's own addenda to the bar exam, usually essay answers to questions relating to that state's domestic relations, corporation, taxation, and criminal law.

The Multistate Bar Exam was instituted in (IIRC) the 1960s and by the 1970s was in pretty wide use. Previously each state would cook up its own bar exam, start to finish, but this led to a lot of problems and injustices: the difficulty and pass rate would vary wildly and widely from year to year and from state to state, the tests were written up by lawyers who were sometimes (read: often) sloppy about it so that the questions would be unclear, there might be more than one right answer, and sometimes none of the answers offered was right, etc. So the Multistate was cooked up to make sure the tests on the most basic topics -- Contracts, Property, Torts, Constitutional Law -- would be well-written and consistent everywhere and every year. There is an interesting history about the Multistate which I will spare you. The Multistate examiners also compiled a treasury of thousands of questions involving the topics of the individual state's bar exams, so the states can avoid sloppiness when working up their essay tests.

Even now some states do not do exactly as I described. California will allow grads from unaccredited law schools to sit for the bar exam -- but in unaccredited schools all the students get a special state authorized "Baby Bar" exam which they must pass to be considered at the end for the real bar exam. Another state has made provision for the very old-fashioned apprenticeship type legal training, which is now very very rare. Another state (I think Montana) is so desperate to keep trained lawyers that it will skip the bar exam altogether for graduates of its own law schools. Etc.

Graduation from law school, passing the bar exam, and finally - and this cannot be ignored - there is an invitation to come to the big courthouse and be sworn in by a judge, usually in a big ceremony, the last step in admission to the legal profession.

[Chados]

Lists like Mr. Evans' excellent FAQ are, at their heart, outstanding case finding tools. I don't read them for the author's digest of the opinion. I read them to get the citation, so I can go get the actual case, and read the actual case for myself. What the author's digest does is tell me that the author THINKS that the case stands for this proposition of law. Before I cite it in a legal document, though, it's my responsibility to go read it and be sure.

Mr. Evans' FAQ is a reliable digest. I have found it a valuable resource. I believe he is a tax attorney of long experience, if I have my facts straight.

[Gregg]

My experience tells me that, while a "license" is not the official term for a person's authorization to practice law, it is commonly used, especially when talking among non-lawyers, because it is the most familiar analogy to the peculiar situation in the legal profession.
In the US, nowadays (it was different when I was young, and in that brief span of American history that occurred before I was born) the following is required in most states: (1) graduation from a law school (a law school accredited by the American Bar Assn), (2) an interview and/or personal questionnaire to determine something of the applicant's fitness in a variety of ways, (3) an acceptable score on the Multistate Bar Exam and (4) an acceptable score on that state's own addenda to the bar exam, usually essay answers to questions relating to that state's domestic relations, corporation, taxation, and criminal law.

The Multistate Bar Exam was insistuted in (IIRC) the 1960s and by the 1970s was in pretty wide use. Previously each state would cook up its own bar exam, start to finish, but this led to a lot of problems and injustices: the difficulty and pass rate would vary wildly and widely from year to year and from state to state, the tests were written up by lawyers who were sometimes (read: often) sloppy about it so that the questions would be unclear, there might be more than one right answer, and sometimes none of the answers offered was right, etc. So the Multistate was cooked up to make sure the tests on the most basic topics -- Contracts, Property, Torts, Constitutional Law -- would be well-written and consistent everywhere and every year. There is an interesting history about the Multistate which I will spare you. The Multistate examiners also compiled a treasury of thousands of questions involving the topics of the individual state's bar exams, so the states can avoid sloppiness when working up their essay tests.

Even now some states do not do exactly as I described. California will allow grads from unaccredited law schools to sit for the bar exam -- but in unaccredited schools all the students get a special state authorized "Baby Bar" exam which they must pass to be considered at the end for the real bar exam. Another state has made provision for the very old-fashioned apprenticeship type legal training, which is now very very rare. Another state (I think Montana) is so desperate to keep trained lawyers that it will skip the bar exam altogether for graduates of its own law schools. Etc.

Graduation from law school, passing the bar exam, and finally - and this cannot be ignored - there is an invitation to come to the big courthouse and be sworn in by a judge, usually in a big ceremony, the last step in admission to the legal profession.

I hold the legal profession in the highest regard, and that sounds like a well designed and rational way of ensuring that those who practice law are highly qualified scholars and (in what is a highest compliment in circles I frequent) "masters of their craft".

But, holding that information to be true, explaining Orly Taitz is like explaining the Bermuda Triangle.....

Jus' sayin'

[LPC]

When it comes to law, It seems like the wording and terms used in a court are nearly more important than the facts of the matter.

That seems to be a common misconception among non-lawyers.

Using the right words or terms is obviously important to being understood, but courts are almost trying to figure out how the law applies to the facts, and are not just manipulating words.

For example, I was in court yesterday, and a lawyer was representing himself. In discussing the status of the pleadings, the judge pointed out that the lawyer had filed something that he had labeled as "objections" to my petition, but the judge was treating it as an "answer" to the petition. (The significance is that, if the lawyer had not filed an answer, the allegations of the petition would be accepted as true. The pleading that he filed, which was titled "objections," did deny several of the allegations in the petition, so the judge was--in my opinion--correct in treating it as answer. The goal is the right result, not a game of "gotcha" if you make a minor procedural mistake.)

Later, the lawyer took the stand to testify, and after I had cross-examined him (and the judge had cross-examined him), the judge asked the lawyer if he wanted to offer any additional testimony in the nature of re-direct, and the lawyer said no, but there was something else he wanted to say. The judge asked, "you mean like a closing argument?", and the lawyer said no, it was about factual situation, and the judge said, "Well, that sounds like testimony to me." Now, the judge was not playing word games, but trying to figure out into what category the lawyer was speaking. If he was testifying, then that was evidence of the assertions he was making, but if he was not testifying but just making legal arguments, then what he said would not be evidence of what he was asserting.

So judges (and lawyers) use words to put things into different categories, because those categories can have legal significance. But it's the reality of what the thing really is that puts it into one category or another, and putting a different label on something doesn't change it from what it is. And even lawyers sometimes lose sight of that. There's a story about Abraham Lincoln that aptly demonstrates this point. He was asked why he didn't declare the slaves to be free, and he asked the questioner how many legs a lamb would have if you called a tail a leg. The questioner said "five," and Lincoln responded that the answer was still four, because calling a tail a leg didn't make it a leg.

Lawyers sometimes suffer from "hardening of the categories," one of the symptoms of which is a tendency to think that, by putting a label on something, you know everything to need to know about that something. But law can be trickier than that.

There have been some comments in this thread about whether the authority to practice law is a "license," and my answer is that I don't know why it matters what you call it, but that it certainly seems to look and feel like a "license" in the way that word is normally used. Lawyers in Pennsylvania are regulated by our Supreme Court, and I have a big certificate that says that I was "duly sworn and admitted to practice as an Attorney and Counsellor [sic] of the said [sic] Supreme Court of Pennsylvania." But the card I am issued each year by the disciplinary board is labeled "[Current Years] PA Attorney's License" and says that I have "the right to practice law as provided by Pa.B.A.R. 232." ("Pa.B.A.R." is a reference to the Pennsylvania Bar Admission Rules promulgated by the Pa. Supreme Court. Those rules seem to use the word "licensed" as synonymous with "admitted to practice.")

So yes, I do seem to have a "license" to practice law.

[Gregg]

For what it's worth, in the United States at least, there is no such thing as a "Pilot's License" it is styled in FAR/AIM and on the little paper (or more recently credit card like thing with a hologram) as "Pilot Certificate".

[rogfulton]

Says someone who apparently thinks the word 'license' has a special meaning that has to be investigated to be understood. Maybe, if it were spelled 'licence' it would be easier to understand?

My interest in a "License" for law stems primarily from a "Freeman" argument used quite consistently that there is no such thing as a "License" to practice Law, only a certificate or whatever they claim. When it comes to law, It seems like the wording and terms used in a court are nearly more important than the facts of the matter.

Congratulations on being the first person on these forums to be more condescending than amicable.

I realize that pointing out that there is no special meaning to the word license could be considered as condescending, but that was my intention. If your feelings were hurt, perhaps you could give your definition of the word as it is used in that context, so we could all be on the same page. Many others have been asked before about providing a definition for a word, maybe we should have been asking the same of you.

BTW, scare quotes have their place, but not in nearly every sentence.

[Blackjack]

I realize that pointing out that there is no special meaning to the word license could be considered as condescending, but that was my intention. If your feelings were hurt, perhaps you could give your definition of the word as it is used in that context, so we could all be on the same page. Many others have been asked before about providing a definition for a word, maybe we should have been asking the same of you.

No hard feelings, it just came off as more of a shot a me than discussion pertaining to the topic at hand. You're absolutely entitled to make comment you desire. Thanks for your time and opinion.

BTW, scare quotes have their place, but not in nearly every sentence.

One could argue that I only submitted one (run-on) sentence containing scare quotes. Of course that would just be pettifogging to justify my less than stellar grammar.

[Blackjack]

Thanks LPC. Very helpful post.

[Slim Cognito]

That's also a fake.

The case is the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Schware v.Board of Bar Examiners of New Mexico, 353 U.S. 232 (1957). There is no such verbiage in that case or in any other case.

Reminds me of the days when I used to regularly lurk in the OAS forums and one particularly looney member who pasted page upon page of these cases to support his common law BS. One day I decided to look one up that he posted repeatedly as proving SCOTUS has affirmed that common law is the only law and their CLGJs were the only way to restore the country to its former glory. Turns out this particular "SCOTUS" case was actually the WA state supreme court denying a convicted killer one last appeal. I posted my results, which were promptly deleted and I was banned (sigh). I know I have a note about it here somewhere ...

It was WA SCOTUS case 61 Wn.2d 261. That poster, Rechayahu, I'm 99.9% sure, is a member of the Moorish Nation Group but I don't think OAS knows that. Actually, they probably don't know such a group exists, but as long as he posts the BS they want to read, he's OK in their book. Wish I could find that forum link but it was months ago.