Anthony Williams - Private Attorney General

[fortinbras]

"advising a person on state law" is a big bomb in the Unauthorized Practice law. Lawyers, being a greedy bunch of bastards (I fit right in), tried to keep accountants, bankers, financial planners, and the like from giving any advice about minimizing tax liability, streamlining the inheritance process, etc. Finally, around 1970, when Norman Dacey fought back so he could sell his book, How to Avoid Probate, the legal profession gave some ground in this.
But this provision in the Hawaiian law seems like a giant step backward.

[Famspear]

....But this provision in the Hawaiian law seems like a giant step backward.

But, check out the exceptions listed in the text of the bill:

(d) This section shall not apply to the following:

(1) Services that otherwise constitute the practice of law that are specifically authorized by a limited license to practice law; provided that the person is admitted to practice law pro hac vice by the circuit court of the circuit where the attorney is to practice law or by the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii;

(2) Services provided by a mediator, arbitrator, conciliator, or facilitator in this State that are engaged in a neutral capacity;

(3) Services customarily provided by licensed real estate brokers and agents for the sale or rental of real estate in this State;

(4) Services customarily provided by licensed real estate brokers and agents in the management of rental properties in this State;

(5) Services customarily provided by licensed title and escrow companies in this State;

(6) Services customarily provided by accountants in preparing federal, state, or county tax returns or audits and in interpreting statutes, rules, and regulations relating to taxes, audits, and accounting services in this State;

(7) Services customarily provided by registered legislative lobbyists in this State;

(8) Services customarily provided by collection agencies in collecting debts in this State;

(9) Services performed by the directors, officers, and employees of a corporation on behalf of the corporation that would otherwise be legal services; provided that these services are directly related to the business of the corporation and do not involve appearance before a judicial officer, arbitrator, mediator, court, public agency, referee, magistrate, commissioner, hearing officer, or governmental body in a dispute resolution process;

(10) Services performed under the direct supervision of an attorney authorized to practice law in this State and provided by:

(A) Law students as part of a clinical law program at a law school that is accredited by the American Bar Association; or

(B) Non-lawyer assistants and paralegals;

(11) Services performed under the direct supervision of an attorney authorized to practice law in this State and provided by:

(A) An attorney who is licensed in another state; or

(B) A graduate of a law school that is accredited by the American Bar Association who is employed by a law firm in this State while waiting to be duly licensed under law;
provided that this paragraph shall not apply to appearances on behalf of any person or entity in any hearing or proceeding in this State before any judicial officer, arbitrator, mediator, court, public agency, referee, magistrate, commissioner, hearing officer, or governmental body in a dispute resolution process with respect to any matter involving the rights or obligations of any person or property in Hawaii, or any dispute to be resolved wholly or in part under state law; and

(12) Services provided exclusively to indigent clients on an interim basis that shall not exceed a period of two years and performed under the direct supervision of:

(A) An attorney who is authorized to practice in this State at a qualified legal services provider; or

(B) An attorney who is authorized and is in good standing to practice law in another state on an active basis; provided that the attorney has not obtained a license to practice law in this State that has been denied, revoked, or suspended by the supreme court.

For purposes of this paragraph, "qualified legal services provider" means a not-for-profit legal services organization that receives or is eligible to receive funds from the indigent legal assistance fund.

(e) An attorney who is actively licensed to practice in another state may practice law in the State of Hawaii; provided that the attorney is licensed to practice law pro hac vice by the circuit court of the circuit where the attorney is to practice law or by the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. An attorney who is licensed to practice law pro hac vice in this State shall only practice law in the circuit or federal district of Hawaii where such attorney is licensed. Prior to granting a license to practice law pro hac vice, the circuit court or the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii shall determine whether the legal work to be performed by the attorney licensed to practice law in another state cannot be adequately performed by any attorney licensed in this State.

[JamesVincent]

hmm, "808prophecy". I assume 808 refers to Hawaii, what's the prophecy?

808 was a drum machine wasn't it?

The Roland 808. One of the first commercially available drum machines. Remember them coming out.

[fortinbras]

Any word on Anthony Troy Williams himself ? - last I heard they were planning on putting him on trial in Georgia for child rape.

[Jeffrey]

I still haven't been able to find any updates nor has, I assume, anyone else.

This is totally speculative on my part, but maybe the fact that minors are involved might be a factor?

[ArthurWankspittle]

I still haven't been able to find any updates nor has, I assume, anyone else.

This is totally speculative on my part, but maybe the fact that minors are involved might be a factor?

Good point. Depending on local rules this may be "behind closed doors" and have reporting restrictions on it.

[notorial dissent]

Can anyone at least verify that his is in fact in GA? Or maybe a guest of HI still?

[wserra]

Hello my name is Sean and I personally have met this man.

Lucky you.

I have also seen what he is capable of.

So have we. This federal court complaint, for example. Gibberish beginning to end. I particularly like "This Court has jurisdiction under 28 USC 1343 (1), (2), (3) and (4) and 42 USC 1983, 1985, and by consent of Private Attorney General Anthony Williams who reserves the right to deny jurisdiction." In other words, the Court has jurisdiction under various civil rights statutes unless Grand Poobah Anthony decides it doesn't. Nice work if you can get it.

And then there's his response to the Court's order to show cause as to why the case shouldn't be tossed. My favorite part of that piece of epic is where he calls the OSC "those ignorant statements", and that the Judge, as a lawyer, "should be tried and convicted of treason against the United States of America".

Anthony, you silver-tongued devil, you.

First off Mr. Williams does not represent anyone in court he advises them.

Which is, of course, why he signs the pleadings as "counsel" to the Malinays.

I actually sat in a jail with him.

No wonder you respect him.

Are we to be punished for being intelligent?

No, I don't think you're in any danger of that.

This is a child of YAHWEH

Who obviously commanded him to speak in tongues.

[rogfulton]

Who obviously commanded him to speak in forked tongues.

FIFY

[fortinbras]

(1) Anthony Troy Williams positively is in Georgia, possibly in the Atlanta jail. His trial is scheduled and he has made appearances in the court there. Evidently they are nowhere near the trial date, but the official docket has an entry for an "Inquiry" on June 20th. I don't know how much help this URL will be:
http://justice.fultoncountyga.gov/PASup ... ID=3223271

(2) Contrary to his claims about "advising" people, he shows up on videos, apparently done with a hidden camera in a Hawaiian court, in which he claimed to be representing some clients, claiming that instead of "practicing" law he was "perfecting" the law, claiming to have a better education than the judge and real lawyers although he provided no details, there is another videotape of his, showing him interfering with a foreclosure sale, also claiming to be representing the defaulting owners.

(3) The court in Hawaii held that he was not eligible to represent anyone in court, nor hold himself out as a lawyer, notwithstanding he kept calling himself a "private attorney general".

(4) I would not be surprised if his antics in Hawaii come back to haunt him in his Georgia case -- for which he has a real lawyer.

[JamesVincent]

Are we to be punished for being intelligent?

No, I don't think you're in any danger of that.

Sarcasm level: Master

[fortinbras]

Presently, Williams is scheduled to stand trial starting on Sept 3, 2014. He has been assigned the county's Public Defender, David Cooper, who has an impressive background in criminal defense .... but who probably will find himself caught between the (well-supported) prosecution and a very ungrateful uncooperative client.

Williams will surely find a way to MAKE the jury want to lock him away.

[fortinbras]

Evidently at the last moment, the state replaced the original indictment with a new indictment that dropped one charge (I think it was one of the rapes). Williams is now crowing that the charges against him were dismissed, but the Fulton Court docket shows a new indictment against him, evidently without a trial on the schedule yet. My efforts to find a news clipping about him in the Atlanta, Ga., media has failed. I'd appreciate an explanation of the current situation from anyone with good information.

[Jeffrey]

If I'm reading the court records correctly, it does appear that they dropped all the charges.

[Blackjack]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain that a photo is not sufficient evidence of a defendants identification, especially in such a serious case of extradition. This leads me to believe that the fingerprints, which I understood were thrown out as evidence, may have been a factor in the identification of Mr. Williams. Unless his comment along the lines of, " Both my son and myself have been charged with false allegations..." was considered to be some sort of (for lack of a better term) self incrimination.

Also, I am hardly educated in the field of Law, so I look to these type of forum's community discussions for some insight on the subject. I am very interested to know what you guys thought about the judge's blatant refusal to acknowledge his Oath.Was this relevant in any way or just "Sovereign Citizen Filibustering" on the part of Mr. Williams?

Lastly, how can such serious charges be thrown out like this? Did that man not just spend months in custody for these "charges". Is there any type of legal recourse required for the allegation of these heinous crimes apparently found to be untrue? If he had committed these crimes, I would expect at least the accuser and/or his close friends and family to be going torch-and-pitchfork-mob over the dismissal. Any insight is greatly appreciated.

[Burnaby49]

Also, I am hardly educated in the field of Law, so I look to these type of forum's community discussions for some insight on the subject. I am very interested to know what you guys thought about the judge's blatant refusal to acknowledge his Oath.Was this relevant in any way or just "Sovereign Citizen Filibustering" on the part of Mr. Williams?

I can't speak for the US but up here in Canada it is a frequent sovereign tactic to demand the judge show his oath of office. This is based on their claimed belief that Candian courts and judges have no authority over them. This is always refused on the basis that the judge, appointed by the government, is under no obligation to reply to questions from defendants or to prove to defendants that he is actually a judge. Frankly it is a stupid tactic. If he is not the judge why is he there? As an impostor? Responding is just opening up the opportunity for defendants to try and derail trials with endless questions about the legitimacy of the court. I've seen a few Freemen try this oath stunt in court and it does nothing for them. The courts prove their authority by imposing it with the backing of the state. There are numerous Freemen/Sovereign types languishing in jail who deny that the courts have the right to put them there but there they are. Dean Clifford up here is just one example.

[JamesVincent]

Also, I am hardly educated in the field of Law, so I look to these type of forum's community discussions for some insight on the subject. I am very interested to know what you guys thought about the judge's blatant refusal to acknowledge his Oath.Was this relevant in any way or just "Sovereign Citizen Filibustering" on the part of Mr. Williams?

I can't speak for the US but up here in Canada it is a frequent sovereign tactic to demand the judge show his oath of office. This is based on their claimed belief that Candian courts and judges have no authority over them. This is always refused on the basis that the judge, appointed by the government, is under no obligation to reply to questions from defendants or to prove to defendants that he is actually a judge. Frankly it is a stupid tactic. If he is not the judge why is he there? As an impostor? Responding is just opening up the opportunity for defendants to try and derail trials with endless questions about the legitimacy of the court. I've seen a few Freemen try this oath stunt in court and it does nothing for them. The courts prove their authority by imposing it with the backing of the state. There are numerous Freemen/Sovereign types languishing in jail who deny that the courts have the right to put them there but there they are. Dean Clifford up here is just one example.

Considering it looks like it got one defendant tazed I don't think it goes any better down here.

[Blackjack]

I can't for the life of me understand how these Sovereign's go from shedding light upon (I.M.O.) truly unconstitutional or monopolistic Laws/Organizations, to thinking that the police will have to pay them $300,000 if they are made to "pull-over" against their wishes. It is as illogical, as it is hilarious.

[GlimDropper]

BlackJack, I'm no expert on the sovereigns, hell I'd have a hard time claiming to be an expert on anything. Anything except perhaps for noticing when things don't add up.

I find no trouble in believing Anthony Williams was not and is not guilty of the rape he was charged with. The court decided that, not me.

I also have no difficulty in understanding how Anthony could spend so many months in jail awaiting a verdict that any above dull normal (Bar Card) attorney could have gotten him out on recognizance waiting for.

If asked for I do have a link to a blogtalk radio episode that Anthony (and Anthony) were featured on. I'm not normally one to hold back a link but the call was a waste of listener's time. If Anthony wanted to crow his victory he sure picked a round about way of doing so. In fact, and most telling he spoke out of both sides of his mouth about it.

Sure, now that he is out of jail he is ramping up his marketing efforts, hell he's thrown his brother and one of his other P.A.G.'s under the bus for not cutting him in on his share of the take while he was inside.

There is something of an abstract art in sifting through the lies of a sovereign debt elimination scammer. I tend to favor the items that favor them but don't favor their sales pitch. Anthony, on that blogtalk radio show repeated something he had been claiming since before his extradition hearing from Hawaii, that he was not in the state of Georgia on the day of the alleged offense.

I'm kinda leaning in favor of his being able to have proved that. True or not the court decided not to pursue charges in this case so either "his paperwork" was so powerful that the court let him get away with raping a young girl or, despite all the gibberish he filed with the court the court isn't nearly as corrupt as fits Anthony's sales pitch.

I mean it pretty much is one or the other.

That is to say if Anthony Williams could prove to a court that he was not in fact in the state of Georgia on the date of the offense that pretty much proves he couldn't be guilty of the charge. He claimed that all along he just seemed to forget about trying to prove it during his extradition hearing. Hard to blame him, he was too focused on sovereign gibberish to address facts.

My theory is this, the facts of the case as came to be understood proved Anthony Williams was not even close enough to being guilty that the charges were dropped before the real trail began. And all of Anthony's gibberish paperwork was the reason that he spent literally months in jail that any first year law student could have gotten him out of but they study the real legal system and Mr. Williams studies his imaginary legal system.

[notorial dissent]

Being a judge or a district attorney isn't like running a business or driving a car, you don't have to show a license to do it, but you do have to be elected or appointed to the position, which is a public event, which is then cretifeid by what ever official certifies elections, or if appointed, they get a warrant of appointment, usually from the governor, which is probably countersigned by the senate as proof of appointment. All of which get a public searing in ceremony taking the oath of office, and in many states a paper copy of the oath is also filed with the local court or recorder, so judges just don't walk in and assume a position, which makes the sovcit demand for a copy of the appointment and/or oath, as well as the performance bond in some states just so much time wasting nonsense as it is all part of the process.