Rick Martin, fake lawyer for anti-mask cases

[fortinbras]

Found this article:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/meet-the ... ref=home


and from another article:

Michigan restaurant owner to remain in jail on charge of violating COVID-19 orders
mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/2021/03/michigan-restaurant-owner-to-remain-in-jail-on-charge-of-violating-covid-19-orders.html
By Lynn Moore | lmoore8@mlive.comMarch 19, 2021

HOLLAND, MI – Using very stern language, a judge ordered a West Michigan restaurant owner accused of violating multiple court orders to remain in jail, likely for several days, until it’s apparent she doesn’t intend to reopen her business.

Behind bars in Ingham County is Marlena Pavlos-Hackney, the owner of Marlena’s Bistro and Pizzeria in Holland, which remained open in defiance of warnings and cease-and-desist orders issued because of its refusal to comply with state requirements intended to curb the spread of COVID-19.

She was arrested by Michigan State Police early Friday, March 19, after she failed to turn herself in on a bench warrant issued earlier this month. The warrant charged her with contempt of a court order to close her restaurant, which continued to operate after its license was suspended. * * * *

Pavlos-Hackney had defiantly said Thursday that she would remain open, even if she was arrested. * * * *

Prior to Pavlos-Hackney’s arraignment, Aquilina did order the arrest for unauthorized law practice of Rick Martin, who indicated he was appearing in court as Pavlos-Hackney’s “assistance of counsel.” Martin had filed a notice with the court that he was legally representing Pavlos-Hackney, the judge indicated.

Under questioning by Aquilina, Martin admitted he was not a licensed attorney, but insisted he was permitted to provide legal assistance under the “Sixth Amendment.”

He told the judge he was in the courtroom to assist Pavlos-Hackney, reportedly a Polish immigrant, because she does “have understanding problems with the English language.” That prompted Aquilina to respond, “Apparently, sir, you have problems with the English language.”

After citing case law, and Michigan legislative law, Aquilina said Martin would be charged with contempt, a 93-day misdemeanor, and he was led from the courtroom by a bailiff. * * * *

The restaurant has continued to operate after its food license was suspended in late January for failing to require workers and customers to wear masks or socially distance.

On March 4, Ingham County Circuit Judge Wanda Stokes issued a bench warrant for Pavlos-Hackney’s arrest for repeatedly ignoring the food license suspension.

That day, Pavlos-Hackney told MLive, “I’m not afraid. I’m fighting for freedom in America.”

She was given until Thursday to turn herself in, which she didn’t do.

Pavlos-Hackney, recently featured on Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Tonight and Glenn Beck’s radio program, said she refused to be bullied by the government.

“I stay strong because I’m not going to let the government intimidate me or put fear in me,” she told Beck. “I’m going to keep fighting for American freedom and my constitutionally protected rights.”

The restaurant had remained open despite a state order last November that banned indoor dining at restaurants to slow the spread of the coronavirus.

At that time, a sign was placed on the front door that read: “Welcome. We are a Constitutionally Compliant Business. We are not infringing on anyone’s inalienable rights. By law, we do not follow any of the governor’s, mayor’s, health department’s, or other government agency orders or suggestions pertaining to social distancing or mask wearing.”

Pavlos-Hackney has garnered the support of others who believe the government has overreached its bounds. Despite Pavlos-Hackney’s arrest, the restaurant opened Friday, with her supporters packing the eatery for breakfast.

In Mason, about a dozen supporters appeared Friday morning outside the Ingham County Jail where Pavlos-Hackney was being held. Her supporters, many of them frequent attendees at “patriot” events opposing COVID-19 orders, chanted “arrest the sheriff” and displayed memorabilia in support of former President Trump.

Martin was there too, prior to his arrest, and called the coronavirus pandemic a “Trojan horse to bring in economic warfare.”

“This woman has ultimate faith in God and she knows what’s right,” Martin said.

A GoFundMe page set up to raise money for Pavlos-Hackney’s legal fees, states that Pavlos-Hackney “escaped Communism” in Poland in 1983 for the “Freedoms and individual rights” of the U.S., where she became a citizen in 1992. It further compares the “unconstitutional lockdowns” issued during the pandemic with the communism she had fled.

The Michigan Republican Party on Friday issued a statement regarding Nessel’s complaint against Pavlos-Hackney:

“Nessel is eager to spend taxpayer-funded resources going after small business owners trying to stave off bankruptcy but refuses to investigate the deaths of thousands of nursing home residents potentially caused by her political-ally Gretchen Whitmer,” Ted Goodman, communications director for the GOP, said in the prepared statement. “It’s a massive abuse of power and shows what her priorities are.”

[notorial dissent]

I just can't help but wonder if her commitment to being a "Constitutionally Compliant Business" includes following the health and safety guidelines/requirements for operating a restaurant/food establishment as well? I mean aren't following the sanitation and food handling, not to mention liquor licensing rules an infringement on her business rights any different than following the health and safety guidelines/rules for dealing with covid???? I have exactly ZERO sympathy for these sorts of arguments. If she can't be concerned about health and safety with regard to a deadly virus, how can I feel like she is going to be concerned about my health and safety as far as her food prep is concerned??

Pavlos-Hackney got to spend a couple of nights in the slammer, saw the light, or got tired of the cuisine, and paid her fairly sizable fine and closed her restaurant. Remains to be seen if she will continue to abide by the court's orders.

I can't help but wondering if her interviews with Beck and Tucker didn't help her on her way to a jail cell.

Martin is currently a guest of the county for 93 days, wonder if he'll manage to parlay it in to another 93 day stint, the judge really isn't a fan.

Apropos of nothing, there is a really good video of the judge handing Martin his ass, and his stunned silence while it happened. I will post the link if I can find it again.

edited to add linky dink.....

[fortinbras]

About the decision cited by Martin in the video:

Several internet propagandists claim that the practice of law is unregulated and unrestricted as “an occupation of common right” - for which they reference the decision in Sims v. Ahrens (1925) 167 Ark 557, 271 SW 720 (frequently misspelling this as Aherns). In fact, that decision nowhere mentions the legal profession or the practice of law, it does not contain the pretended quotation; it deals with whether the (new) income tax law is applicable to “occupations of common right” – which are not otherwise specified but evidently excluding door-to-door peddling - as an old state licensing law exempted such occupations from a license tax. The court held that the income tax law taxed income without regard of the occupation by which it was acquired [the US Supreme Court said the same thing about taxing “occupations of common right” in Steward Machine Co. v. Davis (1937) 301 US 548 at 582-583, 81 L.Ed 1279, 57 S.Ct 883.

[noblepa]

About the decision cited by Martin in the video:

Several internet propagandists claim that the practice of law is unregulated and unrestricted as “an occupation of common right” - for which they reference the decision in Sims v. Ahrens (1925) 167 Ark 557, 271 SW 720 (frequently misspelling this as Aherns). In fact, that decision nowhere mentions the legal profession or the practice of law, it does not contain the pretended quotation; it deals with whether the (new) income tax law is applicable to “occupations of common right” – which are not otherwise specified but evidently excluding door-to-door peddling - as an old state licensing law exempted such occupations from a license tax. The court held that the income tax law taxed income without regard of the occupation by which it was acquired [the US Supreme Court said the same thing about taxing “occupations of common right” in Steward Machine Co. v. Davis (1937) 301 US 548 at 582-583, 81 L.Ed 1279, 57 S.Ct 883.

If I'm reading that citation correctly, it appears that it is an Arkansas case. As such, it has no bearing on a Michigan case. Even if it said what he seems to think it does, it doesn't matter. An Arkansas court can't tell a Michigan court how to rule.

[notorial dissent]

And of course we are back to the old bit of sovcits like to cite court cases, that they misidentify, misquote, or just flat out make up, I would say that 99.999% the time they have NEVER EVER actually read the cases and authorities they are citing, they just think that because they have quoted a case that their work is done. They don't seem to get that state cases generally ONLY apply to the state they were issued from, and then only if they haven't been overturned supplanted, or just don't say what they claim it says. They got it off the innerwebs from some guru so of course they say what they claim it does, it just has to, it came off the innerwebs. Somehow all these cases come out as being Supreme Court cases when most of them weren't/aren't. The Income Tax followed by Right to Travel ones are the worst offenders of citing cases that have nothing to do with what they claim or come even close to saying what they claim. So, in other words sovcit (monkey) business as usual.

Martin isn't even particularly bright and when someone, like the judge fer instances, throws him off script he just flat out falls apart.

[wserra]

As fortinbras says, we see Sims v. Ahrens, 167 Ark 557 (1925), fairly often in the usual dumbass haunts, frequently misspelled and always miscited. I thought I would link to it in order to document how useless it is to nitwits like Martin. It is a decision of the Arkansas Supreme Court, interpreting an Arkansas tax statute in light of a rather unusual provision of the Arkansas Constitution. It is thus meaningless outside Arkansas - and even inside Arkansas in contexts other than the state income tax.

The opinion itself is lengthy, boring, arcane and not particularly well-written. I have therefore highlighted four or five sentences that make the above completely clear.

[notorial dissent]

Like I said, they never ever have read them, and probably couldn't understand them if they tried, too many three and four syllable words, and just basically too many words for their attention spans.

[noblepa]

Like I said, they never ever have read them, and probably couldn't understand them if they tried, too many three and four syllable words, and just basically too many words for their attention spans.

Then too, there is their massive failure to understand context. "The judge used the word 'profession'. Being a lawyer is a profession. The court said that the state can't tax professions. If a profession can't be taxed, it can't be regulated. Therefore, being a lawyer can't be regulated. Therefore, I can call myself a lawyer and the state can't do anything about it. Never mind that this was a different state altogether".

For someone who claims to be a lawyer, he doesn't seem to understand the structure of the legal system in the US. Each state has their own courts, whose rulings are binding only in that state. Then there are the federal courts, appeals courts and the Supreme Court. He doesn't seem to understand any of that.

[notorial dissent]

Like I said, they never ever have read them, and probably couldn't understand them if they tried, too many three and four syllable words, and just basically too many words for their attention spans.

Then too, there is their massive failure to understand context. "The judge used the word 'profession'. Being a lawyer is a profession. The court said that the state can't tax professions. If a profession can't be taxed, it can't be regulated. Therefore, being a lawyer can't be regulated. Therefore, I can call myself a lawyer and the state can't do anything about it. Never mind that this was a different state altogether".

For someone who claims to be a lawyer, he doesn't seem to understand the structure of the legal system in the US. Each state has their own courts, whose rulings are binding only in that state. Then there are the federal courts, appeals courts and the Supreme Court. He doesn't seem to understand any of that.

Come to it, I think his grasp of his mother tongue is at best what could be called shakey. I 've read that decision a number of times, and I 'm still not altogether sure what he was really referring to, but it certainly isn't what Martin et al seem to want to believe. Somewhere, and I don't remember where, and I lost my copy in a computer crash, there is a fairly detailed listing of ALL the court cases that inevitably get referred to and what is claimed as opposed to what the cases actually are about and say. A very good useful resource. Sovcits really hate it when you call them on their cites with the real cite.

[fortinbras]

Evidently Rick Martin has a following that supports his anti-mask campaign:

https://www.mlive.com/politics/2021/04 ... edom.html

[Arthur Rubin]

This may be approaching politics, but many of the Governor's mandates were overturned, some retroactively. And "state requirements intended to curb the spread of COVID-19" requires evidence. Many were arbitrary, and likely to increase the spread of COVID-19 if actually followed.

Rick is still a sovereign, but the restaurant owner may very well be exercising rational civil disobedience. Then again, claiming to be a Constitutional restaurant suggests otherwise.

[Duke2Earl]

I must have missed the "Restaurant Clause" in the Constitution.

[Gregg]

It's part of "The Denny's Amendment"