Now, read this about so called practice of law: IT’S NOT
WHAT YOU THOUGHT Every so-called State in the Union has laws on
their books forbidding the unauthorized practice of their Law. This
fact alone might lead one to conclude that being a licensed member
of the legal professional is not only required, but that one not so
duly appointed had better not even think about offering legal
writings or advice without having a “license to practice law.” To
test this assumption, we go to California, the so-called Union’s
most populace so-called state, our test subject, to see how they do
it, California style. To begin this journey of discovery you can go
online to the Secretary of State for California web site. All bona
fide corporations public and private must be registered with the
Secretary of State. Do a search for “California Bar Association”
and notice several strange anomalies with the posted information.
For one, while the incorporation date of record is listed as 1907,
this date differs from the date on the seal of the letter head for
the California Bar that lists an incorporation date of 1927. Now
notice that the status of the California Bar is inactive. Also
notice that there is no registered agent listed for service of
process, nor is there a listing for the corporate address. Go to
the Secretary of State web sites for the so-called states
neighboring California and you will discover the same
anomalies–listed but inactive, without contact information. Now
call the California Corporate Commission to discover if they can
explain the so-called anomalies and they will advise you that the
State Bar of California was formed by statute (legislative act),
and therefore not formed in accordance with the California
Corporation Code. Next, call the Executive Director at the
headquarters for the California Bar Association in San Francisco
and ask the following three questions: Why is the California Bar
Association an inactive corporation? What type of organization
(legal classification) is the California State Bar Association? Why
does the incorporation date on the letter head seal differ from the
date of incorporation listed with the California Corporation
Commission? While the Executive Director will not be able to clear
up the mystery to any of the questions listed above, you will be
assured that the State Bar of California is a constitutional
agency, with the judicial branch of State government. It serves an
administrative function for the California Supreme Court in matters
relating to the regulation of the legal profession. However, the
California State Constitution and the California Business &
Professions code, does not agree with this claim–these two
authorities describe the State Bar of California as a public
corporation, not a ‘constitutional agency.” To complicate matters
still, the California Secretary of State refuses to issue a
“Certificate of Non filing,” a five dollar ($5.00) fee, a standard
form for any unregistered, non-filing public corporation. By
claiming that the State Bar Corporation was created by legislative
act, the Secretary of State can take the position that it lacks
authority to issue the certificate, even though the State Bar
Association actively touts itself to be a public corporation. In so
doing the California Bar has effectively exempted itself from
registration and shielded its books from public scrutiny. The
following obscure cite from 7 Corpus Juris Secundum 9 reveals the
deceit being perpetrated here: “In view of the decision that the
creation of public corporation by special acts is prohibited by
state constitution, state bar act creating state bar corporation as
public corporation has no validity and designation of state bar as
‘public corporation’ has no legal efficacy.” [Bridgegroom v. State
Bar, 550, P.2d 1089, 27 ArizApp. 47.] To further interpret what
this means: the State Bar of California enjoys the best of both
worlds; an apparent agency of government^ enjoying the power and
protection of the state, including exemption from taxation, while
in fact a pirate institution without legal basis. Whereas, the
notion of a “license to practice law” is scarcely mentioned in
state and federal codes, the requirements relating to every other
kind of license in existence is spelled out in mind-numbing detail
(e.g. Vehicle Code, Internal Revenue Code, etc.). The sacred
“license to practice law,” however, remains undefined! Answers to
questions regarding where it comes from, how it is conferred, where
one goes to see what it looks like, its tenure, its cost, remain
elusive like the wind. These and other intensely pertinent
questions remain unanswered by the codes that imply its existence.
So pull up a chair and take a front row seat as we examine-what the
word manipulating Esquires have done to convince us that such a
thing ‘really’ exists. As always the subterfuge is in their
definition of the words and what is conveniently omitted. It is up
to you to guess which words are ‘suspect,’ which assumptions are
implied to lead you off track, what remains unspecified, and where
to go to find the appropriate ‘definitions.’ Code Series 6000 of
the California Business & Professions Code (Cal.
B&P) is known as the “The State Bar Act”. Section 6002 is
the solitary code section in all of California Code evidencing the
supposed issuance of a “license to practice law.” I will list out
the relevant sections in Cal. B&P relating to the issuance
of licensing and also section 9 of their California State
Constitution. Look these over to see if you can tell were the clues
are and note what questions to ask. Cal. B&P Code Section
6001 “The State Bar of California is a public corporation.”
___________________________________________ Cal. State Const., Sec.
9 “The State Bar of California is a public corporation.”
___________________________________________ Cal. B&P Code
Section 6002. Members “The members of the State Bar are all persons
admitted and licensed to practice law in this state…”
___________________________________________ Cal. B&P Code
Section 6125. Necessity of Active Membership in State Bar “No
person shall practice law in California unless the person is an
active member of the State Bar”
___________________________________________ Cal. B&P Code
Section 6060 “To be certified to the Supreme Court for admission
and a “license to practice law”, a person who has not been admitted
to practice law in a sister state…”
___________________________________________ Cal. B&P; Code
Section 6060.5 “Neither the board, nor any committee authorized by
it, shall require that applications for admission to practice law
in California pass different final bar examinations depending upon
the manner or school in which they acquire their legal education.”
___________________________________________ Cal. B&P Code
Section 6064 “Upon certification by the examining committee that
the applicant has fulfilled the requirements for admission to
practice law, the Supreme Court may admit such applicant as an
attorney at law in all the courts of this state and may direct an
order to be entered upon its records to that effect A certificate
of admission thereupon shall be given to the applicant by the clerk
of the court.” ___________________________________________ Cal.
B&P Code Section 6064.1. “No person who advocates the
overthrow of the Government of the United States or of this State
by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means, shall be
certified to the Supreme Court for admission and a license to
practice law.” ___________________________________________ Cal.
B&P Code Section 6067. “Every person on his admission shall
take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and
the Constitution of the State of California, and faithfully to
discharge the duties of an attorney at law to the best of his
knowledge and ability. A certificate of the oath shall be indorsed
upon his license.” JURISDICTION Sections 6002 and 6125, appears
straight forward, until the jurisdictions are compared. The
jurisdiction “California,” means the dejure social compact known as
the California Republic as described in the 1849 California
Constitution. The jurisdiction “/ this State,” per California
Revenue and Taxation Code, means the de facto military social
construct defined as a federal territory via the Buck Act under
military control of the United States located in the District of
Columbia (See What is United States?). PERSONS Since the so-called
bankruptcy in 1933, “/_/* this state” signifies the military
federal social construct known as the “State of California,” with
its subject “citizens of the United States,” artificial persons
existing under statute in an artificial realm. In the de jure
California, the word person means the flesh and blood man or woman.
Thus 6002 says that only artificial persons (legal fictions) may be
admitted and licensed. Real persons need not apply! Since the de
jure social compact known as California no longer truly exists due
to the fact the compact went out of legal existence in 1933, as a
pledge to the military social government construct bankruptcy, 6125
is nonsensical; It makes about as much sense as stating “No person
shall drive an 18-wheeler on interstate highways in California
unless that person is a member of the Teamsters Union.” WHAT IS THE
STATE BAR? Another fatal flaw in both 6002 and 6125 according to
Corpus Juris Secundum 9, listed above, and the Secretary of State,
is that the State ‘Bar itself has no legal existence in
contradiction to Sec.9 of their California State Constitution and
the California State Bar Act, 6001, state that the State Bar is a
public corporation. The State Bar is a public corporation that is
NOT, and the State Bar Act creating the State Bar has no legal
efficiency. BAR MEMBERSHIP Cal. B&P Section 6002 informs us
that “members of the State Bar are admitted and licensed to
practice law.” Admitted into what! And who does the licensing?
Section 6002 is framed to satisfy the reader’s perfunctory
inquisitiveness, while remaining firmly ambiguous. Also, the reader
of section 6002 may get the impression that Bar members are the
only ones that may be “admitted and licensed to practice law in
this state.” However, because of the way Section 6002 is worded,
non-members of the State Bar are not excluded from being “admitted
and licensed to practice law in this State.” In addition bar
membership is a result of being admitted and licensed to practice
law, whereupon the admitted party is then granted membership in the
State Bar by a bar card-not the other way around. “Generally,
membership in a bar association is optional with the individual
attorney, but where a unified or integrated state bar organization
is established, membership and payment of dues may be required as
conditions of practicing law in the state…” 7 Corpus Juris
Secundum 8, In re Gibson, 4 P.2d 643.35 N.M. 550. Though the
controlled and licensed media and courts would have us believe
otherwise, non-State Bar members are not excluded from being
“licensed to practice law in this State.” Cal. B&P 6060,
6060.5 reveal that the “license to practice law” follows (is one in
the same) “admission to practice law,” not membership in the
bar-association. Section 6060 says that one may be certified to the
so-called Supreme Court (admitted/licensed to practice law) even if
they haven’t been “admitted to practice law” (no bar-card) in
another state. An article in the Los Angles Times entitled “Clinton
Resigns from the High Court Bar” underscores this point: ”
…’Former President Clinton hereby respectfully requests to resign
from the bar Of this court’, his lawyer, David E. Kendall, said in
a two-page letter to the high court’s clerk…” “Clinton’s
resignation from the Supreme Court bar will have little practical
impact. Clinton; has not practiced before the Supreme Court and was
not expected to argue any cases in the future…” Clinton resigned
only from the Supreme Court bar, and from no other bar. Every other
“license to practice law” is still in force and is just like the
one issued in the so-called de facto State of California. The only
possible license to practice law, the certificate of admission, is
the real “license.” THE EXAMINING COMMITTEE Cal. B&P
Section 6064 gives provides additional evidence that bar membership
doesn’t confer a “license to practice law” Otherwise Cal.
B&P 6002 would be sufficient in itself, with no further
requirement that an examining committee must certify that an
applicant “has fulfilled the requirements for admission to practice
law” for being “licensed.” Regarding the true importance of the
“examining committee” referenced above in Section 6064, the
so-called chief justice of the Supreme Court can unilaterally
overrule its decision and admit any applicant they see fit, even
one who has been rejected as unfit or unqualified. As the following
case cites show, “Admission to practice law” is ultimately
controlled by the chief justice of the Supreme Court of the
jurisdiction. In fact the chief justice is the Supreme Court.
“Supreme Court has inherent power and authority to admit an
applicant to practice law in this State…despite unfavorable
report upon such applicant by Board of Governors of State Bar.”
[Lacey, In re (1936) 11 CA2d 699, 81P2D 935.] “The authority of the
Committee of Bar Examiners is limited to investigating and
recommending for admission those applicants found to be of the
prescribed standards. Only the Supreme Court has plenary power to
admit applicants who, in the opinion of the court, meet the
prescribed test, whether or not the Committee agrees with the
conclusions of the court.” [Green v. Zank (1984. 2dDist) CalApp 3d
497, 204 Cat Rptr 770.] SIGNIFICANCE OF STATE BAR The State Bar of
California does not issue licenses–cannot issue licenses–because
it is a freewheeling, private trade union posing as an agency of
government. Quoting from a statement issued by Governor Pete
Wilson’s office in a May, 30 1998 article from the Los Angeles
Times: “Beleaguered State Bar Faces Uncertain Fate -Agencies: It
will begin going out of business as a result of Wilson veto unless
Legislature acts quickly” “…Critics two years ago launched a
referendum on whether to abolish the bar, but with just over half
the state’s lawyer’s voting the bar survived. About 65% of the
respondents opposed dismantling it. “The bar has escaped other
brushes with death. In 1985, the Legislature refused for several
months to allow the bar association to collect dues because of its
abysmal record in disciplining lawyers.” If the existence of the
bar association hinges on an internal vote of disgruntled
bar-association attorneys, complaining about paying dues and
disciplining themselves–and could have been abolished in 1885 and
1996–how relevant could the State Bar of California actually be?
PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS Regarding the conduct and professional
standards of Esquires, there is no state or federal regulatory
agency in their America governing such matters. Quoting Oceanside,
California Republican Assemblyman Bill Morrow, who sponsored a bill
for overhauling and shrinking the Bar in 1998, In the Same LA Times
article above: “Morrow said that he is not worried that lawyer
discipline will lapse. If no legislative breakthrough is reached by
summer, the legislature will simply transfer lawyer discipline to
the State Department of Consumer Affairs, the lawmaker said.” THE
NON-EXISTANT OATH OF OFFICE Cal. B&P 6067 implies that
attorneys take oaths of office and that this is printed on “the
license.” If you read Section 6067 carefully, these attorneys are
not a “member of the State Bar,” but “admitted persons.” Section
6067 is designed to lull the reader into the false believe that
attorneys take constitutional oaths of office. Since the license is
effectively the bar card– a credit card sized piece of plastic,
and the only text appearing on the bar card of the State Bar of
California concerns annual union dues. There is no oath: “This
certifies that the person whose name appears on this card has paid
the annual fee required by statute.” So on further analysis, Code
Section 6067 reduces to another meaningless entry designed to
mislead and distract one from getting closer to the truth.