25 votes

PROOF: "BAR" attorney's are AGENTS of a FOREIGN power and most of them KNOW it.

ATTENTION ALL ATTORNEY'S "AT" [against] LAW: You can either cease and desist now - or face the wrath of the now stirring masses when they come to full consciousness! Judgement day is coming!

THE BARCARD AS PER THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT;

“The practice of Law CAN NOT be licensed by any state/State.”

(Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 U.S. 238, 239)

“The practice of Law is AN OCCUPATION OF COMMON RIGHT!”

(Sims v. Aherns, 271 S.W. 720 (1925))

The "CERTIFICATE" from the State Supreme Court:

ONLY authorizes, to practice Law "IN COURTS" as a member of the STATE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF GOVT.

Can ONLY represent WARDS OF THE COURT, INFANTS, PERSONS OF UNSOUND MIND (SEE CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM, VOLUME 7, SECTION 4.)

"CERTIFICATE" IS NOT A LICENSE to practice Law AS AN OCCUPATION, nor to DO BUSINESS AS A LAW FIRM!!!

The "STATE BAR" CARD IS NOT A LICENSE!!! It is a "UNION DUES CARD".

The "BAR" is a "PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION."

1. Like the Actors Union, Painters Union, etc.

2. No other association, EVEN DOCTORS, issue their own license. ALL ARE ISSUED BY THE STATE.

It is a NON-GOVERNMENTAL PRIVATE ASSOCIATION.

The State Bar is; an Unconstitutional Monopoly.

AN ILLEGAL & CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE;

Violates Article 2, Section 1, Separation of Powers clause of the U.S Constitution.

There is NO POWER OR AUTHORITY for joining of Legislative, Judicial, or Executive branches within a state as the BAR is attempting. "BAR" members have invaded all branches of govt. & are attempting to control de jure governments as agents of a foreign entity!

It is quite simple to see that a great fraud & conspiracy has been perpetrated on the people of America. The American Bar is an offshoot from London Lawyers' Guild & was established by people with invasive monopolistic goals in mind. In 1909 they incorporated this TRAITOROUS group in the state of Illinois & had the State Legislature (which was under the control of lawyers) pass an unconstitutional law that only members of this powerful union of lawyers, called the "ABA," could practice law & hold all the key positions in law enforcement & the making of laws. At that time, Illinois became an outlaw state, & for all practical purposes, they seceded from the United States of America.

The "BAR ASSOCIATION" then sent organizers to all the other states & explained to the lawyers there how much more profitable & secure it would be for them, as lawyers, to join this union & be protected by its bylaws & cannons. They issued to the lawyers in each state a charter from the Illinois organization. California joined in 1927 & a few reluctant states & their lawyers waited until the 1930's to join when the treasonous Act became DE FACTO & the Citizen's became captives.

Under this system, the lawyers could guarantee prejudged decisions for the privileged class against the lower class. This was all made possible by the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION to favor the right & have unlawfully substituted them in place of Constitutional Laws. The Constitution was written in plain English & the Statutes passed by Congress were also in plain English, with the intent of Congress how each law should be used & not the opinions of various Judges as the codes list. Any normal person can read the Constitution & Statutes & understand them without any trouble.

The public in California was shocked to learn that the State Govt. has no control or jurisdiction over the Bar Assoc. or its members. The state does not accredit the law schools or hold Bar examinations. They do not issue state licenses to LAWYERS. The Bar Association accredits all the law schools, holds their private examinations & selects the students they will accept in their organization & issues them so-called license but keeps the fees for themselves. The Bar is the only one that can punish or disbar a Lawyer.

They also select the lawyers that they consider qualified for Judgeships & various other offices in the State. Only the Bar Assoc., or their designated committees, can remove any of these lawyers from public office. The State Legislature will not change this system as they are also a designated committee of the Bar. On August 21, 1984, Rose Bird, Chief Justice of the California State Supreme Court, another of the Bar Associations Judicial Committee's, stated in essence, that the Bar should determine the legality of all initiatives before they were allowed to go on the ballot.

This is contrary to both State & Federal Constitutions, as well as the Laws of this Nation instituted By & For the People as a Sovereign UNITY of Independent States of We The People, not a fraudulent Corporate entity of Lawyers. This is a tremendous amount of power for a PRIVATE union that is incorporated & headquartered in Illinois to hold over the Citizens of California or any other state. The only recourse is through this initiative process & vote by the people.

After the Founding Fathers had formed the Constitution, outlining the laws as to the way our govt. was to be run, Thomas Jefferson said, in essence, "This proves that plain people, if given the chance, can enact laws & run a govt. as well as or better than royalty & the blue bloods of Europe." The American people must stop thinking that lawyers are better than they are & can do a better job than they can before the courts of America.

Under the Common Law & the Laws of America, no where is it expressly given for anyone to have the power or the right to form a Corporation. "Corporations" are given birth because of ignorance on the part of the American people & are operating under implied consent & power which they have usurped & otherwise stolen from the people. By RIGHT AND LAW THEY HAVE NO POWER, AUTHORITY, OR JURISDICTION, & must be put out of business by the good Citizens of America in their fight for FREEDOM.

The U.S. Constitution GUARANTEES to every state in this union a REPUBLICAN FORM of govt.. Any other form of govt. is FORBIDDEN. No public officer or branch of govt. can be limited to a RULING CLASS of any kind, or the states become ARISTOCRACIES & NOT Republics. Also, the lawyers have made themselves 1st Class Citizens, where many public offices & branches of govt. are open to lawyers only.

All other people are limited to only 2 branches of govt. & to only certain offices in those 2 branches of govt., making all people who are non-lawyers into 2nd class subject citizens. When the courts belong to the people, as the United States Constitution REQUIRES, (Art. IV, § 4, we the people, will NEVER rule against themselves.) In these Unconstitutional foreign tribunals "courts" (hoodlum centers), "men" in black dresses, that are Unconstitutional ROBES OF NOBILITY. (Art. 1, §§ 9 & 10) dispense a perverted ideology, where the people are terrorized by members of the BLACK ROBE CULT (lawyers & lawyer judges in the courtrooms).

The legislative branch of govt. does NOT have the Constitutional Power to issue Court Orders or any other kind of Orders to the people, as a "fiction court" or a "court/corporation for profit & gain" cannot reach parity with a lawful man. ONLY Presidents & Governors have the Constitutional Power to grant PARDONS, but lawyers & lawyer-judges are unconstitutionally granting PARDONS with "immunity from prosecution."

Citizens are not permitted to act like people in the courts. The Citizen (2nd class) is told that he does not know how to fill out fancy lawyer forms; that he is not trained in the law; that he does not know court rules & procedures; etc. This is Unconstitutional "lawyer system," only HEARSAY SUBSTITUTES (lawyers) NOT under oath, have access to the fiction/for profit & gain courts, even though ONLY sworn testimony & evidence can be presented in court. Anything else is "Bill of Attainder," NOT permitted under the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Sections 9 & 10).

The U.S. Constitution does NOT give anyone the right to a lawyer or the right to counsel, or the right to any other HEARSAY SUBSTITUTE. The 6th Amendment is very SPECIFIC, that the accused ONLY has the right to the ASSISTANCE of counsel & this ASSISTANCE of counsel CAN BE ANYONE THE ACCUSED CHOOSES WITHOUT LIMITATION.

LAWYERS & LAWYER-JUDGES: Created Unconstitutional "lawyer system" pre-trial "motions" & "Hearings" to have eternal EXTORTIONISTIC litigation's, which is BARRATRY & also is in violation of the U.S. Constitution, & Art. 1, as this places defendants in DOUBLE JEOPARDY a 100x over. Defendants only have a right to A TRIAL, NOT TRIALS. When a criminal is freed on a TECHNICALITY, HE IS FREED B/C OF A FIX & a PAY-OFF, as a defendant can only be freed if found innocent BY A JURY NOT BY ANY "TECHNICALITY."

Whenever a lawyer is involved in a case directly or indirectly, as a litigant or assisting in counsel, ALL LAWYER-JUDGES HAVE TO DISQUALIFY THEMSELVES, AS THERE CANNOT BE A CONSTITUTIONAL TRIAL & also there would be a violation of the conflict of interest laws, along with the violation of separation of powers & checks & balances, because "OFFICERS" OF THE COURT ARE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BENCH.

These same LAWYER-JUDGES are awarding or approving LAWYER FEES, directly & indirectly, amounting to BILLION OF DOLLARS annually, all in violation of conflict of interest laws. As long as there are lawyers, there will never be any law, Constitution or Justice. There will only be MOB RULE, RULE BY A MOB OF LAWYERS.

CASE "LAW" IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL: As CASE "LAW" IS ENACTED BY THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT. When a lawyer-judge instructs, directs, or gives orders to a jury, the lawyer-judge is TAMPERING WITH THE JURY. He also tampers with testimony when he orders the answers to be either "Yes" or "No." The lawyer-judge also tampers, fixes, & rigs the trial when he orders anything stricken from the record, or when he "rules" certain evidence & the truth to be inadmissible.

This makes the trial & transcript FIXED & RIGGED, because the jury does not hear the REAL TRUTH & ALL THE FACTS. Juries are made into puppets by the lawyers & lawyer-judges. All lawyers are automatically in the judicial branch of govt., as they have the Unconstitutional TITLE OF NOBILITY (Article 1, Section 9 & 10), "Officer of the Court." Citizens have to be elected or hired to be in any branch of govt., but non-lawyer Citizens are limited to only two of the three branches of govt.. Lawyers, as 1st class citizens, can be hired or elected to any of the three branches of govt..

Lawyers, "Officers of the Court," in the Judicial Branch, are Unconstitutionally in 2 branches of govt. at the SAME TIME whenever they are hired or elected to the executive or legislative branches. This is a violation of the separation of powers, checks & balances, & the conflict of interest laws. District attorneys & State's attorneys have taken over the Grand Juries FROM the people, where the people are DENIED ACCESS to the Grand Juries when they attempt to present evidence of crimes committed in the courtrooms by the lawyers & lawyer-judges.

The U.S. Constitution, being the Supreme Fundamental Law, is not & CANNOT be ambiguous as to be interpreted, or it would be a worthless piece of paper & we would have millions of interpretations (Unconstitutional amendments) instead of the few we have now. That is why all judges & public servants are SWORN TO SUPPORT the U.S. Constitution, NOT interpret it.

Under INTERNATIONAL ORDERS: ALL LAWYERS, whether they left law school yesterday or 50 years ago, are EXACTLY THE SAME. All lawyers have to file the same motions & follow the same procedures in using the same Unconstitutional "lawyer system". In probate, the lawyers place themselves in everyone's will & estate. When there are minor children as heirs, the lawyer-judges appoint a lawyer (a child molesting Fagin) for EACH CHILD &, at times, the lawyer fees EXCEED the total amount of the estate.

An OUTRAGEOUS amount of TAX "MONEY" is directly & indirectly STOLEN BY LAWYERS. Money that is budgeted to County/City/Borough Boards, School Boards & other local & federal agencies eventually finds its way into the pockets of lawyers, as ALL of these agencies are "TRICKED" & "FORCED" into ETERNAL EXTORTIONISTIC LITIGATION.

In the state of Alaska & Hawaii, the BAR ASSOC. has mandated that all judges are to be licensed to practice law (e.g. Alaska Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 4). This license requirement is not found in any other state of the Union. As all licenses to practice law in the state of Alaska & Hawaii are issued by a judge, what judge is qualified to issue a license to practice law to another judge? As only members of the Bar may be licensed to practice law (e.g. A.S. 08.08.020), Alaska & Hawaii judges are REQUIRED to be members of the BAR & as such, they are prejudiced to do the business of the BAR. If a judge is required to be a member of the BAR, who disqualifies the judge from office if that judge does not pay the dues or violates the rules of the BAR? Every state in the Union (with the exception of Alaska & Hawaii) "prohibits" judges from holding licenses to practice law.

Credit to:

I am TDC. Katman. ARR. LSS.
International Freedom Foundation
http://www.iff-ifoundfreedom.com



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

quick question, if someone can answer it

Here is a reply I received from two attorneys
"Funny"

and

"In NY, having a license to practice and being a member of the bar are the same thing, though that’s different from belonging to the NYS Bar Association, which I don’t. The blog doesn’t make sense and misrepresents Supreme Court case law. I do agree with Felix Frankfurter’s remark in a separate concurrence in that case that

'Certainly since the time of Edward I, through all the vicissitudes of seven centuries of Anglo-American history, the legal profession has played a role all its own. The bar has not enjoyed prerogatives; it has been entrusted with anxious responsibilities. One does not have to inhale the self-adulatory bombast of after-dinner speeches to affirm that all the interests of man that are comprised under the constitutional guarantees given to "life, liberty and property" are in the professional keeping of lawyers. It is a fair characterization of the lawyer's responsibility in our society that he stands "as a shield," to quote Devlin, J., in defense of right and to ward off wrong. From a profession charged with such responsibilities there must be exacted those qualities of truth-speaking, of a high sense of honor, of granite discretion, of the strictest observance of fiduciary responsibility, that have, throughout the centuries, been compendiously described as "moral character.'"

Any thoughts?

Boy has got a pretty high opinion of their professional self :

Or Gal, as the case mat be.

"It is a fair characterization of the lawyer's responsibility in our society that he stands "as a shield," to quote Devlin, J., in defense of right and to ward off wrong. From a profession charged with such responsibilities there must be exacted those qualities of truth-speaking, of a high sense of honor, of granite discretion, of the strictest observance of fiduciary responsibility, that have, throughout the centuries, been compendiously described as "moral character.'"

Talk about bombast, but it is an attitude they are indoctrinated with.

"life, liberty and property" are in the professional keeping of lawyers.

Not mine. Lawyers have done a pretty good job of shredding "constitutional guarantees" over the years. My position is a little different. The Constitution acknowledges Rights, it doesn't "give" a thing as such Rights pre-existed.

My own Rights are inherent Personal Property. As such only I can claim them as belonging to me, not some some other re-presenting myself.

The Constitution is a Trust : http://www.The-Legacy.Info

Lawyer qualifications

Part of the problem is that in Michigan at least, and probably other states, to be licensed an attorney has to have graduated from a state accredited school and pass the state BAR exam. Years ago to be a lawyer all that was required was to pass the state licensing BAR exam. This tended to keep consumer's legal fees down, but now with only law school grads allowed to take the test, state licensed lawyers with a degree have a monopoly on the practice of law, and monopolies charge whatever they so choose. States should qualify lawyers by the BAR exam only. Any other qualifications must be moot.

In a free society anyone would be able to hang out a shingle and let the consumer choose who qualifies to practice law, with or without a degree.

There is supposed to be a separation of powers between the branches of local, state, and federal governments. How is it then that attorneys, as officers of the court, hold legislative and executive positions in all levels of government. Attorneys should be put in their proper place as advisers and not participants in non-judicial government activities. Lawyers in legislatures write complicated laws with esoteric wording to keep their hold on interpreting the law for consumers and getting unearned big, fat fees from doing so.

It only takes one to KEEP AMERICANS FREE. Know your duties & rights as a juror. Stop the unconstitutional conviction of innocents in federal custody. The Fully Informed Jury CALL 1-800-TEL-JURY www.fija.org IMMEDIATELY if not sooner. It's that important.

Amen

Amen

This may or may not have anything to do

with the cases involving delegates - read anyway.

Defeat the panda-industrial complex

I am dusk icon. anagram me.

Awesome thread!

I had to bookmark it : )

bump.

.

Eddie Kahn vs. the Unlicensed Practice of Law Branch of FL Bar

When I saw this posting I thought I'd share this interesting, and somewhat amusing, story involving Eddie Kahn vs. the Unlicensed Practice of Law Branch of The Florida Bar Association. It is a true story about how Eddie Kahn was accused of practicing law without a license by an "investigator" with the Florida Bar. But, when Eddie challenged the investigator's authority, the investigator admitted that he did not have a license to practice law. Therefore, Eddie filed a lawsuit against the investigator for purporting to practice law without a license. And they left him alone after that. LOL

This story appeared in the 7/1/03 edition of the now defunct TaxTruth Newsletter, which also showed supporting documents. I have a PDF copy of that newsletter, but I don't seem to be able to upload it through this forum.

For reference, Eddie Kahn was a fellow in central Florida who managed the now defunct business trust, American Rights Litigators (ARL), which operated to help people deal with their IRS problems. He was one of the co-defendants in the Wesley Snipes tax trial a few years back. I knew him personally. Despite propaganda portraying him in a negative light, Eddie Kahn was not a "tax cheat"; he was an honest, good-hearted man who truly felt that the IRS employed deceptive tax practices; and he did what he felt needed to be done, in challenging the IRS to try to help people. In the end, he got beat down for that.

But, this is a story about how he successfully dealt with someone purporting to be a government agent, exceeding the bounds of his authority. Eddie used to be a police detective back in the day, so his forte was doing investigative research.

In March 2000, Eddie Kahn received a letter from an investigator working for the Unlicensed Practice of Law Branch of The Florida Bar Association. The investigator stated the Florida Bar opened a file on him because of "concerns" about the way ARL conducted its business. Section 454.23 of the Florida statutes penalizes anyone practicing law in Florida without a license. So, the investigator demanded an investigative interview with Eddie to see if he was possibly practicing law without a license.

Eddie always preferred dealing with bureaucrats administratively as much as possible when attempting to resolve issues. So, in April 2000, Eddie responded via fax asking the investigator to produce a copy of HIS license to practice law. That’s because the investigator held himself out to be an enforcement officer of sorts, seeking to conduct an investigation on a private citizen. In order to do that, the investigator would have to have had a license to practice law among other things, so Eddie demanded to see his license.

In addition to demanding a copy of the investigator's license to practice law in the State of Florida, Eddie also demanded:

(1) A copy of the law that Eddie purportedly violated and the implementing regulation of the state agency authorized to enforce that law;

(2) A copy of the investigator's State ID that identified him as being an agent of the State of Florida and the name of the state agency he represented;

(3) A copy of a legal document giving the definition of "unlicensed practice of law"; and,

(4) A copy of the delegation of authority that allowed the investigator to open a file on and investigate a private citizen, such as Eddie.

Eddie asked for all that information under the Sunshine Laws of Florida, which is the state equivalent of the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). That was so he could establish whether the investigator was acting within the bounds of his authority.

Less than thirty minutes after faxing that letter, the investigator called the ARL office and left an angry message with Eddie's receptionist. He said, "You just tell Mr. Kahn that as soon as he shows me where I’m subject to the Sunshine Laws of the State of Florida, then I’ll be happy to give him everything he wants to know. But, until then the ball’s in his court!" And then slammed down the phone.

Eddie responded by faxing the investigator a copy of the Florida Sunshine Laws. He showed that all agencies of the Florida government are subject to those laws and basically told the investigator that the ball was now back in his court. At the time, Eddie explained that if the investigator truly was an agent of the State of Florida, then he would be subject to the Florida Sunshine Laws. If not, then that would mean he was just a private citizen who had no authority to compel Eddie to participate in an investigative interview.

The investigator did not give Eddie the documents he requested. Instead, he just sent a written response to Eddie’s April 2000 letter. The investigator stated that Section 454.23 of the Florida Statutes makes unlicensed practice of law a first-degree misdemeanor. He admitted that he did not have a State ID, nor did he have a license to practice law. Lastly, he stated that there is no legal document that defines "unlicensed practice of law".

Yet, despite all that, the investigator asserted that he had the authority to investigate Eddie for the unlicensed practice of law. Then he served Eddie with what appeared to be a subpoena issued from The Florida Bar. The alleged subpoena began by stating that Eddie was "commanded to appear" at the county courthouse, and threatened contempt of court charges if he did not appear.

At this point, the investigator set himself up for a lawsuit; he made Eddie’s entire case, in his response. First, the investigator stated that practicing law without a license in Florida is against the law. Therefore, he established that if a person engages in such activity in Florida, then they could spend up to a year in jail. Second, he admitted that he didn't have a license to practice law. That meant he subjected himself to criminal penalties for practicing law without a license, by trying to investigate Eddie. Third, he admitted that he did not have a State ID. That meant he did not represent a government agency, which meant he had no delegated authority to investigate a private citizen, such as Eddie. Fourth, when the investigator stated that there was no legal document defining "unlicensed practice of law", then how could he possibly know that Eddie participated in such activity?

Even without the investigator's statements and admissions, Eddie questioned how The Florida Bar could legally investigate him or issue a subpoena compelling him to perform. As fate would have it, Eddie had a copy of a letter from The Florida Bar dated March 1, 2000 where they admitted to their limited authority. It pertained to a matter unrelated to Eddie's situation, involving an attorney who formerly worked with ARL clients. The Florida Bar stated that they only have the authority to address questions of ethics. In other words, they only have the authority to investigate whether a member of the Bar is ethical in his or her law practice. Yet, that's not what Eddie's situation with The Florida Bar was all about, as he had never been a member of their union.

So, Eddie started doing his own investigation into The Florida Bar. One of the main questions that he wanted an answer to was whether it is a public or private organization. Therefore, he called some people who worked for The Florida Bar in Tallahassee, the Florida state capitol, and questioned them about it. A man whom he spoke with there said The Florida Bar is the official arm of the Supreme Court of Florida. Eddie asked him if that meant the organization is a state government agency. The man said, "No", but continued saying how the Florida Supreme Court created the Florida Bar. Eddie said when he heard that he thought to himself how they couldn't have it both ways. He thought how could the Florida Supreme Court create The Florida Bar with the Bar not being an official government agency, since the Florida Supreme Court is a state agency?

The next thing Eddie did was he went to the Florida Secretary of State’s office. He searched their records for the document authorizing the creation of The Florida Bar, but discovered that it doesn't exist. Then he went to the Department of Incorporations and the Department of Professional Regulations to see what they had only to find nothing there either. Therefore, according to Eddie, the Florida Bar doesn't exist as a legal entity. There is no documentation that gives them the authority to do business in the State of Florida.

Eddie said everywhere he went the people he talked to would just pass the buck. They would tell him to go to some other department or organization saying that they probably had the legal documents he sought. Eddie said he searched for all sorts of things. He searched for The Florida Bar's foundational documents, as well as their charter, which would show the limitations of the Bar's authority, etc. Yet, nobody had anything. Finally, after a half day of searching Eddie ended up back at The Florida Bar office in Tallahassee again. He spoke with an attorney there who kept pressuring him to reveal why he wanted such documents. Eddie wouldn't tell him why, but said he still had the right to obtain that information, to which the attorney agreed. Eddie then asked him whether The Florida Bar is a private entity or a public entity. The attorney responded saying, "Well, we're not public." Therefore, his answer implied that the organization is private, right?

Nevertheless, Eddie said it didn't matter whether The Florida Bar is public or private, as either way, an entity must have foundational documents. Verbally one can do nothing. An entity's foundational documents are what creates it and makes it something. The attorney in Tallahassee that Eddie spoke with, said the rules and regulations regulating the Florida Bar were the only things he could give him. However, Eddie responded to that saying those are things that are put together after someone creates an entity. The foundational documents creating an entity come first, whereas the rules and regulations on how a person is going to run the business, come second.

This sort of research solidified Eddie's suspicion that the investigator with the Florida Bar, was exceeding the bounds of his authority. Therefore, he consulted with a friend who is a former law professor about filing a lawsuit, who once endured a similar attack from The Florida Bar some years ago, as well.

Eddie filed a Title 42 action for declaratory relief, and sought damages totaling $450,000 from two natural persons and two entities. He sued the Florida Bar investigator, the investigator's supervisor, the Florida Bar and the State of Florida. Eddie delivered a copy of his lawsuit to the investigator on a Friday, but he was not there, so he just gave it to his secretary. On the following Monday, Eddie met with the investigator and found him to be very congenial. One of the first things he said to Eddie was that he did not like being sued. Eddie responded saying he was not too anxious about filing the lawsuit either.

However, since they were already into it, Eddie explained the reasoning behind why he filed it. The investigator had a court reporter in the room with him, so Eddie went into detail about his investigation into the Florida Bar, and other matters described earlier.

When the meeting between Eddie and the investigator came to a conclusion, Eddie basically told the investigator that he wasn't going to give him any information until the lawsuit was settled. As far as Eddie was concerned, if the investigator couldn't produce the documents that show the Florida Bar is a legally created government body, then they are a private body. Eddie said if they were a private body, then the Florida Bar wouldn't have an unlicensed practice of law case against him. A private body cannot subpoena someone to appear before a private citizen and compel that person to give them testimony.

There was already a case pending from the subpoena that the investigator sent to Eddie, or so he thought. Therefore, Eddie went to the court clerk's office and attempted to have the case removed to federal court. At the time, Eddie thought about going there to make a case that the investigator was impersonating a state officer or government official. He had a prepared removal motion with him ready to file when the clerk inquired about what case he sought to remove. Eddie pointed out the case number appearing on the subpoena.

However, the clerk told him that was not a court case number; it was just a Florida Bar number. Therefore, there was no court case to remove. Upon hearing that, Eddie immediately asked the clerk how the investigator could legally issue a subpoena and attempt to compel testimony from a private citizen, as he did. She didn't know. In fact, Eddie said there were three clerks there including the head clerk who tried to figure out how that was possible, but they could not. It seems that the Florida Bar operates entirely under the color of law.

Anyway, not long after Eddie filed his lawsuit, the State of Florida responded saying they were not a party to the suit because they were not involved. Therefore, they filed a motion to remove themselves from the case, stating that they had no standing. Eddie's former law professor friend responded for Eddie, by filing a motion with the court, allowing the State of Florida to be removed from the case, but only on one condition. The State would have to admit that the Florida Bar has no association with the Florida government. That way it would show that the Florida Bar has nothing to do with the judiciary. In other words, it would show that they are nothing more than a private entity.

That was where things got interesting. If The Florida Bar is associated with the Florida government, then that would have meant the State of Florida's claim was moot, for they would have been a party to the suit. However, if The Florida Bar is not an agency of the State of Florida, then that would have meant the State's claim of not being a party to the suit, was correct. Yet, the big question is: if The Florida Bar is not part of the Florida government, then who are they?

How could they legally issue subpoenas, as they did with Eddie? How could they have the authority to investigate anybody? For those reasons, Eddie was eager for the State of Florida to admit that they had no nexus with the Florida Bar. Eddie said if they would have made that admission, then he would have released them from his lawsuit. Yet, if they would have responded saying that was not true, then that could only mean they were a party to the suit. One thing was for sure: the State of Florida certainly didn't like either option.

Evidently, the State of Florida deemed remaining a party to the suit to be the lesser evil. They quickly reversed their position, by withdrawing their motion to dismiss. Of course, they couldn't admit that there is no nexus between them and the Florida Bar. Otherwise, the Florida Bar would have been in big trouble.

Even though there were four defendants named in Eddie's lawsuit, the only two people he really dealt with were the attorneys representing the Florida Bar and the State of Florida. Those lawyers filed motions to prevent Eddie from doing any discovery until the judge ruled on the State of Florida's motion to dismiss. Therefore, Eddie filed a motion to strike their motion, based upon the presentment that they were not licensed attorneys. That means they had no standing to file motions with the court.

Eddie pointed out that the essence of the whole case was that the license to practice law was an issue; you can't practice law without a license. Thus, Eddie kept his case right on point, by demanding that the judge force those attorneys to produce their license to practice law in Florida. Eddie's position was that there must be a license somewhere. After all, the Florida Bar investigator who started everything, accused Eddie of practicing law without one, and Florida law says you can go to jail for not having it. So, where were their licenses?

The final result of Eddie's lawsuit was that the judge entered an order to dismiss the case, because Eddie had not been harmed. When Eddie's former law professor friend reviewed the judge's reasoning, he agreed with her decision, Eddie said. It's just that Eddie was premature in filing his lawsuit. Therefore, Eddie's friend suggested that he should just drop the case. Then wait for someone to harm him in some way, such as if one of the attorneys tried to collect attorney's fees. If they did, then Eddie could reopen the lawsuit and go after them for damages.

Evidently, the Florida Bar decided they should leave Eddie Kahn alone after that. They never contacted him again.

Regardless of what you may think about this subject matter, the moral of this story is a testament to the importance of the administrative process and knowing your due process rights.

Good ol' Eddie :

Left an investigative process for everyone to outline and follow.

Admin Process is my fave. With Feds you've got Form 61 APPOINTMENT AFFIDAVIT ( generally known as a deligation of authority ) and the corresponding Form 61-B DECLARATION OF APPOINTEE acceptance of Appointment. States have these also.

IRS peeps get really antsy when asked for Certified Copies of these documents.

The Constitution is a Trust : http://www.The-Legacy.Info

I totally enjoyed reading this! thanks...

It was better reading than a fictional John Grisham novel! I can't beleive this really happened. Truth is stranger than fiction. After all Eddie went through I would figure others would have continued to hound the FL BAR and exposed it by now.

BAR stands for...

British Accreditation Regency

To be an, Esq. (Esquire) was and still is considered to be a, "Title of Nobility." The ORIGINAL 13th Amendment which was passed and ratified by the required number of states stated how lawyers and attorneys that held the title of Esquire, (Esq.) were NOT able to become public servants and serve as politicians in American society.

Imagine that...no lawyer was allowed to become a politician.

America's Founding Fathers were very smart lads.

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

Simply not true

And thusly: The list of lawyers that became presidents, without even bothering to look up the number of congressmen and senators.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/11/05/barack-obama-the-uss-44t...

Eric Hoffer

Lawyers don't even practice Constitutional Law

They practice Case Law.

What someone needs to do is go back and look further into who influenced the bar policy, who created the education system for these lawyers, because just like doctors, and police officers they revert to their training when they're under pressure.

Who co-opted the legal system ?

These are the real questions.

The Medical System was co-opted in the 1920's by the Rockefeller's and drug companies. They setup the training, education & licensing systems for doctors.

In the 1920's the Rockefellers co-opted the public education system.

____

"Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you." -- Patrick Dixon

ConstitutionHugger's picture

lawyers are just suckers like everyone else

I've always thought the high annual fees for my bar card was extortion. Plus continuing legal ed and, just for fun, throw in $120k in school loans. Was I given a secret handshake when I was sworn in? No, I am just a sucker like everyone else. You are way too paranoid if you think most lawyers are knowing agents of a foreign power. The vast majority of Americans are oblivious to the criminality going on in this country, including lawyers. You could say that school teachers, police, doctors, and the people who dump fluoride into the water are agents of a foreign power too. But are they all in on it?
I swore an oath to defend the Constitution and I meant it. I'm offended by your post- change the title at least.

Bump

Great post

☧ INSTINCTV • DIVINITATIS • MENTIS • MAGNITVDINE ☧

Hopefully your post stays in "Politics, General+Law(s)"

When I brought these dirt bags Attorneys up in this post here:

http://www.dailypaul.com/242260/this-is-why-you-should-never...

It very swiftly got moved to "Off Topic" like all my other very informative and remedial posts.

Good Luck to you Sir, this stuff needs to be on the "Front Page".

Bump

Bump

We have to relearn the law - agree

I was trying to remember the young man up in Alaska that made great strides. The "sovereign citizen" movement is growing too. We need to know about Color of Law, Jurists Rights & Nullification, Admiralty Law, what the yellow fringe on the flag means....

Anyway, thanks for the post - good topic. We also need to get up to speed on Posse Comitatus.

http://www.adl.org/mwd/common.asp
Common Law and Uncommon Courts: An Overview of the Common Law Court Movement

by Mark Pitcavage
The verdict of the county court was predictable. Caught driving without a license or proof of insurance, Sherry Scotka received a $350 fine from the Kerr County, Texas, court for each offense. But Scotka, during the stultifying summer of 1993, was anything but predictable. Acting as her own lawyer, she appealed the county court's decision, requesting that the Texas Appeals Court transfer her case to the "Common Law Court of the United States of America." Her argument? That as a "sovereign citizen" she was outside the jurisdiction of Texas law or Texas courts.

The appeals court did not look upon her request with favor, noting that she could not even show that the "Common Law Court of the United States of America" existed (1). This was not the first time that the Court of Appeals had faced this sort of peculiar argument. From the Texas hill country had come a rash of such claims in the past several years, all from strangely similar cases: traffic violations, foreclosures, frivolous suits. Brought to court, the defendants, usually operating pro se--that is, defending themselves--would demand that the case in question be removed to the "Common Law Court for the Republic of Texas." Finally, in 1992, the Appeals Court noted officially that there was no such thing. "We hold," said the court, "that the Common Law Court for the Republic of Texas, if it ever existed, has ceased to exist since February 16, 1846" --in other words, when Texas state government was organized. It was then that the defendant changed the transfer reference in her pleading to the "Common Law Court of the United States of America," although interestingly the address on the legal documents remained the same (2).

What the Texas appeals court was just beginning to perceive were the beginnings of a movement created by recalcitrant self-proclaimed "sovereign citizens" determined to wrest control of their lives back from all forms of government or authority. Appearing first in isolated spots in Texas and Florida, the notion of "common law courts" soon spread to Kansas and other farm states, then quickly across the nation. The "common law court movement," as it has somewhat clumsily come to be called, now exists in some form in every state in the country. In some states, activity is minimal; in others common law courts are a serious nuisance; in some, they are a plague on the judicial system. Although featured on television shows like "20/20," common law courts did not really breach the public consciousness until the spring of 1996, when FBI agents surrounded a frigid eastern Montana farm to wait out two dozen recalcitrant tax protesters that locals dubbed "freemen." In reality, however, common law adherents had been active for years in different areas across the country. Frustrated county clerks knew of the strange filings made in their offices; puzzled policemen encountered confrontational motorists pulled over for homemade license plates; irritated lawyers discovered that bogus liens had been placed on their property by court opponents. But there was little public awareness or understanding of the movement. The media reported that Oklahoma City bombing suspect Terry Nichols had declared himself a "sovereign citizen," but treated it as a random, bizarre act by a right-wing extremist, not as an action by someone consciously part of an ideological movement.

(Continued....) click link

RP R3VOLution

I'll bump this for importance to Liberty :

Those interested should find Rod Class's current work enlightening. Rod has challenged the establishment in court to prove BAR Attorneys have ANY congressional authority to be in court, let alone the exclusive agency permitted. Also to show that Private Attorney General designation holds no water.

Basically stating they are closed union shops in violation of several Congressional Acts.

07/18/2012 09:57 PM EDT 58:56 CONGRESSIONAL MANDATE ON PAG

07/24/2012 09:00 PM EDT 2:09:34 PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL

07/31/2012 09:00 PM EDT 2:17:10 N.C TAX CASE

http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=4...

The Constitution is a Trust : http://www.The-Legacy.Info

PLEASE...

Debate me - I dare you.

GET OUT OF MY COUNTRY!!!

FYI - I do not "practice" law - I LOOK IT UP and TELL you WHAT IT IS!

Thank You!!

I have felt for a long time that this information is key to what happened to our republic. I first learned of this while watching Michael Badnarik speak of the original 13th ammendment in his constitution class. You have filled in the blanks. Thank You. This must get out to the people!