|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
Table of Contents
A tribute to 3 brilliant and dedicated lawyers: i
Professor David Harrell, a brilliant and dedicated scholar. i
Ventura Lawyer Steve Powell - the jury remembered his name and believed him. i
Ventura Lawyer Robert Schwartz - best cross examination I have ever seen. i
Tables of Authorities cited herein: viii
Cases cited herein: viii
Statutes cited herein: xiv
Rules of court cited herein: xiv
Annotations from Supreme Court Reports, Lawyer's Edition. xv
Pertaining to Overbreadth, Clear and Present Danger Test and 1st Amendment Rights of Lawyers:
xv
56 L Ed 2d 841. Licensing and Regulation of Attorneys as Restricted by Rights of Free Speech, Expression, and
Association under the First Amendment.
xv
Pertaining to Criminal Rights in general as outlined in Argersinger et al. xv
ALR Annotations xv
Annotations from Supreme Court Digest xv
Other Treatises cited herein: xvi
The Magna Charta, Constitutions and other ancient bills of rights cited herein: xvii
The genesis of this Analysis 1
Briefs, Motions, and Jury Instructions that I filed in my 1999 case: 1
Partial List of Motions written in defense of writing a petition 2
Ventura Judges Select Other Judges Who are Weak, Poorly Educated, and Biased 2
Ventura Judges are Disproportionately Former Employees of the District Attorney 2
The California Bar has attempted to abridge our right to speak and write 3
Our Law Schools haven't a clue because they have some pathetically weak faux professors
3
Steve Pell 3
Mike from Steve Pell's office 3
Judge Art Gutierrez 3
Licensing of the right to speak is proscribed by the 1st amendment 3
I contend that disbarment must be prohibited or curtailed because it is used as a tool to chill the speech of dissidents like me. 3
Our 1st Amendment Right to Association: United Transportation Workers (Teamsters) v Michigan Bar and that line of reasoning holds that the bar may not interfere with people who are trying to vindicate the civil rights of their associates. 4
Leading Cases Vindicating our self-evident right to associate and communicate 4
About 1450 Gutenberg invented the printing press and within 100 years Star chamber circa 1556 passed statutes requiring a license to print. 6
Our 1st amendment is written against a background of licensing of the right to print and licensing of lawyers is nothing more than licensing the right to print where it is most important - and licensing the right to speak - and the first amendment says that these right and the right to petition for redress of grievances shall not be abridged. The state bar act abridges them and is unconstitutional. 6
The Supreme Court of California talks about its inherent power to discipline lawyers. There is no such inherent power!! However, we do have an inalienable rights - - and the California Supreme Court oversteps its bounds when it attempts to curtail my right to speak. 6
This oppression in the name of the bar's inherent power is a product of the age of robber barons.
6
Scope of this Treatise: 1999 Trial; Upcoming 2001/2 Trial. 6
Everybody (hyperbolically speaking) living now mistakenly believes that the bar may abridge speech despite the clear wording of the California and U.S. constitutions - but if we had lived as long as corporate ficta we would never have let this happen; things like this happen by generation - after the last remaining mortal human objector has died. 7
Bar's only legitimate function is testing and admission - and maybe disbarment for something grievous. 8
Lawyers may not lawfully be compelled to be super-citizens - because citizens merely define themselves by how well they serve corporate ficta! Furthermore, it is a denial of equal protection. 8
Issue #1 Any attempt by the state bar or the court to restrain Palaschak's speech constitutes unlawful prior restraint in violation of Near v Minnesota (1931) 75 L. Ed. 1357; 283 U.S. 697; 51 S. Ct. 625. 8
Issue #4 Any subsequent criminal prosecution violates the 1st amendment. 9
Issue #5 The state bar act is unconstitutional as an abridgement of freedom of speech and press. 9
Issue #6 The state bar act as applied to Palaschak violates a multitude of constitutional precepts. 9
Brief non-exhaustive summary of Palaschak's oppression by the state bar: 9
Fundamental constitutional Law: A void act is void ab initio. Marbury v Madison. 11
Brief Remembrance of Outspoken People's Lawyers Previously attacked by the bar 11
Attorney William Kunstler 11
Attorney Steven Yagman 11
Attorney Melvin Belli 12
Attorney Marvin Mitchelson 12
List of Players in the Battle to Free the Human Lawyers 12
On the Side of Freedom 12
Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark 12
Attorney Steve Yagman 12
Attorney Gentile of Nevada 12
Attorney Douglas Palaschak 12
Attorney William Kunstler, now deceased. 12
Attorney Harold Perry made emancipation of human lawyers his life's work, but failed to buy a computer and lost touch with the world. 12
Our Opposition: The Oppressors, the shills of corporate ficta and instruments of oppression
12
Diane Yu. 12
List of the Top Ten most pertinent cases: 12
The Methodology of Oppression of Human Lawyers by Corporate Ficta 13
Depublication is ultra vires legislation by a court and violates stare decisis. 13
The efforts of Hyperlaw to eliminate monopolistic activities of West Publishing. 13
The Age of Communication is freeing us from biased reporting of decisions. 13
Effect Depublication by shuffling the forum 13
Oppressive Admission to the federal court is controlled by federal local rules - an example of power grabbing and
oppression at the highest level. Congress shall make no law abridging speech - and the judges shall make no laws
period. Also, the federal constitution does not give anybody the right to prohibit speech or regulate the practice of
law in the federal courts - and to the extent that California constitution requires membership in the state bar such
violates the nobility clause - and others - and maybe was only added in the constitution of 1949.
14
Debunking Legal Fictions: You have a right to eat and distribute illegal pills and to do other private things - including writing things for people - and you have a right to speak in public - even in court. Penumbra doctrine - also known as double delta theory in integral calculus. 14
Debunking legal fictions: Ignorance of the Law is a Defense. Related Defense is "I contest the Law"
14
State Bar Taint is an Unconstitutional Bill of Pains and Penalties - Like a Bill of Attainder 14
Just as in Criminal cases, each litigant is entitled to show the court what is behind the judicial decisions that would be an element in curtailing his rights at the instant hearing. All presumptions of regularity are legal fictions. 15
Issue #7 Palaschak contends that his 1992 misdemeanor conviction and subsequent disbarment were unlawful and void ab initio being fruits of the forbidden tree. The presumption of regularity has been destroyed by subsequent actions of Matz - and for other reasons - and the issues is always there because ___ says that the evidence shall not be used for any reason. 15
The Lawyer's Right to effective assistance of counsel at Bar Hearings 15
Issue #8 Palaschak's purported suspension and/or disbarment are void ab initio because the equal protection clause and Argersinger imply that B&P 6085 be interpreted to require appointment of counsel for those who cannot afford it. Palaschak demanded appointment of counsel at his bar hearing and pseudo hearing officer David Wesley erred in ruling that indigents are not entitled to appointed counsel in bar cases. 15
Issue #9 Even the test books are confused (or perhaps obsequious to the bar) and list in the annotations to 6085 cases that were overruled by the U.S. Supreme court specifically an by implication. A 1902 case, Vaughn comes to mind. 16
Issue #11 The bar denied Palaschak his right to confront and cross examine witnesses by banishing him from the hearing for 1.5 days during which time it took testimony from witnesses. 16
Issue #12 Over Palaschak's objection the bar hearing officer, an employee of the prosecutor used evidence stolen from Palaschak's office 16
Issue #13 The bar failed to comply with discovery. Palaschak submitted detailed and significant special interrogatories that were arrogantly ignored. 16
Counsel of choice 16
Palaschak is uniquely qualified to handle the issue of unlawful disenfranchisement by virtue of his having sued the California Supreme court in federal court on precisely this issue for another client - which is precisely why Palaschak is disenfranchised today - retaliation by the Supreme Court who should have recused itself due to conflict of interest, personal interest, and the implied bias, and the appearance of impropriety and actual impropriety. 17
Issue #14 Palaschak's disenfranchisement is a badge of honor because it was imposed unlawfully by the California Supreme Court after he sued them. At every step of the way he has vindicated just licensing issues in the face of oppression by corporate ficta. It is his unlawful disenfranchisement that gave him the motivation to research the issue for 8 years. His disenfranchisement is precisely what makes him the lawyer best equipped for this task! 18
Overbreadth pertaining to the rights of attorneys and others. 19
History of Oppression of Lawyers by Corporate Ficta and other tyrants 19
Backpedaling by the bar: Things that were illegal even for licensed lawyers during the window of bar oppression 20
Being a woman. 20
Being black. 20
Living in another state - Piper, N. Hampshire v (1985) 84 L Ed 2d 205 20
Advertising 20
Talking about a case with the press. 20
Soliciting 20
Okay, advertising is permitted, but not direct mail solicitation. Wrong. 20
Talking to jurors 20
Speaking in court after being convicted of failure to appear on traffic tickets and eating LSD.
21
Things that were illegal in England without a license 21
Printing! 21
Things that were illegal for lawyers before the 1st amendment - and even after for a while.
21
Seditious libel - Speaking out against the government. 21
California Supreme Court had a personal interest in the case. Palaschak was counsel for a lawyer who sued the California Supreme Court. The court retaliated and purported to take Palaschak's license but the taking was void ab initio for a multitude of constitutional infirmities. 21
Methods of Oppression: Punishing the lawyer for the sins of the client 21
Double Jeopardy and the beginning of the recent attack on human lawyers by corporate ficta
21
Overbreadth cases pertaining to lawyers and others 21
Condon, Estate of (__1998) 65 Cal App 4th 1138, 21
Baird v State Bar of Arizona (1970) 27 L Ed 2d 639, Annotation @953 Subject: Overbreadth.
21
Bates v Arizona (1977) 53 L Ed 2d 810. Legal Clinic Advertised. 21
Cohen v California (1971) 30 L Ed 2d 124. "Fuck the draft" 22
Doran v Salem Inn (1975) 45 L Ed 2d 648. Overbreadth. 3 stripper bars. 22
Erznoznik v City of Jacksonville ( ) 45 L Ed 2d__. Overbreadth. Baby's butt 22
Ficker v Curran 950 F Supp 123, Affirmed at 119 F3d 1150.Attorney solicitation. 22
Houston v Hill (1987) 96 L Ed 2d 390. Pick on somebody your own size. Overbreadth. 22
Keyishian v Board of Regents (1967) 17 L Ed 2d 629, 385 U.S. 589. Pedler registration. 22
McSurely v Ratliff (1967) 282 F Supp 848 (E.D. Ky. 1967). Anti communist law. Raid. 22
Deprivation of License Requires Prior Due Process; It is a property interest. 23
In Re Ming 469 F 2d 1353 (7th Cir. 1971) Even federal court rules must render due process.
23
Bell v Burson (1971) 26 L Ed 90, 401 US 535 State cannot take a driver license without hearing.
24
In Re Crow (1959) 3 L Ed 2d 1025-27. Annotation 3 L Ed 2d. Essentially overruled by Ming.
24
Lawyers Practicing in California with no California Bar License 24
The multitude of classes of non lawyers permitted to practice law in California 24
Any next friend can apply for a writ of habeas corpus. 24
Non lawyers can be executors and administrators in probate court. 24
Non lawyers can appeal decisions of the workers compensation board on behalf of clients? 24
Non lawyers can appeal decision of social security board on behalf of clients? 24
Cases Applying the Clear and Present Danger Test to Lawyers and others 24
Brandenburg v Ohio (1969) 23 L Ed 2d 430, 395 US 444, 89 S Ct 1827. Clear and present danger not there for Klan speech. 24
Bridges v California (1941) 314 US 263, 62 S Ct 194. Extremely Serious and Very Imminent test
24
Craig v Harney (1946) 91 L Ed 1546, 331 U.S. 367. Criticism of judge not clear and present danger. 24
Debs v U.S. (1919) 63 L Ed 566, 249 U.S. 211. 1917 draft objector. 25
Gentile v State Bar of Nevada (1991) 115 L Ed 2d 888. Nevada bar act unconstitutional. 25
Relaxed Standing to Defend Fundamental rights such as Equal Protection. Vicarious Standing.
25
Cases Pertaining to Rights of Prisoners to Access to the Courts 25
Revisisions and additions yet to be made. 26
Index: 28