Once again, Renada Nadine March leads the way onto the legal frontier in California. Here is Renada’s latest filing as of November 17, 2011 8-11-cv-01768-UA-SS March v Russell Complaint Filed in SACV11-01768 11-17-2011; it is directly related to our joint filing of September 30, 2011, in 8:09-cv-01072-DOC in response to Judge Carter’s Order to Show cause regarding the question of why the case was dragging on so long without being effectively moved forward (Case 8-09-cv-01072-DOC-E Document 86 Response to Order to Show Cause Filed 09-30-2011; Case 8-09-cv-01072-DOC -E Document 86-Part 1—Filed 09-30-2011; Case 8-09-cv-01072-DOC-E Document 86–Part 2—Filed 09-30-2011)
WHY DO SOME LAWYERS ACCEPT CASES AND THEN BETRAY THEIR CLIENTS? Is it “all about money” (i.e. stealing: accepting money for nothing) or is there an agreement to silent certain people and their positions through acceptance of representation?
Mandatory Membership in State Bar Associations is supposed to increase the quality of the profession. (see, e.g. A Reassessment of Mandatory State Bar Membership in Light of Levine v. Heffernan).
In reality, I submit and many (for example Milton Friedman, F.A. von Hayek, and other economists) would agree that the perfection of any monopoly protects the mediocre and incompetent members of the profession to the detriment of innovators and the sharpest experts, and subjects the profession as a whole to oppressive regimentation and mind-numbing conformity. The time has come to wipe the slate clean and remove the bar to creative advocacy and competent legal analysis independent of political power hierarchies. When elite block gradual evolution, bloody revolution becomes more likely, even necessary. It is a form of ordinary systemic readjustment to prevent stagnation and death—which is what we’re experiencing right now in America: socio-cultural and economic death because the legal monopoly has dug in and taken sides against the Constitution.
Judges are either political appointed and confirmed (in the Federal System) or elected politically (in most state systems, although most state Judges are in fact “appointed” and then subjected to uncontested, undebated, issue-free “retention elections” as a matter of political realpolitik and social fact—supported and bolstered by the “integrated bar” in each state). It is preposterous to suppose that individuals politically important enough to become Judges, or with friends politically important enough to make them judges, will be anything but partisan arbiters of cases. We live in a political society, and to pretend otherwise would be to engage in self-deception.
The genius of the American Constitution, however, was always and should always be to take the human condition as it is (full of sin, especially greed and envy) and make the best of it by structuring a government wherein no one group or faction could ever achieve too great an ascendency over another: and this then is the fundamental constitutional, cultural, economic, and social evil inherent in monopolistic practices of any kind. This anti-monopolistic structural-function (one could equally call it an anti-Monarchy framework with anti-Oligarchy safeguards) is the origin of the Separation of Powers doctrine advocated in favor of the Constitution throughout the ratification debates (see especially Madison, Jay, and Hamilton’s Federalist Papers) and which Separation of Powers doctrine was at the heart of most major Constitutional Litigation in the Supreme Court from its first session starting on February 1, 1790 through at least the Slaughterhouse Cases published at 83 U.S. 36, 100 U.S. 1, and 111 U.S. 746 in 1872-1884. The dissent in the first of those case may have gotten it right when stating that the Civil Rights Acts implementing the Fourteenth Amendment perpetuated the Common Law of England in condemning governmental interference with the obligation of contracts and to avoid state-created monopolies. The Slaughterhouse Dissent, and my own position, is that equality of rights, in the lawful pursuits of life, throughout the entire country, are privileges of the citizens of the United States. Certainly states may (up to a point) regulate health and safety issues within their territory (although I would say this should be done with a keen eye NOT to violate either the Constitution or the Common Law), but once enacted those regulations must be free to be followed by every citizen who is within the conditions designated—there can be no specially privileged classes, no monopolies, and yet that is EXACTLY what lawyers have become. Some have even suggested that the status now enjoyed by lawyers in the United States violates the Constitutional prohibition on titles of nobility, and there is much historical as well as socio-cultural and economic reality in that suggestion.
I myself have repeatedly advocated cutting back on the State Licensing of Attorneys and the State Licensed Monopoly created by “Integrated (i.e. Mandatory) Bar Associations” nationwide. Currently there are several live counts in 8:09-cv-01072-DOC pending in U.S. District Court in Orange County which attack the constitutionality of several provisions of California Civil Law as creating special status for attorneys (most pernicious of which is surely the Civil Conspiracy Exemption: §1714.10, but also obnoxious and injurious is the 425.16 prohibition on the filing of Lis Pendens except by attorney). But in the past I have advocated a more radical position which I think is in fact the correct one, see e.g.: 04-03-09 Complaint in Intervention Montana, 04-03-09 NOTICE OF INTERVENTION, Case 9-08-cv-00091-DWM-JCL Lincoln & Freiman Intervene in O’Neil Document 82 Filed 04-03-09, and Case 9-08-cv-00091-DWM-JCL Lincoln & Freiman Complaint in Intervention Document 82-1 Filed 04-03-09.
Right now in California, it seems that the Attorney General and the Bar are ganging up on attorneys who really and truly want to fight the foreclosure epidemic, as I pointed out last year in an open letter to the then Attorney General, now Governor, Edmund G. Brown. CEL to EDMUND G BROWN CAL AG 08-26-2010, CEL to EDMUND G BROWN CAL AG 08-26-2010.
The result is that the State Bar of California, like all State Monopolies, has become a source of stagnation and oppression. I submit that as a matter of Federal Law, Congress has the power to by statute enact that NO STATE SHALL INFRINGE upon, limit, or grant any monopoly or license to any person or group of persons to speak, write, regarding the effect or interpretation of the law or any other subject, and no State may grant any monopoly or license to any person or group of persons to petition orally or in writing, on behalf of themselves or of others, for redress of grievances. I think that pretty well defines and takes care of the practice of law, doesn’t it? The practice of law is NOTHING but the exercise of fundamental First Amendment rights.
I promise to propose and advocate such legislation every day of every session if I am elected United States Senator from California.
And yes, as everyone knows, I have the nerve to write all this criticism of the system either in spite of or (in part only) because of the fact that I was formally disbarred from three integrated bar associations, resigned from two others (State and Federal). I was once licensed to practice over most of the length of Interstate-10 from Jacksonville to Santa Monica, but on the order of Federal Judges sitting in Texas, but on the illegal or at the very least Constitutionally improper, oppressive and irrational order of two power-mad Federal Judges sitting in Texas, I have been jailed (without probable cause for any crime, but “just for a little talk”) at both opposite extremes of that same interstate for the purpose of being brought before their Honors Lynn N. Hughes and Janis Graham Jack in Houston (August-October 2006) and Corpus Christi (December 2007-February 2008). And in fact, the result of BOTH my interactions with Judges Hughes and Jack was JUST a little talk. I would think it were too incredible to believe if it hadn’t happened to me.
So if you think that the State Licensing of Attorneys is a system beyond reproach, you must believe that I am a very bad person. A convicted felon found (by a guilty plea no less) to have misstated two digits of his social security number in an application for a non-interest-bearing checking account at Wells Fargo Bank in November of 1996. Oh what a heinous crime! Oh shock, oh horror, oh dismay! Oh what will they think of next?
Ever since my experiences with the Honorable United States District Judges James R. Nowlin, Sam Sparks, and Walter S. Smith—Yes Nowlin,Sparks, and Smith are honorable; So are they all, all honorable men*—and especially since becoming closely acquainted with Family and Mortgage Law coast-to-coast, I have concluded that there is no single more destructive group in America today than licensed attorneys. It is often said that the 99% of that profession which is bad unfairly destroys the reputation of the remaining one percent, and I have known and worked with several in that one percent, even during the past ten years. But as a whole the legal profession is poisoned by the monopolistic practices which permit judges, in particular, to choose and regulate those who appear before them. This system is categorically wrong.
* The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault;
And grievously hath Caesar answer’d it.
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest, —
For Brutus is an honorable man;
So are they all, all honorable men, —
Come I to speak in Caesar’s funeral.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honorable man.
Julius Caesar, Act III, Scene 2: Mark Anthony’s Funeral Oration (Shakespeare).
If you would like to help the fight for “corny old values” like Truth, Justice, and the American Way, for Family, Home, and Freedom, and to add one Senator for the Bill of Rights and against Indefinite Detention, against the PATRIOT ACT, and against the use of United States Troops in this Country against its own citizens, please support Charles Edward Lincoln, III, for U.S. Senator from California. We are fighting one of the most entrenched establishment seats in Congress—Dianne Feinstein who tried to make cosmetic changes—and we ask you to send your check or money order to Lincoln-for-Senate 2012 to Charles Edward Lincoln, III, 952 Gayley Avenue, #143, Los Angeles, California 90024. Call 310-773-6023 for more information.