Professional Responsibility video topic, introducing the rules that bar non-lawyers from practicing law and describing a few settings where the enforcement of these rules is active.
There is no license to practice law. Infact the Constitution doesn't Grant you a lawyer, it only says you can get a legal advisor of your choosing. A lawyer is one who is an foc, a member of the BAR, the judge is a member of the BAR, the BAR is a private, for profit organization, not a constitutionally allowed one at that. Why would I deem myself a ward of the court, ignorant by acquiring paid council, if I can represent myself or with the help of other free citizens, present a competent defense/offense? Even if a lie is believed by everyone, it's still a lie. And putting a State name in front of the word BAR, is like saying that because the word federal in federal reserve makes either more than private for profit monopolies. Thanks 🙈 🙉🙊
The first amendment keeps freedom of speech and assembly. How does anything apply to two private individual non-lawyers coming together with a meeting of the minds perhaps with a contract/legal power of attorney. This is all for an exam at which it is conditioning and unconstitutional.
Attorney definition: To TURN OVER into the hands of another. Attorneys "practice" law; while the sovereign people "perfect" the law. How does the Sovereign "perfect" it? By fighting to keep it separate from the staged game by actors of the BAR that bring "legalism" and statutory regulations and codes and ordinances to confuse the actual "Law". Lex Mercantoria is the name of the game, and 27CFR 72.11 will confirm any suspicion, as it reads: ALL CRIME IS COMMERCIAL. The Law Merchant, Respondentia, Hypothecation ... Securities from negotiable instruments that come from the bond papers via the "defendant's" signature, which makes him the "accommodation party". As a defendant; you have just loaned out your signature as the party accepting liability for the charge being presented. They may use that signature as they please, attaching all kinds of commercial paper to your account; the JOHN Q. PUBLIC Trust Fund; the Social Security Account. Your Birth Certificate is on trial. That's the NAME they are calling as they ask if you "understand the charges against you"! You say "yes" .... game over! You just agreed to stand under those charges. Guilty=to pay / to be able to pay. Ever wonder why the pleas are not "guilty" or "innocent"; but "guilty" or "not guilty"? Guilt is from the word "guild", which is an ability to cover the expense. think about it ....
From what I've read, case law and such, the practice of law is a common right and can never be licensed, this guy is trying to feed us a whole of bs and hope we believe it
And how do I go about getting a license to practice law in my state oh that's right a private Corporation with a duns number parading as a public entity has that exclusive right... but the Constitution which you don't accept in an admiralty court says different.
Sims v. Ahrens, 167 Ark. 557, 271 S.W. 720, 721 (1925) This tax, in so far as it is not laid on the use of property, must be conceded to be a privilege tax. A tax on gross receipts such as this is necessarily a privilege tax, and the amount of such receipts is the measure of the value of the privilege. 31 L. R. A. 41; 45 Md. 361; 80 Ala. 99, 60 Am. Rep. 99; 35 S.E. 73; C. & M. Digest, §§ 9967-8; 119 Ark. 314; 160 Ark. 17. The effect and result must be looked to, and not the name, to determine the character of the tax. 128 Ark. 505; 153 Ark. 114. The Constitution of 1874, art. 16, § 2, limits taxation for State purposes (1) to taxes on property, and (2) to taxes on privileges. This clause was taken almost verbatim from the Constitution of 1836, and, under both, it has been uniformly held that the provision for taxing privileges limits the State only, not its subdivisions, such as cities and towns. 2 Ark. 291; 13 Ark. 752; 44 Ark. 134; 58 Ark. 609; 153 Ark. 114. From these cases it is seen that occupations which are of common right are not privileges, and cannot be taxed by the State, because this clause by limiting the State tax to privileges necessarily excludes taxes on all occupations which are not privileges. Since the act taxes all pursuits or means of earning money of every kind, all must be privileges, or otherwise the act is void. 160 Ark. 17; 70 Ark. 529; 153 Ark. 114. Since, also, all occupations are here sought to be taxed by the State, and the tax on all such occupations as are not privileges is void, the entire act is void, because the void and the valid parts cannot be separated. The word "privilege," as applied to occupations is limited to those which are subject to police regulation. 27 Ark. 629; 43 Ark. 82. A common-law right is not the creature of a license law. 61 Ark. 486. A license implying a privilege cannot possibly exist with reference to something which is right, free and open to all. 49 L. R. A. (Ill.) 412. See also 107 U.S. 365. The right to follow any of the common occupations of life or to earn one's living in any innocent vocation without let or hindrance is an inalienable right, secured to all those living under our form of government by the liberty, property and happiness clauses of our national and State constitutions. 170 P. 1; 111 U.S. 757; 70 L. R. A. 724; 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 894; 7 R. C. L. 55; 56 L. R. A. 558; 24 Id. 195; 48 Id. 265; 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 357; 34 Id. 433. The tax, in so far as it is levied on receipts from the use of property, such as rents on realty or personalty, or interest on money loaned, is a property tax, and void (a) because it is levied only on natural persons; (b) it is not levied on an ad valorem basis, and (c) it carries the amount of the tax beyond the constitutional limits for property taxes. 153 Ark. 114; 2 Ark. 291; 157 U.S. 429; 158 U.S. 601; 72 So. 891; (Miss.) 112 Miss. 383. The act is void because it discriminates against natural persons by exempting corporations. 85 Ark. 509, and cases cited; Judge Wood's discussion of the discrimination feature in the Severance Tax case, 160 Ark. 17. [PDF] Sims v. Ahrens - Truth Attack www.truth-attack.com/jml/images/stats/SimsvAhrens.pdf SIMS, State Comptroller, v. AHRENS et al. (No. 114.) (Supreme Court of Arkansas. Jan. 19, 1925. On Hehearing, l\lay 4, 19:!G. Rehearing. Denied l\lay 18, 1925.). for the above excerpt 2019.vlex.com/#vid/607597030
Not illegal just not liked cause your not playing there game. its not in the constitution so not a real law. Lawyers require everyone of them to convict on nonviolent crimes cause its a total fraud
notice i man reserve and retain all rights and waive none, non assumpsit, non presumsit, without prejudice and recourse, exempt from levy and void where prohibited. is man required to participate in commerce and or in colored courts? is man subject to colored opinions of administrative law judges? are administrative law judges appointed or elected? are administrative law judges bonded or insured? is color of law, law? who attempts to invoke the jurisdiction of this tribunal so that i may notice him if during this exchange i am harmed and or a trespass takes place? is man subject to the context of this topic sentence? does Wake Forest Law Curriculum, in the industry of selling educational materials for profit, have pecuniary interests in the promotion of this topic sentence? are statutes, codes, regulations, policy, etc., law? is man subject to statutes, codes, regulations and policy? on what lands do statutes, codes, regulations and policy apply? are statutes, codes, regulations, and policy the undoing of God's Law? has man authorized legal actors to act by way of legal fiction? are legal acts the exclusive method to move a court? are legal acts the exclusive method to press a claim in a court? has man authorized the legal community with informed consent? and if that is your determination can you please provide those facts here and now for this record? for this record must persons consent to be governed? have legal actors provided all elements of facts and or testimony by way of legalese, glossa, babble, and or braille? are legalese, glossa, babble and or braille, plain English? what is the intent of this topic sentence? is this topic sentence in place to steer man to believe the legal community is the exclusive method in a court? is this topic sentence an attempt to deceive man? has man knowingly elected to take any oath? has man elected to take any public oath of office? has man elected to waive any right? are attorneys and or lawyers officers of the court? has man elected to waive his right to mediation, arbitration, administrative process and or lien? please provide for this record any example of a license to practice law. has man elected to knowingly take any oath to occupy any public office? is it the intent of Wake Forest Law Curriculum to bring harm to man by way of trespass? I ask Wake Forest Law Curriculum, what is the if the above topic sentence? is Wake Forest Law Curriculum tone deaf to the public comments posted herein? does Wake Forest Law Curriculum believe that man has no skill to run his court in law, without legal means? does Wake Forest Law Curriculum have a professional responsibility and or moral duty to publicly distinguish between man and or persons, entities, corporations, ens legis, etc? govern yourselves accordingly. therefore in plain english, and for educational purposes, i ask Wake Forest Law Curriculum to publicly express and or compare and contrast precisely how man is separate and distinct from the legal realm of fictional characters. i kindly ask for performance within twenty one days (21). further i sayeth naught. godspeed.
