[hardtoremember]

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 issue of licensing and also section 9 of the California State Constitution. Look these over to see if you can tell were the clues are and 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 appear straight forward until the jurisdictions are compared. The jurisdiction “California”, means the de jure California Republic as described in the 1849 California Constitution. The jurisdiction “in this State”, per California Revenue and Taxation Code, means the de facto federal territory under control of the District of Columbia, a.k.a., United States (See What is United States?).


PERSONS

Since the bankruptcy in 1933, in this state signifies the federal “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 California has went out of legal existence in 1933, § 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.”


THE CORPORATION THAT IS NOT

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 the California State Constitution and the California State Bar Act, § 6001, which both 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 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 flat out that one may be certified to the 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 so called “license to practice law” is still in force and is just like the one issued in the de facto State of California. The only possible license to practice law, the certificate of admission, is the real “license”.


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 apposed 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?