Know Your Constitution...

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Shoonra
I cannot find Hamilton or Madison or Jay saying that anyone had a Constitutional right to drive an internal combustion vehicle on city streets.

There are NO "Constitutional" "rights" Uncle Bernie, and you know it.




Study carefully and wisely The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, my friends, it may come full circle to be all the real Law we have left.

It may, perhaps, have already come full circle, however, "hope springs eternal," for better or for worse.


I cannot find Hamilton or Madison or Jay saying that any of OUR guaranteed republican forms of government had a Constitutional right to drive an internal revenue "service" on city-zens.

CLICK ON THE IMAGE ABOVE

All the Constitution does (or did, before Tory Loyalist bastard Esquires immediately set about to rend its very fabric, ironically, under color of "a-mend-ment") is subject agency of "government" (that very "government" IS "...this Constitution for the United States of America," in and of ITSELF) to absolute servitude under bond.

A republican form of government means a republic.

In a republic the administration of affairs is open to all CITIZENS©.

A court is a republican institution where affairs are administered.

You must administer your affairs of court yourself or waive this right.

MOST PEOPLE, myself included, thought that John signed the Great Charter of English Liberties and became good King John afterwards.

This is wrong.

As soon as John got the rebel barons to disband their armies he waged holy war against them for the rest of his life.

OUR CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA must be defended and we must defend it to the best of our ability.

When you invoke a court you must assert your jurisdiction to hold it and cannot let the judge usurp your judicial power.

This means you do not pay an attorney fee to him to conduct your court, you do not submit do***ents to him for his approval, you do not motion him to move your court, you deny everything he has tried to file and you strike anything that he has attempted to enter of record.

He will not like you.

You are not trying to make friends with him.

Without the judge you can eject attorneys and enter your own orders including a declaratory judgment if no other party appears for court in person.

If a few of us do this we can be hunted down and exterminated.

If thousands of us do this it may succeed.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Lawyerdude would be more properly known as ex-Lawyerdude. His name is Doug Palaschak, and he was disbarred in California. I think it had to do with drug use, but I don't remember for sure.

Anyway, he's an angry crank, just like Robert Clarkson, a former lawyer who got disbarred in South Carolina 30 years ago for pleading guilty to tax related felonies and who subsequently joined the tax protester/tax denier lunatic fringe.

Thank you sir, may we have another?



You're just upset and jealous because he is an American lawyer rather than a Tory Loyalist bastard Esquire attorney.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Lawyerdude would be more properly known as ex-Lawyerdude. His name is Doug Palaschak, and he was disbarred in California. I think it had to do with drug use, but I don't remember for sure.

Anyway, he's an angry crank, just like Robert Clarkson, a former lawyer who got disbarred in South Carolina 30 years ago for pleading guilty to tax related felonies and who subsequently joined the tax protester/tax denier lunatic fringe.

Glad to see you don't post opinion or non-relevant gibberish like Bernie.

Congratulations on your inability to comprehend the topic and subject matter at hand (no doubt a skill picked up through the years of pubic school education).

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Shoonra is well aware that the Constitution was drafted long before the internal combustion engine was invented.

He was having a little fun at your expense.

Neither Bernie or you are that clever...it was a typical off topic non-answer.

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Wise up, son.

Although you might believe many on here are one of your many bastard children, I assure you I am not.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The US Supreme Court saw police power and public safety considerations as entirely plausible for having laws for licensing drivers and registering vehicles.

Really? Then why is it that many states issued licenses without any competency requirements for years and years? No testing, just pay your fee and here's your license?

Why is it that for decades there were absolutely ZERO vehicle inspections with regards to safety of the vehicle?

You and lapdog have a penchant for making up things to suit your arguments which directly contradict historical facts.

Should we also bring to light how the states violate separation of powers when the executive branch are co-mingled with their own judicial tribunal?

[Lawdog]

The California State Bar website, at http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/....aspx?x=116708

gives a summary as to why Palaschak, aka Lawyerdude, was disbarred there.

DOUGLAS ANDREW PALASCHAK [#116708], 47, of Ventura was disbarred Nov. 11, 1995, and ordered to comply with Rule 955.

Palaschak was found culpable of ten different instances of practicing law while on interim suspension.

In its decision, the hearing department of the State Bar Court said, "nothing short of disbarment will serve the purposes of the disciplinary system."

Palaschak was placed on interim suspension in May 1992, following his felony conviction of possession of a hallucinogenic drug, LSD, which he ingested during his 1991 birthday party.

The court's review department vacated its interim suspension order in January 1994, when Palaschak's criminal conviction was reversed.

The superior court in Ventura had assumed jurisdiction over Palaschak's law practice in September 1993, but he regained control and his bar membership was restored in February 1994.

However, in August 1993, during the period of time he was ineligible to practice law, Palaschak extensively advertised his services as a bankruptcy lawyer and performed legal services.

Palaschak failed to participate in the current disciplinary proceedings and no factors in mitigation were presented in evidence.

In aggravation, Palaschak has a prior record of discipline. In March 1995, the hearing department of the bar court issued a decision finding Palaschak culpable of "other misconduct warranting discipline."

That decision involved eight consolidated conviction matters between 1989 and 1991, resulting from his failure to appear in court on 11 different occasions.

He was suspended for two years, stayed, with six months actual suspension and three years probation.

In May 1995, Palaschak was found culpable of numerous violations of the Business & Profession Code and it was recommended that he be suspended for five years, stayed, and placed on probation for five years, including two years actual suspension.

His refusal to participate in the current State Bar proceeding, prior to his entry of default, was considered an aggravating factor.

In its decision, the bar court said that Palaschak "has a serious problem respecting people in positions of authority, i.e. judges."

In addition, Palaschak "continued to send an unequivocal message: the law does not apply to him."

Hmm. He had an attitude that "The law doesn't apply to me. I am above the law."

Sounds like a typical "sovereign" citizen.

[Lawdog]

Clarkson's order of disbarment from the South Carolina Supreme Court was ordered published, so now it's immortalized in both South Carolina Reports and West's Southeastern Reporter. Way to go, Bob!

271 S.C. 5, 244 S.E.2d 512; In the Matter of Robert Barnwell CLARKSON, Respondent.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod and Asst. Attys. Gen. Richard B. Kale, Jr., A. Camden Lewis, George C. Beighley and Perry M. Buckner, Columbia, for complainant.

Henry D. McMaster, Columbia, for respondent.

May 15, 1978.

Per Curiam:

This attorney disciplinary proceeding was initially commenced against Robert Barnwell Clarkson, respondent, in July 1976. He was found by both the Panel and the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline (Board) to have engaged in unprofessional conduct as follows:

(1) he charged an excessive fee and attempted to bring pressure on a Mr. and Mrs. Norris to pay his fee (although not incurred by them) by filing a second action and a lis pendens against their property after the first action had been dismissed with prejudice; and

(2) he wrongfully withheld a welfare check from a Mrs. Lollis in order to harass her and extend pressure upon her to settle with his client.

The matter came to be presented to this court in June of 1977. Prior to our taking action upon the recommendation of the Board, two matters occurred in the United States District Court of South Carolina, of which judicial notice was taken:

(1) Respondent was indicted on 92 counts for causing to be presented to the Treasury, United States Revenue Service, an agency of the United States, claims, knowing them to be fraudulent, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, §§ 287 and 2.

(2) Respondent was on August 16, 1977, cited for contempt of court by the Honorable Charles E. Simons, Jr., United States District Judge.

On October 12, 1977, we filed an interlocutory order affirming the action of the Board in its finding that the respondent had engaged in unprofessional conduct, but withheld sanction pending exploration by the Board of the two matters which had occurred in the United States District Court. In that order we directed that: "The Board shall make its own determination of whether or not the two matters enumerated above constitute unprofessional conduct and, if so, what sanction should be imposed in the light of the proceedings already held and those to be held hereafter."

On October 26, 1977, an amending and supplementing complaint was filed against the respondent, charging further misconduct on his part by reason of charges made and the action taken in the United States District Court. Hearings were held in November, 1977.

By letter, dated February 14, 1978, to the Chief Justice, the respondent submitted his resignation as a member of the, bar. In that letter he stated: "Also, I have plead guilty in Federal Court to five felony counts concerning preparation of Income Tax Returns. Further, I have been found in contempt of Court in the US District Court." The offer of resignation was not accepted.

On February 17, 1978, the Executive Committee of the Board submitted its report to this court, recommending that the respondent be disbarred. This was consistent with the recommendations of the hearing Panel.


1 The matter came to be heard again before this court at the April, 1978, term. At the hearing, respondent's counsel indicated a desire to consent to disbarment as permitted by § 27 of our Rules on Disciplinary Procedure. Section 27 permits an attorney to consent to disbarment provided he complies with the rule. The respondent has, by a written instrument, consented to disbarment, but he has failed to comply with the rule and, accordingly, we proceed to dispose of the matter as though no attempt had been made to consent to disbarment.

2 At the hearing before us in the April, 1978, term, counsel stated to the court that respondent is now attempting to withdraw his guilty pleas to five counts entered in the United States District Court, and indicated that the contempt of court finding of guilty is now being appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The same has already been affirmed by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal.

Our finding of misconduct and the sanction hereinafter imposed does not hinge upon the outcome of either the petition to withdraw guilty pleas or the action of the United States Supreme Court since our findings are independent.

In the light of the history of this case, recited hereinabove, we deem it unnecessary to detail the evidence relative to the various offenses which have been proved to the satisfaction of the hearing Panel and the Board and/or Executive Committee. Suffice it to say that we agree that the respondent has been guilty of misconduct as an attorney, in violation of our Rules and in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and agree with the recommendation of the Executive Committee that the respondent should be, and he hereby is disbarred.

It is ordered that the respondent Robert Barnwell Clarkson return the certificate issued by this court, granting him the right to practice law, to the Clerk of the Supreme Court of South Carolina within five days after notice of this directive.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Hmm. He had an attitude that "The law doesn't apply to me. I am above the law."

That sounds like the typical lawyer or politician to me.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by FreeFromContract

Should we also bring to light how the states violate separation of powers when the executive branch are co-mingled with their own judicial tribunal?

Not to mention the junta in DC:

Supreme Court Rules
Rule 45. Process; Mandates

1. All process of this Court issues in the name of the President of the United States.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

The political-minded live in a world of circular arguments, and negative proofs.

If precedent is the only way to know the law, then how did the original case arise? Courts don't legislate, they rule on cases.

(reminds me of the catholic church- only THEY know the Bible, don't read it yourself. follow our "precedent"...but who taught THEM?)


Every case that was ever dropped is a precedent

Every case that failed is a precedent.

Every case that never existed is a precedent.


And while some cases may set a precedent, these are often later overturned on some new angle. Law is a constantly evolving body.

And it depends how these are applied, and where.

Every case is an expansion of the law. The question "is that legal", is utterly false. It calls for speculation.

The outcome will tell the answer, but the questions have first to be processed. Man's law is not a software program, like that message

"you have performed an illegal operation"

that sometimes flashes on the computer screen.

For example, contraband. Possession is criminalised, but subject to other laws, like the right to Privacy, or due process. The real question is, "in this case was there a violation of law?" Yes there are many precedents showing that courts have ruled contraband to be unlawful- but what counts is this case.

It's lawful to possess contraband without detection

It's lawful to possess contraband without admissible proof

It's lawful to possess contraband without any claim to the contrary. No one is randomly charged by a code-book; it takes an accuser.

Anything is lawful if the person stays free from conviction.

So I am waiting for the case cite from any state ruling that esquire attorneys are anything but a Waste Of Time...

but precedent tells me that already.