- conflicts of interest in court representation of the lawsuit here;
- conflicts of interest in composition of the Board of Directors and staff of NWIRP here;
- conflicts of interest regarding assertion that one-time ghost-writing for clients somehow serves clients' best interests here.
Yet, the Washington State AG prefers not to prosecute NWIRP's "legal advocates" for "notario fraud", but instead gives NWIRP money for snitching - through "cy pres grants" no less, while installing into NWIRP an attorney to discharge a function of a de facto Washington State Assistant Attorney General, which is, of course, an illegal act of sub-delegation of the Attorney General's power to a private non-profit, in exchange for
- squashing the non-profit's competition;
- non-prosecution of the non-profit for their own "notario fraud" acts;
- giving the non-profit money in exchange for their snitching;
- giving the non-profit the status of a de facto Assistant Attorney General, by placing a paid attorney on its staff with the functions of the Assistant Attorney General, and
- even referring clients to that non-profit.
Considering, once again, that two of the State of Washington's high-ranking employees are on the Board of Directors of the non-profit - regulated by the State of Washington - the relationship is more than murky.
It is even murkier that, while asserting the interests of the State of Washington in this litigation, the State of Washington did not attempt to intervene as a party.
But, the elephant-in-the-room question, and especially for the State of Washington is - when the challenged rule in litigation is a FEDERAL rule regulating practitioners in front of a FEDERAL agency, what the heck may be the State of Washington's "state interest" in such regulation?
Isn't it a crystal clear case of separation of what state government does and what federal government does?
Isn't the State Attorney General of the State of Washington trying to butt into what the state of Washington has absolutely no right to regulate - appearances in representative capacity in front of a federal agency?
And isn't the State Attorney General of the State of Washington, in order to cater for its pet non-profit, wasting taxpayer money (of state and federal taxpayers) by supporting a frivolous lawsuit against the federal government in their official capacities, thus suing all of us, American taxpayers, to block the federal government from providing a BENEFIT to the immigrants in immigration proceedings?
The rule that the State AG is opposing (by supporting the NWIRP lawsuit) is a federal rule created to do the same thing as the State AG paid NWIRP $125,000 for doing - fighting the "notario fraud". How does all of this make any sense - other than that the name of the Defendant is Jeff Sessions, and thus any frivolous lawsuit against him must be allowed to the pro-Clinton lawyers as a matter of right?
Let's ask the question again - what is the State of Washington's interest in regulating representation in federal agencies?
The State AG has the audacity in claiming, in his amicus brief, that the FEDERAL rule regulating appearances of representatives in FEDERAL immigration proceedings in front of a FEDERAL agency allegedly violates the 10th Amendment right of the State of Washington to regulate the practice of law IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON.
Apparently, such a claim can be made only to an extremely "sympathetic" judge - because any fair judge doing his job would have tossed such a claim, with sanctions.
First of all, the federal agency allows to practice in the immigration courts the following individuals:
- accredited attorneys in good standing;
- accredited non-profits and their employees who are separately accredited with the courts (which NWIRP's multiple employees are not);
- law students;
- parents and/or legal guardians of children who are subject to immigration proceedings;
- "reputable persons", by permission of immigration courts.
- dishonest and/or
- States may not interfere with how federal government regulates practice in federal agencies. So, the State of Washington has NO interest whatsoever in how federal immigration courts regulate their representatives - and claiming that such regulation affects "residents" of Washington State (illegal aliens) - does not create any state interest; creating a statute, as the State of Washington did with lobbying of its AG and NWIRP, on the subject of fighting "notario fraud" in FEDERAL proceedings does not create such a "state" interest either, as federal law pre-empts inconsistent state law;
- practice in front of federal agencies where lay representation is allowed is not "the practice of law";
- what constitutes "the practice of law" is not clearly defined in Washington State by statute; the ad hoc court rule that may change, in arrears, the definition of the practice of law, does not give constitutional notice of what is being regulated, so the ENTIRE regulatory scheme in the State of Washington is unconstitutional;
- the AG is challenging the federal disciplinary regulation for practitioners that is meant to fight "notario fraud" - which is what AG is claiming he is doing, too - and the lawsuit so far succeeded to stop this federal regulation, and thus lift the supposed protection against "notario fraud", which doesn't make any sense;
- how did the State AG end up supporting plaintiffs in a civil rights lawsuit challenging an attorney/practitioner disciplinary rule, when the same State AG is habitually representing DEFENDANT Bar of the State of Washington in challenges of attorney disciplinary rules by disciplined attorneys;
- the AG is challenging only ONE federal disciplinary rule for practitioners in front of immigration courts, while not arguing that the ENTIRE federal regulation of practitioners in immigration courts is the domain of the State of Washington, and such a selective challenge is illustrative in view of AG's connections with two Board Directors of NWIRP and AG's financing of NWIRP and mutual efforts to help each other in and out of court.
- the General Rule 24 (court rule regulating "the practice of law" in the State of Washington);
- the state statute seeking to fight "notario fraud" that Washington State AG relies upon as his "state statutory interest" in fighting "notario fraud" - without joining the lawsuit as a party, and
- the federal regulations regarding the practice in representative capacity in immigration courts -
Also note that the State Attorney General is claiming that unauthorized practitioners' clients are "victims" of "notario fraud", without regard to the quality of provided services.
And, please, note that the State Attorney General (political supporter of NWIRP's Director Teresa Mosqueda) and, "coincidentally", a sponsor of a state statute to fight "unauthorized practice" of "immigration law" (which must be enforceable by the federal agency and not the states), claims in his own press-release that what he is prosecuting is "peddl[ing] assistance completing immigration forms and navigating immigration processes that legally can only be provided by qualified attorneys and accredited representatives".
Of course, the Washington State AG does not explain two interesting things:
- how come "legal assistance" provided by non-accredited non-attorneys working for NWIRP (Washington State AG's paid snitch against competition) do not constitute "notario fraud"
So, the Washington State AG is claiming that ANY representation by a person who is not a "qualified attorney" or an "accredited representative", including help in "completing immigration forms" and in "navigating immigration processes" constitutes a "dubious service" that must be prosecuted - to protect "consumers" no less.
Yet, NWIRP's "legal advocates" somehow do not fall into this definition, or rather, Washington State AG does not enforce legislation against his friends and paid informants.
- while fighting enforcement of federal immigration laws through a lawsuit against President Trump's executive order;
- while fighting enforcement of federal immigration laws by fighting prohibition on discretionary disbursements of federal funds against "sanctuary cities" because they disobey federal immigration laws, and REFUSING to enforce federal immigration laws;
- the State of Washington suddenly claimed an interest in ENFORCING federal immigration law in fighting "notario fraud" - in an interesting way, while fighting in court, a disciplinary rule that was devised to PREVENT that same "notario fraud" in immigration proceedings?