"If the judges interpret the laws themselves, and suffer none else to interpret, they may easily make, of the laws, [a shredded] shipman's hose!" - King James I of England, around 1616.

“No class of the community ought to be allowed freer scope in the expression or publication of opinions as to the capacity, impartiality or integrity of judges than members of the bar. They have the best opportunities of observing and forming a correct judgment. They are in constant attendance on the courts. Hundreds of those who are called on to vote never enter a court-house, or if they do, it is only at intervals as jurors, witnesses or parties. To say that an attorney can only act or speak on this subject under liability to be called to account and to be deprived of his profession and livelihood by the very judge or judges whom he may consider it his duty to attack and expose, is a position too monstrous to be entertained for a moment under our present system,” Justice Sharwood in Ex Parte Steinman and Hensel, 95 Pa 220, 238-39 (1880).

“This case illustrates to me the serious consequences to the Bar itself of not affording the full protections of the First Amendment to its applicants for admission. For this record shows that [the rejected attorney candidate] has many of the qualities that are needed in the American Bar. It shows not only that [the rejected attorney candidate] has followed a high moral, ethical and patriotic course in all of the activities of his life, but also that he combines these more common virtues with the uncommon virtue of courage to stand by his principles at any cost.

It is such men as these who have most greatly honored the profession of the law. The legal profession will lose much of its nobility and its glory if it is not constantly replenished with lawyers like these. To force the Bar to become a group of thoroughly orthodox, time-serving, government-fearing individuals is to humiliate and degrade it.” In Re Anastaplo, 18 Ill. 2d 182, 163 N.E.2d 429 (1959), cert. granted, 362 U.S. 968 (1960), affirmed over strong dissent, 366 U.S. 82 (1961), Justice Black, Chief Justice Douglas and Justice Brennan, dissenting.

" I do not believe that the practice of law is a "privilege" which empowers Government to deny lawyers their constitutional rights. The mere fact that a lawyer has important responsibilities in society does not require or even permit the State to deprive him of those protections of freedom set out in the Bill of Rights for the precise purpose of insuring the independence of the individual against the Government and those acting for the Government”. Lathrop v Donohue, 367 US 820 (1961), Justice Black, dissenting.

"The legal profession must take great care not to emulate the many occupational groups that have managed to convert licensure from a sharp weapon of public defense into blunt instrument of self-enrichment". Walter Gellhorn, "The Abuse of Occupational Licensing", University of Chicago Law Review, Volume 44 Issue 1, September of 1976.

“Because the law requires that judges no matter how corrupt, who do not act in the clear absence of jurisdiction while performing a judicial act, are immune from suit, former Judge Ciavarella will escape liability for the vast majority of his conduct in this action. This is, to be sure, against the popular will, but it is the very oath which he is alleged to have so indecently, cavalierly, baselessly and willfully violated for personal gain that requires this Court to find him immune from suit”, District Judge A. Richard Caputo in H.T., et al, v. Ciavarella, Jr, et al, Case No. 3:09-cv-00286-ARC in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Document 336, page 18, November 20, 2009. This is about judges who were sentencing kids to juvenile detention for kickbacks.

Friday, July 5, 2019

The Iron Man will not be jailed. On the desperate efforts of the attorney monopoly to claim it is still in control

On June 28, 2019 a remarkable thing happened in the God-blessed state of California.  Or, one more remarkable thing happens - California, especially of late, is home to a lot of "remarkable" things.

But, this one is truly unique.

The California State Bar, faced with the reality of existence and use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in provision of legal services, and with the resulting reality that legal services may be provided by AI-based platforms through the Internet, from beyond the U.S. borders, and from beyond the reach of enforcement of the so-called "unauthorized practice of law", drummed up a "task force" on the use of AI.  

And, this task force fell flat on its face in making some interesting, and public admissions.

Here is the agenda and recommendations of the "AI Task Force" of the California State Bar:

Note the very first point that the AI Task Force is making:

"Recommendation: The Task Force does not recommend defining the practice of law."


Unauthorized practice of law in California is a crime.  

All government regulations - as the U.S. Supreme Court has said LONG time ago, must be CLEARLY defined by STATUTE (not by court "rules").

You know why?  

The U.S. Supreme Court provided several reasons for it.

1.  If a law is not clear, it does not give clear notice, prior to conduct, to an average citizen how to lead a law-abiding life, what the citizen may or may not do.  Ex post facto laws are prohibited in this country by the federal Constitution.  A person may not be charged and punished if the government publishes an explanation, on a case by case basis, of why it was wrong to engage in a certain conduct, only after that conduct occurred.  

In this case, when "the practice of law", the CORE element of the crime of unauthorized practice of law, is not clearly defined, NOBODY can be charged with that crime, because nobody, including the regulators of the practice of law, know what the heck it is.

Thus, the California State Bar has acknowledged to the public that nearly for 100 years it engaged in an unconstitutional regulation of the practice of law, violating rights of the public to freely choose their consultants, document drafters and court representatives, and the rights of those providers to freely earn their living in their professions.

2. If a law is not clear, it does not give a clear directive to the executive and judicial branch as to how to enforce and apply it, allowing them to put into that law what they think it is - which is exactly what is happening with how the regulation of the "practice of law" is occurring - across the country.  

3.  And, third, since people normally prefer to stay out of prison, and when they know that the executive and judicial branch is applying a certain vague law in an ex post facto manner, on a case by case basis, so there is no way to predict whether doing a certain thing will or will not land you in prison, people try to censure themselves and restrict their lawful and even constitutionally protected activities, in order not to upset authorities and not to cross invisible lines drawn by authorities at a whim and backwards, in every case.

Acknowledging it is like shooting yourself in the foot - voila, dear public, we have been robbing you and putting you in jail for nothing for 100 years, rejoice.  

That this revelation is also made by a professional monopolistic organization that embedded itself into the government (California State Bar is a "branch" of the top state court) and blocks people's choice of any other court representative, or document drafter, or law consultant, than members of that organization - because they are the best, the most competent - is, in fact, proof that the claims of super-competence by this organization, as a basis of its monopoly, is false advertising.

Moreover, the idiots not only acknowledge that what they have been doing for 100 years is unconstitutional - but that they ARE prosecuting people criminally based on something they cannot define, and that they will now magnanimously give exception from prosecution - to an iron man, the AI, while it is not possible to jail software anyway.

Big of them, isn't it?

Also, consider that the idiots actually publicly acknowledged that they deem themselves LEGISLATORS as to what does or does not constitute a crime in the state of California.  All other crimes are defined by legislature, and only crimes against attorney monopoly are defined by the monopoly itself - constitutional rules of separation of powers and clarity of statutory laws be damned.

By the way, to institute a monopoly of any kind in the United States is also a crime - a federal crime.

But, attorney monopoly exists for 100 years, while its regulators are never prosecuted for this federal crime because - TADA! - FEDERAL prosecutors and judges, through their STATE law licenses, are all under control of that same monopoly.  Moreover, the majority of state and federal legislators are, too.  That is the "separation of powers" to you, the monopoly way.

But, but, but, but.

History is a sardonic bitch.  It allows travesties to continue, often for a long time, but then it nixes them - often in a very laughable way.

That laughable way history is nixing attorney monopoly is the whole reason why the AI Task Force was even created by the California State Bar.

Guess what - with the current level of technology the Iron Man does not need the magnanimous permission of the California State Bar to do what California State Bar cannot define, and to do it under the strict control of the California State Bar.  

The Iron Man can advise the California State Bar a variety of activities to entertain themselves with and do what the California State Bar fears it will do:

Putting such venture capital-funded AI startups outside of jurisdictions having attorney monopolies of their own, or agreeing with the U.S. to enforce or extradite those who are accused of violating the U.S. attorney monopoly - on a private island, for example - will topple attorney monopoly in the U.S. once and for always, without any need for legislative reform that is not possible, given that the majority of legislators are lawyers, and are thus, under control of that monopoly.

An island in the ocean and an AI startup fed by venture capital.

Very doable.

California State Bar standing in the way of a hurricane and pretending it allows the force of nature to hit just a little bit, here and there, but not everywhere - is a joke.

No comments:

Post a Comment