California bar: Illegal immigrant should get law license

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Of course our rights are not 'granted', thank you for pointing out my error. Jury nullification is a subject I'm ignorant in, however, I did find this interesting statement on Wikipedia;


The main deontic issue involved in jury nullification is the tension between democratic self-government and integrity. The argument has been raised that prosecutors are not allowed to seek jury nullification, and therefore defendants should not be allowed to seek it either.


I would enjoy reading more of your opinions on jury nullification.




posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I have always enjoyed reading your legal interpretations on here. Judging by the vast array of learned exchanges not only on this topic but others as well. You sir are probably far more knowledgeable about the topic of law than I. Please forgive me, but I am not following you?

No one is saying this man cannot consult on legal matters, but when it comes to actual representation in a court of law? He must have a license. At least to practice in California. Moreover, being a practitioner of law is considered a job. Therefore, legal residency is required. That is accordance to federal law, and I hope the Bar Association would take that into account when performing their vetting process? To my understanding taking and passing the bar is part of it, but a thorough background check is initiated as well. Please indulge me with your knowledge on the matter. Thanks for the great reply!



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by type0civ
 


The people have the right to not only judge the facts, but the law itself. No jury panel has ever been imprisoned, or charged with any crime for nullifying legislation and rendering a not guilty verdict in spite of the facts. This is so because jury nullification is a right.

The disingenuous explanation Wikipedia gives is blatant in its deceit. Why would any prosecutor prosecuting a crime seek to nullify the very legislation that made it a crime to begin with? It makes no sense at all.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Jakes51
 


I don't understand the issue? Do they have a requirement that one must be a US citizen? It wouldn't make much sense to have such a rule, I'm sure there are plenty of foreign national lawyers. I think he should get his law license.

Now, tax evasion is another issue altogether! Once he has his license and receives his first paycheck, him and his employer should both be arrested.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Jakes51
 





No one is saying this man cannot consult on legal matters, but when it comes to actual representation in a court of law?


You have the right to face your accusers, which means you are sitting right in front of the judge when he asks who "represents" the accused. Since you are right there, why do you need any "representation" at all, and since you have the undisputed right to assistance of counsel, why is a judge asking who "represents" you?

There are or can be compelling reasons as to why certain profession must be licensed. However, in order for that state granted license to be valid, the professions must be involved in something that would otherwise be illegal.

Private detectives snooping on people, and if need be firing weapons, or some other form of martial art is a compelling reason for a licensing scheme. The transportation of toxic materials is another compelling argument for a licensing scheme. Surgery is another compelling reason for a licensing scheme. It is reasonably understood that snooping on people without their consent is illegal, that transporting toxic materials is illegal, and that cutting open a persons body and sticking your hands and other instruments into that body is illegal. Thus, licensing schemes to allow for certain professions that offer compelling reasons as to why snooping, transporting toxic materials, and surgery are necessary. Practicing law is not illegal.

What is illegal should be so because the action causes demonstrable harm when acted. Digging through a persons trash can without their consent with the intent to use the knowledge gained from that against the owner of the trash can causes demonstrable harm, and so if there is a compelling reason to do such a thing, it should be licensed. Transportation of toxic materials does not in and of itself cause demonstrable harm, but in the event of any accident the consequences of such an accident can be so dire and cause so much harm as to make it understandable why such an action would be deemed illegal, and any compelling reasons as to why toxic materials should be transported, should also be licensed.

A long held common law principle is: Ignorantia juris non-excusat. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. You cannot enter a plea into any court that you did not know that such and such was against the law. This defense will not work. If you are expected to know the law, why is it you need a licensed lawyer to explain it to you?

I'll answer that: You need a licensed lawyer to explain the "law" you are expected to know, because shortly after licensed attorney's were invented, it was licenses attorneys who began influencing the legislative process, to ensure that you cannot possibly understand the plethora of legislative acts criminalizing, regulating and intruding upon your life. Of course, ignorance of the law still remains a legal principle. This may seem like a contradiction, but there are no contradictions and when presents itself it is time to check the premise.

Checking the premise, we turn right back to licensing attorneys. Attorneys need only serve as competent assistance of counsel, but when they become necessary to explain "law" to any lay person, then this "law" is merely legislation parading as law and acting under color of law and the only thing that gives it any validity is the acquiescence of the people to the collusion between licensed attorneys and the state.



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Y have i not heard about this until now...? I bet he's cheaper than all the other attorneys, Im gonna have to fire my attorney and hire this guy... SIMON



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by benrl
reply to post by Jakes51
 


I dunno, Im all about merit.

He did this on his own Merit, he met the requirements.

If he can pass the bar why not.

I don't fear illegals like some on here do though.

edit on 19-6-2012 by benrl because: (no reason given)


If you are going to break the law, why should we allow you to practice it?

Those actions get lawyers disbarred and charged....



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
If you are going to break the law, why should we allow you to practice it?

Those actions get lawyers disbarred and charged....


I know we don't see eye to eye on many things xcath...but I could not agree more with you on this one. Star.

edit on 19-6-2012 by HandyDandy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Night Star
 


Exactly, because no lawyers:

Drink and drive
Use illegal drugs
Beat their wives
Kill people
Use bribery


So clearly all of our lawyers are being made a mockery by this hard working "illegal" immigrant! How dare he have THEIR unwarranted privilege!



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by cetaphobic
reply to post by Night Star
 


Exactly, because no lawyers:

Drink and drive
Use illegal drugs
Beat their wives
Kill people
Use bribery


So clearly all of our lawyers are being made a mockery by this hard working "illegal" immigrant! How dare he have THEIR unwarranted privilege!


Of course there are crooks in the legal profession. However, what does the improprieties of other lawyers have to do with this issue? Nothing. Oh, so some lawyers broke the law? That makes it okay to give this guy a law license, because others have broke the law? Just relax the standards altogether? Perhaps, they can start giving out law licenses to people who watch a certain amount of "Law and Order?" With all due respect, but I find your logic on the matter ridiculous. In light of what you have said, and lawyers breaking the law. Check this guy out.



Robert Cooley


His association with Chicago Outfit capo Marco D'Amico dates from his time as a Chicago police officer. He quickly developed a reputation as a lawyer who would take any necessary action to get his clients acquitted. He used legitimate means to win almost all of his jury trials, but he was also prepared to bribe judges and court officials in the corrupt Cook County court system. His success as a criminal attorney brought him both significant wealth and access to the highest levels of the Chicago Mafia, known as the Outfit.


So, yes there are scumbag lawyers. That does not excuse the behavior of the aspiring lawyer in California seeking a law license.
edit on 19-6-2012 by Jakes51 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by benrl
reply to post by Jakes51
 


I dunno, Im all about merit.

He did this on his own Merit, he met the requirements.

If he can pass the bar why not.

I don't fear illegals like some on here do though.

edit on 19-6-2012 by benrl because: (no reason given)


There is no requirement to be in the country legally to practice law? Are you sure about that?



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 





There is no requirement to be in the country legally to practice law? Are you sure about that?


I am. Any person, regardless of their "legal" status in this country, arguing in their defense propria persona is in fact practicing law, and appearing in court propria persona is not only legal, and lawful, it is a right.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 





There is no requirement to be in the country legally to practice law? Are you sure about that?


I am. Any person, regardless of their "legal" status in this country, arguing in their defense propria persona is in fact practicing law, and appearing in court propria persona is not only legal, and lawful, it is a right.





You also do not have to be licensed to do that. So how about we stay on topic and you dont try to twist the situation, as we are talking about practice requiring a law license. Thanks.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 





You also do not have to be licensed to do that. So how about we stay on topic and you dont try to twist the situation, as we are talking about practice requiring a law license. Thanks.


If you've read through the thread you would all ready know that I've addressed the "requirement" to obtain a license to practice law. Practicing law is not illegal, and there is no compelling reason to make it so. This I've addressed, and the O.P. asked me to clarify my position on this, so pay attention.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 





You also do not have to be licensed to do that. So how about we stay on topic and you dont try to twist the situation, as we are talking about practice requiring a law license. Thanks.


If you've read through the thread you would all ready know that I've addressed the "requirement" to obtain a license to practice law. Practicing law is not illegal, and there is no compelling reason to make it so. This I've addressed, and the O.P. asked me to clarify my position on this, so pay attention.

I did not ask for your opinion, whether a reason is compelling or not is your opinion, not fact. I asked if there indeed WAS a requirement to be in this country legally in order to practice law requiring a license. You are arguing no one should have to be licensed, and that has absolutely nothing to do with this case. We are moving from a position of assumption that you DO need a license to practice law, as that is exactly what is being argued. When they change their strategy to he does not need to be license because no one should be licensed, I'll let you know.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by HandyDandy

Originally posted by Xcathdra
If you are going to break the law, why should we allow you to practice it?

Those actions get lawyers disbarred and charged....


I know we don't see eye to eye on many things xcath...but I could not agree more with you on this one. Star.

edit on 19-6-2012 by HandyDandy because: (no reason given)


It happens from time to time



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 





There is no requirement to be in the country legally to practice law? Are you sure about that?


I am. Any person, regardless of their "legal" status in this country, arguing in their defense propria persona is in fact practicing law, and appearing in court propria persona is not only legal, and lawful, it is a right.



The case your looking for is Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann (317 US 269) and it only covers a person who is defending himself in court. A judge may still appoint co defense counsel in order to satisfy the competent representation requirement.

As for foreigners who practice law in their home country, depending on which country (The UK / Australia etc) they can be admitted to the bar in general. Each state has their own requirements when it comes to non US citizens, admission to the state bar and the practice of law.

It still does not change my opinion that by being here illegally they should not be allowed to practice law.
edit on 20-6-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Jakes51
 


Do you think we stopped letting people into the country? I mean as naturalized citizens...? You know some of those people that went through the proper channels and waited in line are stupid, useless criminals who will not do this country a bit of good and should be rejected. People jump the line all the time. Some of these people we want and others we do not. Every case is individual. There are no solid black and white lines although when dealing with border issues we like to imagine them.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by benrl
reply to post by Jakes51
 


I dunno, Im all about merit.

He did this on his own Merit, he met the requirements.

If he can pass the bar why not.

I don't fear illegals like some on here do though.

edit on 19-6-2012 by benrl because: (no reason given)


One good reason why.

He's not a citizen.

If he doesn't want to be a citizen of this country then why is he even living here and wanting to practice law here.

If he doesn't want to become a legal resident then he needs to pack his bags and get back to wherever he came from.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 06:48 AM
link   
US citizenship ceased to be a requirement for admission to the bar about thirty years ago.

Since it is no longer required that an applicant be a citizen, the state bar is not empowered to concern itself with the nationality status of an applicant.

If he is here illegally, it is the concern and responsibility of another part of govt (in the executive branch).





new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join