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.