reply to post by Xcathdra
The court does not have the right to impose upon a defendant paying for his own assistance of counsel the rules and regulations of a Bar Association
whose history began in 1878 nearly 100 years after the adoption of the Constitution for the United States of America. This means John Quincy Adams,
when as a former President of the United States served as Assistance of Counsel for the Africans defendants aboard the Amistad, was an unlicensed
Counsel at a time when no Bar Association existed.
That right to obtain unlicensed Assistance of Counsel was never revoked or rescinded - as it could never lawfully be - and people still have the right
to this form of Counsel today. The formation by 100 private lawyers over a century ago of an association of attorneys did not rewrite the 6th
Amendment nor did it require some sort of radical reinterpretation of it.
I have granted that courts providing "free assistance of counsel" have the right to choose that assistance of counsel and to choose licensed
attorneys bound by rules and regulation an unlicensed attorney would not be bound by, so your insistence on arguing this point is an insistence that
was once undeniably and indisputably a right is no longer so because of licensing schemes. This is disturbing indeed, and only goes to show that when
you grant the government an inch they want a parsec.
A judge is under no requirement to appoint "co-counsel" because of some dubious assertion that without this imposition a defendant asserting as a
matter of public record that the unlicensed attorney they've obtained is competent assistance of counsel could turn around and declare otherwise.
This is an absurd mistake of fact and misinterpretation of law because just as sure as any judge can determine what makes a competent assistance of
counsel so too can any defendant of average intelligence presumed to know the law anyway.
Your disingenuous assertion that common law is not still valid is unbelievably naive. If common law does not apply in any particular case then it
does not apply, but at no point has any state or the federal government "repealed common law" and the very constitutions, and Constitution by which
the governments exist is founded on common law!
Your yammering on about what a private association has to say about "competent assistance of counsel" is somehow Constitutionally valid is just more
naivete. The ABA has no Constitutional authority to dictate what merits a "competent assistance of counsel". Your willingness to confer to a
private association the lawful authority to rewrite the meaning of the 6th Amendment, or laughingly, to repeal common law cannot be cited by any case
law, nor any credible statute.
Your analogy of a "cop" is moot, as a "cop" in the context you mean it is a government official employed by the local municipality of any state,
and your analogy of a "licensed" cop in this regard is fine, but it has no bearing on attorneys who are not employed by any state - public defenders
notwithstanding and I've all ready stipulated that "free" counsel can be bound by the state, or federal governments desire to seek licensed
attorneys to fulfill that need - and are instead private professionals not restricted by any constitutions or Constitution.
You ask, and in regards to an "illegal immigrant" why "we" should reward that person for breaking the law and I say this: speak for yourself, and
as far as I'm concerned the federal government was tasked with protecting our borders and they certainly have the right and arguably the
responsibility to limit immigration, but in doing so it is their responsibility to prevent the entry of those not legally immigrating and their
failure to do so does not restrict me from paying this "illegal immigrant" for his services as Assistance of Counsel and no court can demand this
"illegal alien" be licensed in order to provide me with assistance of counsel.
You've clarified in your conclusion what I felt compelled to clarify when you spoke implicitly to the invalidity of common law, and in your
conclusion you passively acknowledge that in some cases common law most assuredly applies and when it comes to a defendant paying for and exercising
the right to choose what he thinks is competent assistance of counsel, particularly against a state or federal prosecution demanding that choice be
limited to licensed attorneys, you can be rest assured that common law in this matter applies.
I also take issue with your choice of the word "grant' in regards to common law. If it is a common law issue, and my argument is, I do not make it
because you or anyone else "grants" me the privilege of doing so, I do it by right.