Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

California bar: Illegal immigrant should get law license

page: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Jakes51
 


Just another reason added to the laundry list of reasons to never visit or live in Kommiefornia.
What a joke, but what is expected.
0bama can circumvent the law pertaining to illegals, why not a State as well.




posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





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.


I was not looking for any case law in order to assert a common law principle. A judge can try to "appoint" an attorney as "co-defense", but there is no express lawful authority for any judge to do so. Judges who overstep their boundaries and impose a licensed attorney as "co-counsel" do not do so to protect the rights of the accused, and only do so to protect the state and the rules and regulations of the court established by the court subsequent to and discordant with the Constitution that defines their authority.

Quite simply, attorneys are barred by the court from making certain arguments or employing certain legal strategies. Jury nullification is one example of a strategy of defense. Some judges may think they can prevent an unlicensed defendant practicing law in his own defense and prevent such things as that defendant asking the jury to judge not just the facts, but to judge the "law" (offending statute) as well. Convince the jury it is their responsibility to judge both the facts, and the law.

A person accused of a crime who makes the decision to confront the accusers are defend himself pro per is not deprived to the right to assistance of counsel, but assistance of counsel is not "co-counsel". Consider this definition of "co-counsel":


Definition - Noun : an attorney who assists in or shares the responsibility of representing a client

Pronunciation"kO-'kau'n-s&l


Going back to your citation of Adams v. United States..., you have overlooked Powell v. Alabama 287 U.S. 45 (1932) decided a decade before the Adams case. Prior Powell v. Alabama it was generally understood that Assistance of Counsel meant the accused or a plaintiff had the right to hire outside counsel to assist them in their legal problems or needs. As Justice George Sutherland wrote in Powell v. Alabama; "What, then, does a hearing include? Historically and in practice, in our own country, at least, it has always included the right to the aid of counsel when desired and provided by the party asserting the right."

Sutherland goes on to extend this right even further explaining why the Court has decided to extend free court appointed attorney representation, and I do not believe that the Supreme Court did this to bind the accused to any oppressive rule or regulation of the court but instead saw a prevalent need to address the problem of the indigent and poor, those ill from lack of education who do not understand law in its simplest and most understandable form still having a right to Assistance of Counsel, and even Effective Assistance of Counsel. In this regard I am in agreement with the Court and if "free" Assistance of Counsel is what is required to ensure due process of law then so be it.

I am also in agreement with the courts who have now demanded the government, state or federal, absorb the cost of Assistance of Counsel now have the right to choose who would be qualified to serve as Counsel. The price of "free counsel" is that the accused must acquiesce to the licensed court appointed attorney afforded him. This interpretation of the 6th Amendment, however, is in regards to "free counsel" and the common practice of a person hiring private Assistance of Counsel was not overturned by either Powell, or the subsequent Adams Case - which, by the way, hinges on the 14th Amendment, and Amendment I find odious and probably unconstitutional and would avoid taking up the invitation the 14th Amendment offers, and with only one exception, at all costs - and the right to Assistance of Counsel includes the right to make your own decision on who your Counsel will be since that decision is at your expense.

To conclude, what I am arguing is that if I were accused of a crime, I would have the right to hire this "illegal immigrant" as my assistance of counsel and no court would have any lawful authority to deny me this right, nor any lawful authority to demand I surrender to the rules and regulations of any licensing schemes that had the effect of binding me to state advantages which hindered my own liberty. If I determine that this "illegal immigrant" fresh out of law school is competent enough to serve as my Assistance of Counsel, who are the courts, or the prosecution to say otherwise?



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


The court would have a right to deny that request since each state has their own bar a person must be a member of. If a person is not a member of that states bar but has training or is accepted to the bar in another state can be allowed by the judge on a case by case basis.

Absent that a person has a right to defend him/her self and a judge can appoint a co-counsel to ensure any conviction that results is not thrown out on appeal because the person did not know what he was doing.

While we have gone round and round in the past, the constant invocation of common law does not mean its still valid. The Supreme Court decision I provided was to clarify your comments about a person being able to represent themselves.

The ability to practice law in a state is incumbent on meeting all the criteria the state bar has set to do so. Absent that it is against the law to practice law without meeting those requirements / being licensed / member of the state bar. Just like its against the law for a person to engage in law enforcement without being certified by the state (common law allows a person to detain / arrest in all states except 1 and the person detaining / arresting must be correct or they are held liable for the action).

If a cop breaks the law, they are charged tried and if convicted, depending on the crime, can lose their certification / license to be a law enforcement officer.

The same standard applies to lawyers who break the law...

Why should we reward an individual who broke the law?

While I respect your viewpoint on common law, people must understand that state governments do not accept it in all cases. So simply stating something is common law does not grant a person the right to use it nor does it protect them from any actions against them for doing so. Ignoring the law because a person does not agree with it or thinks common law will trump it is a bad idea and the results are the same.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
[more

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.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 





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.


That is your opinion, but the issue is whether the "illegal immigrant" should get a license, not that he DOES have to have a license in order to practice law. I will be as dismissive of your ill informed opinion as you've been of my informed opinion on this matter.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Jakes51
 


Did you not read your own source article???


“ … Mr. Garcia’s status in the United States, should not, ipso facto, be grounds for excluding him from law licensure. He has met all of the prescribed qualifications and there is no reason to believe he cannot take the oath and faithfully uphold his duties as an attorney,”


He meets all the qualifications.


Garcia's father is a naturalized citizen, according to the bar, and Garcia is waiting for a visa that would give him legal permanent residency.
...
He has been waiting nearly 18 years for a visa, though his petition for it was approved in 1995, the bar said.


He has been approved but has been waiting 18 years for his visa...let me repeat that EIGHTEEN YEARS.

He came here with his parents...he commited no crime...his father has already become "legal" and he is just waiting for his paperwork to go through....for the past EIGHTEEN YEARS.


Honestly...I don't think you or anyone else that is replying with hatred towards this man read the source article.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Yeah, I saw that. Apparently, an issue remains? Why is this matter before the California Supreme Court? If there is no issue? He would have got his legal license and passed go. I brought to the story to everyone's attention, and that is all. I found the situation odd. If you think everything is okay? Great, and that is your opinion.

However, my opinion is different. Hopefully the man can get his paperwork in order and we can get on with our lives. In the meantime, if something is out of order along the lines of his citizenship status? Then it would probably be a good idea to be patient until the matter is resolved. Why waste the court's time, and turn this issue into a media circus?



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


You are ignoring the Judiciary Act of 1789 and the ruling in Faretta v. California.


In the opinion of the court by Justice Stewart, the Court held that a defendant in a state criminal trial has the constitutional right to refuse appointed counsel and conduct the trial when he or she voluntarily and intelligently elects to do so.


The state level also has the included restrictions which are formed by State law and established court procedures.

The example of police officer is valid because it deals with individuals who require a license to operate, as well as the ability of anon licensed citizen to effect an arrest. The criteria present is different for both parties, even though they are performing the same action.

An illegal immigrant should not be allowed to obtain a law license as they are breaking the law in the process.

Some states allow common law in certain areas where other reject it completely. Common law, as with any other law, can be defined by the legislature and the court. It can also be rejected by the same should common law come into conflict with State / Federal laws.

As an example 49 states allow a person to effect a citizens arrest, however the criteria is different from state to state. S. Carolina, if I remeber right, does not recognize common law or allow a citizens arrest.

Ive noticed a reoccuring them by some people that if they dont like the federal or state laws in place they tend to ignore them by citing common law, which in and of itself is a fail argument.

The topic has nothing to do with pre se representation, but whether or not an illegal immigrant can obtain a law license.
edit on 21-6-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





You are ignoring the Judiciary Act of 1789 and the ruling in Faretta v. California.


Since Faretta v. California and the Judiciary Act of 1789 only support my argument I am not clear why you believe I am ignoring this ruling and act.

The analogy of a police officer is inappropriate because by the very nature of the job, a.) that officer is an agent of government and b.) that agent is tasked with using force to apprehend criminals. While any individual without such a license has the right to use force in defense of themselves, others who need it and their property, they do not have the right to use force outside of this scope. The police officer has been licensed to use force outside of that scope because it is otherwise illegal. It is not otherwise illegal to practice law.

You are the one who brought up "common law" in this thread and now it is clear why you have done so. If you are going to make a blanket statement such as "some states 'allow' common law...where others reject it completely" you have to know I am going to call you on that and insist you show us here what states "completely" reject common law and show us through credible sources. That said, let's be clear here. The Supreme Law of the United States is the Constitution for the United States, which is both steeped in common law and also rejects certain aspects of English common law such as bills of attainder. For each state that state's Supreme Law of that Land is their Constitution.

Where certain of elements of common law have been rejected they have been done so by Constitution, but in terms of the common law practice of law, as you clearly hope to frame it, the only valid licensing schemes from government are those licenses that grant privilege to act in a way that would otherwise be illegal. This is the legal definition of license.

While I am at it, I have several times before taking you to task for your atrocious use of the word "allow" of which you use regularly. It is quite disturbing that a police officer continually insists on viewing law as what the people that police officer serves is "allowed" to do, and reveals a gross fundamental flaw within the foundation of policing. In our Constitutional form of government the only people that are "allowed" are government officials, including police officers. A police officer is allowed to perform certain actions. When a private person performs a citizens arrest the issue of "allow" is never in question. Either that private person lawfully arrested someone or they did not. If it was lawful it is not as if after the fact it then becomes "allowed". If the arrest was not lawful then it is a crime meaning that it was an unlawful violation of some other persons right(s).

The most disingenuous thing about your last post is the fact that you brought up common law and your agenda as to why you did is clear when you say this:




Ive noticed a reoccuring them by some people that if they dont like the federal or state laws in place they tend to ignore them by citing common law, which in and of itself is a fail argument.


What an insidious agenda it is! I do not need to rely upon common law in order to support my contentions that there is no lawful authority that can demand a licensed attorney be the only kind of assistance of counsel a person may use when charged with a crime, or even in a civil suit.




The topic has nothing to do with pre se representation, but whether or not an illegal immigrant can obtain a law license.


You are misrepresenting the topic. The title makes it clear: California bar: Illegal immigrant should get law license.

The topic is not whether anyone ("illegal immigrant" or otherwise) can get a license but rather should they. It is because of this title and the odious nature of the attitude towards a person (if the guy is an "illegal immigrant" then deport him and the issue is moot, is it not?) that I've chosen to point out that licensing schemes for attorney's are dubious schemes to begin with, and if you truly believe my arguments had little to do with this thread then why have you put so much effort into arguing them?



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Since Faretta v. California and the Judiciary Act of 1789 only support my argument I am not clear why you believe I am ignoring this ruling and act.

Then you clearly did not read the ruling or the Act and what the States are allowed to do when it comes to the practice of law.



Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The analogy of a police officer is inappropriate because by the very nature of the job, a.) that officer is an agent of government and b.) that agent is tasked with using force to apprehend criminals. While any individual without such a license has the right to use force in defense of themselves, others who need it and their property, they do not have the right to use force outside of this scope. The police officer has been licensed to use force outside of that scope because it is otherwise illegal. It is not otherwise illegal to practice law.

Again read the judicial act and the case law to correct your position. The licensing goes beyond the ability to use force and the comparison is valid as both deal with the law and the requirements of it.



Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
You are the one who brought up "common law" in this thread and now it is clear why you have done so. If you are going to make a blanket statement such as "some states 'allow' common law...snipped for room

Again you would be wrong. You invoked common law, not me - From your post here



Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
I was not looking for any case law in order to assert a common law principle.




Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Where certain of elements of common law have been rejected they have been done so by Constitution, but in terms of the common law practice of law, as you clearly hope to frame it, the only valid licensing schemes from government are those licenses that grant privilege to act in a way that would otherwise be illegal. This is the legal definition of license.

Common Law can be modified, changed and superceded by legislation, and the majority of it is. I gave the arrest example to show that common law can be used as well as changed or dropped completely depending on state law. The same goes for licensing of Lawyers..



Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
While I am at it, I have several times before taking you to ...snipped for room(s).

As I have taken you to task for your constant invocation of common law while ignoring laws that govern it / supercede it or all together prohibit it.


Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The most disingenuous thing about your last post is the fact that you brought up common law and your agenda as to why you did is clear when you say this:

You brought up common law, not me so please take the time to read your own posts and stop accusing me of making a comment I did not. As far as"agenda" you need to put the tinfoil hat away. My only concern is correcting your posts when the info is wrong.



Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
What an insidious agenda it is! I do not need to rely upon common law in order to support my contentions that there is no lawful authority that can demand a licensed attorney be the only kind of assistance of counsel a person may use when charged with a crime, or even in a civil suit.

Once again read the judicial act and the case law I cited.



Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
You are misrepresenting the topic. The title makes it clear: California bar: Illegal immigrant should get law license.

The topic is not whether anyone ("illegal immigrant" or otherwise) can get a license but rather should they. It is because of this title and the odious nature of the attitude towards a person (if the guy is an "illegal immigrant" then deport him and the issue is moot, is it not?) that I've chosen to point out that licensing schemes for attorney's are dubious schemes to begin with, and if you truly believe my arguments had little to do with this thread then why have you put so much effort into arguing them?


I am debating you because you are wrong, thats why. Secondly if he is here illegally, which he is, then he should be deported and go through the process that so many others are doing to get to the US and to become a citizen / lawful resident.

You are also ignoring State law and State bar requirements in place that govern how a person obtains, as well as how a person can lose their license. Loss of a license can occur if they break the law.

In the case of California standards -
The State Bar Act

By the bars own standards and rules, this person should not be admitted because of his illegal residency status. Why they are ignoring it in order to support this individual is purely political and nothing more. Its up to the California Supreme Court now to issue a ruling on his status and ability to be admitted to the bar.

Violating the law in order to practice the law is a non starter. As a lawyer he should know beter.
edit on 21-6-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Gotta agree broke the law and now they want to practice law what utter nonsense.

Just when you think California can't get any more ridiculous they always top the last one.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
Gotta agree broke the law and now they want to practice law what utter nonsense.

Just when you think California can't get any more ridiculous they always top the last one.


This is not just about California. A similar case is currently before the court in Florida for the same reasons. Nothing like opening the floodgates.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





Then you clearly did not read the ruling or the Act and what the States are allowed to do when it comes to the practice of law.


Bold words coming from a person who couldn't be bothered to link the Judiciary Act of 1789, nor Farretta v. California. What you did cite was a Wikipedia article which is probably the closest you got to reading Faretta v. California as you now quite foolishly argue I "clearly" did not read either the ruling or the case law you referenced.


In fact, the unlinked external source you cited here:


In the opinion of the court by Justice Stewart, the Court held that a defendant in a state criminal trial has the constitutional right to refuse appointed counsel and conduct the trial when he or she voluntarily and intelligently elects to do so.


Comes from this Wikipedia article

Since, in all likelihood, your knowledge of Faretta v. California is what Wikipedia has told you to think on the matter, it is fairly presumed your knowledge of the Judiciary Act of 1789. Wikipedia's article on that Act, flagged for its failure to cite references and needing improvement, has this to say about the Judiciary Act:


Congress authorized all people to either represent themselves or to be represented by another person. The Act did not prohibit paying a representative to appear in court.


However, the word "represent" or "represented" are not words found in the Judiciary Act of 1789. The word "authorized" is used once here:


SEC. 28. And be it further enacted, That in all causes wherein the marshal or his deputy shall be a party, the writs and precepts therein shall be directed to such disinterested person as the court, or any justice or judge thereof may appoint, and the person so appointed, is hereby authorized to execute and return the same.


This is precisely what the Judiciary Act of 1789 does in fact say regarding pleading and managing ones case and assistance of counsel:


SEC. 35. And be it further enacted, That in all courts of the United States, the parties may plead and manage their own causes personally or by assistance of such counsel or attorneys at law as by the rules of the said courts respectively shall be permitted to manage and conduct causes therein. And there shall be appointed in each district a meet person learned in the law to act as attorney for the United States in such district, who shall be sworn or affirmed to the faithful execution of his office, whose duty it shall be to prosecute in such district all delinquents for crimes and offences, cognizable under the authority of the United States, and all civil actions in which the United States shall be concerned, except before the supreme court in the district in which that court shall be holden. And he shall receive as compensation for his services such fees as shall be taxed therefor in the respective courts before which the suits or prosecutions shall be. And there shall also be appointed a meet person, learned in the law, to act as attorney-general for the United States, who shall be sworn or affirmed to a faithful execution of his office; whose duty it shall be to prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the President of the United States, or when requested by the heads of any of the departments, touching any matters that may concern their departments, and shall receive such compensation for his services as shall by law be provided.


There is nothing in this section that contradicts a thing I have said about licensed attorneys versus competent assistance of counsel. Not a single word contradicts anything I've said. If you had read the actual Act instead of relying upon a Wikipedia article you understandably declined to link because of its messy flags, you would have known this and not made the claim you've made that only exposed your own ignorance.

edit on 21-6-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


No you didnt bother to read either, and the part i quoted, the same part you quoted, has 2 key words that can determine if a court will allow the person to represent themselves or not. I am assuming you ignored the rest because you cant refute the info.

coming back to the topic at hand.

Why should this person be allowed to the bar when he is in violation of us laws?



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


No you didnt bother to read either, and the part i quoted, the same part you quoted, has 2 key words that can determine if a court will allow the person to represent themselves or not. I am assuming you ignored the rest because you cant refute the info.

coming back to the topic at hand.

Why should this person be allowed to the bar when he is in violation of us laws?


If I didn't bother to read it, then how was it I was able to cite the section - which in fact is the very last section of the Act - of the Judiciary Act of 1789? Did I just magically go to the last page of that Act and find precisely what I needed to refute the sloppy language of a Wikipedia article you relied upon? Seriously! If you want to distinguish the sharp disagreements we have on interpretation of this Act and ruling that is a safer argument than the foolish one you are making now. It is not you who has shown through linking an citation any strong understanding of either that Act or the ruling. In fairness to you, I was short on character space in my last post and declined to make an extra post to discuss Faretta v California, but I'll tell you what, sport, as long as you keep asserting it is I who haven't read the ruling and Act, I am going to keep assuming you've only read what Wikipedia told you to read.

I destroyed Wikipedia's assessment of the Judiciary Act of 1789 in regards to "authorize" and "represent" and did so handily and had you bothered to read the Judiciary Act you are disingenuously claiming I have not you would know this. Go read the actual ruling and Act before you come back with such foolishness.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 02:15 AM
link   
Update on this situation

Justice Department opposes illegal immigrant's bid to practice law


In a brief to the California Supreme Court, the U.S. Department of Justice said federal law prohibits giving a public benefit, such as a bar license, to an "unlawfully present alien."

The federal law was "plainly designed to preclude undocumented aliens from receiving commercial and professional licenses issued by states and the federal government," a lawyer for the Justice Department wrote in a brief requested by the state high court.


BUT!!

California apparently is not happy with the Justice Departments response regarding this so they are no in the process of pushing a bill through the California legislation to over-rule that and allow him a license and to practice anyway.

ACR-167 California State Bar admission.


ACR 167, as amended, Alejo. California State Bar admission. This measure would declare that an applicant’s immigration status should not be the determining factor in deciding whether to approve a license to practice law, would commend Sergio C. Garcia for his hard work and success, and would also commend the State Bar of California for its efforts to admit Sergio C. Garcia to the State Bar of California.


Kinda makes me throw up in my mouth a little.



posted on Aug, 18 2012 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Jakes51
 


Total bs. The guy cant follow the law, why should he get to practice it? Doesnt matter if he did it on his own merit or not. This whole illegal immigrant crap is rediculous!
edit on 18-8-2012 by acidsweep because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join