It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
Definition - Noun : an attorney who assists in or shares the responsibility of representing a client
Pronunciation"kO-'kau'n-s&l
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.
“ … 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,”
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.
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.
You are ignoring the Judiciary Act of 1789 and the ruling in Faretta v. California.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
While I am at it, I have several times before taking you to ...snipped for room(s).
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:
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.