Free Web Hosting Provider - Web Hosting - E-commerce - High Speed Internet - Free Web Page

5753 Version 1.0001 Lawyerdude: 541 476 8954. Lawyer.Dude@yahoo.com Upgraded 5/17/06.

I have a right to refuse to join the bar. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says at clause 20: “Article 20 (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.” It is axiomatic and the Supreme Court has said that you don’t have to give up one right to use another right. http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/7689.html

I, Attorney Douglas Palaschak, served this upon the California Bar and the California Supreme Court in 1994 embedded in federal case #Case 94-8530 ER (AJNX) in the Central District of California, Los Angeles. I was counsel of record for a California lawyer. The complaint in that case is here: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/1875.htm

1. When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for group of lawyers to dissolve the political bands that have connected them with the state bar, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which natural law entitles them, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes that impel them to separate.

2. Inalienable rights include life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness (which the California constitution specifically gurantees in the first article), and the right to honestly earn a living - including the right to responsibly practice law. Unalienable means inalienable. If the rights are truly inalienable then they belong to us regardless of whether they are mentioned on the bill of rights. Furthermore, if the rights are inalienable then we cannot waive them, for example, as terms of probation.

3. Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. How do the governed withdraw their consent? If their only means of expressing consent is through elected representatives then their signal of consent becomes diluted when the elected official represents so many people that he pays no attention to individual governed. Such is the condition of the present legislative bodies of the California Assembly, Congress, and the Board of Governors of the California Bar.

4. Whenever any government becomes a master instead of a servant, it is the right of the people to alter it, restrain it, or to abolish it, in order to survive and achieve safety and happiness. ( This is the 2^nd use of the work "happiness" in the declaration of independence. Must be important.) How do the governed withdraw their consent? If their only means of expressing consent is through elected representatives then their signal of consent becomes diluted when the elected official represents so many people that he pays no attention to individual governed. Such is the condition of the present legislative bodies of the California Assembly, Congress, and the Board of Governors of the California Bar. Prudence dictates that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly lawyers (and other humans) are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which we are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such bar organization, and to provide new guards for their future security.

5. Such has been the patient sufferance of plaintiff Adams; and such is now the necessity which constrains him to restrain the state bar. The history of the present defendant state bar and its co-conspirators (including Diane Yu and Malcolm Lucas) is a history of repeated injuries, usurpations, demagoguery, and oppression, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over lawyers - and especially white male sole practitioners. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

6. Shortly before 1984 Diane Yu, having no particularly pertinent background, became employed by the state bar. In 1984 she was on the committee of bar examiners which made a mistake in grading approximately 100 exams. She attempted to keep the mistake secret and refused to admit the mistake until compelled by a federal lawsuit - and after most of the aggrieved applicants had taken and passed a 2nd bar exam.

7. In approximately 1986 the bar seized the right forever to future interest on all client trust accounts.

8. Since 1989 the state bar has judged multitudes of cases regarding offenses regarding these trust funds despite their obvious bias stemming from their receiving the interest on the funds.

9. In approximately 1986 the bar drastically increased compulsory bar dues - without consent of the bar members.

10. In 1989 the bar instituted the state bar court (in violation of the California constitution) and staffed it with pseudo-judges appointed by the defendant co-conspirator California supreme court (in violation of the California constitutional requirement that judges be appointed by the governor and elected).

11. In 1989 the California supreme court eliminated by rule the jurisdiction of the court of appeal to hear appeals from state bar court - thereby assuring that all appeal was to itself - the very body who appointed the persons to the state bar court from which appeal would be taken.

12. Defendants state bar court and pseudo judge Jennifer Gee have antagonistically chosen distant San Francisco as the repository for the files in plaintiff's case - although other case files are in Los Angeles. Plaintiff and his attorney Palaschak have requested access to the files numerous times - and in fact have never seen plaintiff's file. The declaration of independence specifically complained about being tried in distant forums. The Magna Carta which is reprinted in pertinent part in the appendix, also requires that trial be held close to the home of the accused. See clauses 18 and 19 reprinted in appendix #2. Almost all state codes recognize the fundamental unfairness of being tried in a distant forum. Nonetheless the state bar in the Acuna case

keeps the files in San Francisco thus depriving Acuna of the opportunity to review his files.

13. Defendant state bar has an annual budget of approximately $75,000,000.00 - from compelled dues of attorneys and from secret $5,000 "costs" assessed against attorneys in state bar court.

14. Since establishing the state bar court, the Lucas court has refused to hear any appeals from decisions of its child, the state bar court, and has unlawfully shut off appeal to the court of appeal. The legislature improperly delegated to the Lucas court (via B&P 60082) its authority to legislate jurisdictional limitations of the court of appeal in bar cases.

15. The legislature long ago destroyed the lawyer's path of administrative appeal to the local superior court.

16. The bar has instituted a program of make-work entitled Mandatory Continuing Legal Education - and then excused government lawyers from participation thereby discriminating against sole practitioners.

17. Defendant state bar prosecutors routinely violate lawyers's Miranda rights through misleading statements and a myriad of biased abnormal procedural rules for the sole purposes of fatiguing them into compliance with their measures.

18. Defendants have attacked our heroes - namely: Melvin Belli, Marvin Mitchelson, Steven Yagman, Jonathan Wolfgram, Ralph Server, Stu Hirsh, Michael Haley, Slate & Leoni - white male sole practitioners all. Some survived, but many have seen their careers ruined.

19. The bar has refused to assent to true reform - most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

20. Defendant state bar court has suspended attorney operations and taken their livelihood unilaterally without any hearing for trifles without any showing of irreparable harm; and when so suspended, the bar has utterly neglected their plight.

21. The bar has so diluted the right of representation that the board of governors is now just a figurehead consisting of transient members.

22. Defendant state bar has made its pseudo judges dependent on its will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. This has a familiar ring. This is just what the state bar has done. It has appointed pseudo judges who depend on the state bar for their salary - a salary derived in substantial part from deceptively named fines - roughly $5000 per non-trial case.

23. The bar has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. Amen. The state bar has used our fees to create a multitude of new offices of prosecutor and sent hither swarms of irritating uneducated investigators to eat out our substance!

24. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies of prosecutors paid by extorted fees without the Consent of our legislatures.

25. Defendants have combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving their assent to their acts of pretended legislation and rule making for the following illegal and antagonistic purposes:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the legal world by refusing to assent to reciprocity;

For imposing Taxes on us without our a Consent; Most of the offenses are failure to properly administer the client security fund - interest on which has been seized unlawfully by the bar.

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury; The state bar imposes punishment amounting to taking away a person's livelihood without trial by jury. The Magna Carta forbids taking a persons livelihood even in the case of a serious felony.

For transporting us beyond our county seat to be tried for pretended offenses; Most of the pretended offenses are failure to properly administer the client security fund - interest on which has been seized unlawfully by the bar.

For ignoring, violating, ridiculing, and causing disrespect for the provisions of the California constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Magna Carta - our most valuable charters and laws and for altering fundamentally our republican form of government by conspiring to grab power and abuse our system of checks and balances;

For portending to form the state bar court in violation of the constitution and by attempting to suspend bar membership in violation of the California constitutional guarantee that all admitted lawyers "are and shall be" bar members;

For suspending normal jurisdiction of the courts over administrative tribunals, by intruding into our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate in lawyer discipline in all cases whatsoever - and then hearing no cases - but instead rubber-stamping the actions of its unlawfully appointed appointees in its unconstitutional state bar court.

The bar and Lucas court have abdicated constitutional government here by declaring us out of its protection and waging war against us.

He has constrained our fellow attorneys be taken captive on bogus charges. For example, in August 1993 Attorney Douglas Palaschak was arrested and jailed for 6 days with no charges pending. His files and computers were seized and kept for over a year during which time the state bar court proceeded with his cases even though his personal files were in the hands of prosecutors who, without probable cause, read his personal files and shared information with state bar prosecutors.

Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury; those who protest most vocally are prosecuted most vigorously.

The bar is now disproportionately staffed by asian and black women. It is staffed and controlled by persons who have spent their entire life on the government dole - of whom Diane Yu is the paradigm. Our bar is now overrun by communist socialist government lawyers who haven't a clue about free market economics. The bar/Lucas court axis has displayed nearly every symptom that may define a tyrant, and is unfit to sit in judgment over private lawyers. Communist government workers cannot fairly sit in judgment of sole practitioners. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their manipulation of our legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, aggrieved sole practitioners, therefore appeal to the federal courts for rectitude and by authority of 42 USC 1983 solemnly publish and declare, that lawyers are, and of Right ought to be free and independent; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the state bar, and that all political connection between them and state bar, is and ought to be totally dissolved. We affirm our right under the California constitution to sue the state bar, to conclude peace, to freely contract for legal services, to establish commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which independent lawyers may of right do.

26. No more predatory financing of discipline. It is unnatural to pay an organization whose sole function is to punish us; bar dues shall be voluntary - as shall be membership; bar discipline shall be paid for by those who desire the prosecution.

27. No suspension of practice of sole practitioners. Sole practitioners often cannot continue to pay rent, phone, secretaries, advertising, etc. during a suspension of even 30 days. Suspension for sole practitioners constitutes forfeiture and taking of plaintiff's livelihood - and therefore shall be prohibited.

28. No repetition of ethics exams. No more punishment by taking an ethics exam - unless the lawyer has not already passed an ethics exam. Most attorneys were required to pass the professional responsibility exam already - and they shall not be required to pass it again.

29. Adequate notice of offenses. The ethics codes shall be revised. All offenses shall be specifically defined. "Violation of attorney oath", "offensive personality" and such other amorphous clauses shall no longer be a basis for prosecution.

30. One form of punishment. Only jail and fines shall be punishment. No more seminars, MCLE or otherwise.

31. Paralegal punishment parity. The bar shall prosecute all non-attorneys such as paralegals who commit ethics offenses - or who fill out legal forms - if the bar prosecutes suspended attorneys for such conduct.

32. Probation without punishment. No burdensome punishment (such as repetition of ethics exam and filing of reports) as terms of probation - just probation.

33. 6007 (mental incapacity) revision. The bar shall cease abuse of 6007. No 6007 OSC except on probable cause.

34. No interim suspension. No interim suspension except upon showing of irreparable harm and the other requisites of an injunction. If it is important enough to stop his practice then it is important enough to take time for a hearing.

35. No costs of discipline. No costs of investigation, prosecution, or other imposed upon attorney.

36. No double jeopardy. No double jeopardy prosecution for crimes under the guise of moral turpitude hearings or whatever.

37. Restitution from bar for interest. Give trust fund interest back to clients or their attorneys.

39. Escrow agencies. Establish escrow agencies to distribute funds for attorneys with cash problems - rather than tempting them beyond their financial means.

40. Judgment by peers. Lawyers shall be adjudged by a volunteer panel of at least 3 of their peers. Plaintiff PI/ criminal defense sole practitioners shall not be judged by government lawyers or other lawyers who are paid a salary.

41. Ease of service of process. Revision of rules of state bar court (and recommendation to change in other rules) so that in pro per lawyers can sign their own proofs of service.

43. Term limits. Directorship and employment by the bar either directly or by contract shall be limited to 4 years.