Clear and Present Danger test lawyerdude

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

The clear and present danger test is on the top ten list of liberating constitutional concepts: www.lawyerdude.8k.com/5798.html

Brandenburg v Ohio (1969) http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/Brandenburg.html 23 L Ed 2d 430, 395 US 444, 89 S Ct 1827. Clear and present danger not there for Klan speech. Clarence Brandenburg was Ku Klux Klan member. Clear and Present Danger test was finally used to overrule an obstruction to speech. Compare to Debs case circa 1914 where clear and present danger test was not fully ripe. Used in brief 3596 at page 7 and 8.

Bridges v California (1941) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/bridges.html 314 US 263, 62 S Ct 194. Extremely Serious and Very Imminent test. Contains the text: "Extremely Serious and Very Imminent" (clear and present danger - how clear and how present). Newspaper editorial talked about a present case in violation of court gag order. Cited for contempt of court. Overruled as I recall. Cited in brief #3596 at page 6.

Craig v Harney (1946) 91 L Ed 1546, 331 U.S. 367. Criticism of judge not clear and present danger. Regarding clear and present danger test: Mere possibility of danger is not enough. Used in briefs at 3567.1, 3569.1, 3596.6. Case is on point because it was about a Newspaper being critical of a layman as judge. Hey, I criticized a judge for Melvin Loser and was prosecuted for it also.

Debs v U.S. (1919) 63 L Ed 566, 249 U.S. 211. 1917 draft objector. Predecessor to Brandenburg in 1969. 1917 draft interference case. Used in brief at 3596.7

Gentile v State Bar of Nevada (1991) 115 L Ed 2d 888. Nevada bar act unconstitutional. Clear and Present danger test controls here. Gentile gave a press conference about a high profile case that he was handling. The bar tried to discipline him. The U.S. Supreme Court declared that the Nevada bar act was unconstitutional! Palaschak contends herein that the California bar act is unconstitutional for a multitude of infirmities, many arising since the 1986 attack on human lawyers by Diane Yu, a genetically weak socialist, a shill for corporate ficta and the enemy of individualism which is the essence of America.

McSurely v Ratliff (1967) 282 F Supp 848 (E.D. Ky. 1967). Hysterical raid held illegal. Anti sedition act unconstitutional. Kentucky's anti sedition law is unconstitutional. Mc Surely's statements are protected by the clean and present danger test. An overbroad statute combined with ignorant officials caused an unjustified raid. See McSurely v McClellan (1976) 553 F2d 1277, 1282, note 9 (D.C. Cir. 1976)(en banc) discussing a safekeeping order for the personal diaries and other seized items of McSurely. The case ordering the return of the documents of McSurelys is McSurely v Ratliff (1968) 398 F2d 817 (6th Cir 1968). The endnotes of In Our Defense contain an excellent brief regarding the search and seizure issues in a politically motivated raid.

Craig v Boren (1976) 50 L Ed 2d 397. Relaxed standing to challenge denial of equal protection. Vicarious standing to defend fundamental rights. Compare to private attorney general.

Gluth v Kangas (1988) 773 F Supp 1309 @ 1321 (D Ariz) Right to xerox copies in jail. "Draconian" copying by hand is not required. Jails and prisons must provide copying service - but Illinois jail denied Palaschak copying rights (while allowing other prisoners copying services - but only after Palaschak began litigating. Cited in Palaschak brief #3591 at page 0.1.

Procunier v Martinez (1974) 40 L Ed 2d 224, 416 US 396, 84 S Ct 1800 Mail is a right.(Added 7 August 2001) This was a class action. Procunier, Director of California Dept. of Corrections told prisoners that mail was a privilege and not a right - until somebody litigated this case. I read about this case in Lawrence Friedman's 1993 book entitled Crime and Punishment in American History.

In England the power of the press was recognized - and taken from the people. We must remember that although we take our orderly system of courts from England, England is an older country infected with the disease of imperialism and oppression. It is like comparing America's older diseased east coast to the newer freer west coast. In the 1500's or 1600's England forbade all printing on unlicensed printing presses. John Stuart Mills protested. In America we had the trial of Peter Zenger for seditious libel. Zenger's jury acquitted him and then the judge put the jury in jail! The first amendment is meant to prohibit any abridgment of printing or speaking - and that is obvious from the historical context - and now the current 5 generations have obviously forgotten and they have permitted the lawyer licensing acts to abridge the speech rights of lawyers. These bar acts are a product of corporate ficta and the robber barons as evinced by the date of their inception.

Backpedaling by the bar: Things that were illegal even for licensed lawyers during the window of bar oppression

Being a woman. Myra Bradwell was denied admission to the Illinois bar in 1869 due to her being a married woman. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Bradwell. Bradwell v. People of State of Illinois, (U.S. Ill. 1872) 83 U.S. 130, 21 L.Ed. 442, 16 Wall. 130. About he same time Clara Foltz became the first woman to practice in California despite a statute restricting the practice of law to "any white male citizen". See A History of America Law by Professor Lawrence Friedman, page 639 and the bibliographies therein.

Being black. See History of American Law, page 639. California only permitted white males to practice law at first.

Living in another state - Piper, N. Hampshire v (1985) 84 L Ed 2d 205. Kathryn Piper, a Vermont resident passed the New Hampshire bar. New Hampshire barred her from practicing until she moved across the river into Hampshire. Briefs of amici curiae urging the U.S. supreme court to defy the constitution and uphold this oppressive and unconstitutional rule were filed by Rehnquist and the following 12 backwards and oppressive states: Iowa Tennessee Virginia, Hawaii (by Tany Hong, Attorney General), Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, Wisconsin, Wyoming, North Carolina, Texas. Kathryn Piper won her right to travel in interstate commerce as late at 1985!

Okay, advertising is permitted, but not direct mail solicitation. Wrong. Ficker v Curran (1996) 950 F Supp 123, affirmed 119 d 3d 1150 overturned Maryland's ban on direct mail solicitation of persons accused of jailable traffic offenses.

Talking to jurors: Rapp v Disp. Bd. Of Hawaii Supreme Court (Feb 1996) 916 F Supp 1525 pro se lawyer Rapp desired to speak with jurors after their verdict. Hawaii disciplinary rules prohibited this without the court's permission. Rapp sued for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Hawaii Supreme Court (as did Palaschak's client against the California Supreme Court) and prevailed. He obtained a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of the rule.

Speaking in court after being convicted of failure to appear on traffic tickets and eating LSD. This is Palaschak's situation.

Things that were illegal for lawyers before the 1st amendment - and even after for a while.

The lawyers are enjoying more freedom as a result of having challenged the various bar acts. They have litigated to be able to advertise, to associate, to recommend lawyers, and otherwise speak and write. Palaschak now says that lawyers should be able to speak in court without license!

California Supreme Court had a personal interest in the case. Palaschak was counsel for a lawyer

who sued the California Supreme Court. The court retaliated and purported to take Palaschak's license but the taking was void ab initio for a multitude of constitutional infirmities.

In Palaschak's case his license is still intact because the act of taking it was void ab initio. The California Supreme Court reportedly purported to take away Palaschak's license after Palaschak sued the California Supreme court for a client lawyer whose license had been unlawfully suspended by the Supreme Court unconstitutional creation, the state bar pseudo court.

Double Jeopardy and the beginning of the recent attack on human lawyers by corporate ficta

Kelley, Luan. California case. This lawyer received her 2nd DUI. The state bar ignored the lack of nexus and ignore the double jeopardy clause - and the preemption by the DMV. The bar suspended her bar license.

Condon, Estate of (__1998) 65 Cal App 4th 1138, 76 Cal Rptr 2d 922. Not supervening.

Baird v State Bar of Arizona (1970) 27 L Ed 2d 639, Annotation @953 Subject: Overbreadth. Bar applicant refused to answer question in bar application regarding his past to age 16 regarding membership in organizations advocating overthrow of government. Note that Judge McMecarch or whomever in Mariposa county refused to take the loyalty oath part of the oath specifically quoted in the California constitution.

Bates v Arizona (1977) 53 L Ed 2d 810. Legal Clinic Advertised. Subject: Overbreadth and 1st amendment. The 6th most pertinent case here.

Cohen v California (1971) 30 L Ed 2d 124. "Fuck the draft" written on the back of jacket in court hallway.Overbreadth was the basis of this decision.

Doran v Salem Inn (1975) 45 L Ed 2d 648. Overbreadth. 3 stripper bars. Ballet Africanus. Leading case. Joe Redner, famous owner of the leading stripper bar in Tampa recognized the name of this case which I chatted with him in Jan 2000. Redner is facing enforcement of an overbroad statute to stop lap dances in his night clubs.

Erznoznik v City of Jacksonville ( ) 45 L Ed 2d__. Overbreadth. Baby's butt argument regarding drive in theater. The statute was declared unconstitutional because it was so broad as to include the depiction of a baby's butt which the court felt, would not be offensive to anybody.

Ficker v Curran 950 F Supp 123, Affirmed at 119 F3d 1150.Attorney solicitation. Overbreadth regarding bar acts regulating attorneys. Attorney solicitation law was held unconstitutional. Used in brief 3596 at page 10.

Houston v Hill (1987) 96 L Ed 2d 390. Pick on somebody your own size. Overbreadth. Charles Alan Wright argued this case. "Interview" with police as they were chasing a suspect. Defendant said "Why don't you pick on somebody your own size!" The statements were not fighting words or obscenity. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the guy shouting at police as they were chasing a suspect. It is okay to be provocative. Any non-speech was pre-empted by state statute. Extrapolation from Houston case: With regard to laws against attorneys speaking without license: Any non-truth is pre-empted by fraud statutes. Any truth is protected by the 1st amendment. The supreme Court said that the city "had numerous opportunities to narrow and has not done so." Similarly the state bar act suffers from overbreadth and the implied and also explicit ambiguity of defining what constitutes the practice of law.

Keyishian v Board of Regents (1967) 17 L Ed 2d 629, 385 U.S. 589. Pedler registration. Overbreadth.Ordinance required solicitors to register with the police. Ruled unconstitutional.

McSurely v Ratliff (1967) 282 F Supp 848 (E.D. Ky. 1967). Anti communist law. Raid. Court declared Kentucky's anti sedition law unconstitutional. Case arose from overbreadth, an unjustified raid based on an overbroad statute. See McSurely v McClellan (1976) 553 F2d 1277, 1282, note 9 (D.C. Cir. 1976)(en banc) discussing a safekeeping order for the personal diaries and other seized items of McSurely. The case ordering the return of the documents of McSurelys is McSurely v Ratliff (1968) 398 F2d 817 (6th Cir 1968). The endnotes of In Our Defense contain an excellent brief regarding the search and seizure issues in a politically motivated raid.

Hackin v Lockwood (1966) 361 F2d 499. District court held that Arizona's ABA requirement is constitutional. The court skirted the issue by holding that requiring graduation from an accredited school is constitutional - avoiding completely the issue that ABA requirements were instituted at the behest of Carnegie, a paradigm robber baron, and foisted upon the public in the age of the robber barons with the obvious effect of promoting corporate ficta and limiting the practice of law and even the teaching of law to the wealthy. We can see the folly now in retrospect with the multitude of non-ABA schools in California.

Hackin v Arizona (1967)19 L. Ed. 2d 347; 389 U.S. 143; 88 S. Ct. 325. Overbreadth case. There was no written majority opinion. Douglas's strong and cogent dissent shames the majority in this case. Lawyer Hackin having been denied admission to the Arizona bar nonetheless defended a guy who was denied counsel by the court because the proceeding was, hypertechnically, civil in nature, habeas corpus. Hackin stepped forward where bar volunteers failed to do so, defended the otherwise defenseless, and was prosecuted for practicing without a license. Maybe he failed to write a good brief - although he persuaded Justice Douglas.

In Re Ming 469 F 2d 1353 (7th Cir. 1971) Even federal court rules must render due process. Disciplinary proceeding. The Executive Committee of the United States District Court for Northern District of Illinois issued suspension order, and appeal was taken. The Court of Appeals, Pell, Circuit Judge, held that if a conviction itself is to be used to show commission of underlying acts which are of such nature as to form basis for disbarment or suspension, conviction must have reached finality, or at least to the extent of exhaustion of direct appeals. In addition, the Court held that failure to afford hearing prior to issuing order of suspension based on misdemeanor conviction violated due process. Reversed. If a conviction itself is to be used to show commission of underlying acts which are of such nature as to form basis for disbarment or suspension, conviction must have reached finality, at least to the extent of exhaustion of direct appeals. U.S. Dist. Ct. Rules, N.D. Ill., General Rule 8. District courts are free to adopt their own local rules defining grounds for disbarment and suspension and the procedures to be followed; however, such rules must meet the essential requirements of due process. License to practice law constitutes a type of "new property" the divestment of which cannot be affected without affording substantial due process, including the opportunity to be heard and to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. Failure to afford hearing prior to issuing order of suspension based on misdemeanor conviction violated due process.

Bell v Burson (1971) 26 L Ed 90, 401 US 535 State cannot take a driver license without hearing. Used in motion 3596 at page 3.

In Re Crow (1959) 3 L Ed 2d 1025-27. Annotation 3 L Ed 2d. Essentially overruled by Ming. Non criminal disbarment. Attorney disbarred in Ohio. U.S. Supreme Court issues OSC. He responded. Douglas dissents that they should have appoint a committee.

Birbrower v Superior Court of Santa Clara County (1998) 70 Cal Rptr 2d 304, 17 C 4th 119, 949 P2d 1. New York lawyer was permitted to collect part of his fees for work done in California? This was not a 1stamendment issue - but a fee collection case.

Any next friend can apply for a writ of habeas corpus. U.S. v Houston 273 F 915, 916 cited by Douglas in Hackin v Arizona 19 L Ed 2d 347.

Non lawyers can appeal decisions of the workers compensation board on behalf of clients?