6102

Rule 1-311 Safe Harbor for Writing by lawyers

- Because the bar does not recognize the 1^st amendment.

The state bar act is an unconstitutional abridgment of speech, petition, association, and press. It is void for overbreadth and vagueness, but 1995 rule of court 1-311 specifically permits suspended and disbarred lawyers to write petitions, pleadings, and well, everything - as though the bar is trying to comply with the 1^st amendment.

Highlights of this rule 1-311:

(1) Legal work of a preparatory nature, such as legal research, the assemblage of data and other necessary information, drafting of pleadings, briefs, and other similar documents;

This page is www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/6102.html

Here is the rule on the state bar page:http://www.calbar.org/pub250/9/s00071.htm

Here is my overbreadth page: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5409.html

This page defines what is NOT the practice of law. Here are the cases that define what IS the practice of law:

At www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/6125.html Lawyerdude says:

People ask me to define “the practice of law” These 7 following cases attempt and fail to define the practice of law. Thus B&P 6125 is unconstitutional for overbreadth and vagueness. That is why they declined to ever prosecute me for that. The prosecuted me once for 6126 which is advertising - and I won that case. Here is my winning argument, by the way: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/5918.html

California Business and Professions Code section 6125 says:

“No person shall practice law in California unless the person is an active member of the State Bar.” But 1995 rule of court 1-311 specifically permits suspended and disbarred lawyers to write petitions - as though they are trying to comply with the 1^st amendment Here is rule 1-311 at this link: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/6102.html

Here are the 7 cases used illegally by the bar to define “practice law” and to abridge speech of lawyers. Why illegally? Because the definition is too vague and overbroad! See my overbreadth page here: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5409.html See also http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/yickwo.html The entire medley is as follows (listed in order of newness):

1 People v. Landlords Professional Services (1989) www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/landlord.html 215 Cal.App.3d 1599 [264 Cal.Rptr. 548];

2 Farnham v. State Bar (1976) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/farnham.html 17 Cal.3d 605 [131 Cal.Rptr. 611];

3 Bluestein v. State Bar (1974) 13 Cal.3d 162 [118 Cal.Rptr. 175]; www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/bluestei.html 4 Baron v. City of Los Angeles (1970) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/baron.html 2 Cal.3d 535 [86 Cal.Rptr. 673];

5 Crawford v. State Bar (1960) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/crawford.html 54 Cal.2d 659 [7 Cal.Rptr. 746];

6 People v. Sipper (1943) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/sipper.html 61 Cal.App.2d Supp. 844 [142 P.2d 960].) and

7 People v. Merchants Protective Corporation (1922) 189 Cal. 531, 535 [209 P. 363];

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=People+v.+Merchants+Protective+Corporation+%281922%29+189+Cal.+531%2C+535&btnG=Google+Search

And here is the statute that they help to define and interpret: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/6125.html

This is about______. Now 14 years later, the state bar permits non-lawyers to do evictions if they buy a license from the bar. This aint about protecting the public and it never has been. Since 1927 the bar here has taken away our speech and press rights and sold em back to us as a license. This is the theme of my group at www.groups.yahoo.com/group/lawyerdude Note well that in the Landlord case they don’t discuss the lies of the cop who did the sting. They find nothing wrong with the service provided. They waste police and other public money to enforce their oppression and abridgment of speech - and to what end? They have served nobody except the license sellers at the bar who now sell licenses to non lawyers!

In 1993 they raided my office. This is the "Raid at the Good Nite Inn" story at this link: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5460.html

and this link: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5453.html

They did NOT file a criminal complaint. They did file in the newspaper an accusation of 7 felonies - practicing law without a license. And the paper did not report it when they found out that I was innocent and the prosecution never did file a complaint. Now fast forward 6 years to May 14, 1999. They raided my farm in Illinois and put me in jail. the FBI agent Eley told me that it was for practicing law without a license - but he was slightly wrong. Thus started my personal extradition case, a case where the extradition should have been refused but the lawyers and judges involved were all weak idiots. I suffered an illegal extradition. After being extradited I faced a jury trial and won. It was a week long trial and the jury took less than 2 hours for all 12 of them to vote me NOT GUILTY. The sole charge from the beginning was advertising - although they told my Mom that it was fraud - and my Mom disinherited me. The charge was 6126 which is stated verbatim here: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/6125.html

Here are the links to that story: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/5918.html

http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/4055v31pt1.html

http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/3435illi.html

http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/5996.html

http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/3789history.html

I have NEVER been convicted of a bar offense. I have never been convicted of a felony. I have never been accused of helping people with IRS cases. I don't do much IRS work. I am only now beginning to use what I learned in law

General navigational links:

Lawyerdude’s most important page. His top 10 lists: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5459.html

Back to www.lawyerdude.8m.com Or my mirror site: www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com

Telephone Lawyerdude: 805 652 0334

Back to Lawyerdude's discussion group: www.groups.yahoo.com/group/lawyerdude

Email lawyerdude: dlawyerdude@hotmail.com

Back to lawyerdude's briefs: www.circuitlawyer.8m.com

Back to Lawyerdude's Contemporary Constitutional Issues:

http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5693.html

The Steve 762 program to fight traffic tickets: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5695.html

List of all pages uploaded by Lawyerdude in the past few months updated 27 June 03: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5673.html

Lawyerdude's links page: www.lawyerdude.8m.com/links.html

Rule 1-311 Safe Harbor for Writing by lawyers

- Because the bar does not recognize the 1^st amendment.

Rule 1-311. Employment of Disbarred, Suspended, Resigned, or Involuntarily Inactive Member.

1. (A) For purposes of this rule:

(1) "Employ" means to engage the services of another, including employees, agents, independent contractors and consultants, regardless of whether any compensation is paid;

(2) "Involuntarily inactive member" means a member who is ineligible to practice law as a result of action taken pursuant to Business and Professions Code sections 6007, 6203(c), or California Rule of Court 958(d); and

(3) "Resigned member" means a member who has resigned from the State Bar while disciplinary charges are pending.

(B) A member shall not employ, associate professionally with, or aid a person the member knows or reasonably should know is a disbarred, suspended, resigned, or involuntarily inactive member to perform the following on behalf of the member's client:

(1) Render legal consultation or advice to the client;

(2) Appear on behalf of a client in any hearing or proceeding or before any judicial officer, arbitrator, mediator, court, public agency, referee, magistrate, commissioner, or hearing officer;

(3) Appear as a representative of the client at a deposition or other discovery matter;

(4) Negotiate or transact any matter for or on behalf of the client with third parties;

(5) Receive, disburse or otherwise handle the client's funds; or

(6) Engage in activities which constitute the practice of law.

(C) A member may employ, associate professionally with, or aid a disbarred, suspended, resigned, or involuntarily inactive member to perform research, drafting or clerical activities, including but not limited to:

(1) Legal work of a preparatory nature, such as legal research, the assemblage of data and other necessary information, drafting of pleadings, briefs, and other similar documents;

(2) Direct communication with the client or third parties regarding matters such as scheduling, billing, updates, confirmation of receipt or sending of correspondence and messages; or

(3) Accompanying an active member in attending a deposition or other discovery matter for the limited purpose of providing clerical assistance to the active member who will appear as the representative of the client.

(D) Prior to or at the time of employing a person the member knows or reasonably should know is a disbarred, suspended, resigned, or involuntarily inactive member, the member shall serve upon the State Bar written notice of the employment, including a full description of such person's current bar status. The written notice shall also list the activities prohibited in paragraph (B) and state that the disbarred, suspended, resigned, or involuntarily inactive member will not perform such activities. The member shall serve similar written notice upon each client on whose specific matter such person will work, prior to or at the time of employing such person to work on the client's specific matter. The member shall obtain proof of service of the client's written notice and shall retain such proof and a true and correct copy of the client's written notice for two years following termination of the member's employment with the client.

(E) A member may, without client or State Bar notification, employ a disbarred, suspended, resigned, or involuntarily inactive member whose sole function is to perform office physical plant or equipment maintenance, courier or delivery services, catering, reception, typing or transcription, or other similar support activities.

(F) Upon termination of the disbarred, suspended, resigned, or involuntarily inactive member, the member shall promptly serve upon the State Bar written notice of the termination.

Discussion:

For discussion of the activities that constitute the practice of law, see Farnham v. State Bar (1976) 17 Cal.3d 605 [131 Cal.Rptr. 611]; Bluestein v. State Bar (1974) 13 Cal.3d 162 [118 Cal.Rptr. 175]; Baron v. City of Los Angeles (1970) 2 Cal.3d 535 [86 Cal.Rptr. 673]; Crawford v. State Bar (1960) 54 Cal.2d 659 [7 Cal.Rptr. 746]; People v. Merchants Protective Corporation (1922) 189 Cal. 531, 535 [209 P. 363]; People v. Landlords Professional Services (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1599 [264 Cal.Rptr. 548]; and People v. Sipper (1943) 61 Cal.App.2d Supp. 844 [142 P.2d 960].)

Paragraph (D) is not intended to prevent or discourage a member from fully discussing with the client the activities that will be performed by the disbarred, suspended, resigned, or involuntarily inactive member on the client's matter. If a member's client is an organization, then the written notice required by paragraph (D) shall be served upon the highest authorized officer, employee, or constituent overseeing the particular engagement. (See rule 3-600.)

Nothing in rule 1-311 shall be deemed to limit or preclude any activity engaged in pursuant to rules 983, 983.1, 983.2, and 988 of the California Rules of Court, or any local rule of a federal district court concerning admission pro hac vice. (Added by Order of Supreme Court, operative August 1, 1996.)