Time: Tue Nov 12 18:51:37 1996 To: joseph.d.robertson@nhmccd.cc.tx.us From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: Re: Bored? Cc: Bcc: Dale, I just sent you an unsolicited proposal concerning Habeas Corpus and the Supreme Law Firm. Can we put your proposal below on the back burner for the time being? I think you will see why if and when you agree to our "evaluation period" discussed in my prior message. Welcome back! /s/ Paul Mitchell At 05:07 PM 11/12/96 -0600, you wrote: >Tuesday, 12Nov96 @ 16:55 Hours CST > > TO: Paul Mitchell > FROM: Dale Robertson > SUBJECT: Prior e-mail on Arizona UPLC > (unauthorized practice of law committee) > >Paul: > >On returning from a 10 day trip in celebration of my 33rd annaversary, I >find received e-mail traffic to be prolific. > >Among the forrest of messages is the one below in reference to your now >famous "I'm Bored" posting to which I responded with added request for >data on the Arizona sunset commission and the Arizona UPLC. You made >cursory response with a promise for more later when it became available >(from, inter alia, your associates in Calif?). > >How about it? Any added comment or data on this subject. Any would be >welcome! > >And do your know "pap" at: jpapania@asu.campus.mci.net ?. Perhaps you >two should get together on some of the BAR actions around Arizona as >well as UPLC actions elsewhere. I intend to communicate with him with an >aim at replication of the action in Arizona in 1984 to other states (ie: >Texas). There simply is no reasonable justification for the UPLC in any >state in this nation except to bolster the monopoly of the state bar >associations. Any networking suggestions on this topic will be >appreciated. > >Thanks > >Dale Robertson >joseph.d.robertson@mail.nhmccd.cc.tx.us > > >Below is the repost of the message in response to my post to your of >some 4 weeks ago: >==================================================== > > >======================================================================= >LIBERTY LAW - CROSS THE BAR & MAKE YOUR PLEA - FIRST VIRTUAL COURT, USA >Presiding JOP: Tom Clark, Constable: Robert Happy, Clerk: Kerry Rushing >======================================================================= > This is in response to Dale Robertson's msg asking who was >responsible for the: > >> ... demise of the Arizona Supreme Court's State Bar Unauthorized >> Practice of Law Committee. (UPLC) reportedly the sun has set on the >> Arizona UPLC by the Arizona sunset commission. See my recent post to >> your on this subject. > > > The AZ bar UPL committee wasn't "sunsetted". It was the state >statute making it a crime to "practice law" without a bar card that >was sunsetted. > > Accoding to former Phoenix JOP Don Weisenberger, a well-know and >respected non-lawyer judge who now owns and operates Legal Assistance >and Tax Service here in Phoenix, the UPL statutes were sunsetted in >1984 when key people in the state legislature got into a feud with >key people in the state bar association. Under AZ sunset laws, the >UPL statute either had to be voted up or it died automatically. The >key lawmakers simply bottled it up in committee where it died an >ignominious but well-deserved death. RIP UPL! > > The state supreme court has said that it will not go after anyone >through it's contempt powers for UPL unless some harm to the public >can be show. Rising to the challenge, the bar association twice >held public hearings and invited complaints so they could show how >evil and wicked laymen are and how wonderful lawyers are. And >twice, the only ones who complained were lawyers carping about how >much money they were losing to lay legal service providers. > > Year before last, a bankruptcy shyster who is also a state >legislator, introduced a bill which would have made writing legal >paper a class 5 felony, punisable by 5 years and $50,000. However, >an alert citizenry, made more alert by independent paralegals and >lay forms preparers, flooded the lawmakers with protests and the bill >never made it out of committee. > > I'm a director of National Congress for Legal Reform and head it's > >Southwest District. I, and a number of others testified at the public >hearings at the state capitol against passing the bill because it would >hurt people who can't afford to pay thousands of dollars to lawyers >in order to exercise their right to access the courts. > > There was talk that it would again be tried in AZ this year, but >that didn't materialize . A friend of mine who is a member of the >bar association UPL committee said that the committee agreed with us >(NCLR) and others, that if there is any problem with lay legal >service providers, those problems are consumer fraud problems, not >problems with people pretending to be lawyers or practicing law >without a bar card. > > I'm sure that another legislator/shyster will put forth another >UPL bill sooner or later. However, the genie has been out of the >bottle way too long. People are used to having lay legal services >and I seriously doubt that the bar will be able to get the public's >support. Especially when the argument is easily made that such a >bill is aimed at putting more of the public's money in lawyers' pockets. > > > UPL is my pet subject. I was charged with it in Louisiana in >1990 and refused to cowtow to the bar association and three judges. >I was twice featured on 20/20 (ABC Television News Magazine) because >I wouldn't quit and I wouldn't back down. I'm now disabled, old and >fat. But I still don't quit or back down when it comes to UPL. I've >helped lay legal providers in a number of states in federal suits >against state bar associations, judges, courts and individual lawyers. >Once they get ground through their own overpriced legal meat grinder >they usually decide it's easier and less costly just to leave us alone. > >pap > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >A peasant between two lawyers is like a fish >between two cats. > .... Spanish Proverb > E-Mail: > jpapania@asu.campus.mci.net >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail