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