"Compassion and Infiltration:  Where the Rubber Meets the Road"


Michael Hafter, Freelance Writer

December 21, 2015 A.D.

Third in a Continuing Series on American Just US


            In a nation governed by the rule of law, those responsible for enforcing the law are expected to honor and obey laws that apply specifically to them.  This is not the situation in contemporary America, however.

            Contrary observations make it painfully obvious that law enforcement organizations are too often populated with habitual hypocrites who elevate power and money above all else, to feather their own nests.

            Consider the verified facts now being assembled to impeach The State Bar of California and all 250,000 of its registered "members".

            During the past year, the Compassionate Use Alliance ("CUA") wrote to the Clerk of the California Supreme Court with a routine request to identify the proper legal custodian of all licenses to practice law in that State.

            The Clerk promptly replied in writing to say that the State Bar is responsible for handling all inquiries concerning licenses to practice law and certificates of oath.  This was a rather misleading reply, for several well documented reasons.

            For one, The State Bar of California was served with a Federal SUBPOENA back in March 2004 for all licenses to practice law and all certificates of oath duly indorsed by all Bar members during the ten years beginning January 1, 1994.  Proof of compliance was required to be filed with the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court.

            State Bar officials responsible for complying with that SUBPOENA failed to produce a single license -- not one -- and their failure to comply has left all of them, and all of its members, in contempt of Court.

            For another, careful scrutiny of the State Bar Act in California has convinced CUA that the State Bar is not the designated legal custodian of any licenses to practice law, nor of any certificates of oath.

            In a recent written rebuttal to that same Clerk of Court, CUA's Founder justified in great detail the obvious conclusions which any reasonable American can draw from Section 6064 of the California Business and Professions Code.

            That law explains the chain of possession in very clear terms:  the California Supreme Court issues an order admitting an attorney to practice law;  the Office of Clerk issues a certificate of admission, also known as a "license";  and, each certificate of admission is then given to the attorney by the Clerk.

            The State Bar is not mentioned anywhere in that chain of possession.

            Moreover, Section 6067 clearly requires each licensed attorney to indorse a certificate of oath upon each license.  In Latin, "in dorso" means "on the back", as when indorsing a standard bank check.  Therefore, all certificates of oath must be signed by all California attorneys "on the back" of their licenses.

            The exact language of that Section is worth repeating here:

Every person on his admission shall take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, and faithfully to discharge the duties of any attorney at law to the best of his knowledge and ability.  A certificate of the oath shall be indorsed upon his license.

            Section 6067 was enacted in 1939, and its predecessor statute contained almost identical language.  In February 1851, not long after California was admitted to the Union, the State's Legislature enacted the following Act concerning Attorneys and Counsellors at Law:

Section 3.  If upon examination he be found duly qualified, the Court shall admit him as Attorney and Counsellor in all the Courts of this state, and shall direct an order to be entered to that effect upon its records, and that a certificate of such record be given to him by the Clerk of the Court, which certificate shall be his license.

. . .

Section 5.  Every person, on his admission, shall take an oath or affirmation to support the constitution of the United States and of the state, and to discharge the duties of Attorney and Counsellor to the best of his knowledge and ability.  A certificate of such oath or affirmation shall be endorsed on the license.


            One of the fundamental principles of American Law is that Acts of Legislatures retain today the same meaning they had when they were first enacted into law.  Even though slight changes can be confirmed when Section 6067 was enacted in 1939, the important elements have remained unchanged:  each certificate of admission shall be the license, and each certificate of oath shall be indorsed "on the back" of each license.

            The rubber has met the road in recent State court litigation,  however.  One CUA client succeeded in serving a civil plaintiff's two counsels with separate SUBPOENAs for proof of their compliance with Sections 6067 and 6068 of the State Bar Act.

            Instead of producing copies of their certificates of admission and certificates of oath, both attorneys filed copies of their "Bar Cards" into the official records of the California Superior Court.

            Both sides of one Bar Card were disclosed, and only the front side of the other Bar Card was disclosed.  The one back side displayed some telephone numbers, and a signature line for the Bar member to certify that his dues were up-to-date and paid in full.  No signature was evident.

            CUA's client then filed a timely MOTION TO COMPEL their compliance with those two SUBPOENAs, with a companion MEMORANDUM in support of same.

            In a recent hearing where this question arose, a Superior Court Judge attempted to dispose the matter summarily:  she ruled that a "Bar Card" is sufficient proof of a valid license to practice law, these license questions were "not meritorious", and no "Points and Authorities" had accompanied that MOTION TO COMPEL.

            Clearly, that summary ruling was plainly erroneous on each point:  "Bar Cards" are not valid licenses to practice law;  the absence of valid licenses to practice law in the State of California implies multiple State and Federal criminal offenses, like mail fraud and wire fraud;  and, the MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL did recite numerous legal authorities justifying a Court order compelling SUBPOENA compliance.

            At a minimum, attempting to appear in court on behalf of private clients without a valid license to practice law is willful misrepresentation, violating at a minimum Sections 6126 and 6128 of the State Bar Act:  both are misdemeanor crimes.

            At this writing, CUA's Founder has mailed his detailed rebuttal to the Clerk of the California Supreme Court, complete with certificates of mailing, and courtesy copies were also mailed to the Governor of California, the State Attorney General, the Superior Court's Presiding Judge, and the local County Sheriffs.

            It requires no stretch of the imagination to realize that the membership of The State Bar of California appear to be engaged in a pattern of racketeering activities, in violation of the RICO laws first enacted by Congress in October 1970 at 18 U.S.C. 1961.

            It is not too difficult to prove that each such UNlicensed "member" has committed at least one count of mail fraud, one count of wire fraud, and one count of bank fraud.  Each count qualifies as a RICO "predicate act" and the fine is one million dollars for each count.

            An agent of the U.S. Treasury under the Federal civil False Claims Act has now billed all 250,000+ members for $9 Million each, after applying the automatic triple damage multiplier expressly authorized by 18 U.S.C. 1964(c), also known as the Civil RICO statute.

            Launch CALCULATOR:  a total of $2.25 TRILLION U.S. Dollars are now owed to the Treasury of the United States, minus Management Fees, plus interest.

            A hunt is now underway to discover all insurance companies that have agreed to indemnify State Bar members for their own "errors and omissions".  CUA's Founder reserves the right to examine those insurance contracts, to determine whether or not they do indemnify criminal conduct.

            Stay tuned:  the insurance giants of this world did not become enormously wealthy by agreeing to underwrite criminal conduct.  They already know the sky's the limit on damages caused by serious crimes, like a pattern of felony criminal offenses that threatens to continue with no relief in sight.

            In the medical field, a doctor may be asked to take his own medicine.  We may soon learn how California's UNlicensed attorneys react to the prospect of looming civil, and criminal, prosecution for their own manifold crimes.


#  #  #