The state bar always loses at the Supreme Court. Their rules are unconstitutional as is the state bar act.

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

The following is a list of cases where the following have been held unconstitutional:

State bar, state bar rule, other bar act, or court rule re speech rule against representation, e.g. Craig v Boren.

1. Myra Bradwell v. People of State of Illinois http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/myrabradwell.html (U.S. Ill. 1872) 83 U.S. 130, 21 L.Ed. 442, 16 Wall. 130. Myra Bradwell was denied permission to practice law in Illinois because she was a married woman. Supreme court affirmed. Okay, well in the early days the Supreme Court itself was oppressive. It was not that long ago that we had slaves. This case is cited at page 20 of my brief #3789.

3. Bridges v California (1941) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/bridges.html 314 US 263, 62 S Ct 194. This case was decided by the Supreme Court on the day after Pearl Harbor. Contains the test: "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. 24 I cited this case in my winning oral argument in my own defense in 1999 at this link: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/5918.html

4. Johnson v. Avery (1969) http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/avery.html 393 U.S. 483. This case says that anybody can write a legal paper! It gives prisoners the right to assist other prisoners and also sanctifies the writ of habeas corpus. “preparation [of a writ] must never be considered the exclusive prerogative of the lawyer. Laymen - in and out of prison - should be allowed to act as "next friend" to any person in the preparation of any paper or document or claim, so long as he does not hold himself out as practicing law or as being a member of the Bar”

5. In Mine Workers v. Illinois Bar Assn., www.lawyerdude.s5.com/umwvbar.html 389 U.S. 217 (1967), the Illinois State Bar Association filed a Complaint, the essence of which was that a union, by employing a licensed attorney on behalf of its members, constituted the unauthorized practice of law. The Illinois Supreme Court held this bar restriction did not violate the Mine Workers’ First Amendment constitutional rights of speech, assembly, and to petition for redress of grievances. The Supreme Court reversed. It held, "The freedom of expression guaranteed against state interference by the Fourteenth Amendment includes the liberty of individuals to not only speak but also to unite to make their speech effective. The latter right encompasses the right to join together to obtain judicial redress." Id. at 226.

6. NAACP v Button (1963) www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/naacp3.html 9 L Ed 2d, 371 US 415, 83 S Ct 328. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund brought suit in federal court in the eastern district of Virginia in 1957. These suits sought an injunction against enforcement of 5 statutes. Lawyers at the meetings risked disbarment and laymen risked criminal prosecution under the challenged statute for merely advising Negroes that they could file a lawsuit. NAACP won. This is a boring but fairly thorough opinion. This case is cited at pages 1, 4 in my brief 3789. www.lawyerdude.8k.com/3789.html

7. Garland, Ex Parte (1866?) http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/garlandlong.html 18 L Ed 366, 4 Wall 333@ 377 is one of only 20 cases where the supreme court mentions"Bill of Pains and Penalties." A lawyer who had served in the confederacy and subsequently pardoned was challenged by __ when he wanted to practice law again. The supreme court ruled that __ which purported to bar his practice was a bill of pains and penalties - and therefore unconstitutional. 14

9. http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/Ruffalo.html A relevant inquiry in appraising a decision to disbar is whether the attorney stricken from the rolls can be deemed to have been on notice that the courts would condemn the conduct for which he was removed.

10. United Transportation Union (the Teamsters) v Michigan (the Michigan Bar) (1971) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/teamster.html 28 L Ed 2d 339, 401 US 576, 91S Ct 1076 There were a rash of cases with the state bar pitted against various unions, the ACLU, and anybody else who tried to encroach on the illegal boundaries that the organized bar had set up for itself during the age of the robber barons. Of course it seems ludicrous now, but the bar even tried to keep lawyers from advertising. Today the bar keeps non-members from speaking and writing in court. The writing part is falling away and the next step is falling away also. Non-lawyer Suzanne Shell in Colorado, for example is speaking for clients in court although she is not a lawyer. The bar tried to enjoin her but gave up.

11. Bates v Arizona (1977) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/bates.html 53 L Ed 2d 810. Legal Clinic Advertised. Subject: Overbreadth and 1st amendment. The 6th most pertinent case here. 21 The bar lost again.

12. Ficker v Curran 950 F Supp 123, affirmed 119 d 3d 1150 overturned Maryland's ban on direct mail solicitation of persons accused of jailable traffic offenses. 20

13. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v Virginia ex.rel. Virginia State Bar (1964) http://www.lawyerdude.s5.com/railroad.html 12 L Ed 2d 89, 377 US 1, 84 S Ct 1113. Court struck down an injunction barring union from directing its members to certain favored lawyers. 6

14. Supreme Court of New Hampshire v Piper (1985) http://www.lawyerdude.s5.com/piper.html 84 L Ed 2d, 470 US 274, 105 S Ct 1272. State may not deny bar membership to non residents. Kathryn Piper, a Vermont resident passed the New Hampshire bar. New Hampshire attempted to ban 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. She vindicated this privilege and immunity of citizenship as late at 1985. 26

15. Edna Primus, In Re (1978) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/primus.html 56 L Ed 2d 417, 436 US 412, 98 S Ct 1893. Subject of annotation at Lawyer's Edition 2nd 56:841 entitled Licensing and Regulation of Attorney as restricted by rights of free speech, expression, and association which is the closest treatise on point regarding free speech rights of lawyers. Her Supreme Court brief is at 56 L Ed 2d 838. Edna Primus was a lawyer in private practice who volunteered her time to the ACLU. Edna Primus's letter soliciting a client on behalf of the ACLU was, in and of itself, a violation of the South Carolina bar's disciplinary rules. South Carolina stupidly argued that solicitation, like advertising, invades the privacy of others.

16. Sanders v Russell (1968 5^th circuit) http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/sanders.html This case is cited in Gilbert Summary of Ethics at section 69. 401 F 2^nd 241. If a suitable lawyer cannot be found within the local bar then an outsider obviously must be imported.

17. Gentile v State Bar of Nevada (1991) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/gentile.html 115 L Ed 2d 888. 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. 25

18. Leis v Larry Flynt (1979) 439 U.S. 438 http://www.lawyerdude.s5.com/flynt.html The local court did not want to permit Flynt’s famous lawyer to appeal locally. The U.S. Supreme Court once again ruled that the bar rules were unconstitutional.

20. 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. Page 21

21. Birbrower v Superior Court of Santa Clara County http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/birbrower.html (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 1st amendment issue - but a fee collection case. 24

22. Condon, Estate of (__1998) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/condon.html 65 Cal App 4th 1138, 76 Cal Rptr 2d 922. Once he determined that Katz was not a member of the California State Bar and had not applied to appear pro hac vice (see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 983), he expressed his view that Katz was not an "attorney" within the meaning of Probate Code section 10810: "As far as this court is concerned he's not a licensed legal practitioner . . . ." The judge adjourned the hearing, telling Campisi, "I will give you [two hours] to come up with some authority [for me] to order payment out of a California estate to a nonmember of the California bar for attorney's fees" . The court of appeal ruled otherwise saying For the reasons stated herein we hold that Katz and the Elrod firm (licensed to practice law in Colorado) did not practice law "in California" within the meaning of section 6125 when its members entered California either physically or virtually to practice law on behalf of Michael (a Colorado citizen). Mentioned on page 21 of brief 3789.

23. Griswold v Connecticut (1965) http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/griswold.html 14 L Ed 2d 510, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S. Ct. 1678. Penumbra. Relaxed standing. Vicarious standing. Cited in Palaschak briefs #3567 at page 1 and #3596 @ 2. Dr. Griswold gave illegal drugs (birth control pills) to his patients. He used relaxed standing to defend his pill distribution by saying that the privacy rights of his patients in their procreative (or not) liberty permitted him to give them the pills. Justice Douglas's legacy to the free world! 9, 14

24. Near v Minnesota (1931) http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/near.html 75 L. Ed. 1357; 283 U.S. 697; 51 S. Ct. 625. Any attempt by the state bar or the court to restrain Palaschak's speech constitutes unlawful prior restraint in violation of Near. Konigsberg relied on Near argument in his successful argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in the blacklisting days. Page 8

26. Spanos v. Skouras Theaters Corp., 364 F.2d 161, 170 (en banc) (CA2 1966)."We are persuaded, however, that where a right has been conferred on citizens by federal law, the constitutional guarantee against its abridgment must be read to include what is necessary and appropriate for its assertion. In an age of increased specialization and high mobility of the bar, this must comprehend the right to bring to the assistance of an attorney admitted in the resident state a lawyer licensed by 'public act' of any other state who is thought best fitted for the task, and to allow him to serve in whatever manner is most effective, subject only to valid rules of courts as to practice before them. (Citation omitted) . . .Indeed, in instances where the federal claim or defense is unpopular, advice and assistance by an out-of-state lawyer may be the only means available for vindication." Cited in dissent in Leis v Larry Flynt (1979) 439 U.S. 438 http://www.lawyerdude.s5.com/flynt.html The implying what Dr. Bevan knows for certain - there is a wide spectrum of legal help available - mostly incompetent for his difficult task. Page 18

27. Brandenburg v Ohio (1969) http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/Brandenburg.html 23 L Ed 2d 430, 395 US 444, 89 S Ct 1827. Clarence Brandenburg was Ku Klux Klan member. Clear and Present Danger test was finally used to overrule an obstruction to speech. Used in brief 3596 at page 7 and 8. Brandenburg is cited all the major constitutional law treatises and the following treatises: 21 L Ed 2d 976 The Supreme Court and the right of free speech and press, 38 L Ed 2d 835 The Supreme Court's development of the "clear and present danger"rule and the related rule concerning advocacy of unlawful acts as limitations on the constitutional right of free speech and press, 45 L Ed 2d 725

28. Craig v Harney (1947) http://www.lawyerdude.s5.com/harney.html 91 L Ed 1546, 331 U.S. 367. 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. Craig worked for a newspaper. Mayes was fighting in World War II and his landlord wanted to evict him. The jury ruled in favor of the soldier. This was a “justice court”. The judge sent the jury back again and again until they changed their verdict. Craig wrote an editorial criticizing this uneducated judge. The judge read it and sentenced Craig to 3 days in jail. On Habeas Craig lost and did not win until he got to the Supreme Court. Nearly the same thing happened to my friend Jennifer Simmer. The uneducated justice judge dismissed the jury and ruled against her. She won on appeal. 24

29. Crow, In Re (1959) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/crow.html 3 L Ed 2d 1025-27. Annotation 3 L Ed 2d. Non criminal disbarment. Attorney disbarred in Ohio. U.S. Supreme Court issues OSC. He responded. Douglas dissents that they should have appoint a committee. 24

30. Kunstler, In Re William (1974) 1974 U.S. App. Lexis 6968. Kunstler was himself sentenced to 4 years and 14 days in prison for his behavior before angry judge in the trial of the Chicago 7. He won on appeal. See My Life as a Radical Lawyer, autobiography of Attorney William Kunstler. Here is my summary of Kunstler’s biography: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/kunstler.html Law Professor Douglas Linder at the University of Missouri at Kansas City has a “famous trials” project published on the internet. http://www1.law.umkc.edu/Faculty/FacultyWritings/electronic.htm There he has links to the Chicago 7 trial. Here are some of those links. Links to transcripts of Kunstler’s trial for having offended the federal judge - and other Chicago 7 trial transcripts: Here is where the Federal court of appeal absolved Attorney Kunstler and reversed the lower court opinion http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Chicago7/InReDellinger.htm Here is where Judge Hoffman sentenced Hoffman: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Chicago7/kunstler.html Kunstler successfully defended the Chicago 7 who were prosecuted by an overzealous U.S. Attorney in Chicago in opposition to the will of then U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark (who later in 1995 successfully defended People's Lawyer Steve Yagman if Santa Monica in his attack by another over zealous bureaucrat attempting to punish Yagman for his criticism of Federal Judge Keller and others. The oppression of Yagman utilized the tool of the standing committee for discipline of the U.S. district court for the central district of California. In 1993, before Yagman's case, Palaschak attempted to communicate with this committee. The court refused to disclose the names of the committee members or how the committee could be reached. The committee acts secretly - and now we know why. Yagman's case revealed that the committee was then controlled by the personal attorney for Judge Real, then the presiding judge - and a judge who hated Attorney Yagman. In other words, the committee had a conflict of interest. Law Professor. Page 11 See also Dellinger et al. Dellinger was the lead named defendant in the Chicago 7 along with the late Jerry Rubin, Abie Hoffman, et al., defended by the late Attorney William Kunstler, who was one of many lawyers punished for their outspoken views and vigilant defense work. He died in 2004. He was older than the other demonstrators in 1968 in Chicago at the Democratic National convention. 11

31. Supreme Court's views as to overbreadth of legislation in connection with First Amendment rights, 86 L Ed 758 Right of petition and assembly under the Federal Constitution's First Amendment - Supreme Court cases, 96 ALR Fed 26, 20 ALR4th 327. 24

32. Spevack v Klein (1967) http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/spevack.html 17 L Ed 2d 574, 385 U.S. 511; 87 S. Ct. 625. Constitutional rights accrue at bar hearings because it looks, feels, and smells like a criminal process. The defendant is being punished, sometime the 2nd time, for some act. 16

33. Hackin v Arizona (1967) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/hackin.html 19 L. Ed. 2d 347; 389 U.S. 143; 88 S. Ct. 325. There was no written majority opinion. Douglas's strong a 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. 23

34. Hackin V Lockwood (1966) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/hackin1.html 361 F2d 499. District court held that Arizona's ABA requirement is constitutional. The court in a cowardly deceptive gutless oppressive bureaucratic fascist fashion 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. 23

35. Cronic, U.S. v Harrison (1984) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/cronic.html 466 U.S. 648, 665 Cited by Alderman and Kennedy book In Our Defense page 402, 259. Companion case defining the standard for competence is Strickland v Washington 466 U.S. 688. 18

Palaschak’s case is based on the penumbra of 4 or 5 veins of defense of freedom of speech.

This is merely one category from 3789 here. See also the lists of free speech cases that are non-bar related.

Brief in In Our Defense. The endnotes of In Our Defense contain an excellent brief regarding the search and seizure issues in a politically motivated raid. 10, 23, 25

Griffin v Illinois (1956) http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/griffin.html 100 L Ed 891, 351 US 12, 79 S Ct 585, 55 ALR2d 1055 - Indigent's right to appointed counsel on first appeal of right. You have a right to a free transcript on your 1st appeal. Traffic court thwart this right in California by making you jump through a hoop and attempting to make you agree to a settled statement on appeal - which precludes you from later thinking up issues that are apparent to the skilled lawyer looking at a real transcript. 19

Houston v Hill (1987) http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/houston.html 96 L Ed 2d 390. 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. 22

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. 21

Keyishian v Board of Regents (1967) 17 L Ed 2d 629, 385 U.S. 589. Overbreadth. Ordinance required solicitors to register with the police. Ruled unconstitutional. 22

Konigsberg v State Bar of California, et. al. (1957)1 L. Ed. 2d 810 , 353 U.S. 252, 77 S. Ct. 722. The state bar of California oppressed political dissidents then - and it does so now with Palaschak and other patriots. Page 8 California spited the U.S. Supreme Court and refused to permit Konigsberg to join the bar. He went back to the Supreme Court in 1961 and lost. There are 2 opinions named Konigsberg. Bizarre.

Lilburne's case. (1648) Lilburne was granted the right to a lawyer. See Visions of Liberty, Ira Glasser, 1991, Little, Brown, New York, page 160. In 1637, a Puritan activist named John Lilburne imported and distributed various political tracts and was brought before the Star Chamber. Lilburne refused to be examined under oath, claiming that it violated "the law of the land" and invoking the Magna Carta. Condemning the oath as a procedure that was fundamentally unfair, Lilburne said that he would not take it even "though I be pulled to pieces by wild horses." Lilburne was held in contempt of court, publicly whipped, fined, and jailed in solitary confinement. He wasn't released until 1641. But his crusade for fair procedures and his willingness to absorb severe punishment rather than forsake principle inflamed the public - on both sides of the Atlantic - and Lilburne became a great symbol. He suffered, but not without effect: In 1645 Parliament set aside the judgment again Lilburne, finding that it had indeed violated "the law of the land and Magna Carta." In 1648 he was granted damages for his unjust imprisonment.. . Lilburne led the Levelers. He was arrested again and again and died in prison at age 43. . .. . . At his very last trial he won the then unprecedented right to receive a copy of the charges again him and to be represented by a lawyer [a right demanded by defendant Palaschak herein (at his bar hearings - and he was forced to give up his right to assistance of counsel in order to obtain his right to go to the law library) and a right demanded by Palaschak's client, Melvin Looser who was imprisoned without benefit of counsel for being unable to pay a $104 fine]. 18

Marbury v Madison (1803) 2 L Ed 60, 5 U.S. 137. A void act is void ab initio. 11

Ohralik v Ohio state bar 56 L Rf 2d 444, 436 US 447, 98 S Ct 1912. Ohralik was an ambulance chaser entitled to the same first amendment rights but he lost on appeal while Primus won because she took no money. Does your right to speech end if you are paid for it? No. 5 Ohralik v Ohio state bar 56 L Ed 2d 444, 436 US 447, 98 S Ct 1912. Ohralik in his brief at 56 L Ed 876 cited Louisville Var v Hubbard 282 Ky 734, 739, 139 Sw2d 773, 775, Bates v State Bar of Arizona 53 L Ed 2d 810, Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v Virginia Citizens Consumer council 48 L Ed 2d 346, NAACP v Button 9 L Ed2d 405, State v Rubon (1930) 201 Wes 30,32, 229 NW 36, 37, Cole v Arkansas 92 L Ed 644, US v O'Brien 20 L Ed 2d 672. 6

Procunier v Martinez (1974) 40 L Ed 2d 224, 416 US 396, 84 S Ct 1800 Mail is a right 25

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. 20

Thomas v Collins 89 L Ed 430 Freedom of expression includes the right to advocate. 1

Vaughan, In re (1922) 189 C 491, 209 P 353. Cited falsely in annotations to B&P 6082. It was overruled by implication in Spevack. "Proceeding for disbarment of attorney is not such a criminal prosecution as entitles defendant to decline to testify on ground that he cannot be compelled to be witness against himself, although he may decline to answer questions which would tend to incriminate him" is a lie. Page 16

3. In Illinois the defense lawyer gets paid from the bond money before it is refunded to the defendant.

My phone number and email address may change from time to time. If the telephone number or email address on this page is outdated then please join my group http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/the_lawyerdude or migrate to more recent pages. There is a 4 digit number up in the top left corner of the page. Not the counter number. There is often a date at the bottom of the page. Migrate to newer pages to see my newer telephone number and email address.

My most useful web pages and my most popular web pages are these following pages:

Links for your Empowerment! Self help Litigation forms, instructions, cases, and samples.

12. List of the 30 most important criminal court motions. They are listed in Lawyerdude’s Bill of Rights for Criminal Defendants in jail. This is my New Standard by which to measure effectiveness of counsel. Make your appointed lawyer toe the line: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5635.html

13. Courtroom assertiveness 101: How to be assertive in court. Scripts for the Pro Se litigant:

14. Were you strip searched? Sue em! http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5728.html Do they do a strip search anus check every time you go to the law library? Did your jail not have a law library?

32. Lawyerdude's library. A prioritized reading list. A list of books that farm folk and an enlightened populace should read. Some of these books justify weekly or monthly review - like your Bible - for your own defense. http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/library.html