Unauthorized Practiceof Law — UPL

 

UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW

The Inherent Rights of Mankind includes the unalienable “right” to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Declaration of Independence.
The pursuit of happiness includes the Right to earn one’s living by labor, the arts, a business, a profession, etc., including all “occupations of common right”. Currently, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has embarked on a mission to remove an occupation of common right from any citizen who may choose to pursue the practice of law as a career.

 The State legislature lacks any authority whatsoever to enact legislation that abridges, abrogates or diminishes the RIGHT to the pursuit of happiness via an occupation of common right.  State courts lack “Jurisdiction” to try UPL cases.

The Pennsylvania Bar Association (“PBA”), immune from the limitations placed on the state legislature, is engaged via administrative and judicial fiat to achieve what the legislature, due to constitutional limitations, cannot. i.e., establish criminal prosecution for the unauthorized practice of law (“upl”).
Note. Pennsylvania is not the only state BAR engaged in this reprehensible action.

The practice of law is an occupation of common right.
“The practice of law CAN NOT be licensed by any state/State.” Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 U.S. 238, 239.

“A State cannot exclude a person from the practice of law or from any other occupation in a manner or for reasons that contravene the Due Process or Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Schware, supra, citing Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U.S. 114.

The Restatement of the Law notes:

” … The “COMMERCIAL” practice of law, pleading for hire, should not be confused with the common law right to practice law. The former being fully subject to the regulation of law as a commercial endeavor, and the latter being the exercise of a common right beyond legislation. Sims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925).

In the federal courts, the right of self-representation has been protected by statute … , provided that “in all the courts of the United States, the parties may plead and manage their own causes personally or by the assistance of . . . counsel . . . .”
See also The Contract: “Frame of Government”.

“Unauthorized Practice of Law” [42 Pa.C.S. A. § 2524] is a legal fiction. Prosecution under this statute constitutes “a fraud upon the court“. Judges and prosecutors act in concert to violate the rights of individuals.
“It is a fair characterization of the lawyer’s responsibility in our society that he stands “as a shield,” …, in defense of right and to ward off wrong. From a profession charged with such responsibilities there must be exacted those qualities of truth-speaking, of a high sense of honor, of granite discretion, of the strictest observance of fiduciary responsibility, that have, throughout the centuries, been compendiously described as “moral character”. Schware, supra.  (Emphasis added)

All prosecutorial “trustees” must be held to this same professional standard.

Criminal prosecution under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 2524 – Penalty for unauthorized practice of law  –  violates the equal protection of law afforded occupations of common right making it repugnant to the Constitution.  See Schware, supra. 

Criminal prosecution under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 2524 – Penalty for UPL  –  violates due process and the equal protection of law afforded occupations of common right making the statute repugnant to the Constitution. See Schware,  

The Criminal Division of a civil court must direct prosecutors to show cause as to why the court should not declare that it lacks jurisdiction to administer [“try”] cases under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 2524.

The pursuit of happiness includes the Right to earn one’s living by labor, the arts, a business, a profession, etc., including all “occupations of common right”.
The Unauthorized Practice of Law (“UPL”) is an unconstitutional impingement on the Inherent Rights of Mankind.

“The practice of law is an occupation of common right.” “In the federal courts, the right of self-representation has been protected by statute … , provided that “in all the courts of the United States, the parties may plead and manage their own causes personally or by the assistance of . . . counsel . . . .”

The State legislature lacks any authority whatsoever to enact legislation that abridges, abrogates or diminishes the RIGHT to the pursuit of happiness via an occupation of common right. 


The practice of law CAN NOT be licensed by any state/State. Schware, ergo, “unauthorized practice of law” is a legal fiction. [42 Pa.C.S. A. § 2524]. See Marbury, supra; and Norton, supra.


Agents [i.e., “trustees”] acting on behalf of and under the lawful authority of government are granted qualified immunity for actions in the lawful exercise of their duties.

Trustees serving in a judicial capacity have qualified immunity only so long as they act within the parameters of their authority. i.e., to afford defendants their Inherent Rights under the Public Trust.

 

2 thoughts on “Unauthorized Practiceof Law — UPL

  1. Bill

    I am being pursued by several gas companies for the “unauthorized practice of law” wherein I was a 3rd party signature to numerous oil/gas leases as a “consultant” In reviewing each of the leases I signed I acted as an individual and negotiated and made comments with regard to certain provisions of each lease, to include royalty values and terms of lease and rental rates and geology. By way of trade I was a licensed geologist at the time acting as the consultant for the landowners the “Lessors”.There were varied lease provisions offered by the gas companies that I did not like and wanted deleted or changed before I signed the lease. those proposed revisions directly benefited both me and the Lessors. Many of Lessors who were my consulting clients also made comments and demanded changes some used attorneys and others did not. I too used attorneys for reviews for the some of leases. The leases where eventually reflective of agreed upon provisions resulting from the all of those discussions and signed by all three parties, the Lessee, the Lessor and me and the Consultant. The leases proved to be more environmentally restrictive to the gas companies and far more beneficial to the Lessors in royalty rates and rentals, and gas companies later complained about me and the bad precedent they had set by agreeing to their revised industry lease forms. The general public discovered the “revised” lease form and often would not agree to the industry form and demanded that they too would only sign a lease having the same types of rates and provisions. As way of retribution against me, I am now being threatened with an “unauthorized practice of law” suit and would greatly appreciate talking with you more in depth to entertain your services. thank you

    Reply
    1. Administrator Post author

      Bill,
      Unless there are other facts you haven’t shared, check out Black’s Law Dictionary for “practice of law”. Also check your state statute for “unauthorized practice of law”. Both usually will cite the need for “clients” who “hire” a person who holds himself out to be an attorney, and bills for legal services rendered. Restatement of Law 2d holds that “the practice of law” is an occupation of common right, hence, there are questions of whether there actually is an “unauthorized” practice of law (upl)”. The BAR Association often employs this ruse in attempts to intimidate persons who provide any legal assistance to others, so as to monopolize the business of law. In response, you may wish to demand that your harassers (gas companies etc.) present evidence of “standing” to bring any action against you and to cite any statute that they imply may be brought against you. Demand that they “cease and desist” from any further actions in pursuit of their fraudulent conduct, with a reminder that a counter-suit could make you very wealthy.
      The ABA is an irresponsible and corrupt organization and upl is one of their unconstitutional methods. WARNING! They may not go away quietly. You may want to consult with a lawyer … if you find one you can trust. They most likely are members of the BAR, with a built-in “conflict of interest”. In serving you, they risk “disciplinary action” against their own “practice of law”.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *