Unauthorized Practice of Law, Part 4

The crux of the issue.

RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS:

I have no access to the State Bar of Nevada, because it is (a) a self-described private entity, and not a public entity.

Case Law frames the State Bar of Nevada as a private entity.

“[T]he State Bar is not a governmental agency to which NRS Chapter 239A applied.” Errico v. Zb, Supreme Court of Nevada 472 P.3d 188 (2020) (Unpublished)

“Pursuant to Nevada Supreme Court Rule (SCR) 76, the Nevada State Bar is not a government agency but is a public corporation.” Stahl v. Errico, Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Clark County, Case No.: A-13-692124-C (2017)

The states contiguous to Nevada are mixed in whether they assign state or public agency to the State Bar.

UTAH

Utah, in Barnard v. Utah State Bar, 804 P.2d 526 (1991), at 527, says in the court’s opinion:

“At the outset, we make clear precisely what issue is before the Court. The issue is whether the Utah State Bar is a ‘state agency’ within the scope of the meaning of that term as used in the Records Act and the Writings Act. We do not decide whether the Utah State Bar is a state agency for any other purpose, such as the federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §1983 (1981), nor do we decide whether the plaintiff would be entitled to the information if he had invoked some other legal theory.”

Barnard, at 529 says in the court’s opinion: “Thus, the history of the Bar and its initial legislative authority do not require the conclusion that the Bar is a ‘public office’ or ‘state agency.’”

While the Supreme Court of Utah has interpreted whether the State Bar of Utah is a state agency for the purposes of the Records Act and the Writings Act of Utah. It does not appear to have interpreted this under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, or Final Rule implementation, (“ADA”) in a federal interpretation.

What will appear as very obvious in this statement of observation is that the State Bar of any state, while purporting to uphold lawfulness and legal rigor, is simultaneously ALLERGIC to any transparency or compliance with the ADA. Discrimination is easily achievable by State Bars, while equal access on the basis of disability is easily avoidable.

IDAHO

After reasonable searching, I could find no case law that deals with whether the Idaho State Bar is a state or public agency. However, on the website for the State Bar of Idaho, under “About Us” (https://isb.idaho.gov/about-us/) the Idaho State Bar admits: “The Idaho State Bar (ISB) is a self-governing state agency of Idaho.”

CALIFORNIA

The California State Bar appears to be a State Agency.

“That the Legislature considered the State Bar as at least akin to a state public body or agency and hence its officers as "public officers" is illustrated by the last paragraph of [the Bus. & Prof. Code,] section 6001, where it appears that the Legislature felt the necessity of providing that laws prescribing procedures for state bodies, agencies or classes, did not apply to the State Bar, thus indicating that the Legislature considered the State Bar in their category” Chronicle Publishing Co. v. Superior Court of San Fransisco, 54 Cal. 2d 548, at 565 (1960). (emphasis added)

“The Bar is an organization that is sui generis. See Washington State Bar Ass'n v. Graham, 86 Wash. 2d 624, 632, 548 P.2d 310, 315 (1976). It does not exist to ‘participate in the general government of the State, but to provide specialized professional advice to those with the ultimate responsibility of governing the legal profession.’ Keller v. State Bar of Cal., 495 U.S. 1, 110 S. Ct. 2228, 110 L. Ed. 2d 1, 13 (1990).”

OREGON

“The Bar's position is not an unreasonable reading of the statutes. However, it fails to consider their full context. The definition of ‘state agency’ in ORS 192.410(2) is one of description, not of limitation. See Frohnmayer v. SAIF, 294 Or 570, 577, 660 P2d 1061 (1983). ‘State agency’ includes the  [694]  bodies mentioned; the statute does not say that only those bodies are state agencies. The Bar is clearly a creature of the state, not of any local government, and it has statewide responsibilities. Although it is an ‘instrumentality’ of the Judicial Department, it was proper for the legislature to subject it to the act. Sadler v. Oregon State Bar, 275 Or 279, 550 P2d 1218 (1976). The act does not expressly limit its definition of state agencies to those in the executive and legislative departments.” State ex rel. Frohnmayer v. Oregon State Bar, 91 Ore. App. 690, at 693,694.

“We hold that the Bar is a "state agency" within the meaning of the act” Frohnmayer at 694

SUPREME COURT of The UNITED STATES

“Of course the Supreme Court of California is the final authority on the ‘governmental’ status of the State Bar of California for purposes of state law. But its determination that respondent is a ‘government agency,’ and therefore entitled to the treatment accorded a governor, a mayor or a State Tax commission, for instance, is not binding on us when such a determination is essential to the decision of a federal question. The State Bar of California is a good deal different from most other entities that would be regarded in common parlance as ‘governmental agencies.’ Its principal funding comes not from appropriations made to it by the legislature, but from dues levied on its members by the Board of Governors. Only lawyers admitted to practice in the State of California are members of the State Bar, and all 122,000 lawyers admitted to practice in the State must be members. Respondent undoubtedly performs important and valuable services for the State by way of governance of the profession, but those services are essentially advisory in nature. The State Bar does not admit anyone to the practice of law, it does not finally disbar or suspend anyone, nor does it ultimately establish ethical codes of conduct. All of those functions are reserved by California law to the State Supreme Court. (See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Ann. § 6064 (1974) (admissions); § 6076 (rules of professional conduct); Cal. Bus.  [*12]  & Prof. Code Ann. § 6100 (West Supp. 1990) (disbarment or suspension).” Keller v. State Bar of Cal., 496 U.S. 1, at 11,12.

This quote from the opinion in Keller squares up the problem in front of me, as and ADA Advocate. State Bars want to be “state agencies” when it suits them, such as claiming 11th Amendment immunity for claims against them. Thankfully, the ADA and case law has abrogated that immunity for ADA claims that violate 14th Amendment rights.

The glaring problem with the Keller quote above is that it shows the Supreme Court disclosing that the State Bar (in every state) gets it’s funding from its members, who are admitted lawyers.

At 14, the Keller opinion mentions that the Bar dues are for the purpose of “improving the quality of the legal service available to the people of the State.”

My situation, in being pursued for UPL, is mocked by this suggestion.

My personal conversation, which was recorded, between me and William D. Goren, Esq. (Georgia), who authors the book for the American Bar Association titled “Understanding the ADA” (his 4th edition is the latest), exposes that lawyers are afraid to hold judges accountable under the ADA because courts will “fight back hard” and threaten disbarment and other proceedings. Here is a revisitation of that conversation:

Me: “Who do I go to to hold these judges accountable so that they have to give accommodations?”

William D. Goren, Esq.: So you’re looking for someone who’s not afraid, you’re looking for a litigator that’s willing to go in and take on state Court systems?”

Me: “There you go.”

William D. Goren, Esq.: “The problem that attorneys have is a lot of attorneys won’t take this on, because the Court will fight back hard and threaten disbarment and other kinds of proceedings. So a lot of attorneys are scared to take this stuff on.”

For an audio of this, visit https://rumble.com/vwodge-top-ada-authorlawyer-admits-lawyers-are-afraid-to-hold-judges-accountable-u.html.

This is THE author of THE book on Understanding the ADA that is published by the American Bar Association, and he is effectively saying that disabled people are fucked if they want legal representation, because lawyers are “scared”. They’re not afraid to attack me or other ADA Advocates, but they’re afraid to uphold my rights and your rights, when it comes to holding judges accountable to the ADA.

I’d say the legal industry has a disability. The refusal of lawyers and/or their exhibited fear to hold judges accountable, and the ability for judges to threaten them concerning ADA rights (as admitted by Goren) is a physical and mental impairment that substantially limits EVERY DISABLED PERSON’S major life activities of caring for themselves, working, communicating, and interacting with others, ALL of which are unquestionably intersectional in the nexus of court proceedings. That is a prong 1 disability, and no one wants to talk about this elephant in the room.

I’ve experienced this firsthand. I’ve worked with lawyers on cases, and it is a barefoot walk through a room of broken glass. Judges, with their socially deviant egoistic cloaks of “judicial immunity” are “offended” to be asked to alter the traditions of normalcy to accommodate litigants with disabilities. This is exponential when the disability is invisible, such as with mental or unseen disorders. Instead of avoiding the prohibited unlawful acts of 42 U.S.C. §12203(b), judges double down on this activity, threatening contempt, and even worse, punishing parents for trying to gain equal access to the court, most often without lawyers, because they can’t trust lawyers to get them equal access under the ADA, because lawyers are afraid of “pissing off the judge.” (common phraseology used).

Here is the cycle of court for people with disabilities:

This entire scenario equals NO ACCESS on the basis of disability, and mockery from the courts when one attempts to gain equal access.

There is a reason that invisible disabilities are “invisible”. This above scenario, played out repeatedly in America’s courtrooms, are invisible to those who just want to get a case over with, so they can move on to the next paycheck. That group of people, whether they use the title “Esquire”, or whether they add the title of “Your Honor”, are LAWYERS.

And for the State Bar to take dues for this club, and to use those dues to pursue one who would attempt to aid a disabled individual in ADMINISTRATIVE ACCESS TO COURT, by threatening and pursuing them for “unauthorized practice of law”, is something I not only intend to take on as a fight, I want that shit in my lap. I’m a victim, and I demand a voice.

These pedigreed fuckers believe they have the right to stomp on those who just want equal access to a fair day in court. Further, they continue to stomp on them, while doling out punishment for ADA Advocates who are engaging in federally protected activity of “aiding and encouraging” those who are “exercising or enjoying” rights under the ADA. (42 U.S.C. §12203(b).

Contempt of court? Pfft. That’s an understatement.

I’m tired of it. But I’m just beginning to fight. Believe that.

A real shin-kicker in this is that Edgar v. Mite, 457 U.S. 624, at 631 says:

Of course, a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute; and "[a] conflict will be found 'where compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility . . . ,' Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142-143 (1963), or where the state 'law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.' Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941); Jones v. Rath Packing Co., [430 U.S. 519,] 526, 540-541 [(1977)]. Accord, De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 363 (1976)." Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 435 U.S. 151, 158 (1978).”

Stay tuned. There’s more.

P.D., JAY V SHORE, as Certified ADA Advocate, qualified individual with disabilities, and in the persona of B’rer Rabbit.