Unauthorized Practice of Law - Part 3

The Court CREATES disabilities.

Absent intent or authority as legal advice.

[Note: To save from the irritation, imagine that any time the term “law” or “the law” are used heron, there are quotes around these words or terms, because they are ambiguous, and undefined]

“You’re not welcome in our sandbox” 

say the lawyers to the lay

the words we use are not for you

you’re not allowed a say.

For we must kept concealed the fact

that words are ours and dialect

and dare you speak the rhetoric

we’ll chase you to your death.

In the beginning was the Word,

and the Word was God

Until the time we dared takeover

spurios throne of worshipful master

and rule with pyrite rod.

By Jay Vincent

************************

For all of my life, I have been “afflicted” with social communication disorder.

I have evidence of this on the public record as early as 2005, C.E..

Doublespeak and artifice have been used to control, conquest, subjugate and abuse the unwitting who suffer with the results of the plundering tool of words. Plainly put, I am ever in fear from the words that are spoken, created, written, or used to fuck me over, and after the major life events of 2004-2005, I learned to step away from this gradually, as I learned. “The law” is an ambiguous term used to control. It’s no different than religion.

Frederic Bastiat, in his book The Law says:

“The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are “just” because law makes them so. Thus, in order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it. Slavery, restrictions, and monopoly find defenders not only among those who profit from them but also among those who suffer from them. (emphasis added)

Morpheus, in The Matrix said: “You have to understand. Most people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured and so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it.”

These words are becoming evident today.

The law is the savior, the god of the construct.

Bastiat also reveals that the law is purposed to plunder. Plunder is the operation of law, because those in power want to take from those who believe themselves to be powerless, or they believe they have ceded their power to another to “represent” them. 

This is the nature of voting. Voting is a power of attorney for another to represent you, and the almost violent rhetoric of “GO VOTE” is deafening in this construct, because the citizenry believes that their chosen representative will change the operation of the law, which is irrevocably purposed to plunder.

So, when it comes to “the law,” at least the law that they claim to exist for the benefit of the ruled, my role in ADA advocacy is to operate administratively to “aid and encourage” the “exercise and enjoyment” of ADA rights. This means helping my client get equal access to the construct.

I often explain with a word picture but I will post it here. 

While the three players on the right side are arguing about what the law is, there is another problem that is almost always ignored.

That center barrier opening above is often limited mentally to architectural, such as 36” doorways, ramps, doors that open with a button, braille on strategic points of movement, etc. The mental part of disability is not only largely forgotten, it is scorned, and this is most certainly perpetrated by the lawyers, judges, and court personnel. 

Have PTSD, and dissociate when under stress? 

Have TBI, and can’t think in a stressful situation?

Have IBS (Irritable Bowel) and need to take frequent restroom breaks?

Have a learning disability and need to have assistance in court?

Have a history of DV/SV and lock up when dealing with psychopathic authority figures?

This, and other disabilities that are invisible are met with  “Go fuck yourself” by the system.

Don’t like it? Sue us, they say. The first thing they’ll do is claim judicial immunity…

Try to sue them? They claim that the unauthorized practice of law is at issue, if you have an ADA Advocate. 

This is why I’m not only expecting to be pursued for this, I want to put this in the public arena and expose the underbelly of what this really is. Am I naïve  enough to believe I’ll get a fair judge? Nope. But, I’m a long-gamer. And, my court is the court of public opinion. You know I’m going to lay all of the shit right out here in public.

I want to expose that they will not only refuse to help the most vulnerable members of society, even when they have “the law” saying that they have to give equal access, they will stomp on anyone else who tries to hold them to the law that they profess.

The highest blasphemy that can be uttered in the temple of the court is that the court causes disabilities, or that the court is at fault for anything.

Let me reframe that. The court is actually created to cause disability in accessing justice. 

1. The ADA defines a disability as a physical or mental impairment that substantially impairs one or more major life activities.

2. The tenets of the ADA include equal access, non-discrimination, and oh yeah, effective communication…

3. When exercising or enjoying rights under the ADA, it is “unlawful” for a person to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with your exercise or enjoyment of these rights. 42 U.S.C. §12203(b).

Boswell v. Bush, United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division (2000) Filed, 4:00-CV-1440-E 138 F. Supp. 2d 782,  starts out: “Plaintiffs' pro se pleadings were a morass of garbled text filled with unconnected facts and legalese, ambiguously referring to multiple, unrelated causes of action.” (emphasis added)

This language by a court is not uncommon. Let’s investigate this one sentence. First, we know that the Plaintiff’s, Boswell, Boswell, and Miroski, were “pro-se” against George W. Bush, who was at time, the Governor of Texas, and several other high-ranking officials, along with Texas Christian University.

Instead of helping or in any way offering communication assistance, the court calls the Plaintiffs’ pleading “a morass of garbled text filled with unconnected facts and legalese, ambiguously referring to multiple, unrelated causes of action.” 

See, if you or I, non-lawyers, use legalese, that’s their playground. It’s their language. They have a latently ambiguous, confusing, and disorienting language called legalese. “Pro-se” is just one of the starter words in this legalese language, and there’s not a one of us that has the specific, static, complete, permanent, and full meaning of this term.

From Dictionary.com, the definition of “morass”

See, it’s okay for a court to talk about or to a litigant with disrespect, in a demeaning manner, or in a way that belittles the litigant. This is common. Courts do it every day. Let someone say that about a judge? They’ll be held in contempt. 

And the standard practices of the weak-ass punks on the bench, and the lawyers that flank them is to laugh at and mock those who would desire justice without a lawyer present to “represent” them.

I’ve often pointed out that lawyers only “represent” a client during the trial phase, and they automagically cease their representation upon sentencing. This is a magic trick that few notice. They also automagically cease representation if the represented party has a judgment entered against them. See how that works? Lawyers have no real accountability for their “representation” as a general rule. Oh, if a lot of people start a public outcry, the Bar may come in and do some limp-wristed half-measure, but as a rule, the client of the lawyer is fucked if the lawyer “representing” them doesn’t win. And asking a lawyer to give ADA access is a scene worthy of a Steven King novel.

I digress. Judges, the social deviants of justice, are often seen acting out their psychopathic machinations against litigants, while hiding behind the cloak of judicial immunity. The court is designed to cause cowering. “ALL RISE” when the judge walks into the room is another example. Who is this god-equal actor that I should worship before them?

The impeachment against Attorney General Ken Paxton in Texas is another example, rare as it may be, that the hostility and gamesmanship of the legal industry can even act (within their own rules) to destroy a member of the legal industry that goes against them. Paxton was acquitted in the impeachment, but the damage was done.

So how is the court, and the construct of the court actually creating disability? Well, by using their system, whether legitimately or illegitimately, to substantially impair one or more of the major life activities of litigants, and especially un-“represented” litigants. 

What major life activities are substantially impaired? Well, (drawing from the non-exclusive list in Title II of the ADA) caring for oneself is a major life activity. Communication is a major life activity. Interacting with others is a major life activity. Thinking, concentrating, speaking, learning, sleeping, and working are all major life activities.

And if the court intentionally delays your case, denies your rights, bullies you, intimidates you, threatens you for speaking up for yourself, threatens you with adverse action for exercising your ADA rights, and so much more, it can be (1) a disability under the ADA, (2) discrimination under the ADA, and/or (3) engaging in unlawful prohibited acts by the court (coercion, intimidation, threats, and interference with ADA rights).

I was told by Dr. Karin Huffer, who was my mentor, trainer, and friend, that I would often be accused of unauthorized practice of law, because lawyers can’t stand being challenged by a non-lawyer. I’ve seen this play out repeatedly for years. It is actually a relief that it may come to a head, because this needs to be exposed publicly.

If someone needs access to the courts, which would appear to be a fundamental right, and the court, through its very operation causes a disability that prevents the average person from getting that access, IT IS A DISABILITY. Access to the court is caring for oneself. Access to the court is interacting with others, and access to the court includes many more major life activities. If the court’s obfuscation of this access doesn’t destroy the major life activities listed above, it most definitely substantially impairs them.

And in both of the current UPL claims that I am facing, I engaged as an ADA Advocate, and I attempted to get administrative access to the courts for my disabled clients.

And because I dared to point out where the court’s actions, by their own hands, created a disability and/or exacerbated my clients’ already existing disabilities, the Bar wants a piece of my ass.

Someone has to do this. And, if there was ever a lifetime of experiences that has brought anyone to this point, I would posit that my life experiences set me up to be the one that has to do this.

If you can’t understand why I hate courts, judges, the legal industry, and “the law”, I don’t know how to paint it with more explanation.

Contempt? I couldn’t have more contempt for this system. I retain all rights of interpretation of the words hereon, and ownership of this work as intellectual property.

Fuck a justice system that is afraid to be held accountable.

P.D., JAY V SHORE, as Certified ADA Advocate.