ATTORNEY LICENSE FRAUD

BACKGROUND HISTORY OF THE BAR & ATTORNEY LICENSE FRAUD 

1) The American Bar Association (ABA), founded August 21, 1878, is a voluntary association of lawyers, and was incorporated in 1909 in the state of Illinois. The state does not accredit the law schools or hold examinations and has no control or jurisdiction over the ABA or its members.

2) The ABA accredits all the law schools, holds their private examinations, selects the students they will accept in their organization, and issues them so-called license for a fee; but does not and cannot issue state licenses to lawyers.

3) The Bar is the only one that can punish or disbar a Lawyer and not the state. The ABA also selects the lawyers that they consider qualified for Judgeships and various other offices in the State.

4) Only the Bar Association or their designated committees can remove any of these lawyers from public office. This is a tremendous amount of power for a private union to control and "the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

5) The state bar card is not a license, it is a union dues card. The Bar is a professional Association like the actors union, painters union, etc.. No other association, even doctors, issue their own license. All licenses are issued by the state. The Bar Association is a private association it cannot license anyone on behalf of the state. 

THE BAR ASSOCIATION IS ILLEGAL AND A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE. 

Violates Article 2, Section 1, Separation of Powers clause of the Constitution.

 There is NO POWER OR AUTHORITY for joining of Legislative, Judicial, or Executive as the BAR. 

Enrollment in the State Bar:

"Each person who becomes licensed to practice law is REQUIRED TO ENROLL IN THE STATE BAR WITHIN 10 DAYS "BEFORE" OR "AFTER" RECEIVING A LICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW. ENROLLMENT IN THE BAR AND LICENSE ARE NOT THE SAME. THE BAR CAN NOT LICENSE ANYONE.

It is quite simple to see that a great fraud and conspiracy has been perpetrated on the people of the Republic of South Africa. 

THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA BAR ASSOCIATION

The Republic of South Africa Bar is an offshoot from London Lawyers' Guild and was established by people with treasonous goals in mind. They have accomplished 98% of their goals. Lawyers should do their own investigation into historical records. They will find that the first people "ELIMINATED" in a power shift (no matter who whines) are the lawyers and judges...for they always have proven themselves unworthy of any trust from either side. Any normal person can read the Constitution and Statutes and understand them without any trouble. 

THE STATE GOVERNMENT HAS NO CONTROL OR JURISDICTION OVER THE BAR ASSOCIATION 

The people in the Republic of South Africa are shocked to learn that the State Government has no control or Jurisdiction over the Bar Association or its members. The state does not accredit the law schools or hold Bar examinations. They do not issue state licenses to LAWYERS. 

The Bar Association accredits all the law schools, holds their private examinations and selects the students they will accept in their organization and issues them with a so-called license but keeps the fees for themselves. The Bar is the only one that can punish or disbar a Lawyer. They also select the lawyers that they consider qualified for Judgeships and various other offices in the State. 

Only the Bar Association or their designated committees can remove any of these lawyers from public office. The State Legislature will not change this system as they are also a designated committee of the Bar.

Thomas Jefferson said, in essence, "This proves that plain people, if given the chance, can enact laws and run a government as well as or better than royalty and the blue bloods of Europe." 

In these Unconstitutional courts’ foreign tribunals (hoodlum centers), "men" in black dresses, that are Unconstitutional ROBES OF NOBILITY. (Article 1, Section 9 and 10) with a lot of hanky panky and hocus pocus, dispense a perverted IDIOTology, where the people are terrorized by members of the BLACK ROBE CULT (lawyers and lawyer judges in the courtrooms. The legislative branch of government does NOT have the Constitutional Power to issue Court Orders or any other kind of Orders.

THE DEFENDANTS ONLY HAVE A RIGHT TO A TRIAL, NOT TRAILS.

When a criminal is freed on a TECHNICALITY, HE IS FREED BECAUSE OF A FIX and a PAY-OFF, as a defendant can only be freed if found innocent BY A JURY NOT BY ANY "TECHNICALITY." 

Whenever a lawyer is involved in a case directly or indirectly, as a litigant or assisting in counsel, ALL LAWYER-JUDGES HAVE TO DISQUALIFY THEMSELVES, AS THERE CANNOT BE A CONSTITUTIONAL TRIAL and also there would be a violation of the conflict-of-interest laws, along with the violation of separation of powers and checks and balances, because "OFFICERS" OF THE COURT ARE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BENCH.

TITLE OF NOBILITY

All lawyers are automatically in the judicial branch of government, as they have the Unconstitutional TITLE OF NOBILITY (Article 1, Section 9 and 10), "Officer of the court." This is a violation of the separation of powers, checks and balances, and the conflict of interest laws.

THE RIGHT TO A LAWYER OR THE RIGHT TO COUNCEL

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa does not give anyone the right to a lawyer or the right to counsel, or the right to any other "hearsay substitute". The accused only has the right to the assistance of counsel. This assistance of counsel can be anyone the accused chooses without limitations.

 BILL OF RIGHTS

When interpreting the Bill of Rights, a court, tribunal or forum ­

a) must consider international law; and

b) may consider foreign law.

 RIGHT TO PRACTICE LAW

"The term [liberty] ... denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of this own conscience... 

The established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with, under the guise of protecting public interest, by legislative action. See " [Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 400.]

See, “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 Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment”. [Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232 (1957)]

See, "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of Constitutional Rights." [Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946 (1973)]

See, "The practice of law cannot be licensed by any state/State." [Schware v. Board of Examiners, United State Reports 353 U.S. pages 238, 239].

See, "The practice of law is an occupation of common right." [Sims v. Aherns, 271 SW 720 (1925)]

See, "The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, are not to be defeated under the name of local practice." [Davis v. Wechler, 263 U.S. 22, 24; Stromberb v. California, 283 U.S. 359; NAACP v. Alabama, 375 U.S. 449] 

See,"... the right to file a lawsuit pro se is one of the most important rights under the constitution and laws." [Elmore v. McCammon [(1986) 640 F. Supp. 905]

RIGHT TO ASSIST

See, “Litigants can be assisted by unlicensed laymen during judicial proceedings.” [Brotherhood of Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U.S. 1; v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335; Argersinger v. Hamlin, Sheriff 407 U.S. 425]

See, “A next friend is a person who represents someone who is unable to tend to his or her own interest.” [Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, Rule 17, 28 USCA "Next Friend"]

See, “Members of groups who are competent non-lawyers can assist other members of the group achieve the goals of the group in court without being charged with "unauthorized practice of law." [NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415); United Mineworkers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715; and Johnson v. Avery, 89 S. Ct. 747 (1969)]

ATTORNEYS PRACTICE PRETEND LAW AND ARE UNSKILLED IN THE LAW OF THE LAND

See,"All codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process…" [Rodriques v. Ray Donavan (U.S. Department of Labor) 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985).]

See, "All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void"[Marbury v. Madison, 5th US (2 Cranch) 137, 180]

See, “The common law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land, the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law”, [Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261]

GENERAL RULE THAT UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW IS VOID 

“The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment... In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed... Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

See, An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing law. Indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, (the Constitution) it is superseded thereby. 

See, No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." [Bonnett v. Vallier, 116 N.W. 885, 136 Wis. 193 (1908); NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)]

See,"There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowman without his consent." [Cruden v. Neale, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E.]

See,"Under our system of government upon the individuality and intelligence of the citizen, the state does not claim to control him/her, except as his/her conduct to others, leaving him/her the sole judge as to all that affects himself/herself." [Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60.]

See,"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." [Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24]

See,"A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution." [Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, at 113.]

See, "The State cannot diminish rights of the people." [Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516] "The Claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime." [Miller v. U.S. , 230 F 2d 486. 489] 

See, "If the state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity" [Shuttlesworth v Birmingham , 373 USs 262]

 COMMON LAW HAS NOT BEEN LEGISLATED AWAY

1) Because the lawyers, Attorneys, Advocates and Judges in South Africa are educated at BAR schools that instruct seditious statutes as law and are under the delusion that common law has been legislated away and thereby its jury, we find it essential in order to serve both mercy and justice, to instruct you in history and law before we command you under penalty of that law. Common law and its Jury have not been defeated, just hidden. 

2) Inferior courts are those whose jurisdiction is limited and special and whose proceedings are not according to the course of the common law. Criminal courts proceed according to statutory law. Jurisdiction and procedure is defined by statute. Likewise, civil courts and admiralty courts proceed according to statutory law. The Grand Jury is the decreeing body outside the court room and the Petite Jury is the decreeing body inside the court room. 

3) The Grand Jury and Petite Jury are one, both are ministered by and made up of the People chosen at random, they act and decree under the principles of Common Law that being justice, honor, and mercy and they are guided by two common law maxims that being; 

a) without a victim there is no crime, and 

b) for every injury there must be a remedy. 

NO MAN IS ABOVE THE LAW

1) "No man is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it ... it is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who, by accepting office participates in its functions, is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes on the exercise of the authority which it gives.

2) When sovereign people, by fraud, are brought before nisi prius6 courts acting under corporate charter7 , when no such authority has been willed, and pretense of law, such a court acts under color of law8 and all the officers of that court are subject to collateral attack in a court of record. 

See, COLOR OF LAW. [Black's Law 4th edition, 1891] -- The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. [State v. Brechler, 185 Wis. 599, 202 N.W. 144, 148] 

Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under "color of state law." (Atkins v. Lanning, 415 F. Supp. 186, 188)

See, It is first important to understand that a court of record is a common law court in which it’s “judicial tribunal has attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate [judge] designated generally to hold it and proceeding according to the course of common law, its acts and proceedings being enrolled for a perpetual memorial. a decision of a court of record may not be appealed and is binding on all other courts”. Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J.

See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689; 3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm.383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Exparte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.

See, The judicial tribunal is the Jury, also-known-as the Kings Bench, which “IS” The Supreme Court of common law, according to Blacks Law, being so called because the king sat there in person, the style of the court being "coram ipso rege". See 3 Bl.Comm. 41-43. 

See, The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative”. Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am. Dec. 89 10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 167; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 

7. The U.S. Supreme Court as late as 1973 

See, Any court proceeding according to statutory law is not a court of record (which only proceeds according to common law); it is an inferior court. Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203. cited by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973). 

See, If the Kings Bench is not present in the Court it is not a Supreme Court of Common Law and has no jurisdiction over the people summonsed before it without their consent. Supreme Court Annotated Statue: CRUDEN vs. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 2 S.E. 70

See, "The state citizen is immune from any and all government attacks and procedure”. see, Dred Scott vs. Sanford. 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 or as the Supreme Court has stated clearly, "...every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent”.

3) It is at the Kings Bench (Jury) where the King (People) rules and decrees, it is at the moment of the impanelling of a Grand Jury when the Supreme Court opens for Justice. And if the Grand Jury indicts it passes the case for “final judgment” to the Petite Jury, thereby the Supreme Court remains in session until judgment is decreed. 

4) “The power of grand juries to inquire into the wilful misconduct in office of public officers, and to find indictments or to direct the filing of information’s in connection with such inquiries, shall never be suspended or impaired by law. 

See, No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law”. (Amended by Constitutional Convention of 1938 and approved by vote of the peopleNovember 8, 1938; further amended by vote of the people November 8, 1949; November 3, 1959; November 6, 1973; and November 6, 2001.) and Article I §8: 

See, MANDAMUS CHARLES M. TAILLEUR PAGE 4 OF 12 “... the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact”. (Amended by vote of the people November 6, 2001.) Thereby remaining, forever, in perfect harmony of the Peoples inalienable, God given, rights, “ordained” by We the People 

See, Supreme Court ruling US v Williams, that all judges are bound to act without having it proved in evidence, said "... the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside, we think it clear that, as a general matter at least, no such "supervisory" judicial authority exists" ... they went on to say: (it 'is a constitutional fixture in its own right) "[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history," Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490, 80 S.Ct. 1502, 1544, 4 L.Ed.2d 1307 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), 

See, It 'is a constitutional fixture in its own right.' " United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S.App.D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825, 98 S.Ct. 72, 54 L.Ed.2d 83 (1977). 

See,“In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people”. Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218, 80 S.Ct. 270, 273, 4 L.Ed.2d 252 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61, 26 S.Ct. 370, 373, 50 L.Ed. 652 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). “normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm's length. 

See, Judges' direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office”. United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343, 94 S.Ct. 613, 617, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974); Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a).

See, “The grand jury's functional independence from the judicial branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing, and in the manner in which that power is exercised. "Unlike [a] [c]ourt, whose jurisdiction is predicated upon a specific case or controversy, the grand jury 'can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not.' " United States v. R. Enterprises, 498 U.S. ----, ---- , 111 S.Ct. 722, 726, 112 L.Ed.2d 795 (1991) (quoting United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 632, 642-643, 70 S.Ct. 357, 364, 94 L.Ed. 401 (1950)), and US v Williams, 1992.

See, “The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation”, see Hale, supra, 201 U.S., at 59-60, 65, 26 S.Ct., at 373, 375, “nor does the prosecutor require leave of court to seek a grand jury indictment. And in its day-to-day functioning, the grand jury generally operates without the interference of a presiding judge”. See Calandra, supra, 414 U.S., at 343, 94 S.Ct., at 617.

See, It swears in its own witnesses, Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(c), and deliberates in total secrecy, see United States v. Sells Engineering, Inc., 463 U.S., at 424-425, 103 S.Ct., at 3138. and US v Williams, 1992.

"The state cannot diminish rights of the people." Hurtado v. People of the State of California, 110 U.S. 516 

See, "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them". Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

See, 6 NISI PRIUS. (Bouvier's Law, 1856 Edition) Where courts bearing this name exist they are instituted by statutory provision. 7 CHARTER. An act of a legislature creating a corporation, or creating and defining the franchise of a corporation. Baker v. Smith, 41 RI. 17, 102 A. 721, 723; Bent v. Underdown, 156 Ind. 516, 60 N.E. 307. 

See, Also a corporation's constitution or organic law; Schultz v. City of Phcenix, 18 Ariz. 35, 156 P. 75, 76; C. J. Kubach Co. v. McGuire, 199 Cal. 215, 248 P. 676, 677; that is to say, the articles of incorporation taken in connection with the law under which the corporation was organized; Chicago Open Board of Trade v. Imperial Bldg. Co., 136 Ill.App. 606; In re Hanson's Estate, 38 S.D. 1, 159 N.W. 399, 400.

See, The authority by virtue of which an organized body acts. Ryan v. Witt, Tex. Civ.App., 173 S.W. 952, 959. A contract between the state and the corporation, between the corporation and the stockholders, and between the stockholders and the state. Bruun v. Cook, 280 Mich. 484, 273 N.W. 774, 777. 8 

See, It has been said that without reference to the common law, the language of the Federal Constitution could not be understood." 16Am Jur 2d., Sec. 114:

See, “Any judge who does not comply with his oath to the Constitution wars against that Constitution and engages in acts in violation of the supreme law of the land. The judge is engaged in acts of treason.” - Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958)

See, "No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey." U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 1 S. Ct. 240, 261, 27 L. Ed 171 (1882) “

See, A judge must be acting within his jurisdiction as to subject matter and person, to be entitled to immunity from civil action for his acts.” Davis v. Burris, 51 Ariz. 220, 75 P.2d 689 (1938)

_____________________

THE STATE HAS NO AUTHORITY TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE

1)“The state has no authority to act on behalf of the people, only a jury can so act, under the pretence of law.

2) JUDICIAL COGNIZANCE.Judicial notice, or knowledge upon which a judge is bound to act without having it proved in evidence. [Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 760.];

3) WARDS OF CARDS INFANTS AND PERSON OF UNSOUND MIND Wards of court. Infants and persons of unsound mind. See, [Davis' Committee v. Loney, 290 Ky. 644, 162 S.W.2d 189, 190. Their rights must be guarded jealously. Montgomery v. Erie R. Co., C.C.A.N.J., 97 F.2d 289, 292.] a ward is someone placed under the protection of a legal guardian;

4) Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 "debtor", See, in connection with the sequestration of the debtor's estate, means a person or a partnership or the estate of a person or partnership which is a debtor in the usual sense of the word, except a body corporate or a company or other association of persons which may be placed in liquidation under the law relating to Companies; 

5) PERSON, person, noun, per·son ˈpər-sᵊn. Synonyms of person, (1) HUMAN, INDIVIDUAL (2) a character or part in or as if in a play : GUISE (3) archaic : bodily appearance, (4) the body of a human being, also : the body and clothing, (5). the personality of a human being : SELF.(6). one (such as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties;

6) HUMAN, A human being is a member of the species classified as Homo sapiens. Humans (Homo sapiens) or modern humans are the most common and widespread species of primate, and the last surviving species of the genus Homo. They are great apes characterized by their hairlessness, bipedalism, and high intelligence.Primates are a diverse order of mammals. They are divided into the strepsirrhines, which include the lemurs, galagos, and lorisids, and the haplorhines, which include the tarsiers and the simians (monkeys and apes);

7) INDIVIDUAL, An individual is that which exists as a distinct entity. An entity is something that exists as itself. It does not need to be of material existence. In particular, abstractions and legal fictions are usually regarded as entities.In general, there is also no presumption that an entity is animate, or present;

8) LEGAL FICTIONS A legal fiction is a fact assumed or created by courts,[1] which is then used in order to help reach a decision or to apply a legal rule. A legal fiction typically allows the relevant body, such as a court, to ignore a fact that would prevent it from exercising its jurisdiction by simply assuming that the fact is different;

9) LUNATIC. See,[Black's Law 4th edition] A person of deranged or unsound mind; a person whose mental faculties are in the condition called "lunacy"; one who possessed reason, but through disease, grief, or other cause has lost it. May mean all insane persons or persons of unsound mind, sometimes including and sometimes excluding idiots.See, [Oklahoma Natural Gas Corporation v. Lay, 175 Okl. 75, 51 P.2d 580, 582.];

10) DEFENDANT In court proceedings, a defendant is a person or object who is the party either accused of committing a crime in criminal prosecution or against whom some type of civil relief is being sought in a civil case. Terminology varies from one jurisdiction to another. In Scots law, the terms "accused" or "panel" are used instead in criminal proceedings and "defender" in civil proceedings.[1] Another term in use is "respondent";

11) CRIMINAL DEFENDANTIn a criminal trial, a defendant is a person accused (charged) of committing an offense (a crime; an act defined as punishable under criminal law). The other party to a criminal trial is usually a public prosecutor;

12) ATTORNEY FIRST DUTYIf We consult the latest Corpus Juris Secundurr (C.J.S.) See, legal encyclopedia, volume 7, section 4, We will find that an attorney's first duty is to the courts and the public; not the client: According to Section 2 in said Section 7, we find that clients are "wards of the court:";

13) INCOMPETENCY.See, Lack of ability, legal qualification, or fitness to discharge the required duty. In re Leonard's Estate, 95 Mich. 295, 54 N.W. 1082;

14) WRIT. A precept in writing, couched in the form of a letter, running in the name of the king (People), president, or state, issuing from a court of justice, and sealed with its seal, addressed to a sheriff or other officer of the law, or directly to the person whose action the court desires to command, either as the commencement of a suit or other proceeding or as incidental to its progress, and requiring the performance of a specified act, or giving authority and commission to have it done. See, A mandatory precept issuing from court of justice. Poirier v. East Coast Realty Co., 84 N.H. 461, 152 A. 612, 613. Process. State ex rel. Walling v. Sullivan, 245 Wis. 180, 13 N.W.2d 550, 555;

15) MANDAMUS  Lat. We command. This is the name of a writ (formerly a high prerogative writ) which issues from a court of superior jurisdiction, and is directed to a private or municipal corporation, or any of its officers, or to an executive, administrative or judicial officer, or to an inferior court, commanding the performance of a particular act therein specified, and belonging to his or their public, official, or ministerial duty, or directing the restoration of the complainant to rights or privileges of which he has been illegally deprived. See, Lahiff v. St. Joseph, etc., Soc., 76 Conn. 648, 57 A. 692, 65 L.R.A. 92, 100 Am.St.Rep. 1012;

16) BAR ASSOCIATION Has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices and sent Hitlher swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. Declaration of Independence. 

17) A "COURT OF RECORD" is a judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it, and proceeding according to the course of common law, its acts and proceedings being enrolled for a perpetual memorial. 

See, Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689. ....7 Cal Jur 571 California Jurisprudence, Bancroft Whitney (1922), Page 580-581;

THEREFORE the people have an unalienable right to practice law.