Any person who practices law without being authorized or licensed shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. A collection agency may refer debts to an attorney for collection with the creditor's approval of the referral and the fee arrangement and shall not be deemed to be engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. An attorney is permitted by the creditor's authorization to enter into such representation agreements".
Well the above does state, authority, but for one, that is a violation of the 6th amendment, which reads as follows: "n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence". The assistance of council. That does not at any point state, lawyer, attorney, member of the bar. Council explained to Judge Shaw that council has congressional authority in the courts which I would suggest trumps any license. Now a serious question, what does authorized mean? The Virginia statute above does not make sense as it fails to explain authorization. A violation of the creation of codes. Therefore, the code does not stand. It's a conflict of interest.
So Judge Shaw said he would not permit council for the defense to be heard, in violation of the 1st Amendment, 4th amendment, 5th amendment, 6th amendment, 11th amendment and the 14th amendment. Judge Shaw wanted a Bar membership number. A bar membership number is nothing more than a club membership. It is supported by attorney's for attorney's and is used as a violation in modern times to steal the rights of the people in the court system. I would dare to say it's tantamount to fraud at it's highest levels and in direct violation of laws against monopolies, rico act and racketeering. In fact, I have several friends who are lawyers. I have asked several if there was actually any such thing as a license to practice law. They answered, NO! There is no such thing as a license to practice law. It does not exist. It is only in the statutes to confuse people.
So no judge is licensed to practice law. No lawyer is licensed to practice law. They are only authorized to practice law? Who gives such authorization? Well, they do. That folks is a monopoly, racketeering, and a violation of the RICO act. It's also fraud because they never disclose this information to you in my opinion. It's concealment. It's premeditated with malice. And to top this off? It's done under the guise of justice, and protecting you? Where is the justice?
Ah, but this continues to get even better folks. In the next article, I will go into detail of what I call crimes committed in Judge Shaw's court. The case heard yesterday is part of the lawsuit against Judge Shaw, but he can not do anything about the lawsuit. In fact, he made it much worse yesterday. There will be another one based on what happened in his court. (Why is it his court? It belongs to the people.)