From: Zero Powers (zero_powers@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri May 26 2000 - 06:50:29 MDT
>From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <retroman@turbont.net>
>
>Zero Powers wrote:
> >
> > >From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <retroman@turbont.net>
> > >
> > >Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I claimed that I could prove fraud to the standard of criminal law,
> > > > but we'd need a jury and an indictment to find out for sure (not to
> > > > mention the small matter that it's illegal for me to litigate the
> > > > laws I'm forced to pay for--but that was last month's discussion).
> > >
> > >You could litigate in Vermont. It is recognised that there is a
> > >difference between an attorney and an attorney at law there.
> >
> > What's the difference?
>
>An Attorney at Law is a member of the bar, and an attorney is anybody
>you give your 'power of attorney' to, or yourself if you are
>representing yourself. The idea is that if you have the right to
>represent yourself, and you are not a lawyer (i.e. you are not qualified
>to practice law or a member of the bar), then under the equal protection
>clause, you should have the right to have ANYBODY represent you in court
>as your attorney. This dates back to early Vermont state history, as
>well as colonial times, but was only reinstated a few years ago when a
>non-lawyer won his case in the Vermont Supreme Court on the matter.
But that doesn't give a non-lawyer the right to bring indictments and
prosecute *criminal* actions does it? I believe that is what Lee was
talking about.
-Zero
"I like dreams of the future better than the history of the past"
--Thomas Jefferson
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:28:50 MST