Jump to content


Recommended Posts

I was looking around on site to make sure when I pass on info it's not construed a certain way and it's is always beneficial to others.


As an "accidental litigator", having been attacked by crooked judges, crooked attorneys and crooked public servants while exposing massive fraud committed by purported "creditors" and their stoolie attorneys, I've been CYA for a long time.


Providing education for people across the country that actually wakes them up to the fraud being committed upon them, the inevitable "credit rescue services" and "unlicensed practice of law" attacks usually surface when pressing public servants (like state regulatory agencies) to actually do their job and shut crooked debt collectors down. 


Won't go into the politics here, but having had a hand at helping shut down crooked fraudclosure mills, getting lucky to examine a fraudclosure mill attorney (Thomas P. Dore) under oath at an 11 Aug 2010 hearing and exposing crooked judges has brought a few attacks. I've taken some arrows, and a few are still sticking in me due to exposing more and more judical corruption with regard to crooked debt collectors.


That said, many are afraid to share helpful info for fear of the UPL (unlicensed practice of law) sham claim. Before I share cases (not opinion) to rebut that sham claim, I've screened and interviewed at least 150 attorneys looking for a few good ones that "get it", will not throw their client under the bus behind their back, and have the integrity to not learn on their client's nickle.


My search (on and off) usually ends in exasperation as most attorneys are lazy and ignorant, as well a arrogant. But recently we finally found a firm that we are testing a few cc cases with to see if our knowledge and their "muscle" can produce settlements without protracted litigation for consumers.


I have friends (some good friends) that are attorneys. One sues crooked public servants that violate their oath and breach their duty to the public trust. Another is a former Asst State Attorney, 1st Amend scholar, civil rights litigator, title insurance producer and video journalist.


That said, of course I speak in "what I would do...." in generalities and legal education is not legal advice.


The whole legal "profession" is a racket, like the mob, or a closed shop union that you have to hire to work in your business. There are certain types of attorneys that are worth their weight in gold (patent attorneys come to mind) and a few others, but in the "debt" collection game there are a lot of lazy incompetent attorneys that will take your money and do nothing or leave you in worse condition than when you paid them the retainer.


Another "secret" is the legal "profession" is supposedly "self regulating" to purportedly ensure "autonomy" and no "political influence" . The problem with a purported "self regulating" profession is they don't always regulate themselves  very well. Worse they use the regulatory mechanism to get rid of anyone that would expose their monopoly.


I've gone after crooked attorneys many times as well as people we share information with across the country. That goes for crooked judges who have no business judging a ham sandwich, let alone their fellow man/woman.


I've seen up close how deeply entrenched the corruption goes in covering up for crooked attorneys and judges most of whom are in the back pocket of the very backs and crooked "debt" collectors coming after you for bogus claims.


That said, credit card cases are (compared to fraudclosure) incredibly easy to crush your adversary.


But if any of you are attacked trying to help others keep these tools in your back pocket in case you take a few arrows like I have. the DOJ and FTC know the legal "profession" is anti-competitive. Wisconsin Supreme Court also gave a very narrow definition instead of a broad defintiion as a "catch all" to keep out competition.


Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and federal judge Edith Jones both have commented on the "crisis of confidence in the judiciary" and the corruption of the legal profession. The FTC has also exposed the monopoly the American Bar Assn (and local closed union shops) the state BAR Assn's have on keeping out those who would not only expose the "practice of law" racket but bring competition to the monopoly and drive down prices so consumers could actually afford capable, competent "representation".  Things are changing as more consumers get educated.


See from Corpus Juris Secundum who the attorney owes a duty to first, it's not the client.


Here is quote from attached docs. Take time to go through and formulate your opinion. The cases are clear to me and when a few crooks started barking up this tree I shared the info you have attached and they went packing. It comes down to jurisdiction as well. Here's the quote from an attorney himself


"In an article addressing the ABA’s proposed Model Definition, Attorney James C. Turner wrote, “There is a better approach. We should limit the concept of unauthorized practice by establishing a common-sense, brightline test that equates it to fraudulent practice — that is, saying you’re a lawyer when you’re not...


Consumers understand this, and so should the profession.” In conclusion, Turner stated, “Whether the ABA likes it or not, lawyers cannot fully serve the legal needs of the public, and non-lawyer legal providers are here to stay. It is time to come into the 21st century and repudiate protectionist practices that hurt consumers and justifiably engender disdain for the legal profession.”[19]   This is an incredibly powerful statement coming from an attorney himself."


Attached docs in support there is no "license" to practice. The Supreme Court concurs. Still watch your back and "do no harm" but keep these if needed











Atty First Duty is to Court.doc

Defense of Unllicensed Practice of Law.doc

Case Cites- Supreme Ct- can't license.txt

FTC & DOJ Position on UPL.pdf

Case Cites- Unrep Litigants- Pleading Standard is Less.doc

WI Decision UPL Definition.pdf

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bravo to the OP.  The legal profession is a cartel.  UPL restrictions exist NOT to protect the public, but to eliminate competition.


The end result is legal representation is unaffordable to many people, and they have no alternative.  Either go pro se (which takes a lot of study, and some people aren't cut out for it, and the judges don't like it) or let the opposing parties win by default. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@nobk4me Be careful.  The OP is a "debt fixer".  He's not a lawyer, so he's laying the groundwork for claiming any advice he offers is NOT practicing law without a license and his services are oh so much cheaper than a lawyers.


Anyone who gets a PM from this guy needs to check with one of the actual lawyers who visit here before acting on his advice.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@nobk4me Be careful.  The OP is a "debt fixer".  He's not a lawyer, so he's laying the groundwork for claiming any advice he offers is NOT practicing law without a license and his services are oh so much cheaper than a lawyers.


Anyone who gets a PM from this guy needs to check with one of the actual lawyers who visit here before acting on his advice.


Thanks for the heads-up.  However, his criticisms of the legal profession do have merit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.