NOT A Substitute for an Attorney

We are NOT Attorneys



Why the Phrase Not a Substitute for an Attorney

The words “not a substitute for an attorney” are provided by Texas law intended to notify people that the content we provide was NOT produced by an attorney. We are very open and upfront about NOT being attorneys and about NOT suffering from the indoctrination, government control, and narrow sightedness that attorneys generally suffer from.

If it appears that we are going overboard in communicating this information, the reason is that some state judiciaries regularly engage in intimidation tactics against regular people attempting to scare them into NOT discussing the laws the government imposes on them. When the government can scare people into being quiet about its corruption of the law and violation of our constitution, the government has much more leeway to tyrannize its citizens.

This is particularly tyrannical in the case of the unauthorized practice of law statute, because in Texas, and in many other states, the determination of who is subject to the regulation, the enforcement of the regulation, and the adjudication of guilt for violating the regulations are all controlled by the state's highest court.

This structure clearly violates the Separation of Powers Doctrine, depriving people of the constitutional protections that arise from the separation of powers. Judges are often the very worst of all tyrants, particularly when it comes to intimidating people with threats of punishment for what they call unauthorized practice of law and what we call free speech.

To be clear, we are NOT in the least bit afraid of being prosecuted for the unauthorized practice of law by any state. We have no doubt whatsoever that their unauthorized practice of law statutes are unconstitutional and we know how to prove it. But destroying that corrupt system would take our focus away from destroying the corrupt family law courts. First things first.

In full disclosure, the Texas Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee, the enforcement arm of the Texas Supreme Court, attempted to intimidate us into stopping our efforts to help you defeat their corruption. We immediately sued the committee and individual members of the committee in federal court seeking to have their unauthorized practice of law statute and the system by which it is regulated declared unconstitutional. We argued that their statute is a content-based prior restraint on speech implemented in violation of the Separation of Powers Doctrine and the First Amendment.

In the federal district court, the Texas Committee's attorneys very quickly started backpaddling. They fell all over themselves trying to convince the federal judge that they were NOT attempting to intimidate us or to “quell” our speech nor were they seeking to take action against us. They were clearly lying about their intent, but the federal judge used their backpaddling to avoid setting precedent that court didn't want to set.

While technically our suit was dismissed without prejudice as being unripe because the federal court took their claims to NOT be attacking us at face value and we didn't fight that issue very hard to get a different holding. However, the federal court clearly communicated to the other side that if it did go to court we met the bar of a likelihood of success on the merits.

What this means is that we absolutely won, They now know that if they screw with us, they will lose their statute and possibly win financial damages against them. The Texas Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee hasn't bothered us again in the many years since that attempt.

You have to understand that the federal system is very similar to the Texas system and is equally vulnerable to attack in the same way. Few if any federal judges are eager to be the one to have to declare the systems that their supreme bosses created to be unconstitutional, but they would be forced to do exactly that or violate their judicial oaths to protect the current corrupt system.

Political Tools

One thing you quickly learn when working in giant corporations is how politics works and how to survive in a highly politicized system. These skills are also essential in the organizational change management discipline. We incorporate that hard and painfully learned knowledge into our materials. We place the courts between a rock and a hard place, then we show them the one way out. When you are applying force, or strong disincentives, to dissuade someone from going in a particular direction, you need to also provide strong Incentives for them to go in the direction you want them to go.

In other words, put them in a very unpleasant box, then provide them a single easy way out of the box. This is also a very effective combat principle that is universally applied in every effective military organization. When you are defending a position against attack from an enemy, you place barriers and obstacles in their path but NOT everywhere. You design your barriers as a funnel to move them all to a single entry-point where there is typically a large machine gun.

These are the same concepts; they are just applied from opposite perspectives. In the corporate world there are no “enemies” and no machine guns. The intent is NOT to prevent entry but to guide employees into doing those activities in ways that are most beneficial to the organization as a whole. While in defending ourselves against tyrannical government officials, we apply a little of both perspectives.

Although, we do NOT recommend use of automatic weapons unless the tyranny gets so bad that it invokes another revolutionary war of the type that founded the United States of America, there are times when individual petty tyrants just need to be eliminated from any positions of power. Our constitutional system is specifically designed to make it relatively easy to routinely move these petty tyrants out of office as a means of relieving the overwhelming pent-up frustration that might cause another revolution.

Removing these petty tyrants and dismantling their corrupt systems is actually a pro-peace, anti-violent revolution tool that is built into our constitutional system.

What the federal court did, what we allowed it to get away with, was to declare that the Committee had NOT taken enough action to cross the threshold where our suit against them would be ripe, even though the relevant case law suggests otherwise. Our case was dismissed without prejudice, meaning we can refile, and the federal judge made clear that we would likely win if it came to that.

We could have fought that dismissal and forced the issue to the point where their statute would be declared unconstitutional and their regulatory system would be dismantled and redesigned under an appropriate separation of powers template, but we chose to remain focused on our core mission of radical change in family law rather than be distracted with other government corruption. We have limited resources and must often make hard choices regarding where to apply those resources.

We tell this story, NOT to brag, but to put other states on notice that we will NOT be intimidated, threatened, or bullied. We fight back and we fight, not only to win, but to take from our enemies that which they most desperately cherish, their ultra vires power in this context. We do NOT want to be distracted from our core family law mission but if we are forced into a distraction, we will do everything in our power to remove that distraction forever and to be financially compensated for our trouble.

With that bit of negativity behind us, we would like to explain to you the source of our expertise and how that professional experience applies to the law and applies to helping you protect yourself from state court judges who are intent on hurting you.

If we allow our government to mandate that we as a free people cannot speak with each other regarding the laws that we as a free people establish our free society is doomed. The government wants to allow only their chosen high priesthood to speak for us and control what defenses we apply to their corruption. That simply is NOT acceptable.

Our government is a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. The only way that remains true is if we the people remain free to openly discuss our laws and the impact those laws have on each of us individually. We must particularly be able to assemble or associate with one another for common defense against the government enemy that wants to cut us out of the heard one at a time and devour us as individuals. United we Stand. Divided we Fall.

If we are prevented from assembling and associating to speak truth to government power through judicial petitions for relief from government oppression, then we are already lost. When you work with us, you are exercising your right to assemble and associate for the purpose of seeking redress from our government as protected by the First Amendment.

If the government takes a hand in regulating our behavior through the courts then by god we have every right to speak out against those courts and those judges in each and every individual case and for each and every individual application of the law towards relief.

To further invoke the protections of assembly and association for the purposes of petitioning our government for relief, we ask those we help to join our membership site as demonstration of our being jointly involved in the larger political process of changing child custody and domestic relations laws and changing the way in which government officials, particularly judges, are held accountable to well-established constitutional mandates limiting their power.

We are NOT practicing law. We are associating with like-minded people to jointly petition the government for redress of grievances through judicial petition. We do this against government officials who are abusing their power and irreparably injuring children. Judges are NOT kings. We will NOT bow down to them and beg them for scraps. Judges are our servants and they will abide by the rules we set for them or they will be held accountable.

You see, attorneys cannot say what we just said. They would be disbarred for saying that the judiciary in this country is corrupt, particularly the family law branch of the judiciary. The judges control the speech of the attorneys through the fear of unlimited best interest of the child power to punish any attorney who annoys them. Attorneys tow the line to prevent being disbarred and you and your child suffer because of it.

We speak truth to power regardless of consequences. We have the training and expertise to hold them accountable if they come after us. We make sure you know we are NOT attorneys, first because we are honest and open by default and second because we don't want to be distracted from helping you win custody of your child.