Listen to Ron Palmer’s first podcast here.
How the BAR association through their UPL committee protects illegal family law practices.
As some of you may know I’m doing battle with the unauthorized practice of law committee in Texas who tried to threaten me and make me shut up so that you don’t get this information. And those of you who know me know that I’m not about to shut up and I will continue to give you this information even if I have to publish it from jail. So I want to talk to you today about what the state is doing to unconstitutionally and in an ultra vires manner, which means illegally basically, hiding what they do in family law and making it incredibly difficult for you and me and everybody else to fight this scheme. What they are doing is violating the separation of powers doctrine, which is a federal Doctrine and a state doctrine that says the three branches of government must be independent and they cannot exercise rights or power that is assigned to the other branches. If they do that violates the Constitution. Texas has a specific Constitutional section, it’s Article 2 Section 1 that spells this out in specific writing and prohibits it . So the legislator cannot do what the executive does, the Judiciary cannot do what the executive does, the legislature cannot delegate legislative power to one of the other branches. These kinds of things.
So, let’s look at what the state is doing in regulating its Domestic Relations policy and how it defines that policy. If two parents of a minor child disagree on matters of conscience regarding how that child is to be raised then the state claims that it has parens patriae power to step in and take over that decision making. That’s very questionable and highly unconstitutional on its face, number one, because you have an absolute right to conscience and what you believe to be in your child’s best interest is absolutely protected and the state cannot challenge that or go against that in anyway. What they have to do is demonstrate that you’ve actually harmed your child. They cannot say that you have not acted in your child’s best interest because that is an undefinable quantity that is based on matters of conscience such as your religious beliefs, your political beliefs, your ideas about Freedom versus statism; all kinds of things that are not touchable by the government. How you raise your child, what kind of adult you want your child to be, and the methods you apply that are otherwise legal to get your child to grow up in that way are not things that the government can interfere with; they are constitutionally prohibited.
So, what have they done? They have this policy that says, once two parents disagree on matters of conscience regarding child rearing. If those parents go into a court and ask the Court to declare and protect each parents’ individual parental rights (and remember your rights are individual they’re not related to the marriage, they are the same individual rights whether you’re married, whether you’re not married, whether you’re divorced, it does not matter the state cannot make your child custody rights, your Association rights with your child dependent on your marital status or your marital relationship), and so you come into the court and you’re saying protect my rights help me have equal time to exercise my rights the way I want to exercise them. The state says “no, we’re not going to do that, we’re going to instead exercise ultra vires power to take over your decision making, to wipe out your parent child Association rights, and to start over presuming that you have none, and then we will make a value choice based on the judge’s Viewpoint and reassign you those rights in a manner that the state thinks is appropriate.
A couple of problems with that, first is that the state is administering its Domestic Relations policy, particularly the policy of best interest of the child. It’s saying the state will act in the best interest of the child as a broad policy statement. Normally when the legislature creates a broad policy statement it assigns some executive agency, either an existing agency or it creates a new one, to administer the details of that policy. That agency will set administrative rules and articulate how the state will go about pursuing that policy, and when they take action . . . one way we see this is with CPS, where the state says we’re going to protect children from actual defined harm, and the legislature defines the harm very specifically. They assign Child Protective Services the responsibility of acting on behalf of those children where the state believes the children are being harmed, that agency goes and takes its action, develops its policy, creates a case. They go before a supposedly neutral and unbiased judge to have a neutral decision-maker approve or deny that policy. Now, there are all kinds of problems with that already, but that is a basic check and balance in our system where the executive does the administration, and the judicial is independent and makes neutral unbiased decisions.
Well in the case of two parents who are asking for their rights to be protected the legislature has violated the separation of powers doctrine, specifically Article 2 Section 1 of the Texas Constitution, and they have said the administration of this policy, the crafting of the details of this policy, the implementation of the details of this policy, the administrative decisions about the details of this policy, will be performed by a Judicial officer. Then they say that exact same judicial officer will then make a decision on whether the policy implementation, the detail policy directives that that judge created themselves is constitutional and lawful. Therein lies the conflict of interest. So that judge is both creating the policy and the detail for it, and that judge is saying the policy I created is constitutional. That judge is not unbiased, that judge is not neutral, and that judge cannot possibly be neutral and unbiased about the policy that judge himself or herself created. That is a violation of separation of powers.
Now why do I bring this in under terms of the unauthorized practice of law committee? Because here is one of the ways in which the state protects its ultra vires action from being defeated by you, by me, and by your attorney. Because the legislature has appointed the judge to be the administrator, and the judge, jury, and executioner . . . they have a system of licensing attorneys. Only licensed attorneys can argue cases before these judges. The state controls these attorneys and holds their bar number over their head and disbarment over their head so that if they speak in ways that the state does not like, they potentially can be disbarred for political reason, and they are often disbarred for their speech. There are active cases going on today, very recently, where at least two attorneys have lost their license based on their speech critical of judges.
So, here’s the situation, the BAR association is protecting the ultra vires policy Administration by saying only attorneys who are under the control of the state and under fear of losing their license from the state can argue against this policy. That is a fundamental problem, that is unconstitutional, that is ultra vires, that violates every concept of checks and balances in our system, and it attempts to regulate speech. It says you cannot speak about the law, you cannot communicate with others about the law, you cannot evaluate another person’s case and tell them what you think about what the judge did. They are violating our speech rights, our Association rights, our right to assemble for purposes of petitioning the government. So, they have created a situation where the only way you can get redress for an executive action is to petition the judge who took the executive action, but then the state is limiting who can petition that judge, and saying only those we license and sanction can petition that judge. And oh, by the way, if they threaten our ultra vires policies, we will disbar them or we will punish them in every case they bring before us where we are already acting ultra vires in a protected manner, we will defeat them in every single case they bring before us, they will not be able to make a living.
So, there is a real and credible threat there, and that threat is being and back threat is being protected by the unauthorized practice of law committee and the licensing of that.
And that is why we exist and that is why we fight the UPL Committee, because they are protecting an ultra vires Administration scheme by an ultra vires action themselves. And here is what’s even more crazy about this scheme, the unauthorized practice of law committee, the way the statutes are written, the legislature has delegated legislative control to the judiciary to determine who is considered to be practicing law and not practicing law. There is a current case before the supreme court, right now today, where two of the justices argued in their oral arguments that this is a violation of separation of powers Doctrine when the federal Congress did the same thing to an attorney general. They delegated legislative power to an attorney general to determine who is covered under a statute. Almost an identical situation except that one is delegating legislative authority to the executive the other is delegating legislative authority to the Judiciary. So here we have the judges deciding who’s practicing law. The unauthorized practice of law committee is tasked with enforcing the unauthorized practice of law or are going after people who practice law without the license of the state. So, the Judiciary determines who is covered under the statute, therefore who is violating the statute. This committee, the UPL committee reports to the Supreme Court. So you’ve got the Judiciary deciding who gets punished and how that punishment happens. They are doing the job of the Attorney General by going after those who practice law. And oh when they bring suit guess who hears it and decides whether you are practicing law and violating the law – the judiciary. So you’ve got all three branches of government power acting in one space under the Judiciary, under the guise of unauthorized practice of law. The key statute is worded so probably so over broadly, so vaguely that the judges have to determine who’s covered under it and who’s not.
The Texas Supreme Court does all the policy Administration, it goes out and does all the enforcement through the UPL Committee who reports to the Supreme Court. They don’t report to the governor, they don’t report to the attorney general, they report to the Supreme Court; and then they bring their cases between judges who work under the Supreme Court. The judiciary is doing all three government functions in one with the unauthorized practice of Law. And by doing that they are protecting the state’s Ultra vires Domestic Relations policy where the state is stealing your children from you as a fit parent based on the state’s Viewpoint of what is best for your children which is, wait for it, a matter of conscience based on your religious beliefs, your political beliefs, your social, emotional, and ethical beliefs.
All of these things that are Untouchable by the government, the government is doing it, and it’s getting away with it because of these violations of the separation of power doctrine. This is the great evil that our constitution, both state and federal, is designed to try to prevent by spreading power out, by balancing Power, by putting checks and balances in place. When those are violated we move straight to dictatorship and what we have now is a bunch of dictators in robes stealing our rights because they control everything under one branch of government. That’s why we’re fighting the UPL Committee that’s why we’re fighting the state and that’s why we’re asking the federal court to invalidate the unauthorized practice of law statute within Texas. Thank you
COPYRIGHT PROTECTED: This has been a production of Ron B Palmer in conjunction with Fix Family Courts. This material is copyrighted. Please get permission from Fix Family Courts, Ron or Sherry Palmer before you re-produce or re-publish or share any part of this broadcast that is anything other than sharing this blog post or a post or material created by Ron or Sherry Palmer, Fix Family Courts, or any show owned by Ron or Sherry Palmer. This is a UPLaTM production – “Unauthorized Perspective of Legal Analysis”TM by Ron B Palmer and Fix Family Courts.