Did you know the State Bar of California is a non-governmental organization (NGO) “Public Corporation?”
Pursuant to the California Constitution Article 6 Section 9, which reads in pertinent part: “[t]he State Bar of California is a Public Corporation,” enacted (57 years ago), 1966. (Sec. 9 added Nov. 8, 1966, by Prop. 1-a. Res.Ch. 139, 1966 1st Ex. Sess.).
California Bar Seeks to Revoke Trump Adviser John Eastman’s Law License by Jan Wolfe – Licensing body says former law professor’s efforts to overturn 2020 election make him unfit to practice law says The Wall Street Journal
Yes, The Wall Street Journal sometimes gets it wrong, such as stating the California Bar is a “Licensing body.” But nowhere in the California Constitution does it mention that the California Bar is an attorney licensing agency.
California Attorney Licenses are only issued by the State Supreme Court of California.
True California Attorneys are mandated to become Members of the private union Public Corporation State Bar of California and required to pay annual “Membership Dues:” $515.00 (2022-2023).
Did you know the State Bar of California has NOT been delegated STATE POLICE PROSECUTORIAL POWERS? Only the County District Attorney’s Office usually conducts investigations to criminally charge people. Not a “Public Corporation.”
Therefore the State Bar of California is committing an act of Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL), against Eastman. “This Court has held that delegations of regulatory power to private parties are impermissible, Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U. S. 238, 311 (1936), it held the delegation to be unconstitutional, 721 F. 3d, at 677.”
“The State Bar of California’s Chief Trial Counsel George Cardona announced … the filing of a Notice of Disciplinary Charges (NDC) against attorney John Eastman (State Bar No. 193726). The 11 charges arise from allegations that Eastman engaged in a course of conduct to plan, promote, and assist then-President Trump in executing a strategy, unsupported by facts or law, to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election by obstructing the count of electoral votes of certain states. The Office of Chief Trial Counsel (OCTC) intends to seek Eastman’s disbarment before the State Bar Court.” Why two years later?
When in fact, the “State Bar of California has taken no action against Ganong.” … “In fact, he bragged about his good standing with the bar as a defense to the media.”…
$22 Million Health Care Fraud: The Superior Court of California County of Orange District Attorney’s Office Indicted Philip Ganong on 94 Felony Count Criminal Complaint, Case #17CF1243. Ganong, Bar #88414, alleged $22 Million Health Care Fraud against multiple insurance companies.
PUBLIC INTEREST CONCERN QUESTION
WHETHER the State Bar of California, has committed Prosecutorial Misconduct, against Eastman?
Consequently, California Bar you’re now exposed and no longer permitted to conceal from the public your legendary myth inferring to be a licensing body when in fact only a mere “Public Corporation.”
Given that, the State Supreme Court of California nor the State of California can delegate prosecutorial or judicial powers to ANY “Public Corporation,” because “judicial power of this State is vested in the Supreme Court, courts of appeal, and superior courts, all of which are courts of record.”
State Bar you’re not even a Court of Record, but claiming another legendary myth to be a Court, State Bar Court. Furthermore, “[t]his Court has held that delegations of regulatory power to private parties are impermissible, Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U. S. 238, 311 (1936), it held the delegation to be unconstitutional, 721 F. 3d, at 677. See Department of Transportation v Association of American Railroads 575 U.S 43 2015 Amtrak
Thus, an abhorrent appearance of “Conflict of Interest” exists between the State Supreme Court of California and the State Bar of California. The “Conflict of Interest” is problematic because it violates Constitutional Separation of Powers.
A conflict of interest scheme causes the Supreme Court to run afoul of the Separation of Powers, with (NGO), Public Corporation State Bar of California against Eastman.
Reminder, the State Supreme Court of California, was the only licensing agency that issued Eastman his license to practice law on 12/15/1997.