REGULATION OF LAWYERS

THE SUPREME COURT

THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOURTH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT

THE SUPREME COURT HAS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY MORPHED
( EVOLVED ) INTO THE FOURTH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT WHO’S IDEALOGOGY CONTROLS THE DIRECTION OF THE STATE BY REGULATING ( CONTROLLING )THE LAWYERS WHO PRACTICE THERE; AND IN TURN, THE LAWYER IS THE DECICIVE FACTOR OF WHO WINS IN A COURT BATTLE OF RIGHT AND WRONG, for POWER AND PROMINANCE; AND SOMETIMES WITH THE GUIDENCE OF THE COURT, Sue Sponte.

THE REGULATION OF LAWYERS

THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT BAR IS NOT A LICENSING AGENCY AND IT’S INTEGRATION INTO THE SUPREME COURT IS PRHIBITED BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION.

ARTICLE III section I of the United States Constitution states: the supreme court shall have the power to regulate the practice of law in the state, “not integrate the ( Bar ) practice of law into the Supreme Court of the state”.

own laws and principles is a breach of trust and contract.

Besides the principle of judicial review, Marbury established that Congress cannot expand or restrict the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Section One requires that the judicial power of the United States be vested in the Supreme Court and inferior courts established by the Congress. The Section explicitly requires "one" Supreme Court, but does not set the number of judges that may belong to it. Proposals to divide the Supreme Court into separate panels have been made, but they have all failed. Since all the proposals failed, the Supreme Court has never ruled upon the constitutionality of such a division; however, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote, "the Constitution does not appear to authorize two or more Supreme Courts functioning in effect as separate courts". ( Bifurcation).
The United States Constitution, AND The Florida State Constitution goes on to state that THE SUPREME COURT SHALL NOT BE BIFURCATED ( split up into divisions ).

Under the Florida Constitution this prohibition can be found in Article V, §7 and §20, schedule for Article V, §§10 of the Florida Constitution that states: “The Supreme Court shall not be bifurcated”.

In 1968 the scheme to incorporate The Florida Supreme Court and The Bar was just that, “ a scheme ”, to co-mingle these entities and create the Unconstitutional Board of the Bar of the Florida Supreme Court. By doing so, the Florida Supreme Court is in complete control of the legal system here in Florida: The Court grants the Lawyers their license and their discretion, take away that same license if deemed necessary for the Usurped administration of the practice of the law.
In a little known case of 1983 this concept is well documented.

“The Florida Supreme Court cannot pass judgment on its own decisions. Ins v. Chada 462 U.S. 919 (1983 ).”No Legislative Veto.

This case states that there are no checks and balances when an entity gets to make the rules, and then gets to decide what rules it will follow. The Florida Supreme Court has done just that by UNCONSTITUTIONALLY integrating the Florida Bar into The Agency of The Court, thereby bifurcating the Court in strict Prohibition of the United States Constitution , and The Florida Constitution.

There have been many challenges to the Supreme Court on the make up and distribution of power of the Court, but some-how The Supreme Court keeps winning its own cases; I mean, keeps winning the cases brought before it on charges of abuse of power, and any challenges to the Court about the unconstitutionality of the Bar and the Agency of the Supreme Court. It’s almost like they control the litigation!***. OH, I misspoke, they do control the litigation!!

There are some well documented cases where the Florida Supreme Court has disbarred lawyers for not acting in accordance with the rules of the Court. See. Attorney Jack Thompson, or Attorney Montgomery Blair Sibley. Attorney Sibley was disbarred for representing a party who was opposed to the Florida Supreme Courts UNCONSTITUTIONAL practice of law. He asked the Court three Questions which the Court refused to answer:

WHETHER, the Florida Supreme Court violated
Petitioner’s right to an impartial tribunal by
determining a matter in which it’s official “arm” was the
Respondent?

WHETHER, the actions of the Florida Bar in
opposing Petitioner’s attempt to amend the Florida
Constitution violated Petitioner’s First Amendment
right to petition for redress of grievances?

WHETHER, by limiting access to the Florida
Supreme Court to members of the Florida Bar, the
Florida Supreme Court violated equal protection of the
law guarantees?
There are other cases where the Court Just refused to hear the case. The cases are dismissed under The Rooker/Feldman Doctrine, or a “DENIED” to hear the case is stamped on the complaint as in the case of Richard E. Schatzel, v. The Florida Supreme Court Board of Law Examiners, 3:08-cv-759-J-25 HTS, an applicant who challenged the proceedings of the Board of the Bar Examine...