Every so-called State in the Union has laws on their books forbidding the unauthorized practice of their Law. This fact alone might lead one to conclude that being a licensed member of the legal professional is not only required, but that one not so duly appointed had better not even think about offering legal writings or advice without having a “license to practice law.” To test this assumption, we go to California, the so-called Union’s most populace so-called state, our test subject, to see how they do it, California style.

To begin this journey of discovery you can go online to the Secretary of State for California web site. All bona fide corporations public and private must be registered with the Secretary of State. Do a search for “California Bar Association” and notice several strange anomalies with the posted information.

For one, while the incorporation date of record is listed as 1907, this date differs from the date on the seal of the letter head for the California Bar that lists an incorporation date of 1927. Now notice that the status of the California Bar is inactive. Also notice that there is no registered agent listed for service of process, nor is there a listing for the corporate address. Go to the Secretary of State web sites for the so-called states neighboring California and you will discover the same anomalies–listed but inactive, without contact information.

Now call the California Corporate Commission to discover if they can explain the so-called anomalies and they will advise you that the State Bar of California was formed by statute (legislative act), and therefore not formed in accordance with the California Corporation Code.

Next, call the Executive Director at the headquarters for the California Bar Association in San Francisco and ask the following three questions:

  1. Why is the California Bar Association an inactive corporation?
  2. What type of organization (legal classification) is the California State Bar Association?
  3. Why does the incorporation date on the letter head seal differ from the date of incorporation listed with the California Corporation Commission?

While the Executive Director will not be able to clear up the mystery to any of the questions listed above, you will be assured that the State Bar of California is a constitutional agency, with the judicial branch of State government. It serves an administrative function for the California Supreme Court in matters relating to the regulation of the legal profession.

However, the California State Constitution and the California Business & Professions code, does not agree with this claim–these two authorities describe the State Bar of California as a public corporation, not a ‘constitutional agency.”

To complicate matters still, the California Secretary of State refuses to issue a “Certificate of Non filing,” a five dollar ($5.00) fee, a standard form for any unregistered, non-filing public corporation. By claiming that the State Bar Corporation was created by legislative act, the Secretary of State can take the position that it lacks authority to issue the certificate, even though the State Bar Association actively touts itself to be a public corporation. In so doing the California Bar has effectively exempted itself from registration and shielded its books from public scrutiny. The following obscure cite from 7 Corpus Juris Secundum 9 reveals the deceit being perpetrated here:

“In view of the decision that the creation of public corporation by special acts is prohibited by state constitution, state bar act creating state bar corporation as public corporation has no validity and designation of state bar as ‘public corporation’ has no legal efficacy.”

[Bridgegroom v. State Bar, 550, P.2d 1089, 27 ArizApp. 47.]

To further interpret what this means: the State Bar of California enjoys the best of both worlds; an apparent agency of government^ enjoying the power and protection of the state, including exemption from taxation, while in fact a pirate institution without legal basis.

Whereas, the notion of a “license to practice law” is scarcely mentioned in state and federal codes, the requirements relating to every other kind of license in existence is spelled out in mind-numbing detail (e.g. Vehicle Code, Internal Revenue Code, etc.). The sacred “license to practice law,” however, remains undefined! Answers to questions regarding where it comes from, how it is conferred, where one goes to see what it looks like, its tenure, its cost, remain elusive like the wind. These and other intensely pertinent questions remain unanswered by the codes that imply its existence.

So pull up a chair and take a front row seat as we examine-what the word manipulating Esquires have done to convince us that such a thing ‘really’ exists. As always the subterfuge is in their definition of the words and what is conveniently omitted. It is up to you to guess which words are ‘suspect,’ which assumptions are implied to lead you off track, what remains unspecified, and where to go to find the appropriate ‘definitions.’

Code Series 6000 of the California Business & Professions Code (Cal. B&P) is known as the “The State Bar Act”. Section 6002 is the solitary code section in all of California Code evidencing the supposed issuance of a “license to practice law.” I will list out the relevant sections in Cal. B&P relating to the issuance of licensing and also section 9 of their California State Constitution.

Look these over to see if you can tell were the clues are and note what questions to ask.

Cal. B&P Code Section 6001

“The State Bar of California is a public corporation.”


Cal. State Const., Sec. 9

“The State Bar of California is a public corporation.”


Cal. B&P Code Section 6002. Members

“The members of the State Bar are all persons admitted and licensed to practice law in this state…”


Cal. B&P Code Section 6125. Necessity of Active Membership in State Bar

“No person shall practice law in California unless the person is an active member of the State Bar”


Cal. B&P Code Section 6060

“To be certified to the Supreme Court for admission and a “license to practice law”, a person who has not been admitted to practice law in a sister state…”


Cal. B&P; Code Section 6060.5

“Neither the board, nor any committee authorized by it, shall require that applications for admission to practice law in California pass different final bar examinations depending upon the manner or school in which they acquire their legal education.”


Cal. B&P Code Section 6064

“Upon certification by the examining committee that the applicant has fulfilled the requirements for admission to practice law, the Supreme Court may admit such applicant as an attorney at law in all the courts of this state and may direct an order to be entered upon its records to that effect A certificate of admission thereupon shall be given to the applicant by the clerk of the court.”


Cal. B&P Code Section 6064.1.

“No person who advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of this State by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means, shall be certified to the Supreme Court for admission and a license to practice law.”


Cal. B&P Code Section 6067.

“Every person on his admission shall take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, and faithfully to discharge the duties of an attorney at law to the best of his knowledge and ability. A certificate of the oath shall be indorsed upon his license.”


Sections 6002 and 6125, appears straight forward, until the jurisdictions are compared. The jurisdiction “California,” means the dejure social compact known as the California Republic as described in the 1849 California Constitution. The jurisdiction “/ this State,” per California Revenue and Taxation Code, means the de facto military social construct defined as a federal territory via the Buck Act under military control of the United States located in the District of Columbia (See What is United States?).


Since the so-called bankruptcy in 1933, “/_/* this state” signifies the military federal social construct known as the “State of California,” with its subject “citizens of the United States,” artificial persons existing under statute in an artificial realm.

In the de jure California, the word person means the flesh and blood man or woman. Thus 6002 says that only artificial persons (legal fictions) may be admitted and licensed. Real persons need not apply!

Since the de jure social compact known as California no longer truly exists due to the fact the compact went out of legal existence in 1933, as a pledge to the military social government construct bankruptcy, 6125 is nonsensical; It makes about as much sense as stating “No person shall drive an 18-wheeler on interstate highways in California unless that person is a member of the Teamsters Union.”


Another fatal flaw in both 6002 and 6125 according to Corpus Juris Secundum 9, listed above, and the Secretary of State, is that the State ‘Bar itself has no legal existence in contradiction to Sec.9 of their California State Constitution and the California State Bar Act, 6001, state that the State Bar is a public corporation. The State Bar is a public corporation that is NOT, and the State Bar Act creating the State Bar has no legal efficiency.


Cal. B&P Section 6002 informs us that “members of the State Bar are admitted and licensed to practice law.” Admitted into what! And who does the licensing? Section 6002 is framed to satisfy the reader’s perfunctory inquisitiveness, while remaining firmly ambiguous. Also, the reader of section 6002 may get the impression that Bar members are the only ones that may be “admitted and licensed to practice law in this state.” However, because of the way Section 6002 is worded, non-members of the State Bar are not excluded from being “admitted and licensed to practice law in this State.” In addition bar membership is a result of being admitted and licensed to practice law, whereupon the admitted party is then granted membership in the State Bar by a bar card-not the other way around.

“Generally, membership in a bar association is optional with the individual attorney, but where a unified or integrated state bar organization is established, membership and payment of dues may be required as conditions of practicing law in the state…” 7 Corpus Juris Secundum 8, In re Gibson, 4 P.2d 643.35 N.M. 550.

Though the controlled and licensed media and courts would have us believe otherwise, non-State Bar members are not excluded from being “licensed to practice law in this State.”

Cal. B&P 6060, 6060.5 reveal that the “license to practice law” follows (is one in the same) “admission to practice law,” not membership in the bar-association. Section 6060 says that one may be certified to the so-called Supreme Court (admitted/licensed to practice law) even if they haven’t been “admitted to practice law” (no bar-card) in another state.

An article in the Los Angles Times entitled “Clinton Resigns from the High Court Bar” underscores this point: ” …’Former President Clinton hereby respectfully requests to resign from the bar Of this court’, his lawyer, David E. Kendall, said in a two-page letter to the high court’s clerk…” “Clinton’s resignation from the Supreme Court bar will have little practical impact. Clinton; has not practiced before the Supreme Court and was not expected to argue any cases in the future…”

Clinton resigned only from the Supreme Court bar, and from no other bar. Every other “license to practice law” is still in force and is just like the one issued in the so-called de facto State of California. The only possible license to practice law, the certificate of admission, is the real “license.”


Cal. B&P Section 6064 gives provides additional evidence that bar membership doesn’t confer a “license to practice law” Otherwise Cal. B&P 6002 would be sufficient in itself, with no further requirement that an examining committee must certify that an applicant “has fulfilled the requirements for admission to practice law” for being “licensed.”

Regarding the true importance of the “examining committee” referenced above in Section 6064, the so-called chief justice of the Supreme Court can unilaterally overrule its decision and admit any applicant they see fit, even one who has been rejected as unfit or unqualified. As the following case cites show, “Admission to practice law” is ultimately controlled by the chief justice of the Supreme Court of the jurisdiction. In fact the chief justice is the Supreme Court.

“Supreme Court has inherent power and authority to admit an applicant to practice law in this State…despite unfavorable report upon such applicant by Board of Governors of State Bar.”

[Lacey, In re (1936) 11 CA2d 699, 81P2D 935.]

“The authority of the Committee of Bar Examiners is limited to investigating and recommending for admission those applicants found to be of the prescribed standards. Only the Supreme Court has plenary power to admit applicants who, in the opinion of the court, meet the prescribed test, whether or not the Committee agrees with the conclusions of the court.”

[Green v. Zank (1984. 2dDist) CalApp 3d 497, 204 Cat Rptr 770.]


The State Bar of California does not issue licenses–cannot issue licenses–because it is a freewheeling, private trade union posing as an agency of government. Quoting from a statement issued by Governor Pete Wilson’s office in a May, 30 1998 article from the Los Angeles Times:

“Beleaguered State Bar Faces Uncertain Fate -Agencies: It will begin going out of business as a result of Wilson veto unless Legislature acts quickly”

“…Critics two years ago launched a referendum on whether to abolish the bar, but with just over half the state’s lawyer’s voting the bar survived. About 65% of the respondents opposed dismantling it.

“The bar has escaped other brushes with death. In 1985, the Legislature refused for several months to allow the bar association to collect dues because of its abysmal record in disciplining lawyers.”

If the existence of the bar association hinges on an internal vote of disgruntled bar-association attorneys, complaining about paying dues and disciplining themselves–and could have been abolished in 1885 and 1996–how relevant could the State Bar of California actually be?


Regarding the conduct and professional standards of Esquires, there is no state or federal regulatory agency in their America governing such matters. Quoting Oceanside, California Republican Assemblyman Bill Morrow, who sponsored a bill for overhauling and shrinking the Bar in 1998, In the Same LA Times article above: “Morrow said that he is not worried that lawyer discipline will lapse. If no legislative breakthrough is reached by summer, the legislature will simply transfer lawyer discipline to the State Department of Consumer Affairs, the lawmaker said.”


Cal. B&P 6067 implies that attorneys take oaths of office and that this is printed on “the license.” If you read Section 6067 carefully, these attorneys are not a “member of the State Bar,” but “admitted persons.” Section 6067 is designed to lull the reader into the false believe that attorneys take constitutional oaths of office. Since the license is effectively the bar card– a credit card sized piece of plastic, and the only text appearing on the bar card of the State Bar of California concerns annual union dues.

There is no oath: “This certifies that the person whose name appears on this card has paid the annual fee required by statute.”

So on further analysis, Code Section 6067 reduces to another meaningless entry designed to mislead and distract one from getting closer to the truth.