Zero Powers wrote:
> >From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <email@example.com>
> >Zero Powers wrote:
> > >
> > > >From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > > > was last month's discussion).
> > > >
> > > >You could litigate in Vermont. It is recognised that there is a
> > > >difference between an attorney and an attorney at law there.
> > >
> > > What's the difference?
> >An Attorney at Law is a member of the bar, and an attorney is anybody
> >you give your 'power of attorney' to, or yourself if you are
> >representing yourself. The idea is that if you have the right to
> >represent yourself, and you are not a lawyer (i.e. you are not qualified
> >to practice law or a member of the bar), then under the equal protection
> >clause, you should have the right to have ANYBODY represent you in court
> >as your attorney. This dates back to early Vermont state history, as
> >well as colonial times, but was only reinstated a few years ago when a
> >non-lawyer won his case in the Vermont Supreme Court on the matter.
> But that doesn't give a non-lawyer the right to bring indictments and
> prosecute *criminal* actions does it? I believe that is what Lee was
> talking about.
You can't indict or prosecute as a representative of the state (although there
have been State Attorneys General who were not lawyers), but you can easily sue
in civil court on charges of fraud, and you could even put together a class
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:11:41 MDT