"when a non-lawyer won his case in the Vermont Supreme Court on the matter."
what is that case ?
Zero Powers wrote:
> >From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> > >
> > > I claimed that I could prove fraud to the standard of criminal law,
> > > but we'd need a jury and an indictment to find out for sure (not to
> > > mention the small matter that it's illegal for me to litigate the
> > > laws I'm forced to pay for--but that 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.
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:11:41 MDT