There is a disturbing case out of Florida where EllenBeth Wachs, 48, the legal coordinator for the Atheists of Florida had been arrested for unauthorized practice of law because she signed letters using “Esq.” for esquire.
Wachs notes that her group had just launched an unpopular protest of prayers at public meetings at Polk County as well as criticizing donations by the Polk County Sheriff’s Office to churches. What followed was a raid on her house, seizure of things like her computer, and a criminal charge. I must confess some skepticism about the charge.
Fla. Stat. sec. 454.23 states:
Penalties.—Any person not licensed or otherwise authorized to practice law in this state who practices law in this state or holds himself or herself out to the public as qualified to practice law in this state, or who willfully pretends to be, or willfully takes or uses any name, title, addition, or description implying that he or she is qualified, or recognized by law as qualified, to practice law in this state, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
The State’s Attorney’s Office charges that Wachs formerly practiced law in Pennsylvania, but she retired from that state’s bar around 1997 — and is not a member of the Florida bar. Since the law states that a person cannot use “”a name, title, addition or description” to imply that they are a practicing lawyer without authorization, the prosecutors have stated that they found numerous letters including “Esq.” after her signature.
Ironically, Esquire comes from England where it merely designates a person of distinction. It is based on old French for shield barrier, or “esquier.” It is not unheard of for prosecutors to cite the use of the notation as evidence of the unauthorized practice of law. However, I am unaware of a case where it was the core allegation. Notably, “In the Matter of Wyrick,” (Review Dept. 1992) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 83, the bar cited the use of Esquire by the accused but only viewed it as problematic when combined with express representations of being a practicing lawyer.
In Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown, 99 Ohio St.3d 114, 2003 Ohio 2568, 789 N.E.2d 210 (2003), the Ohio Supreme Court addressed a case where this matter arose. The Court expressly did not prohibit him from using “J.D.” or “Juris Doctor” or “esquire.” It was the fact that these titles were used as part of an ongoing scheme to induce the belief of authorized practice that led to the individual’s charge:
In 2003, when considering prior charges of unauthorized practice of law against respondent, this court declined to enjoin respondent from using “J.D.” or “Esq.” in connection with his name. Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown, 99 Ohio St. 3d 114, 2003 Ohio 2568, 789 N.E.2d 210, P 12, fn. 1. [*6] However, we expressly admonished respondent that he risked punishment for contempt for continuing to engage in the unauthorized practice of law. Id. Clearly, respondent has not heeded this admonishment, nor has he heeded this court’s injunction prohibiting him from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. Respondent’s use of the term “Esq.” in connection with his name on his office stationery and business cards is misleading. His use of the term was one of the factors that induced a federal judge, a practicing lawyer, a school teacher, and a city prosecutor into believing that he was an attorney. As the board concluded, the record in this case included substantial credible evidence that respondent’s use of the term “Esq.” induced clients to believe that he was a lawyer, a misunderstanding that he was aware of and failed to correct.
The federal court in In Re William J. Patton, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17662 (1998), did state”
Patton’s use of the title “Esquire,” which in our experience is used exclusively by attorneys, in itself appears to constitute a violation of this statute. We note, again, however, that we reached the conclusion that Patton was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in the 9/23 Order without reference to his abuse of the title “Esquire.”
It is not uncommon for individuals (who are first found to be practicing without a license) to be barred from the use of the term. Thus, in In re Banks, 561 A.2d 158, 166-67 (D.C. 1987), the court imposed the following limitation:
FURTHER ORDERED that respondent is hereby permanently enjoined and restrained specifically from:
* * *
(2) Using such terms to describe himself or his qualifications as “lawyer,” “attorney,” “counsel,” “counselor,” “Esquire,” “advocate,” or any abbreviation of the foregoing terms, or any other term or description which reasonably denotes that respondent is licensed to practice law in the District of Columbia;
There seems in my view a general thrust to the couple of dozen or so cases dealing with such labels. I find it highly disturbing to see the simple use of Esquire as the grounds for an action. I do not view the term as denoting a practicing lawyers in and of itself. These cases almost uniformly cite the use of the title in a highly contextual sense where the cause of the action is based on clear assertions of practice. Esquire, it seems to me, can denote a lawyer (trained in the law) as opposed to an attorney licensed for practice. The key is context.
The context here could not be more disturbing given Wachs’ involvement in an unpopular exercise of free speech. To combine that context with such a weak basis for a charge of unauthorized practice raises flags of retaliatory action.
Source: The Ledger
Jonathan Turley
HenMan,
Taliban Tootie should just Rapture herself and be done with it.
Tootie-
“high-heaven” is located approximately 5,280 feet above Cloud Coocoo Land- a place your previous postings indicate that you have frequently visited.
tomdarch:
I’m thinking it is all a scam. And employment scam. I should be able to hire a gorilla as my attorney if I so choose.
Let the chips (banana chips?) fall where they may.
What underlying policy interest would be supported by this prosecution?
I see two main reasons to enforce professional licensing laws:
1. Preventing people from being financially ripped off. Anyone can attempt to draft a motion or opine on the law. You’re being ripped off if you pay someone who you think is a lawyer to advise you or perform services, when that person isn’t licensed in that state or isn’t actually qualified to do so.
2. Certain professions are licensed to protect the “health, safety and welfare” of the public. There are “gray areas” where my professional opinion as a licensed Architect is the basis for a building department allowing or not allowing something to be built. Based on our education, work experience, rigorous testing, continuing education and similar requirements we are entrusted by states with a professional license. Doctors, obviously, are in a similar position. When you have uneducated, inexperienced, unproven people claiming to be or doing the work of Architects, Engineers or Doctors, members of the general public are going to be hurt and/or killed as a result.
Let’s be frank – fake lawyers don’t get people killed under almost any circumstances, meaning that Issue #2 isn’t applicable in this case.
So, was anyone being billed falsely if Ms. Wachs WAS in fact impersonating a lawyer? How exactly is the public interest being served in this case?
stinks (not sticks)
Though stick might be just as applicable where atheists are concerned.
The level of corruption in this case sticks to high-heaven. (I wonder how high that is?) Anyway. I found this by the Atheists of Florida….(whatever they are)
http://free2think.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=1423&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a
It says that the people involved in the arrest affidavit are the people involved in a case she is involved in with the court! One person is a member of Wach’s homeowner association!
That said, state and local governments have the right to pray, etc., at government meetings and the Federal government has NO right to interfere.
Why? Because it is forbidden to infringe on speech. Only states and local governments may.
That doesn’t justify the politically incestuous relationship by those involved in this Lakeland case.
Congress tried to fix these problems with the Justice for All Act of 2004. That is supposed to allow crime victims to file in federal court for an order that the U.S. Attorney should meet with the victim to discuss criminal prosecution of federal crimes. However, the Bush Administration issued a memorandum that they were interpreting the law as applying only when there is an on-going federal prosecution.
I was kidnapped by USMS and held totally without charges and without a bail hearing for months, a clear crime as described in 18 USC section 242. This happened in 2005, 2006 and 2007.
Certain people act as if I deserved that. But it could happen to you too based on my precedent.
Retaliation for sure.
That sheriff isn’t going to let some Satan worshipping feminazilesboislamathiest push good, dog-fearing Christian tough guys like him around … no way. That’ll learn her …
5th amendment right*
The problem here is not about the word, the atheist, or Florida. The problem is the prosecutor. All prosecutors in America are practically criminals.
It is to the point that only the mentally disturbed take that job. And they have turned it into little but scalp collecting and furtherance of careers. It seems our only consolation is that some lawyers are thus kept off the streets from pursuing a life of petty crime.
The “state” is not a victim of criminal activity, individuals are. Prosecutors, in a distinctly sociopathic way, pretend THEY are injured by the defendant and get to invent (i.e. LIE) fictions about what the truth of the matter is, then charge people with endless fictions they have no evidence for, only to terrorize and bully the defendant into giving up their amendment right of self-incrimination.
Every prosecutor in America should be viewed as a criminal type person in need of being institutionalized or subjected to an exorcism.
From John Langbein’s “The American Journal of Legal History”:
“This citizen prosecutor [in the Middle Ages] was neither a lawyer nor an officer of the state. In modern American practice, where the public prosecutor has developed a monopoly over the instigation and conduct of criminal litigation, this citizen figure lives on as the complaining witness.” page 318
And
“The obvious drawback to any system of gratuitous citizen
prosecution is that it is unreliable. There will be cases where there are no aggrieved citizens who survive to prosecute, and others where the aggrieved citizens will decline to prosecute, or be inept at it. Because the public interest in law enforcement cannot allow such gaps, the English had to admit an official element into their
system of citizen prosecution.” (Ibid)
Grow up: allow the gaps. Perfect justice cannot be achieved and trying for it only makes for more injustice.
The prosecutorial system is more unreliable than the citizen prosecution (which was the jury). More than that, it is more dangerous than letting people get away with crime (which is what prosecutors get away with any way and still call it law). Rudi Giuliani comes to mind.
There are too many laws. Too many cops. Too many prosecutors. Too many lawyers. And too many jails. “Law and Order” is now a racket by criminal types with state authority to make criminals of the innocent for fun and profit. Especially for profit.
“Many laws as certainly make bad men, as bad men make many laws. ~Walter Savage Landor, Imaginary Conversations”
“Somebody recently figured out that we have 35 million laws to enforce the ten commandments. ~Attributed to both Bert Masterson and Earl Wilson”
The above from http://www.quotegarden.com/justice.html
“Where there is the most law, there also is the most injustice” Jerome
The above from Atheist Delusions by David Hart page 152
Recommended by Prof. Harris.
Side note:
Mike Nifong is another one of these sociopathic prosecutors. I was updating myself on his story as a result of commenting on this post and found a this current article at the Wall Street Journal blog.
What is most interesting to me is the first poster’s comment below the article. It is by our own Sieverding who posts here regularly in an effort to receive justice from the criminals we call lawyers, judges, and prosecutors.
God bless you Sieverding in your continuing effort to stop these criminals in Colorado.
And may God continue to keep the internet open so people can expose the criminals who are predators on us–citizens–for fun and profit.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/04/01/judge-green-lights-suit-by-duke-lacrosse-players-falsely-prosecuted-for-rape/
I sued DOJ for having my First Amendment Records without my permission or an authorized law enforcement function and imprisoning me to stop my First Amendment Acts (No criminal charge, no arraignment, no bail hearing but 5 months federal imprisonment).
DOJ wrote “In Sieverding V, this Court held that PTS records concerning Mrs. Sieverding are exempt from Subsection (e)(7)” “The systems of records the Sieverdings appear to attack in this action – with one exception – are the same ones that featured in Sieverding V and are exempt from Subsection (e)(7).” “The systems of records the Sieverdings appear to attack in this action – with one exception – are the same ones that featured in Sieverding V and are exempt from Subsection (e)(7)”.
The law actually says “(j) General exemptions The head of any agency may promulgate rules, in accordance with the requirements (including general notice) of sections 553(b)(1), (2), and (3), (c), and (e) of this title, to exempt any system of records within the agency from any part of this section EXCEPT subsections (b), (c)(1) and (2), (e)(4)(A) through (F), (e)(6), (7), (9), (10), and (11), and (i) if the system of records ….” (Emphasis added.)
e(7) is the Privacy Act subsection prohibiting unauthorized possession of First Amendment Records.
I find the entire war on (incorrect) free speech extremely disturbing. Consider the militarization of our police forces and the criminalization of children’s behavior (one of the Prof’s recurrent themes.) Add to that the Patriot Act, ever-increasing surveillance, and a culture of secrecy, and there is no doubt that we are already in a police state.
Despite polling that indicates that Americans are opposed to many of our government’s policies, people are simply afraid to speak out. This does not bode well for our future.
Attorney malpractice charges ARE used for First Amendment Retaliation and to affect the outcome of civil lawsuits just as baseless criminal prosecutions are.
This is BULL SHIT…. What about the Magazine, the Guitar what about the Dudes name in Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure…..?
If someone writes Esq after the name….I would think that it is someone familiar with the law….not an actual practicing attorney…..I may be wrong and consistently am…..but this is bull shit..
I thought that if there is a criminal charge the assumption is that the defendant should be served with a summons and not taken into custody…..
It sounds like the reason they police went into her house was to strengthen their case, that they were hoping to find drugs, unregistered guns, or something else to charge her with. Did they have a search warrant?
Blouise 1, April 1, 2011 at 11:31 am
After breaking and entering this woman’s home and stealing her property, this is all the sheriff could find to charge her with?
There are going to be plenty of “Esquires” in Florida who are going to have a hell of a good time playing with the Sheriff and the Florida State’s Attorney’s Office on this one.
Not to mention that both are now the laughing stock of the entire nation.
———————————-
It will be interesting to see who gets played with by the “Esquires” in Florida….Florida has a funny way of turning might into right…
Watch out Colonel Sanders!
While I would expect this in the form of a complaint, but action by the DA?
After breaking and entering this woman’s home and stealing her property, this is all the sheriff could find to charge her with?
There are going to be plenty of “Esquires” in Florida who are going to have a hell of a good time playing with the Sheriff and the Florida State’s Attorney’s Office on this one.
Not to mention that both are now the laughing stock of the entire nation.
I agree without reservation.