ATTORNEY & CLIENT  Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.) VOLUME 7 SECTION 4

ATTORNEY & CLIENT: Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.) VOLUME 7 SECTION 4

Many ask when presented with an issue, “Should I hire an attorney? ” That is a question that each must answer for themselves. However, before making that decision, you might wish to consider the following questions and answers:

1. To what or whom is an attorney’s first duty?

 

We consult the latest Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.) legal encyclopedia, volume 7, section 4 for the answer below:

§ 4 ATTORNEY & CLIENT 7 C.J.S.

“His first duty is to the courts and the public, not to the clients, and wherever the duties to his client conflict with those he owes as an officer of the court in the administration of justice, the former must yield to the latter.

The office of attorney is indispensable to the administration of justice and is intimate and peculiar in its relation to, and vital to the well­being of, the court. An attorney has a duty to aid the court in seeing that actions and proceedings in which he is engaged as counsel are conducted in a dignified and orderly manner, free from passion and personal animosities, and that all causes brought to an issue are tried and decided on their merits only; to aid the court…”

 

2. What is the legal relationship between an attorney and his/her client?

 

§§ 2­3 ATTORNEY & CLIENT 7 C.J.S.

“…and the term is synonymous with “attorney”. Therefore, anyone advertising himself as a lawyer holds himself out to be an attorney, an attorney at law, or counselor at law.

If one appears before any court in the interest of another and moves the court to action with respect to any matter before it of a legal nature, such person appears as an “advocate”, as that term s generally understood. The phrase “as an advocate in a representative capacity,” as used in the statute regulating the practice of law, implies a representation distinct from officer or other regular administrative corporate employee representation.

In England and her colonies a “barrister” is a person entitled to practice as an advocate or counsel in the superior courts. A “solicitor” is a person whose business it is to be employed in the care and management of suits depending in courts of chancery. In the great majority of the states of the Union, where law and equity are both administered by the same court, it has naturally come about that the two offices of attorney at law and solicitor in chancery have practically been consolidated, although in the federal equity practice the term “solicitor” is in general use; but in some states the office of solicitor in chancery is a distinct and separate office from that of attorney at law.

A client is one who applies to a lawyer or counselor for advice and direction in a question of law, or commits his cause to his management in prosecuting a claim or defending against a suit in a court of justice; one who retains the attorney, is responsible to him for his fees, and to whom the attorney is responsible for the management of the suit; one who communicates facts

to an attorney expecting professional advice. Clients are also called “wards of the court” in regard to their relationship with their attorneys.

 

§ 3. Nature of Right to Practice

While it has been broadly stated that the right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right, but is in the nature of a privilege or franchise, the practice of law is not a matter of grace but of right for one who is qualified by his learning and moral character.”

Library references

Attorney and Clients

“The right to practice law is not a natural or constitutional right. Nor is the right to practice…”

 

3. What is a ward of the court?

“Wards of court. Infants and persons of unsound mind placed by the court under the care of a guardian. Davis Committee v. Loney, 290 Ky. 644, 162 S.W. 2d. 189, 190. Their rights must e guarded jealously. Montgomery v. Erie R. Co., C.C.A.N.J., 97 F, 2d 289, 292. See Guardianship”

(Are you an infant or person of unsound mind?)

4. Do you need to challenge jurisdiction? Better read the following,

particularly “…because if pleaded by an attorney…”

In propria persona /in pröwpry! persówn!/. In one’s own proper person. It was formerly a rule in pleading that pleas to the jurisdiction of the court must be plead in propria persona, because if pleaded by attorney they admit the jurisdiction, as an attorney is an officer of the court, and he is presumed to plead after having obtained leave, which admits the jurisdiction. See Pro se.”

ATTORNEY & CLIENT Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.) VOLUME 7 SECTION 4

Conclusions of law:

  1. When you hire an attorney, you become a ward of the court and a second class citizen and you admit the jurisdiction of the court in the matter at hand (which is in the fiction since all courts today are corporate; so you’d be indicating that you are a surety for a civilly dead entity: the ALL CAPS SPELLING OF YOUR NAME via the STATE’s defiled version of your birth certificate which they tricked you into becoming the surety for.)
  2. You can’t hire an attorney if you want to challenge jurisdiction.
  3. If you want to challenge jurisdiction, the only way you can do it is as a “sui juris” and/or “in propria persona.

 

Should you hire an attorney? What do you think?

Leave your vote

67434 points
More

Don’t Stop Here

More To Explore

PHH Mortgage Corporation's Motion to Dismiss in Kevin Walker Estate, et al. v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al. is a glaring example of procedural misconduct, constitutional violations, and a deliberate attempt to obstruct justice. The Plaintiffs have conditionally accepted PHH Mortgage’s non-compliant filing, thereby tendering a binding counteroffer that PHH must now rebut. PHH’s continued silence and failure to rebut the conditional acceptance further compounds their non-performance and dishonor. Additionally, the Defendants’ filing violates multiple-defendant court rules, misrepresents the law, displays incompetence and a war against the Constitution, and constitutes blatant obstruction of justice.

KEVIN WALKER ESTATE’S Conditional Acceptance Exposes PHH Mortgage’s Motion as Procedurally Defective, Deceitful and Dishonest, Unconstitutional, and Legally Void

PHH Mortgage Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss in Kevin Walker Estate, et al. v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al. is a glaring example of procedural misconduct, constitutional violations, and a deliberate attempt to obstruct justice. The Plaintiffs have conditionally accepted PHH Mortgage’s non-compliant filing, thereby tendering a binding counteroffer that PHH must now rebut. PHH’s continued silence and failure to rebut the conditional acceptance further compounds their non-performance and dishonor. Additionally, the Defendants’ filing, prepared by Neil J. Cooper of HOUSER LLP, violates multiple-defendant court rules, misrepresents the law, displays incompetence and a war against the Constitution, and constitutes blatant obstruction of justice.

Further exacerbating this obstruction, critical documents remain missing from the court docket and record, preventing a full and fair adjudication of the Plaintiffs’ claims. This deliberate suppression of filings by the court and Defendants undermines due process, conceals key evidence, and constitutes judicial misconduct. The failure to properly record and acknowledge Plaintiffs’ filings further demonstrates systematic efforts to manipulate the proceedings in PHH Mortgage’s favor, reinforcing the need for immediate judicial correction, sanctions, and enforcement of Plaintiffs’ default judgment demands.

Judicial Misconduct in Riverside, California: Defendant PHH Mortgage's ("loan servicer") Baseless Motion and the Court’s Obstruction of Justice

Judicial Misconduct in Riverside, California: Defendant PHH Mortgage’s (“loan servicer”) Baseless Motion and the Court’s Obstruction of Justice

PHH Mortgage’s Motion to Dismiss in Kevin Walker Estate, et al. v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al. exemplifies judicial overreach, procedural abuse, and a blatant disregard for constitutional rights. The motion falsely asserts that a trust cannot be represented by an attorney-in-fact, denying individuals their right to self-representation and claiming that only "attorneys at law" can act in court. This contradicts established legal principles, including the American Bar Association’s recognition of power of attorney as a legitimate instrument granting broad authority. Additionally, the court has obstructed the record by refusing to file Plaintiffs’ documents, prompting a writ of mandamus to expose the Riverside Federal Court’s misconduct. This case underscores a broader pattern of legal corruption, defamation, and deprivation of rights under the color of law.

Screen Shot 2025 02 19 at 1.22.22 PM

KEVIN WALKER Estate Demands Writ of Mandamus as Riverside Federal Court Engages in Corruption, Record Tampering, and Obstruction of Justice

The United States District Court, Central District of California (Riverside), stands accused of obstructing justice, tampering with records, and violating due process by unlawfully refusing to file and docket legitimate pleadings. Plaintiffs KEVIN WALKER ESTATE, et al., hav presented irrefutable evidence of judicial misconduct, calling for criminal prosecution, sanctions, and immediate enforcement. Despite proof of receipt, court officials have concealed filings, manipulated records, and obstructed legal proceedings, in direct violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1505, 1512, 1519, and 2071. With Pam Bondi CC’d on the correspondence, high-level authorities have been alerted to this grave constitutional violation that threatens judicial integrity and fundamental rights.

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.

error: Content is protected !!