I am Michael Ehline, an expert on the Common Law History of Becoming a Lawyer without law School and formation of bar exams. Securing your Juris Doctorate (JD) or law degree from an ABA or state-accredited law school is a prerequisite before practicing law in most U.S. states. The UK, including its commonwealth, has a similar path. Although I studied law under the California State Bar Law Office Study Program guidelines, only a handful of U.S. states have their versions of legal apprenticeships.
Some people think there are advantages to attending a traditional, costly law school if they can survive during legal studies and its enormous, crushing student debt. No matter what, either way, there is no such thing as a quick law degree. No matter what, a minimum level of training will be needed.
Below, I will discuss American common law history, the myths associated with Moorish sovereigns, and sovcits about the B.A.R.
ANCIENT TO MODERN TIMELINE OF BECOMING A LAWYER WITHOUT LAW SCHOOL
Law schools were not even a thought. Clergy was the closest thing England had to lawyers by the time of Alfred the Great. Lay people or “commoners” were generally not law practitioners. Hence, there was no “common law” yet. Commoners descended from Germanic barbarians and often resorted to trial by battle, self-help, and blood feuds to resolve legal disputes.
There was no such animal as a wrongful death lawsuit, for example. Ultimately, these heathen leaders received education from church institutions, including law and history. Eventually, commoners practiced law using rules modified from former Canon law religious courts and the shire’s royal laws.
527-565 – The Roman Emperor Justinian prohibited any clergyman from pleading in lay courts, whatever the nature of the cause unless it was one in which he had a personal interest or his Church or monastery parish was involved. Despite this, western bishops turned a blind eye, their clerics influencing and even running royal, secular courts for hundreds of years. Besides, clergy were typically the only people who could read, write, or conduct record-keeping for local public officials. The king’s scribes were often religious monks, for example.
557 A.D. – Middle Ages Ecclesiastical Legal Advocacy
In Western Europe, the Justinian interdict was largely ignored (See above). Because of his education, the clergyman became indispensable in all matters concerning the orderly transaction of public business, whether in the chanceries or the courts.
First Lawyers Had No Law School?
True, no law schools existed until well after the Church created our modern university system. Few people other than clergy educated in guilds or schools practiced law. Hence, educated lawyers monopolized legal jobs, as they do today. Due to the Papal Bulls against owning a Bible, let alone reading, the church controlled thought, similar to how modern [politicized] social media has taken over modern “news” reporting/censoring.
People who were called cleric lawyers:
Proctors: If a party to action appeared by a proctor, the proctor represented the party.
Advocatus: But if the party had the assistance of an advocate, the party had to make a personal appearance in court, supported, aided, counseled, and advised by the advocate on all matters of law and procedure.
Hence, the ecclesiastical proctor remained similar to early mediaeval attornatus’ (see below), whereas advocates had similarities to a mediaeval pleader, forespeka, vorsprecher narrator. However, advocates could argue and not just repeat statements.
Mediaeval Proctor
The ecclesiastical proctor was a kind of “officer” appointed by the court or selected by the client to represent a party that empowered him to appear on its behalf and manage its cause. Under certain conditions, the same person could act both as a proctor and advocate in the same case for the same client.
Medieval Advocate
Contrary To English Shire Courts, Parties In Religious Courts Were Allowed Their Advocates Any party appearing in an ecclesiastical court, whether as plaintiff or defendant, could appear either in person or by counsel, professional or not. In some instances, the court might insist on the appearance of counsel for the party. The professional duties of an ecclesiastical advocate loosely resembled the Roman Imperial period advocate.
In mediaeval society, clergymen were practically the only people who possessed some of that general education and learning, which is necessary to present or plead a case intelligently and convincingly. But subsequently, a difference arose as to the propriety of clerics practicing law, the custom varying depending upon who was in charge.
Did Proctors Or Advocates Attend Law School?
No. There were no law schools. And they probably had no undergrad requirements. We do know when proctors were commissioned candidates, and they had to pass through an apprenticeship.
Moral Character Rules – Genesis
Our secular moral character requirements are inherited from sixth-century ethics rules and standards. A cursory inspection of the Corpus Juris Civils of Justinian, especially of the Codex, shows the massive extent to which lawyers’ ecclesiastical regulations were dependent on Roman law. (Cf. Chroust. The Legal Profession in Ancient Imperial Rome, 30 NOTRE DAME LAW. 521, 579 (1955)).
Several provisions and rules existed regarding the supervision and discipline of proctors. They were to display restrained and dignified conduct in the presence of the court, refraining from “loud speech and babbling, and behave themselves quietly and modestly.” (Could not buy the litigation, acquire an interest in the case, demand an excessive fee, or betray their client’s confidence to their party in opposite).
1230: One title is based on the Decretals of Pope Gregory IX, published around 1230, which includes Pope Gregory the Great of 596’s regulation, one from Pope Alexander III (1159-1181), one by Pope Clement III (1187-1191), four by Pope Innocent III (1198-1216), and two of Pope Honorius I (1216-1227). Six more were issued by Pope Gregory IX (1227-1241).
Circa 1298: Pope Boniface VIII’s Sixth Book of the Decretals followed Roman law, modified or expanded by Papal Decretals (decrees), Church Councils, or bishop/court created local statutes.
Compare Early Germanic Secular Courts – Rarely Recognized Another’s Right To Advocate
In a nutshell, Germanic peoples and their early Anglo-Saxon ancestors had no use for what we now call lawyers. These were warrior societies. “…every man ought to fight his own battles, using his hands or tongue as the occasion required.” (Id at 539). They looked down upon accusers refusing to litigate, arbitrate and face death for making accusations during their parliamentary courts, called the “Thing” or “Althing.”
During the arbitration, the accused and accuser might engage in trial by battle, the surviving victor being innocent of all charges. It appears that ancient courts relied upon a lawman to recite the law.
But this person did not advocate and was typically someone belonging to the king’s court. Modern scholars believe many German tribes were outlaws who either fled Scandinavia or were banished. (Source) (See also). The 5th and 6th Century German invasions of Western Europe saw the end of the once highly developed, prosperous Roman legal profession. (See Chroust, The Legal Profession in Ancient Imperial Rome, 30 NOTRE DAME LAW. 521 (1955); Chroust, The Legal Profession in Ancient Republican Rome, 30 NOTRE DAME LAW. 97 (1954); Chroust, Legal Education in Ancient Rome, 7 J. LEGAL ED. 509 (1955)).
These tribes, including the earlier-ancient Romans before them, had no attorney-client advocacy system, mainly because no concept of legal “agency” existed. (acting on another’s behalf in law.
Early Orators In Legal Causes Were The Closest Thing We Had To Secular Lawyers?
The Rise of The Vorsprecher
Germanic tribes allowed an accused, their professional orator, or Vorsprecher, to speak “their words” during court.(Vorsprecher, forespreca, furisprecho, redesman rechtsprecher, spruchman, rechtsager, asega, eosago, sagibaro, talman, prolocutor, or plain “mouth-piece”). A Vorsprecher was not trained in the law, nor was he allowed to advocate. He was to appear [often as a professional orator] to narrate their version of the facts.
But some Germanic kings vested others acting in their own interests with the right of representation by an advocate. It seems German tribes insultingly called these legal pleaders “criers.” (Latin: Clamatores). But anyone could be your Vorsprecher, even the judge deciding the case against you. No legal training was required because no advocacy was allowed unless you were the king’s Vorsprecher. (Vorsprecher‘s were great orators and storytellers, often becoming great leaders).
Distinguish Vorsprecher With Scandinavian “Lagman”
At first, lawspeakers/lagmen represented the people, and their duties and authority were connected to the assemblies (things). For most of the last thousand years, however, they were part of the king’s administration. A lawspeaker or lawman (Swedish: Lagman, Old Swedish: laghmaþer or Laghman, Danish: lovsigemand, Norwegian: Lagman, Icelandic: lög(sögu)maður, Faroese: løgmaður, Finnish: laamanni, Greenlandic: inatsitinuk) is a unique Scandinavian legal office. It has its basis in a common Germanic oral tradition, where wise people were asked to recite the law. The lawman’s function evolved into a legal office.
Germanic Tribes Become Anglo-Saxons Settling Britania
During this period, around the 5th century, Voumllkerwanderung tribes, including those formerly residing in Germany’s Angles and Saxony, settled part of Brittain, ultimately becoming Anglo-Saxons. (But other tribes mixed, including Goths, Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Lombards, Suebi, Frisii, and Franks).
Lack of Stable Laws = Social Instability
However, Nordic people’s preferring poetry and oral histories over a more superior written system of stable laws with professional clerks, courts, and advocates weren’t progressing society forward. Ancient England was far from being a unified society under such an unstable, Spartan-like system.
“It is an old axiom that a true legal profession – a class of trained and professionally acting experts who are conscious of their expertness and, hence, of their peculiar status within a given society – cannot possibly be found until there exists something like a fairly distinct and stable body of laws, a somewhat settled jurisdiction with regular courts handled by experts, and a fairly consistent legal procedure.” (Anton-Hermann Chroust, Legal Profession during the Middle Ages: The Emergence of the English Lawyer Before 1400, 31 Notre Dame L. Rev. 537 (1956).)
Ultimately, as laymen were admitted to the bar, these “commoners” practiced what is modernly “common law.”
813 AD – Council of Mainz
Clerics and monastics were again prohibited from actively participating in a secular lawsuit, except when involving Church or a Church interest or defending orphans or widows.
871 AD – Enter Alfred The Great
Ultimately, especially after the accession of Alfred the Great (Viking slayer) (871), the realm developed established rules similar to traditions inherited from wandering Germanic tribes. The Doom Book, Dōmbōc, Code of Alfred, or Legal Code of Ælfred the Great was the code of laws (“dooms” were laws or judgments) compiled by Alfred the Great. Alfred codified three previous Saxon codes:
Alfred prefixed the Ten Commandments of Moses. He even incorporated Mosaic Code rules of life into a Christian code of ethics. The History Channel smash hit mini-series, Vikings loosely bases some true history about Alfred’s desire to learn history and benevolence during Ragnar’s conquests. For example, some crimes were monetarily compensable concerning victim restitution. But there were still no lawyers, as we call them today.
1066 AD – Enter William the Norman Conquerer
After the successful King William’s 1066 Norman invasion of Britania, things dramatically changed for legal professionals. Our American common law system can be seen as a fusion between:
Laypersons entering legal practice/advocacy after the 13th century.
William, I brought efficient legal administration at speeds only dreamed of by King Alfred. He was heavily reliant upon court clerks and chroniclers, establishing the first English Census. We must remember that the Normans were French-speaking descendants of Danish-Norwegian Vikings, raiding and settling France’s western coast. These barbarians ultimately absorbed Christianity, with its more refined Holy Roman clerical and legal systems.
Fusion of Anglo-Saxon-Norman-Papal-Law
But Norman custom was not simply transplanted into England; upon its arrival, an emerging new body of rules based on local conditions materialized. Elements of King Alfred’s burgeoning Anglo-Saxon system surviving the “Invasion” included the jury, ordeals (trials by testing physical strength or by “battle”), and outlawry (banishing a person beyond the protection of the law or exiling them).
Commoners were not allowed to practice law, as they were not clergy. The king’s roving secular courts had not yet conflicted as they would in later papal power struggles.
Normans maintained the use of writs (orders mandating someone to appear at a court; see also,The development of a centralized judiciary). We must always remember that priestly study was among the highest status education one could receive. Only men of God could read, and the church prohibited the private ownership of Bibles. Ecclesiastical law and papal canons needed interpreting.
Even the Holy Templar Knights (Knights with banks, lands, titles, and money needing management and legal protection) maintained their own priestly house counsel, as it were.
No English Common Law Existed?
True. England had no professional, commoner lawyers or judges; instead, literate clergymen administered, some familiar with Roman law and the canon law. During this period, the Christian church developed the universities of the 12th century. Before the Reformation, mediaeval Roman Canon law had original jurisdiction over most English legal matters.
Civil Canon law was basically copied from Rome’s Civil law, influencing modem English ecclesiastical and common law. America’s first corporate universities, including Harvard, adopted this religious heritage, emblazoning its first two official seals with “Christo et Ecclesiae” (“For Christ and Church”) (1650 and 1692).
Canon Law Applied
Canon law was applied to English church courts, with revived Roman law seeing less influence in England, despite Norman’s government dominance. England and its colonies during the 12th-13th centuries saw ecclesiastical law taught mostly by the clergy. Even the king’s early central courts had no professional advocates. The proceedings were informal, and parties (or their speakers) presented their own cases before their king, noble, or clergy.
Until the thirteenth century, and far into it, the clergy remained the prominent legal practitioners in the ecclesiastical courts and lay courts. As a matter of fact, clergymen predominated lay courts so much that a word was coined: Nullus clericus nisi causidicus (no clergyman was not also a legal practitioner). It would not be till much later that British Canonical law was subsumed into the Chancery court.
The First English Law Clerk Was A King?
Probably. Norman princes were educated in all manner, including by professorial monks. The Anglo-Saxon Born Norman king, Henry I, was called Beauclerk because he was well educated, fluent in Latin reading and writing, with knowledge of Anglo-Saxon Domesday Book laws, nature, and history. Beauclerk was a fan of the last Anglo-Saxon King, Edward the Confessor. (1042-1066).
Edward’s mother, a Norman, and was born around 1003, or 1005. Edward was recorded as a “witness” overseeing the two charters of 1005. In the early 1030s, Edward witnessed four charters in Normandy, later signing two of them as king of England.
1100: (The Charter of Liberties, also called the Coronation Charter, was Henry I’s written proclamation to bind the King to certain laws regarding the treatment of nobles, church officials, and individuals. (Magna Carta forerunner).
1140 – James Brundage has explained: “[by 1140], no one in Western Europe was a professional lawyer or canonist.”
Henry II (1154–1189); Rise Of The “Common” “Law Attornatus” and Servientes or Serjeants
Henry II’s royal officials roamed the country, inquiring about administering justice. Church and state were separate during his reign, each having its own law and court systems. This led to centuries of rivalry over jurisdiction, especially since church courts’ pre-Reformation appeals could be taken to Rome. And all the “lawyers” of the day were religious employees.
Attornatus Defined
The term attornatus, or attorney, probably is early German. (Anglo-Saxon) Freemen of each shire were regularly summoned to the Torn by the shire reeve (modernly, sheriff). Any man incapable of personally attending the torn could send their friend or close family member relative to represent the missing person “at the torn.”
Their “attorney” substitute now represented the attorney party. Other theories exist the word is French atournee or atourner, with Godofredus labeling this an 11th Century Latinized “loan word.” Gradually this became a person prepared or equipped to act in substitution of parties during legal proceedings.
Attornatus Distinguished From Forespeka
The attornatus, forensically speaking, remains clearly distinguishable from the forespeka or Vorsprecher. “If you appear by attorney, he represents you, but when you have the assistance of an advocate [scil., a leader], you are present, and he supports your cause by his learning, ingenuity, and zeal. Appearance by attorney is one thing, but admitting advocates to plead the cause of another is a totally different proceeding.” (Serjeant’s Case 5; Lord Brougham explains attorney-pleader (forespeka) differences.).
1150 – A small but increasing number of the clergy became experts in canon law. But the clergy gradually withdrew or became barred from practicing law in lay courts. Laypeople had begun replacing clergy legal practitioners.
1161-1185: The First Temple, or Inns of Court
No one knows the Inns of Court’s exact origins. But believe it or not, the Knights Templar liked lawyers. Originally, their lawyers lived with them in their castles. Ultimately they became Inns, where all lawyers in England received legal apprenticeships. But, they were central to the development of English law and the Legal Profession. By 1422, the king’s serjeants were almost exclusively drawn from the court’s four inns. Mentors gave readings on commoner lay laws and certain aspects of Roman law. (Fun fact: Ancient Serjeant = Modern Sergeant = Servant)
Almost all the Judges taught there and returned to attend readings. And the inns weren’t aloof as to the developments of the common law. But their primary function was to “preserve and elaborate the settled learning concerning real actions and real property, and it was in that sense that the law schools made tough law.” The Inns showed us the law was not a creature of statute only. They showed us a human influencers’ body, refining the legal profession, producing future legislators and judges.
The Honourable Societies – The Inner and Outer Temples were sandwiched between the remnants of Roman ruins called “the Liberty of the City,” just outside London’s protective walls. “This gate opens not immediately into the City itself, but into the Liberty or Freedom thereof.” (Queen Anne, 1708).
The Templars considered it an honor to remain posted outside the “protective walls” of London’s secular society.
The Temple’s construction and remodel phases can be dated between 1161 and 1185, named for the warrior monks of the iconic Order of The Knight’s Templars. Templars originally lodged its lawyers and allies, the Knights Hospitalers, within Temple walls. The Temple is where knights launched holy crusades when England’s Kings and Rome’s Pope were were religious allies.
Rank Structure Of The Temple Inns
The masters became known as benchers while the students were classified into three categories:
Readers: Experienced teaching assistants/students, known as readers, were employed in instruction in somewhat the same manner as contemporary law school professors.
Inner Barrister: New students, whose course of instruction was largely lecture and observation were denominated inner barristers.
Outer Barrister: outer barristers, were perhaps the equivalent of today’s second-year law school class and their studies were dominated by participation in the “moot.”
Possible Origins Of the Legal Term “Bar”
Temple Bar. Evolved from the so-called “Liberty line,” or “First-Barrier” (A chain gate draped between the Temple and London’s gates.). Ultimately, the bar meant one thing for “legal London,” and another for the courts. (This is where we traced the legal terms “Barrister,” and “passing the bar,” or first barrier to practicing law) Modernly, each Temple’s dining hall still has a long wooden bar dividing the governors (benchers) from their apprentices. For non-lawyers, since 1351, the Temple Bar is mentioned historically as the location victorious kings would pass beneath its arches. This may have something to do with holy crusades being launched from this location.
“The Liberty line was marked by a chain gate which became known as the Temple Bar, now a stone gateway of the same name. Along with London Bridge, the gateway became a prime public location used to display the heads of traitors and rebels as a warning to others. Below the gateway was a well-used pillory.” – Duhaime’s Law Dictionary, “Inns of Court Definition.”
Call to the Bar or Call to Bar referenced the wooden barrier separating the public and “Apprentice at the Law” from the judge’s bench. Barristers, like attorneys today, stood or sat behind the bar while speaking to and facing the judge, staging their legal briefs, papers, and pleadings there. (We lawyers must seek admission from the court before passing the bar to approach the bench (See the Temple influence? Ex: “Your honor, may I approach?“)
Bar in the Middle Ages: The Bar also referenced the king’s summons, calling a legally qualified man to address the King’s Bench’s legal issues.
“Bar” Modern Use: Ultimately, in common law countries, this term interchangeably came to mean passing a bar exam and being admitted to practice law as a barrister or attorney, with solicitors passing a different but similar examination. Modernly, some scholars claim that the word bar was derived from the old English/European custom separating court business between a public viewing area. At least one Wikipedia editor thinks, “The origin of the term bar is from the barring furniture dividing a medieval European courtroom.”But they provided no citation in support.
See the Image of the Bar!
Myths and Fantasies – British Accreditation Registry “BAR”
No, there is no legitimate or recognized entity known as the “British Accreditation Registry” (often abbreviated as BAR). This term is sometimes associated with the “sovereign citizen” movement. Many of them claim the legal profession and court systems in English-speaking countries, particularly the United States, are secretly controlled by foreign powers, often referencing the British legal system.
The acronym “BAR” in legal contexts usually refers to the legal profession, such as being “admitted to the bar,” which means a lawyer is authorized to practice law after passing an exam and meeting other qualifications. But we have not had anything to do with a so-called “British Accreditation Registry.” In short, the “British Accreditation Registry” is not a recognized institution and we found zero evidence it has anything to do with various common law bars, or any bars for that matter.
England’s Four Inns of Court
Due to the different types of legal education required, four Inns of Court evolved to train Barristers, responsible for teaching and nurturing law students for their unique legal skills as follows:
Ultimately, this Temple Inn evolved into two “Temples,” as follows:
The Honourable Society of The Inner Temple,
The Honourable Society of The Middle Temple
Next on our list of Inns of Court are:
3. The Honourable Society of Lincoln’s Inn: not to be confused with Abraham Lincoln, remains the largest Inn, with official records showing its existence since at least 1422.
4. The Honourable Society of Gray’s Inn: traces its roots to 1569, but law student studies likely never happened there until the later fourteenth century.
Brief Legal Education History Of the Inns of Chancery
There were two types of Inns, Inns of Court and Inns of Chancery, attached to an Inn of Court “like Maids of Honour to a Princess.” These Inns were responsible for training solicitors. There were other equitable courts we will not cover here. This study limits itself to the evolution away from apprenticeships and the remnants left behind in those few hold-out states. At their height, there were eight or ten Inns of Chancery.
Inns Of Court Legal Education
Evolution Of Law Practice Admissions From Guilds to Inns
As the namesake suggests, inns were various structures housing various law students who would live and earn their keep as apprentices, laboring under their legal masters, reading for the law, and eventually working as barristers solicitors (previous Court of Chancery lawyers).
Inns remained unincorporated bodies, run by senior members called “masters of the bench” or “benchers.” When law students had been “called” to enter the profession by fellow Inn members, they would receive recognition and authorization to legally practice law and plead at the bar in England’s higher courts.
What Was The “Moot”
The best method of legal education for Inns members was attending court. When the court was in session, the Inns were crowded with the judges, lawyers, and students. When courts were not hearing cases, law readers gave lectures and conducted Bolts within the same courthouses, a special moot court.
Since case reports were rare, moots and open court helped students understand current legal questions, as they were argued by admitted and skilled litigators with student input. After moot courts, a collegial and pedagogical discussion between the above parties ensued . “the mooters presented the judges with a slice of bread and a mug of beer. . . .”
At night, generally, Inns students engaged in educational exercises.
End of the Moots
By the eighteenth century, the readings and moots had declined, students being left mainly to their own devices. England’s only requirement for bar admissions by benchers of the Inns was proof that they had kept twelve terms eating the mandatory number of meals.
Another method to gain bar entry was proof a student had clerked with established barristers. But barristers had no formal time commitment to supervise law students in the barrister’s chambers. With no standard tests, apprenticeship quality was never subject to objective, standardized evaluations.
Origins of the Crib and “Crib-Notes”?
Although student-barristers were expected to read certain standard works, such as Littleton, Coke, Glanville, and Bracton, Lord Mansfield set aside a portion received most barrister legal education in the courts. Lord Mansfield set aside a portion of the courtroom for student use to accommodate student needs, called the “crib.” Incidentally, the modern phrase “crib notes” likely arose from his teaching method.
The UK’s new legal system presented many opportunities for non-clergy and other men of the cloth to read for and practice law during the 14th century.
1164: During this period, we see Inns of Court coming into its own. Religious officials became absolutely disqualified by Papal Bull from law practice in lay courts.
1178: King Henry II appointed two clerics and three laymen to a “permanent and central court.” From this time on, it was not unusual that laymen on the Bench should preside over their ecclesiastical brethren.
1179: Third Lateran Council [Citation needed]
1190 to 1230: A crucial shift began with some men practicing canon law as legal professionals.
1215: Fourth Lateran Council admonishedclergyto never appear for a secular lawsuit, except in cases affecting themselves or on behalf of the poor and the distressed.
1215: Magna Charta agreed upon by king Henry II.
1216-1272 – Henry III: By now, despite the Papal admonishments, most royal justices, including royal clerks or officials, were technically clergymen. But beginning under Henry III would recruit his lawyers would recruit lawyers from the royal Bench’s Bar.
1217: Law of the Forest (introduced as policy in 1217 and confirmed by Edward III in 1225).
1217-1218: The Pope, frustrated with King Henry I and II, prohibited England’s clergy from practicing law in secular English Common Law courts. “neither clerics nor monastics are to appear as advocati in a secular court, unless in their own causes or in those of the poor.” (Later incorporated in the so-called Constitutions of Cardinal Otho in 1237).
1225: Law of Forest confirmed.
1232: Two French councils in 1231 had mandated that lawyers had to swear an oath of admission before practicing before the bishop’s courts in their regions. A London papal legate created a similar oath in 1237.
1234: Ultimately, in 1234 AD, Henry III banned legal education “within the City” of London, prompting a mass legal educator exodus, including clergy and law students leaving the protective “Liberty” of the City’s walls. (He couldn’t just ban priest law teachers, as he could set of a Holy War against England) The warrior Templar monks (See above), still vassals of the Pope, granted these legal disciples respite alongside their own legal counsel then training as Templar lawyers, renting space as it were, to these displaced jurists.
1236: The great barons of Normandy were permitted to appoint an attornatus, provided they ‘had secured a royal license…”
1237: Constitutions of Cardinal Otho affirms restrictions on religious officials participating in secular courts.
Clerical legal representatives were on the decline in England, as was Rome-based Christianity.
1270-1300 – Rise Of The Full Attornatus
By now, we see two classes of attorney rise:
Full Attornatus: The full attornatus helped courtiers, nobles, clergy, people living far away, or those engaged in protracted causes. Because certain people (sick, infirm, far away) could not always appear personally, the attornatus became a class of pros and, like servientes or serjeants, were becoming “full-time lawyers.” But unlike public deputies of the day, these new representatives were educated.
Attornatus Regis: The King’s attorney. (See below)
1272-1307 – Edward I: The English Bench and Bar’s secularization continued, ushering in a class of professional legal practitioners in general. By Edward’s death, most English lawyers practicing law in royal courts were professional laymen. Edward also instituted the first Moral Character Law.
1275: France’s professionalization trend saw a proposal at the Second Council of Lyon in 1275 that all ecclesiastical courts must institute an oath of admission influential in many European courts, including England.
1275 – First Statute of Westminster: England’s civil courts joined the trend towards professionalization. (Statute was enacted punishing professional lawyers guilty of deceit). (no sheriff shall suffer “barretors to maintain quarrels in their shires, neither stewards of great Lords, nor others, unless he be attorney for his Lord, to make suit or give judgment in the counties …” The non admitted attornatus was considered a deputy, not respected as the Crown’s particular attornatus, merely acting as their lord’s deputy at the Bar or Bench.
1278: The King’s attornatus or attornati, called attornatus Regis (King’s attorney), sued the Bishop of Exeter. After that, Attornatus Regis began assuming serviens Regis roles. But the King’s attorney still needed the “King’s commission.” (or Chancellor’s commission).
1280: the mayor’s court of the city of London promulgated regulations concerning admission procedures, including administering an oath.
1285: Second Statute of Westminster provided penalties for serjeants, leaders, and attorneys who engaged in unprofessional conduct. Lawyers were made legally liable for defrauding clients and negligent representation of causes. Lawyers were penalized if convicted of engaging in or consenting to deceit or collusion in Royal courts. But mainly it was the King’s serjeants, and pleaders complained of.
1288: Norman attornatio were finally allowed to practice in lower Norman courts.
1289: “The City Ordinance of 1289” regulated London’s legal practitioners.
1290: The so-called Mirror of Justices observed that “no counteur [pleader] should be a man of religion or an ordained cleric.”
1292: King Edward I appoints 140 attorneys, including their apprentices, to accompany his common-law courts, helping litigants. This increased formal legal training needs in the realm.
1294: The 1288 Norman Court rule allowing law attornatus in lawyer courts was abolished in 1294 by the Parliament of Paris, including Normandy.
1295: First Mention of Attorney General. “because John . . . is at the King’s command, . . . he may have general attorneys in all his lawsuits.” The King, London, and the great barons, like any large corporation, constantly needed competent legal representation.
1297: Confirmatio Cartarum – Edward II recognizes pre-existing natural laws respecting liberty and freedom from certain government interference. (Learn more about Natural Law Here).
1297: Remonstrances – Edward II is served with the Remonstrances. Edward I’s incessant wars and his confrontational style led to conflict with some lay and ecclesiastical lords. Edward II’s bias towards his lover/friend Piers Gaveston in giving him royal titles created great jealousy among the realm’s magnates as well, culminating in complaints about the royal government.
1298: London’s First City Attorney – London appoints William of Grantham (Granham or Graham) city attornatus to the royal court, “to receive annually so long as he be attorney twenty shillings.” (“the freedom of the City” granted to “attorney before the King.”)
Over time, the legal profession in England was divided into two functions; as follows:
Forespeaker (advocatus or prolocutor): A person stood beside a litigant and spoke as if they were him.
Attornotus or procurator: A representative who acted on behalf of someone in his absence, bound to represent that person.
1307-1327: Edward II complained his Barons of the Exchequer admitted attorneys in other courts. This period saw the extraordinary growth of a professional attorney class. The Crown regularly granted permission to appoint special and general attornati, either by statute or by writ. The attornati also received remuneration from clients.
1308: Parliament banishes Lord Gaveston, [previously banished by Edward I’s father] (Earl of Cornwall, and likely Edward II’s homosexual lover) from the realm under pain of Papal ex-communication.
1309: Edward II convinces the Pope to drop annulment risks against Gaveston, and Lord Gaveston returns to England from Ireland.
1309: Gaveston’s arrogance remains such an affront to the Lords, barons, bishops that many in parliament won’t attend sessions with Gaveston present. The king ordered Gaveston to stay away, and parliamentarians appeared, illegally, wearing full battle regalia, armed, demanding the appointment of Ordainers. Their goal was to prevent the king from acting against their interests again.
1311: Ordinances of 1311 are accepted by Edward II under duress, forced upon him by Papal clergy, including rebellious Baron’s and Lords, called Lord Ordainers. (Attempting to end arbitrary royal government action, including confiscatory taxes, etc.)
1312: Lord Gaveston is captured and executed when two Welshmen beheaded him on behalf of Parliamentarians and their allies, [now preparing for war against the Crown] his body left behind.
1312:The End Of Templar Influence Over English Legal Education. Most of us are aware of motion pictures like Tom Hank’s, based on Dan Brown’s best-selling book, Davinci Code. As in real life, the King of France, going bankrupt from Holy Crusade debts, conspired with the new Pope to destroy the Knights Templar. France’s king attempted to confiscate Templar’s wealth. The Church turned its allied Orders living in England against the Templars. The English King was also deeply in debt to the Templars. So he saw no problems when the Order of Saint John’s Knight’s Hospitalers defeated the Temple Inns Templar crusaders in 1312, displacing their former landlords. But their Order honored the rental/lease agreement of the resident lawyers and law students apprenticing there.
1322: The Statute of York, 1322 undoes the Ordinances of 1311 and prohibits lawmaking attornati and inferior officers of the royal courts (clerks) from interfering with royal prerogative.
1344: Inns of Chancery, Clifford’s Inn is said to come into existence.
1349: Marks the era England/Papacy began severing secular disputes from Papal courts and clerics in earnest.
1349: Thavie’s Inn of Chancery was founded, and for several centuries, Chancery Inn education was the first step towards equity practitioners becoming a barrister. A student would first join one of the Inns of Chancery, where he was taught moots and rote learning by Readers sent from the Inn of Court to which his Inn was attached. These readers presided over the moots and engage in class discussions. At the end of each Inn’s legal term, gifted students would be transferred to the parent Inn of Court for stage II.
1392: The House of Commons suggested that no clerk attached to Royal courts should be admitted as counsel or attornatus to other parties. (conflict of interest). (Attorneys are also no longer held liable for their client’s wrongful deeds).
1402: In the year 1402, the Commons complained that many instances of legal malpractice had occurred.
1413: Statute was enacted protecting law practitioners as a class, restricting legal practice. (No Under-Sheriff, Sheriffs Clerk, Sheriff’s Bailiff or Receiver, may act as an attorney in royal courts while holding office – Titles of Nobility).
1439: The attorney was fined forty shillings for failing to pay for his law license. (No person should regularly practice law unless duly admitted by the Mayor and Aldermen).
1461: Approximately 100 students engaged in Inns of Chancery studies. Inns of Chancery also served as accommodation and offices by solicitors.
1512-1517: Fifth Lateran Council.
1517: Luther nailed his 1517 smash hit Ninety-five Theses to the door of a local Dioces, with copies being made widely available. With the invention of the Guttenberg printing press, copies of the Holy Bible, banned from public view by the Church, would become widely available. No longer maintaining a biblical text stranglehold, the Catholic Church was confronted by renegade, heretic German monk Martin Luther.
1521: Edict of Worms officially bans Holy Roman Empire citizens from agreeing with or spreading Luther’s “blasphemy.”
1535: The Protestant Reformation became a huge powerplay for Europe’s monarchs and Hapsburg Empire loyalists. The political separation of the Church of England from Roman influence brought England alongside this new movement. Henry VIII establishes the Anglican Church, tired of the Pope’s spiritual control over English courts and people. The king effectively breaks England away from the Papacy after its final insult in refusing to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon.
1539: Ultimately, the British Crown evicted the Knights Hospitallers and Order of Saint John from this guilded property between 1539-1540.
1562: The Statute Against Forgery prohibits attorney punishment for pleading his client’s forged deed if he was not a party to the forgery. (“immunity” of attornatus is older).
1608: King James I enacts Inns of the Court Charter. (Law students, teachers/governors have rights to stay and train at Inns of Court).
Date: The English Reformation sped up under King Edward the VI. But then, for a short period, Queen Mary I and King Philip Catholicism were back. But The Act of Supremacy 1558 renewed the schism, with the Elizabethan Settlement earning Britain its sovereignty from Rome.
1620: Senior English judges ruled that all four inns would maintain equal order of precedence. The English legal craft of learning the law from the 16th century forward would primarily involve legal apprentices volunteering, or paying a fee, attending court with their masters, living and working among either their head barrister, “professors” until the cessation of apprenticeship training, swearing their lawyer’s oath.
1642: After the First English Civil War in 1642, teaching Chancery students to be barristers at the Inns ended. Chancery Inns were now a dedicated association for solicitors used as offices and accommodations. England’s war of independence hurt the legal profession. This is where we see barrister Inns of Court seven or more years of legal training all but disappearing as a rule.
The Decline of Inns Chancery-Importance In English Law Legal Studies
By the 15th century, these Inns of Chancery had already morphed into preparatory schools for the Inns of Court, after the Inns of Court began charging higher acceptance fees to students trained in independent Chancery Inns. Experienced solicitors made Inns sort of a warm marketing network, similar to CAALA or ABOTA today. Still, many Inns fell in and out of allegiance with the Inns of Court, with some claiming independence through the eighteenth century.
NOTE: American Inns, similar to English Inns, are akin to social clubs, offering mentoring and guidance rather than supervising law study. I, too, was a member of the Benjamin Arranda III pupilage group of Redondo Beach, California.
NOTE: Like today’s law schools, only very wealthy or well-off students could pay the exorbitant price of an Inns of Court legal education, with King James requiring “a gentleman by descent” as a pre-condition to entry.
1673: These Temple’s residents, by now mainly Middle and Inner Temple pupils and law mentors, ultimately purchased the defeated Templar’s land and structures in 1673 for a £78 payment.
1729: These legal training methods slowly fell into decline after the latter 16th century, with many students now reading books made possible in part by Luther’s popularization of the printing press. With Inns training being replaced by Blackstone and Sir Francis Bacon’s writings, the mid-17th century saw little formalized English legal education until the solicitor’s apprenticeship program in 1729.
1739 and 1825: The foundation of the Society of Gentlemen Practisers and Law Society of England and Wales in 1739 and 1825 were professional bodies established for professional solicitors but gradually dissolved and sold over time.
This section covered most of the ancient history of becoming a lawyer. Go here to read part two about becoming an attorney under common law.
I am Michael Ehline, Esq. I am a Willis, Texas, and Los Angeles injury/civil rights lawyer. I was an early supporter of the sovereign citizen movement and traditional common law courts in particular. I [rightly] believed that our court system and police officers generally violate the unalienable rights of the less advantaged. I ended up becoming a lawyer, thinking I could fight the system from within, the same way the secular humanists did to our schools in the 1960s.
Traffic stops and police watch protocols for patriots are rooted in the sovereign citizen movement of the 1980s. Sovereign citizen ideology, and to a lesser degree, cop watcher and First Amendment Auditor beliefs, tend to rely on many unpublished cases or misreading of the law, as discussed. Many sovereign citizens engage police in roadside lawyering.
Sovereign citizens are the extreme of auditors and often hate paying taxes, don’t want a birth certificate (the family bible is okay), and consider most law enforcement officers as enforcing commercial law that does not apply to them. They are also considered to be part of the posse comitatus movement. In the middle, we have ordinary people documenting public buildings and officials and holding them to account. How they do it is often based on legal concepts that do not pass judicial muster.
Sovereign citizen arguments include the concept that police cannot ask a private business to ask the shop owner if they want police to cite (“solicit”) you for trespass. I’m afraid that’s wrong; it is NOT any law I could find, and it could very well land you in jail. As an aside, if you don’t want to be treated like anti-government extremists, get a better understanding of the legal system and how to brief case law. Otherwise, you could end up in jail or even federal prison.
It is NOT a Federal Crime for cops to Solicit a Trespass, aka Ask a Manager if they Want Someone to Leave!
This is the case your typical sovereign citizen group will use to say cops can’t ask store owners if they want to “trespass” someone. To understand why cops can’t “solicit a trespass” in the context of filming police, private or public buildings, we must delve into the matter. We’ll start by examining Watkins v. Miller, an unpublished case.
“‘Specifically, the district court found that there was no constitutional violation because Watkins did not allege that he was told that he was not free to leave or that he was wrongfully forced to stay on the property while Miller processed a formal trespass warning.'”
In this case, Watkins claimed he was seized to cite him as a trespasser. Watkins appeared to argue that he was forced to stay for a trespass warning when all he had to do was leave, and there would be no trespass. (also wrong).
“Watkins alleged that Miller unreasonably seized him and denied him of liberty without due process when Miller gave him an unauthorized trespass warning on private property.” “Watkins alleged that Miller unreasonably seized him and denied him of liberty without due process when Miller gave him an unauthorized trespass warning on private property.“
In other words, party A (law enforcement officers) encouraged party B (Ex, someone who knows they will trespass if they go along with it) to break the law, aka “solicitation.”
The question arises: Does a cop asking a business or public official if they want to cite a disruptive visitor for trespass constitute solicitation? Generally, the answer is HELL NO! But first, I need you to listen to me. Stop citing unpublished cases like Watkins v. Miller, and stop citing cases out of your jurisdiction until you Sheperdize them.
Depublished Case Defined
The term’ depublished case’ refers to a legal case where the verdict or opinion has been deselected from official law reporting or mentioned in legal databases. This implies that the case can’t be referenced as a legal precedent for future cases, nor can it be used as a trusted resource in law-based discussions. Various reasons might motivate a court’s decision to depublish a case. For instance, they may perceive the verdict as inaccurate or contradict other legal precedents.
Alternatively, specific or confidential factors may be involved in the case, rendering it unsuitable for use as a past example. In essence, the depublishing of a case wipes it from the broad body of recognized law that attorneys and judges use as a roadmap to interpret and enforce the law in ongoing cases.
Still, it’s crucial to highlight that just because a case has been depublished, it doesn’t mean it has vanished into thin air or lost its value completely. While it doesn’t hold weight as a binding precedent, it could have relevance in specific situations, such as for educational reasons or to offer some context on legal matters. In some regions, depublished cases can also be treated as persuasive authority. Despite not being binding on the Court, they can validate a stance in legal discussions.
Solicitation Defined
Think of criminal solicitation as a scenario where someone tries to persuade, tempt, or provoke another individual to partake in illegal activities. It involves a proactive persuasion or tempting of someone else to perform an illicit act. Solicitation, as a criminal act, typically happens before the intended illegality occurs, and its prosecution can proceed even if the crime above doesn’t come to fruition.
Consider this: if an individual urges someone else to carry out a robbery or become involved in a drug trafficking operation, they can face charges for soliciting a theft or drug trafficking—even if the intended crime isn’t committed.
Legal stipulations surrounding criminal solicitation may not be uniform across all regions. Still, it’s typically perceived as a grave violation thanks to its propensity to promote criminal deeds and its harmful implications for the community. The penalties for solicitation can vary greatly, ranging from monetary fines to imprisonment—depending on the local jurisdiction’s laws and the offense’s seriousness.
Trespass in Florida at that Time?
‘”A trespass in a structure or conveyance under Florida law occurs when a person, ‘without being authorized, licensed, or invited, willfully enters or remains in any structure or conveyance, or, having been authorized, licensed, or invited, is warned by the owner or lessee of the premises, or by a person authorized by the owner or lessee, to depart and refuses to do so.’ Fla. Stat. § 810.08(1). In short, Fla. Stat. § 810.08(1) prohibits trespassing inside structures or conveyances when an owner or authorized person gives notice to the person to leave. See id.'”
Enter the Depublished Case – Watkins v. Miller
“In Watkins v. Miller, a key insight was provided into the complex legal nuances discourse surrounding the notion of soliciting a trespass. The court declared that one can only be guilty of criminal solicitation if they’re instigating someone to commit an unlawful act.”
In his § 1983 complaint, Watkins alleged that, on August 30, 2014, he was in a shopping center parking lot when Miller approached him and said that he had received an anonymous call from someone who did not want Watkins on the property. Miller told Watkins that he was trespassing and instructed him to leave the property and not return.
Watkins asked Miller if the owners of the property had said he was trespassing, and Miller responded that he did not know who had called. In response to Miller’s instruction, Watkins refused to leave the property, arguing that Miller did not have the authority or authorization to order Watkins to leave the property.
Eric Watkins v. Brian Miller, No. 18-14165 (11th Cir. 2019)
Thus, the Court’s logic and legal precedent tell us that trespassing is unlawful.
Soliciting a trespass implies encouraging, inviting, or otherwise facilitating an individual to enter or remain on certain premises unlawfully. A principal element of soliciting a trespass charge involves the individual knowingly acting against the property owner’s wishes.
In Watkins v. Miller, the Court dismissed the appellant’s First Amendment defense, ensuring that free speech rights do not pardon individuals from trespassing on private property. Therefore, any act to solicit a trespass could be considered endorsing an illegal activity.
The ‘Copwatch’ movement monitors and documents police activity to deter misconduct and ensure accountability. The ruling in City of Houston v. Hill protected this activity by upholding the public’s First Amendment right to critique or record the police. But what happens when their activities take place on private property?
Sovereign citizens often claim exemption from local, state, and federal laws, basing their views on Alternative Law theories. However, the ruling in US v. Hines further reinforced that such claims do not legally exempt them from obeying the laws of the land.
What About No Trespassing Signs?
“Specifically, Watkins claimed that Miller lacked the authority to make such an order under Florida law because there were no “no trespassing” signs. Hence, [according to ] Miller was not the property owner or a person authorized by the owner.” “The district court denied Watkins’s motion to proceed IFP and sua sponte dismissed his complaint without prejudice as frivolous, pursuant to 28 USC.”
Despite their sovereignty claims, ‘Sovereign Citizens’ remain bound by the laws and regulations, nullifying their assumed freedom to encourage trespass or disregard property rights. The idea of soliciting a trespass clashes with the legal necessity for consent from the property owner, forming a tight spot for any who try to justify these actions under the guise of alternative legal interpretations. It’s crucial to comprehend that even an invitation to trespass does not bypass this mandate, making it impossible to solicit a trespass legally.
Here, “Watkins did not identify in his complaint any actual deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty interest or any constitutionally inadequate process that occurred. To the extent Watkins asserts a liberty interest in remaining in the shopping center’s parking lot, Watkins did not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in remaining on that private property. In contrast to public property, Watkins did not have a liberty interest in remaining in a private parking lot, and the officers explained to him that he was trespassing and gave him an opportunity to leave. See Fla. Stat. § 810.09(1)(a)(1); Catron, 658 F.3d at 1266.
Further, Watkins’s argument that Miller lacked the authority or authorization to issue him a trespass warning under Florida trespass law and, therefore, provided him with inadequate process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment is unfounded. Watkins’s encounter with Miller occurred in a parking lot on private property, which is property other than a structure or conveyance covered under Fla. Stat. § 810.09(1)(a)(1). See RCW, 507 So. 2d at 702 (explaining that a parking lot of a mall is property other than a structure or conveyance).
Unlike Fla. Stat. § 810.08(1), a trespass warning by an owner or authorized person is not required under § 810.09(1)(a)(1). (See Fla. Stat. §§ 810.08(1), 810.09(1)(a)(1). As Watkins was in a parking lot and not inside a structure or conveyance, Miller provided the requisite notice that Watkins was prohibited from remaining on that property and instructed that he leave. See id. § 810.09(1)(a)(1).”
Here, the Court also ruled that any other reasonable person knew they could have left at any time.
Dabbling into the realm of ”Copwatchers”
Their activities are primarily protected under the First Amendment as they serve to promote transparency and ensure police accountability. However, the protection of free speech may be waived if it involves illegal activities such as trespassing. This means that while Copwatchers are free to document and critique police activities, they must do so while respecting the boundaries of private property and the rights of others.
Intertwining the law, civil rights, and individual freedom weaves a complex tapestry. Watkins v. Miller serves as a precedent, guiding us through the dilemmas that arise when we delve deep into soliciting a trespass, sovereign citizens, and copwatchers.
“FRIVOLOUS” Watkins v. Miller Case
Trespassing charges were upheld when a citizen was asked to leave the privately owned property. This case helps to set the precedent that one cannot solicit a trespass, as it would involve enticing or encouraging illegal activity. City of Houston v. Hill The Supreme Court struck down a Houston ordinance, making it illegal to obstruct police officers from carrying out their duties.
Copwatchers often cite this case as protecting their right to observe and document police activity. US v. Hines A member of the ‘Moorish Nation’ identified as a sovereign citizen was successfully prosecuted for document fraud. This case affirms that sovereign citizens are not immune from local, state, and federal laws.
Ultimately, Watkins v. Miller serves as a sobering reminder that constitutional freedoms, while vital to preserving democratic society, do not cover the perpetuation of illegal activities. Encouraging trespass, even under pretensions of sovereignty or accountability, is legally untenable and may result in punitive consequences for those advocating such behavior.
What Soliciting a Trespass IS?
When we say someone has solicited a trespass, we’re talking about someone who has encouraged, prompted, or even asked someone else to trespass or stay and be trespassed. Remember that trespassing means illegally entering or staying within the precincts of someone else’s property without their explicit permission. Thus, soliciting a trespass refers to urging someone else to solicit ANOTHER to TRESPASS. Interestingly, even if the solicited trespass does not happen, the instigation is deemed a crime.
Despite its regular usage in certain circles, soliciting a trespass as a concept is somewhat novel and unclear in legal history. More often than not, it’s associated with scenarios where people incite others to partake in acts of protest or civil resistance that necessitate trespassing. These instances vary widely, from compelling a sit-in protest at a privately-owned establishment to persuading masses to occupy government-owned premises.
Soliciting a trespass can get convoluted when you throw sovereign citizens and copwatchers into the equation. Considering that sovereign citizens tend to reject the jurisdiction of the state and its respective laws, including those about property rights, things can get dicey. Copwatchers may argue that their endeavors are safeguarded under the First Amendment freedoms of speech and press, even despite potential trespassing or encouraging others to do so.
Although it is not directly related to soliciting a trespass, the Watkins v. Miller case offers some interesting insights. The case revolved around whether a police officer could be held accountable for arresting a man filming them from his property. The Court ultimately gave the officer qualified immunity, a legal safeguard typically reserved for government officials. This case underscores the ongoing discourses about boundaries regarding property rights, state authority, and individuals’ rights to scrutinize police activity.
So, the next time you encounter a potential trespass situation, it’s important to remember always to respect the rights of others. Exercising restraint is vital, as attempts to seek justice, hold someone accountable, or express freedom should never compromise the rights of another individual.
Everything You Need to Know About NFL Player Deshazor Everett’s Wrongful Death Car Accident
A car crash can change a person’s life in moments. Whether the person is a member of the Washington Football Team or a grocery store clerk, an automobile accident is severe. However, when a car crash happens, and an NFL star like Deshazor Everett is at fault, it becomes a big thing all over the news. However, everything is available regarding the Washington Football Team defensive player and his car crash.
Who Is Deshazor Everett?
Deshazor Everett is a member of the Washington Football Team’s defensive lineup. He is currently 30 years old and is from DeRidder, Louisiana. He had a short stint with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers before joining the Washington Football Team in 2015.
What Is a Wrongful Death Case?
The definition of a wrongful death case must be explained first. Wrongful death in a car accident may happen because of another motorist or driver’s recklessness or negligence. In the case involving Deshazor Everett, he was charged with involuntary manslaughter. He was also given a wrongful death case because he was the reason for the passing of his then-girlfriend, Olivia S. Peters, of Las Vegas.
Why Did the Car Crash Happen?
Virginia police began investigating Washington Football Team player Deshazor Everett in December 2021 after he was in a car crash with his girlfriend, Olivia S. Peters of Las Vegas. It happened Thursday night, and Deshazor Everett was driving a 2010 Nissan GT R recklessly. This car can reach a top speed of 193mph, and he was racing this car down the road with his girlfriend in the passenger seat.
On Thursday at 3 PM on Gum Spring Road in Loudoun County, Deshazor Everett ended up off the road, struck several trees, and rolled over in the car. The pair were taken to the hospital, where it was deemed that Deshazor Everett had non-life-threatening injuries, while his girlfriend died in the local hospital.
The police investigated why the 2010 Nissan GT R came off the roadway, struck several trees, and rolled over. However, this happens all too often in a car crash, and on that night involving Deshazor Everett, someone just happened to lose their life. Right after the car crash was made public knowledge, the Washington Football Team acknowledged that Deshazor Everett was in a car accident on Thursday night and was still in the local hospital. Also, the team did provide their thoughts and prayers to the wrongful death victim and their family.
What Happened After the Crash?
Several things took place after the crash with Deshazor Everett. The National Football League Office was informed about the accident. When this happens, it is because the National Football League Office needs to decide whether the player will have a penalty regarding their football career and assist the police investigation in any way that they can.
The next thing that happened was that while Everett was healing from his non-life-threatening injuries, the Washington Football Team released him from his contract, so he was no longer a part of the Washington Football Team. This has happened in the past when other players get into serious car accidents where someone has died, so it is no surprise that it happened here. However, it surprised Everett when he found out that the Washington Football Team released him from his contract.
Also, in early 2022, Everett had a warrant out for his arrest for involuntary manslaughter. On February 8th, 2022, the former Tampa Bay Buccaneers player turned himself in. He was then held in the detention center in Loudoun County on bond but was released on March 16th, 2022.
What Is Involuntary Manslaughter?
Involuntary manslaughter is when a person has committed a killing without the intention of doing so. Everett was charged with involuntary manslaughter because his girlfriend died in a car accident due to his reckless driving. Everett did not intend to get in the car accident or for his girlfriend to be killed, so he was charged with involuntary manslaughter.
What Is Currently Happening with This Case?
There are no new updates on the case with the former Washington Football Team player, Deshazor Everett. After being released from the detention center, there have been no recent updates on his movements. However, he is most likely preparing for a court case about his involuntary manslaughter charge and the wrongful death lawsuit.
How Does a Wrongful Death Lawsuit Work?
The vital part of a wrongful death lawsuit is that the defendant needs to be held accountable for what they have caused. This is where it needs to be proven that the defendant was negligent and that they owed a duty of care to the victim, but it was not upheld. In this case, it would need to be proven that Everett was driving dangerously with his girlfriend in the passenger seat when they crashed. It would then need to be proven that Peters had died due to the life-threatening injuries sustained during the car crash in Loudoun County.
Who Can File a Wrongful Death Lawsuit?
A representative of the deceased can file a wrongful death lawsuit. This person must have had a relationship with the victim, but it also depends on where the case is filed because every state is slightly different.
In all states, the deceased’s spouse can bring a wrongful death lawsuit on behalf of their spouse. Also, parents of minors can bring a case. However, when it comes to adult children, states begin to have different opinions on whether parents can bring a wrongful death lawsuit. If the person bringing the case forward is a distant relative, it likely will not go very far.
Regarding this particular case, it is most likely that the Peters family had brought forward the wrongful death lawsuit. This is because Nevada allows the parents to bring this lawsuit forward since Peters did not have any children and did not have a spouse.
What Are the Damages That Can Be Received?
In a wrongful death lawsuit, many damages can be claimed for a monetary sum. Two types of damages can typically be calculated: special and punitive.
Special damages are the costs that the deceased suffered so that the family can be compensated for any medical bills, funeral expenses, and lost wages. If the family is considering punitive damages, they would need to disclose how Peters’s future income would have contributed to the family home.
Conclusion
A car accident is a scary occurrence that can change a person’s life forever. After the car crash with Deshazor Everett and Olivia S. Peters, Everett was released from the Washington Football Team while recovering from his non-life-threatening injuries. Also, he has now been charged with involuntary manslaughter and a wrongful death lawsuit. This is because Olivia S. Peters died due to a single-car crash in the hospital.
The cause of the crash remains a mystery as local authorities are still investigating why it happened. However, the wrongful death of Peters has left a significant mark on her family, friends, and Everett.
To learn more about the law and other popular cases, check out the Ehline Law website. It has many different posts for people to read so they can continue learning the ins and outs of the legal system.
Tiger’s Crash Follows A Likely High-Speed Collision
Tiger Wood’s black box evidence reveals Tiger was speeding, but many experts believe this was a distracted driving accident, possibly prescription drug-influenced.
Police have demanded that Tiger Wood’s Black Box be inspected to determine whether he fell asleep at the wheel or was speeding.
Genesis:
Tiger Woods, perhaps the greatest golfer of his generation, was seriously injured in an SUV rollover accident today at 7:00 am near the Lomita Station Sherriff’s Department of Los Angeles, California. According to LA County Sheriff Villanueva, Woods was hurt in a solo vehicle accident at the intersection of Hawthorne Blvd and Palos Verdes Drive, setting off a lookie-loo accident with no injuries. The news is unwelcome just one year after the helicopter crash that claimed the life of NBA legend Kobe Bryant. It also follows a severe car wreck with broader driver safety implications. It also comes as the golf star climbs back to championships after several years in the wilderness.
Just two years ago, President Trump honored the lead for his efforts and successes. TMZ reported that the accident happened after a golf tournament. Onlookers saw the sports star speeding away from the event minutes before the crash. According to reports, Tiger Woods drove quickly out of the hotel lot. One witness stated that he almost struck the vehicle of a television director. Furthermore, we are waiting on more info on whether or not the golfer drove recklessly, but LA County Fire claims no alcohol was involved.
Also, TMZ quotes a witness stating Tiger appeared “agitated and impatient” and then “took off fast” in his car. Furthermore, law enforcement reported that the golf star requested help retrieving his things. He must be at least somewhat alert. The Sheriff’s deputies also allegedly did not find any illicit substances in his vehicle.
The Extent Of The Tiger Wood’s SUV Rollover Crash
However, the photos show a severe accident, including the wreck of the car itself. The picture shows the vehicle on the side, severely mangled. While Tiger is still alive and the extent of his injuries unknown, blood was on the driver’s airbag. Also, dispatch audio showed Tiger trapped in the vehicle and needing assistance getting out. According to his agent, Mark Steinberg, the golfer suffered multiple leg injuries and was in surgery earlier in the afternoon.
The police haven’t expressly stated whether there were substance abuse issues, although they indicated that alcohol was likely not a factor. Also, the sports star suffered injuries at a crash site on the border of Rolling Hills Estates and Rancho Palos Verdes.
TMZ reports that the vehicle was:
“The vehicle was traveling northbound on Hawthorne Boulevard, at Blackhorse Road, when it crashed. The vehicle sustained major damage.” “The driver and sole occupant were identified as PGA golfer Eldrick ‘Tiger’ Woods,” officials confirmed. “Mr. Woods was extricated from the wreck with the ‘jaws of life’ by Los Angeles County firefighters and paramedics, then transported to a local hospital by ambulance for his injuries.”
The Wider Implications Of The Tiger Woods Rancho Palos Verdes Automobile Accident
This crash has broader implications for the star, golfing, and driving. The high profile of the impact, so close to the Kobe Bryant case, will once again put attention on sports and transportation safety. The circumstances are different—and thank goodness Tiger is still with us. Furthermore, Tiger was driving the vehicle, showing potential issues related to reckless driving or speeding on the downhill slope after returning from golf in Palos Verdes Estates.
It’s too early to state whether Tiger Woods himself conducted such driving, but it’s safe to say that an error happened somewhere. As of yet, no reports show firm proof that another driver struck his vehicle or that extreme weather conditions caused the crash. We still have much more to know, but with all the news helicopters flying around my home in Rancho Palos Verdes, California, there is sure to be a reckoning calling for potential traffic safety overhauls by LEO and traffic safety advocates.
In some cases, this includes the use of better signage and lighting. In others, it has quicker response times for first responders. However, the Tiger Woods question remains clear. How do we keep people safe in their vehicles? That one is more difficult to ascertain. Better safety equipment in cars is an excellent first step. However, much of the responsibility falls to the driver.
Tiger Woods is no different. Furthermore, the effects of the crash so far only directly affect one person, Tiger. Tiger could have injured another driver, but so far, so good. We report on each new part of this case.
Were you or a close family member bitten by a dog? You may be entitled to significant compensation for injuries from an animal attack. When a dog bites a police officer, or any injured person for that matter, the first thing on their mind is seeking medical treatment immediately for their injuries. Following that, they start to wonder who will pay their medical bills and how they will recover their lost wages, among many other concerns.
A dog attack can leave long-lasting injuries and most likely even more painful dealings with the insurance company. Ehline Law and our California dog bite attorneys work tirelessly to help injured dog bite victims stand for their rights and fight for fair compensation. Contact us to know more about your rights as an injured victim following a dog attack.
Dog Bite Liability: Does the Dog’s Owner Pay for Your Medical Bills Arising from Dog Bite Injuries?
A dog bite incident can be traumatic, and after the emotional trauma of the dog bite and medical attention, you may be wondering who will be paying for your injuries. Will it be the dog owner or a health insurance company?
Under the law, dog owners are responsible for the actions of their pets. If a dog bites someone, the dog owner does not pay the expenses arising from their pet’s actions from their pocket. In most cases, they may have several types of insurance that may kick in and help cover your dog-related injuries.
For example, if you were bitten by a dog on someone else’s property, you should contact the owner’s homeowners insurance and file a claim to recover compensation.
However, obtaining compensation is not straightforward, especially with insurance adjusters. Sometimes, the injured dog bite victim decides to use their health insurance to pay medical bills because it’s much easier to pursue their own health insurance company than the third party’s insurance company.
Is the Insurance Adjuster Working in Your Best Interests?
When you file a dog bite claim with the dog owner’s insurance company to recover medical bills, they assign an insurance adjuster to your case. You may think that claim adjusters are working in your best interests, but that’s precisely what they want you to believe.
The insurance adjuster works for the insurance company and is answerable to it. The company contracts adjusters to help save its shareholders money by reducing or rejecting claims.
An insurance company adjuster will call you up to discuss the accident, be polite and kind, and sympathize with you. However, by doing that, they’re looking to make their job easy, as many victims often spill details that give the adjusters reason to deny their claims.
Adjusters do not have a duty to you, nor do they have to be fair about the value of your claim.
Negotiation Is a Skill and Insurance Adjusters Have Mastered It
Insurance company adjusters are great at negotiations and may negotiate their way out of honoring an injured victim’s right without them even realizing it.
These professionals have experience using dirty tactics to help them dominate negotiations, such as making a substantially lower non-negotiable initial offer.
“This is the best we can do”– many of you may have heard this phrase after receiving an offer.
They’ll sympathize with you and tell you that there is nothing they can do about the offer and that it is the victim’s best bet to secure some money from the insurers when, in fact, it’s all a lie.
Besides talking their way into reducing the value of your claims, they’ll even take some downright ridiculous actions. They’ll refuse to return calls, walk out of meetings, or cut the conversation when you try to negotiate a better offer.
Think about it. An injured victim is already feeling a lot of frustration at this point from the accident, and constant dealing with the adjuster makes them believe that the insurer’s offer is the best they can get. They accept it even if it doesn’t cover their medical expenses for the dog bite.
If you stand your ground and demonstrate that you have a solid case, they’ll be more open to negotiating a better offer following your dog bite claim.
Another thing to remember is that claim adjusters already know the amount authorized for your dog bite claim, and they’ll offer you much lower than that. So when they tell you that their hands are tied, they lie and say they can handle the case themselves.
General Rules to Follow When Dealing with Insurance Companies Following Dog Bite Injury Claim
Review the rules you should know when dealing with insurers regarding your dog bite injury claim.
Don’t AgrDisagreeir Side of the Story
When an insurance company adjuster calls you to confirm the story by narrating the events, you might not think about it. By doing so, you become an accident victim and an insurance trap victim.
Insurers will retell the story in such a way that you may think they’re right, but they’ll leave out a small and vital fact that works well in their favor. A small fact can change the entire narrative.
Before you agree to anything, let an experienced dog bite lawyer review a written version of the insurer’s story or help you submit your statement of facts.
Document All Medical Expenses
To avoid coughing up money, insurers suggest that the injured victim exaggerates the value of their claims. It is best to keep a record of all the bills and submit it with your claim so that you don’t give them any reason to argue that you’re exaggerating your medical expenses.
Know When They’re Using Delaying Tactics
If you’re not accepting the insurer’s initial offer, you may find that the adjuster stops responding to your texts, calls, or emails as a tactic to receiving the “only” offer on the table. The insurance company could also use delaying tactics so that your case’s dog bite statute of limitations runs out. If this happens, you will lose your right to pursue legal action against the negligent party.
A skilled dog bite lawyer can help you deal with an insurance company using delaying tactics by staying on top of all legal time frames and expediting the claims process.
3 Reasons Why Dealing with an Insurance Company Following a Dog Bite Is Frustrating!
We’ve reviewed how insurance adjusters could use dirty tactics to reduce or reject claims. Here, we will go over three reasons why insurance companies resort to such tactics in the first place.
Insurers Are Business Enterprises
The top three insurance companies with the largest market caps in the United States are State Farm Group ($66.2 billion), Berkshire Hathaway ($46.4 billion), and Progressive Insurance Group ($41.7 billion). These companies, like most other insurers in the country, charge premiums in exchange for coverage and then invest those premiums in interest-generating assets.
When you file a claim and it gets approved, the insurance company’s profit takes a hit, meaning less money for the shareholders and less for reinvesting in other income-generating assets. Paying out your compensation may not affect the business much. But multiplying it by millions as millions of Americans file claims yearly damages their bottom line.
They’ll deploy as many obstacles as possible to ensure minimal payouts.
Too Much Bureaucracy
There is too much bureaucracy in these large companies, which has significantly affected the healthcare system in the United States. To give you an idea, Reuters Health reports that more than one-third of healthcare costs go towards bureaucracy, four times more than in Canada.
To get an answer to a simple question, you have to go through many people before you get connected to someone who can assist you with your concerns. After suffering injuries in an accident, it can be frustrating to hold on to the phone for a long time or get transferred from one department to another just for a simple query.
Typically, when you want coverage, you’ll be immediately connected to the right person, but when i. Still, you’ll juggle between representatives when seeking answers or filing claims.
You’re Not a Legal Expert
Insurance companies capitalize on the fact that most people filing claims do not have any legal knowledge or know their rights as injured dog bite victims. If you knew what you’re owed, you would be more persistent during negotiations rather than accepting what they tell you is the best they can do.
When an attorney gets involved in a case, insurers start to thread carefully and negotiate a better deal that works for both parties. An experienced trial attorney is their worst nightmare, and they know these types of attorneys are aggressive and want to spill “blood,” which is why insurers will try to avoid going to trial.
It’s expensive, there is a lot of paperwork involved, and the company’s reputation is on the line. For the trial attorney, it’s just another day in court.
Calculations of Damages Is Another Hectic Task
When filing a claim, you must provide the value of economic and non-economic damages.
In most cases, insurers reject the insurance claim if the value is slightly problematic. Secondly, they calculate non-economic damages by considering many factors and assigning a multiplier factor. You may find yourself going back and forth with this issue.
An experienced dog bite attorney has the resources to bring in experts to calculate the actual value of your claims and fight for your rights.
Schedule a Free Consultation with Ehline Law
Ehline Law and our dog bite lawyers have over a decade of experience handling injury claims, especially dog bite cases. We understand how insurers use tactics to delay or reject claims. Still, through a strong attorney-client relationship, our experts have recovered more than $150 million in settlements and successful verdicts for our injured clients.
If you suffered a dog bite that was not your fault, contact us at (833) LETS-SUE for a free consultation on your case, as you may qualify for compensation.
The adverse consequences of poor medical care for seniors, especially people with dementia, don’t require a deep understanding. The good news is that there are several options for senior citizens who require assistance with their daily living, including independent living communities, nursing homes, residential care facilities, and even unpaid caregivers.
However, many prefer in-home care as it is inexpensive compared to other living arrangements, and older people receive the care they need in their home environment. Although many elderly prefer receiving care at home rather than staying at residential care facilities, a recent report revealed serious problems associated with in-home care.
Ehline Law and our elder abuse personal injury attorneys have worked closely with elderly abuse victims, helping them with legal care and advocating for their rights. We understand the troubles older adults go through, which is why it is crucial to talk about their needs.
What Are Unmet Care Needs?
Unmet needs occur when older adults receiving assistance do not get the required support services. Unmet needs can seriously affect an elderly’s quality of life, leading to an increase in hospitalizations and early deaths.
Study Reveals Unmet Needs of Seniors Relying on In-home Care
There is no consensus on defining and assessing unmet needs, and many previous researchers emphasize the factors associated with unmet needs at a micro level.
Let’s examine the findings of the study published by the Population Reference Bureau on October 19, 2022, and consider whether they are different from studies conducted in the past.
The In-home Care Elderly Have Unmet Needs than Those Living in Residential Facilities
The study uses National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS) data (2015 and 2017) to study the relationship between the adverse consequences of unmet needs and the type of care older people receive.
It focuses on the elderly receiving help with at least one of the following activities due to their health and physical disabilities or limitations:
Self-care activities
Mobility activities
Household activities.
In a National Health and Aging Trends Study by the University of Wisconsin, the odds of facing unmet needs with at-home care services compared to those living in residential care homes are almost four times higher.
There is a serious need to improve at-home care arrangements to meet the needs of the elderly who pay for such services. Some elderly may be less comfortable receiving help during baths or showers, which is why simple solutions such as fitting grab bars or seats in the shower can provide them with the independence they require.
These solutions are already present at most residential living facilities, which may explain why older people are not facing such hardships.
Poor communication causes a gap between the care provided and the elderly’s expectations. For example, at-home care may help with laundry, perhaps not food preparation. Better communication between the elderly and caregivers or healthcare providers is needed to understand the needs of older adults.
A multi-level perspective study conducted in Switzerland demonstrated that the situation may be much worse if there is a language barrier.
Older People in Stepfamilies Are Less Likely to Receive Help from Adult Children
Although older adults face challenges while receiving in-home care, the negative consequences are far more significant for those living with stepfamilies.
The shift from traditional American culture, where a man would only have one wife, to divorces and remarriages has led many older parents to have more stepchildren than biological children. About one in eight older adults with activity limitations have a stepchild.
There would be a disconnect and lack of care between adult children and older parents, especially if the children did not live with their parents or step-parents during childhood.
The study shows older adults with biological children are more likely to receive care than stepchildren. Surprisingly, even with this gap between care provided by biological and stepchildren, 50% of older adults still have their needs unmet.
Using the 2015 NHATS data of 2,000 older parents, the research study explores whether parents were living with their partner and receiving care from them. According to the findings, older adults living with their partner or adult child still had high rates of unmet needs. Although the partner and adult children care for them, they might require help and training.
Other help that the partner or adult children can receive includes home modifications, counseling on how to care for older adults and receive benefits, and programs that offer respite care.
The government should also provide financial assistance in the form of paid family leave or tax credits to help families cover the caregiving expenses of older adults.
Older Adults with Lower Incomes and Dementia Are More Likely to Face Consequences of Unmet
Adults with dementia often struggle financially, as treating dementia can drain their bank balance. Most older adults who have dementia are enrolled in both federal programs, Medicaid and Medicare, meaning they fall under the low-income group and have limited social support. Those with stepchildren receive little to no family support, resulting in inadequate at-home care.
It can make it challenging to receive the extensive care needed by the elderly with advanced stages of dementia. Family caregivers can provide only primary care about eating, bathing, and dressing for older adults living with advanced dementia. Family members cannot offer specialized care, including cognitive exercise and rehabilitation services.
Those with dementia often face greater odds of suffering from the consequences of unmet care than those without dementia. Caregiving is a collaborative effort between the paid caregivers, other unpaid caregivers, and the informal caregiver (family or friends). Often, caregivers may not be ready to properly give attention to the older adult since they may juggle multiple paid jobs or care for their children.
There is a need for generous and accessible Medicaid or government support programs offering home and community-based services to lower-income adults with dementia. These can include extensive training for paid and informal caregivers, an increase in caregiver wages, and funding for medical assistance equipment or necessary home modifications. The bad news is that less than half of seniors carry private insurance for health care, so it can be tricky to get what you need for things like the unmet need for dementia living provisions.
Schedule a Free Consultation with Ehline Law
Although older people receiving care in their homes have unmet needs, those at residential homes are at risk of elderly abuse. Negligent caregivers and improperly trained staff can result in serious injuries, affecting the elderly’s quality of life and social interaction.
Senior citizens often are afraid to speak up about the abuse or injuries they suffer at the hands of a caregiver or nurse. If you notice signs of elder abuse on your parents or someone you know residing at residential living facilities, contact us at (833) LETS-SUE for a free consultation, as they may need legal help to gain a better understanding and possible explanation of how to obtain financial damages from a negligent nursing home or care provider.
On October 24, 2022, at around 4 PM, a pickup truck exited a parking lot and suddenly hit Kaedin Averrios, a 14-year-old boy, on Tucker Road in Tehachapi, Southern California. Let’s explore the details of the accident with Ehline Law and our bicycle injury attorneys.
A Pickup Truck Accident Kills 14-year-old Bicyclist in Tehachapi.
The accident involving a pickup truck left Kaedin with fatal injuries, and when the paramedics arrived, the young boy was already dead at the scene. Local organizers set up a GoFundMe page for the victim’s family to raise money to cover the funeral expenses.
Tehachapi Police Department Starts an Investigation of the Incident
The Tehachapi Police Department questioned the pickup truck driver about the accident. According to the truck driver, he did not see Kaedin Averrios cycling as he exited the parking lot, resulting in a bicycle accident.
Investigations into the cause of the accident are still ongoing, and police are requiring anyone with information about the incident to call them.
Bicycle-related Injuries Statistics in the United States
According to a report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were 596,972 visits to the Emergency Departments between 2009 and 2018 for bicycle-related traumatic brain injuries.
Every year, an estimated 130,000 citizens suffer bicycle-related injuries and 1,000 die in the United States. Nearly one-third of all bicycle-related injuries treated at Emergency Departments involve young adults and teens ranging from 10 to 24.
Who Is Liable for Bicycle Accidents in Tehachapi City?
Some of the most common causes of bicycle accidents in the US include:
Fatigued drivers
Drunk drivers
Reckless drivers
Poorly maintained roads.
Drivers have a duty of care toward bicyclists and must exercise reasonable care while driving to prevent harm to bicyclists.
In the incident “Kaedin Averrios killed in a bicycle accident,” the pickup truck driver stated that he did not see the bicyclist.
Many drivers who end up in an accident always use the same explanation, but that doesn’t mean they are not liable. When turning, drivers must pay extra attention to the road, especially their vehicle’s blind spots.
An Independent Investigation Is Important
Before the grieving family can bring a wrongful death claim against the negligent party, they must conduct an independent investigation to determine the cause of the accident and death.
After an accident, it is crucial to identify eyewitnesses and contact them to learn about their account of the incident and what they saw. The next step is to call our law offices so you can win justice on behalf of those who were identified as injured or died.
Due to the lack of road signs, it is possible that the driver is not responsible for the accident but the City, which is why an independent collision investigation is crucial.
An experienced personal injury attorney can help investigate the cause of the accident, determine the negligent party, and hold the responsible children, teenagers, or parties accountable for the damages based on the measure of evidence.
