George Sibley and I, Lynda Lyon have joined our appeal and are in the appeal process now. Being without attorneys, we have a definite advantage -- we can appeal our arrest, conviction and sentence in a very daring move -- we are challenging the Constitutionality of the American Bar Associationís monopoly of Americaís judicial system.
The Alabama Statute under which we were convicted is unconstitutional in that it gives police officers a special status, making it a capital crime (death or life without parole) to kill an officer -- even in self-defense. This law was drafted by a committee of the Bar Association. The judge is a member of the Bar Association. Neither of them have an actual license to practice law, as required by the Alabama Constitution. They, instead, have a certificate of membership in an exclusive association that has a monopoly on the judicial system in almost every state in America.
According to Federal Court rulings, an association is only obligated to abide by its own rules, and its members must also abide by those rules as long as they remain members. The constitutionality of an Associationís practices are not ever questioned unless challenged in a court of law. To date, George and I have not found one case either in Alabama or U. S. courts challenging the constitutionality of the Barís monopoly on the judicial system. In fact, the Alabama Supreme Court has constitutional control over the admittance of attorneys to the Bar of Alabama, but had, over forty years ago, turned this control over to the Alabama Bar Association, which is a private incorporated Association. (Ex Parte Griffith; 178 So 2d 169, 15 Led 2d 475). In the rehearing of Griffith, the Alabama Supreme Court went further in stating that since the member attorneys are "members of an association, and their first allegiance is to the association, that an attorney does not hold public trust in the Constitutional sense of the term, but is an officer of the court exercising a privilege or franchise." In another case, it was stated that Alabama attorneys are exercising a privilege during "good behavior," (Simpson vs. Alabama State Bar, 311 So 2d 307). "Good behavior" according to what rules -- whose standards? Because attorneys owe allegiance to the Association first, and the court judge second, the "good behavior" is proper obedience to the rules of the Association. Where do clientís rights come into consideration? Dead last.
A person who wishes to become an attorney in Alabama (and most other states) must join this "club" if they wish to practice law. If they do not agree with this club's rules or how it conducts it's "business" in their name, and do not wish to join, then they cannot practice their chosen profession, even if they had completed law school with an honors degree. The State Supreme Court has literally turned over the training, testing and "licensing" of attorneys to this exclusive club, the American Bar Association. It shouldn't be any great surprise, after all, that the Supreme Court justices are members of the Bar. It is predictable they would give preferential treatment to their fellow members.
George and I have irrefutable proof that the American Bar Association is an unconstitutional monopoly; that the Statutes made into law by Congressmen who are also Bar attorneys are, therefore, invalid; and that members of the Bar, not having true state licenses, are acting without jurisdiction, making every judge's ruling, order and sentence unconstitutional and therefore invalid.
We know that this is a bold move, and that we will be challenging every judge in every other court in the appeal process. We are prepared to fight this all the way to the U. S. Supreme Court. The big question will be ó who will judge our case? If we are attacking the American Bar Association, and every judge or justice is a member of the Bar, they cannot judge our case without bias. So, who will judge us?
George and I were indicted by a grand jury under an unconstitutional statute, prosecuted by a District Attorney without a license, judged by a jury following unconstitutional rules of court, and sentenced to death by a judge who has no valid license. From beginning to end, our trials were a mockery of the American justice system the Founding Fathers had envisioned when they set it up.
You may think we are fighting an impossible battle, that the American Bar Association is too big, too powerful, too well entrenched; so was the British army in Colonial America. We are fighting for our lives; but more importantly, we are fighting for a principle ó that no battle is insignificant when you are fighting evil, and no fight is hopeless when you have God on your side.
Our belief in the righteousness and importance of what we are doing has increased since our arrest ó not diminished. We have become more resolved to fight whatever end is in store for us and have no fear of the possible consequences. We had quoted Patrick Henry many times in our speeches and writings ó "Give me liberty, or give me death!", not knowing that we would literally be faced with this very situation.
There is a time in everyone's life when he must act upon his principles, even at the risk of his own life. George and I regret someone had to die, but we do not regret having defended out God-given right to freedom from unlawful arrest at the point of a gun. For defending this principle, we are to be executed, yet, even in the face of impending death, we will still stand and fight. Spending years in prison awaiting execution for our resistance to tyranny is not an option for us.
There is no guarantee that we will win our freedom, but we are not fighting based on a guarantee. We are fighting on faith that the principle of liberty, itself, is worth fighting for, and that God helps those who refuse to yield to tyranny.
Return to Lyon-Sibley page