PI rules

[Craig Wright <Craig.Wright () bdo com au>]

As has been noted, the states have a right to license individuals to practice. This does not restrict this to a 
monopoly (such as a PI license exclusively). In fact, though the states can license, they can not exclusively license 
in the manner being suggested. This is important.

So the rule is licensed, not a PI license.

This goes back a long way in judicial history. Relevant to the present point were the arguments, picking up Justice 
Cooke's remarks, that access to the courts was so fundamental in our kind of polity that it could not be removed even 
by Parliament itself. Whilst noting the lineage of this doctrine through Chief Justice Coke's judgment in Dr Bonham's 
Case [1] (a case referenced by Jefferson in the creation of the US constitution, and I am the non-American here 
teaching constitutional origins - ironic?. In fact Jefferson included Coke's Institutes in his 1814 list of books for 
law students as the first texts to be studied);

Coke, CJ:
"It appears in our books that in many cases the common law will control acts of parliament and sometimes adjudge them 
to be utterly void; for when an act of parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be 
performed, the common law will control it and adjudge such act to be void".

In Bonham's Case, Court of Common Pleas, it was held that the common law courts would not enforce the statutory 
monopoly over medical practice held by the London College of Physicians [2]. The college's charter gave it the power to 
enforce its own monopoly, and to the court this made one of the parties to the cause also its judge [3]. The holding 
was narrow and followed the familiar maxim that a party could not judge his own cause. The court stated that "when an 
Act of Parliament is against common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will 
control it, and adjudge such Act to be void".  This was used to restrict legislative authority in general [4].

What this means is that though a state has right to license an action, they can not exclude the sole right of deed to a 
monopoly party. This is, there is and needs be alternatives or at the least, the opportunity to introduce an 
alternative licensure.

Bonham's Case arose from a dispute regarding the unlicensed practice of medicine. Dr. Thomas Bonham had received a 
degree in physic medicine from the University of Cambridge. In 1606, Bonham was revealed to be practicing medicine in 
London with no license. Dr Bonham was fined and subsequently imprisoned by the Royal College of Physicians for 
practising medicine devoid of the required licence from the College. Dr Bonham initiated an action against the College 
for false imprisonment. Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke determined that under the empowering statute, the College 
received half of all fines so levied[5].

In all of the PI Boards, they act as investigating bodies and take action under the various occupation statues. This 
means that they are in effect only judges but also parties in any cases come before them unless an alternative 
foundation may be sought. The effect for this discussion is that a monopoly board is not legal under the maxims of law. 
The effect is that other boards may also issue licenses and also other licensures will apply to the provision of 
digital forensic services.

Regards,
Craig Wright (GSE-Compliance)

[1]     The College of Physicians v Dr. Thomas Bonham (1609) 8 Co Rep 107a at 118a; 77 ER 638 at 652.
[2] 77 Eng. Rep. 646 (1610).
[3] "The censors cannot be judges, ministers and parties: judges to give sentence or judgment; ministers to make 
summons; and parties to have the moiety of their forfeiture...." 11 Eng. Rep. 646, 652
[4] 77 Eng. Rep. at 652.
[5] 14 &15 Hen VIII, c 5.

On Coke:
Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (1967):
Chief Justice Warren cited Coke saying - "Coke's Institutes were read in the American Colonies by virtually every 
student of the law.  Indeed, Thomas Jefferson wrote that at the time he studied law (1762-1767), 'Coke Lyttleton was 
the universal elementary book of law students.'  And to John Rutledge of South Carolina, the Institutes seemed 'to be 
almost the foundation of our law.' To Coke, in turn, Magna Carta was one of the fundamental bases of English liberty.  
Thus, it is not surprising that when George Mason drafted the first of the colonial bills of rights, he set forth a 
principle of Magna Carta, using phraseology similar to that of Coke's explication: 'In all capital or criminal 
prosecutions,' the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776 provided, 'a man hath a right . . . to a speedy trial. . . 
.'"  Klopfer @ 225.



Craig Wright
Manager of Information Systems

Direct : +61 2 9286 5497
Craig.Wright () bdo com au
+61 417 683 914

BDO Kendalls (NSW)
Level 19, 2 Market Street Sydney NSW 2000
GPO BOX 2551 Sydney NSW 2001
Fax +61 2 9993 9497
http://www.bdo.com.au/

Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation in respect of matters arising within 
those States and Territories of Australia where such legislation exists.

The information in this email and any attachments is confidential. If you are not the named addressee you must not 
read, print, copy, distribute, or use in any way this transmission or any information it contains. If you have received 
this message in error, please notify the sender by return email, destroy all copies and delete it from your system.

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and not necessarily endorsed by BDO Kendalls. 
You may not rely on this message as advice unless subsequently confirmed by fax or letter signed by a Partner or 
Director of BDO Kendalls. It is your responsibility to scan this communication and any files attached for computer 
viruses and other defects. BDO Kendalls does not accept liability for any loss or damage however caused which may 
result from this communication or any files attached. A full version of the BDO Kendalls disclaimer, and our Privacy 
statement, can be found on the BDO Kendalls website at http://www.bdo.com.au/ or by emailing mailto:administrator () 
bdo com au.

BDO Kendalls is a national association of separate partnerships and entities.

-----Original Message-----

From: cce2-bounces () certified-computer-examiner com [mailto:cce2-bounces () certified-computer-examiner com] On 
Behalf Of dave kleiman
Sent: Wednesday, 27 February 2008 6:04 PM
To: 'CCE List'
Subject: [CCE] Kentucky PI rule

Anyone know Kentucky's rules for Digital Evidence Collection?


Respectfully,

Dave Kleiman - http://www.davekleiman.com
4371 Northlake Blvd #314
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
561.310.8801








_______________________________________________
cce2 mailing list
cce2 () certified-computer-examiner com
http://lists.certified-computer-examiner.com/mailman/listinfo/cce2