To the TAIL end!
Ping to the usual suspects!
3 Bar exams?
The multi-state is not a Jurisdiction, the multi-state in part of the Bar exam.
I am not a lawyer but in the spirit of Chelsea Clinton I demand to be granted posting privileges without possessing any qualifications.
Yeah... I hate when people do that.
We have too much law and not enough justice.
bump
Gnip
Important info on new project by Leo Donofrio.
That's like basing your animation credentials on your work with a puppet show.
Any retard can put up a blog. And most do.
At FR we simply give up when a thread deteriorates with two or three Obots arguing nonsense between themselves. That was probably their objective. The Obots may seem like ideologues, different classes of “birthers” used by the media to deprecate the relevance of eligibility arguments. It is this writer's supposition that they are provocateurs, doing the job of devaluing the discussions of serious and concerned citizens while reinforcing the impression that our legal system has been co-opted.
Most of our major law schools have been exposed to the injection of goal oriented manipulation of our legal foundations. Donofrio and his colleagues, Diane Potter, Cindy Simpson, Mr. Goodman, and probably a number of others revelation of whose identies will put their careers at risk, have exposed the very deliberate corruption and publication of Supreme Court documents, and traced the corruption to the doorstep of our current government. The disclaimers began immediately. Legal archives used by law students, along with several of our major law schools, have participated in the publication of deliberately "mangled" case studies. Justia.com blocked public access to the “WayBack Machine,” Google’s archives of their previously published pages containing the correct versions of the same cases, for all Supreme Court cases. They have hidden all of their archived supreme court cases, clearly to limit the damage, and suggesting that they have corrupted other cases.
The first defense was that real law firms would use Lexis or Westlaw, the expensive for-fee legal archival services. Donofrio easily countered that, with Robert Bauer's firm citing a Justia-published case. This is an enormously important case. Donofrio and colleagues have published the Cornell Law School corruption of one of the most important cases pointing to fact that Minor v. Happersett established precedent. Cornell is involved with Soros' Center for American Progess CIO Eric Malamud, connected with a federal grant to improve access to our legal system. This is change we can believe in, though it appears we will need to adopt it before learning about the version of law they suscribe to.
This has become a legal case, probably more valid than many proceeding in our federal courts, frightening because it includes the packed Supreme Court. Kagan and Sotomayor certainly know of Obama’s ineligibility, and would lose their jobs if the court were to decide that Minor established precedence, as Leo demonstrated in the twenty five plus Supreme Court decisions edited by Tim Stanley or his cohorts, at Justia.com. As well, the Ex Parte Lockwood case as published on the Cornell Law site, was amended to disguise the "held" law of Minor v. Happersett. There is even possible corruption of cases at Lexis (not asserted by Donofrio).
How deep is the corruption? Soros’ Center for American Progress CIO, Carl Malamud, has held his “law.gov” symposia in most of the major law schools in the US. Do a YouTube/Google search for law.gov. Malamud claims association with the Supreme Court, though that may or may not be true. See his public.law.org to judge for yourself. This is about more than Soros money; it is likely our tax dollars being directed to replace our capitalism with their globalist version.
We have no legislature responsive to citizens, in part because Republicans too protected McCain's ineligibility, which they never confirmed in six hearings before the 2008 election. They are complicit. Until Donofrio taught us all about the intentionally concealed truth that Minor was frequently referenced stare decisis - cited precedence - this writer, while convinced of the intentions of the framers and founders, saw no legal recourse to this soft revolution.
Federal judges are all legal appointees, and no less so because they must be approved by Congress. Judges are owned by the political parties, and employed by them. They are not independent, and should, as Gov. Perry suggested, have term limits. All federal judges, all legislators, and certainly, many faculty at law schools around the nation know about Minor v. Happersett. The left counted on our ignorance, and helped to insure we wouldn't learn. by hiding all the clues pointing at Minor v. Happersett.
The writer can point to the “law.gov” lecture #5 at UC Berkeley's Boalt Law School, http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NIOQ5xSGRps, in which one might interpret Professor Berring’s description of an exercise he requires of all his law students (about half of those who pass through Boalt) to compare citations from Lexis and Westlaw, the legal archive fee services, with Justia, Findlaw and one other free archive site. The symposium was hosted by Carl Malamud and the first questioner is Tim Stanley. Would not at least one of Professor Berring’s students have found the corruption of the justia.com cases? The lecture on Youtube was held in 2010. With all the attention to presidential eligibility what are the chances at least one of the twenty five cases citing Minor was assigned by Professor Berring? Was Professor Berring warning Tim Stanley? He certainly warned the audience and his students about the risks in citing inaccurate cases - "Would you bet your career on a citation from one of the free sites?" Bob Bauer apparently didn't worry about that.
Donofrio is exposing the dirty underbelly of our legal foundations. If we depend upon men and not law, we lose our republic. If engineering schools showed such disdain for a foundation of proven principles, bridges and buildings would fall, weapons and communications would fail, and everyone would know. Whether or not it is about money (as Solyndra surely was for most of its participants - and it is the tip of at least twenty billions of phony investments), our legal scholars are showing their clay feet. Perhaps Jack Abramoff would explain the money trail which protected two ineligible presidential candidates. Follow the money.