Alec Rawls has a book, Crescent of Betrayal, with a premise (the Flight 93 memorial will be a giant tribute to terrorist Muslims!!!) that sounded awfully familiar. Then I remembered who had also been associated with this exact argument.

WND: Flight 93 victims honored with Muslim Crescent?



WND also published an article about Rawls.

They keep reappearing! Isn't Ron McRae the clown who interviewed Sarah Obama?

Donofrio is another guy who begs the question, "Who took his bar exam?"

Seriously.

Leave Leo alone. He's a good bankruptcy lawyer, isn't he?

For some reason, I anagrammed Paraclete and got Rectal Ape. El Cape Rat. Clap Eater. Oh here, there are tons of them:

http://wordsmith.org/anagram/anagram.cgi?anagram=paraclete&t=1000&a=n

They keep reappearing! Isn't Ron McRae the clown who interviewed Sarah Obama?
Regards ............Dick

There’s a bogus astroturfing mantra going ’round the blogosphere which sounds something like this, “No real lawyer would ever use an online web site like Justia.“ The talking point is thoroughly debunked by a very powerful legal source. Ever heard of Perkins Coie? They are the law firm which defended Obama in eligibility suits before he was elected. Ever heard of Bob Bauer? He is a partner in Perkins Coie and was General Counsel of Obama For America 2008, then White House Counsel, and is now back in private practice as Obama’s personal attorney to lead the charge in the 2012 election.

Perkins Coie is as powerful and shrewd a law firm as has ever existed and hey, what do you know kids, their mega influential legal blog cited to Justia in an article published there on June 28, 2010, “Business Methods Patents Survive, But Not Bilski’s Patent“:

“The next key decision was Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978)[3]. The process claims there involved a practical application (updating the value of an alarm limit for ending a chemical reaction), but the only novel feature of the process was the specific manner in which the alarm limit was calculated…

[3] http://supreme.justia.com/us/437/584/case.html“

I'm assuming from the context that this appears on the Perkins Coie site as an article about their business.

You would be correct.

The Congress was complicit in not vetting the candidates. But Justia has given them an out of epic proportions in that Justia’s bogus cases changed the national dialogue. If Congress was fooled by Justia (and perhaps this plays into that CRS memo on eligibility which is being looked into more carefully now), they have another chance to make it right.

[...]

That being said, I can only imagine what kind of pressure Tim Stanley is under right now. He almost certainly did not undertake this sabotage on his own initiation. Tim Stanley is now in the very scary position of holding the evidence capable of putting Obama’s administration in true jeopardy. If Stanley was asked, forced or paid to sabotage the cases and/or to maintain them that way after Obama became President, then high crimes were committed. Therefore, Quo Warranto is not the only possible option on the table any longer.

Impeachment is now in play.

Poor Leo....his latest gambit is being ignored by the Freepers in favor of the new shiny thing(LibertA Legal Fun-Da-Shun)....only 6 comments and half of those by Danae.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-blo ... 9017/posts

The Congress was complicit in not vetting the candidates. But Justia has given them an out of epic proportions in that Justia’s bogus cases changed the national dialogue. If Congress was fooled by Justia (and perhaps this plays into that CRS memo on eligibility which is being looked into more carefully now), they have another chance to make it right.

I had used the CRS MOL as an Exhibit in my reponse to BHO and MCCain as why Congress was mislead as to NBC status. I now have an appealable issue as to why shouldn't I be allowed to file a first amended complaint denied to me by the sinecure[*] on the bench on 10/25/11.

When I defended my MOL in support of OSC to have the NYS BOE website properly cite Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 (now alleged to be 4 - there are no cluase numbers) the one time progressive attorney for the UFT now Justice Schack there confronted with Minor v Happersett said the NBC matter is a 14th amendment and first amendment issue; to wit I stated NBC is a de jure issue of law not a 14th amendment matter of fact and then in response the real property expert said “even Justice Waite admitted that the NBC term is not defined leaves doubt” and stopped before he got caught up in a Vattel argument shifted to born a citizen on soil is all that counts as a speech issue for ballot access and POTUS!

* "An office or position that requires little or no work and that usually provides an income."

I believe Judge Schack is a trial court judge on New York's Supreme Court. Strunk's nonsense is really pathetic -- "Judge I relied on a free web service which provides cases, and because it was wrong you made a mistake."

I believe Judge Schack is a trial court judge on New York's Supreme Court. Strunk's nonsense is really pathetic -- "Judge I relied on a free web service which provides cases, and because it was not meaningfully wrong you made a mistake."

FIFY. (Justia had improperly formatted links (that nonetheless correclty resolved the cases cited).)