Skip to main content

Newspaper coverage of the scams #1

This goes to proclivity and note, he would not shut down the illegal "Law Firm", he would merely change his location and the name.  Note as well, that this has been going on since the 1980s when he tells you he was in law school.  He had no supervising attorney and the record reflects he was warned to close those clinics.  Practicing law without a license is illegal.  It's as illegal as he is now, with his fake "American Human Rights Institute".  When I outed him in 2011 and early 2012, he first said in a Facebook group, he was a "Political Prisoner". WOW!

We were able to show the INSTITUTE was a FRAUD, then the fake attempt to defame my name came. We were able to go to Google Earth and see this.  Friends then went to the surrounding buildings for the mail drop and accessed pictures of him going to the drop and leaving.  He then changed the so-called "location" to Stone Mountain.  Yet another mail drop.  All you have to do is go to Google Earth.


Note he had told us in various groups he was an ATTORNEY. Then I found that NOT to be true.

The Press Democrat June 20, 1992








Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A snitch is a snitch is a snitch Michael Perkins

The beginning of the Fraud-Back to the Future 1986

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1842904.html  AARTS PRODUCTIONS, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CROCKER NATIONAL BANK, et al., Defendants and Respondents. H000601. Decided: April 11, 1986   James J. Reilly, San Francisco, Paul J. Slavit, Wilson & Slavit, Oakland, for plaintiff and appellant.  Mary Lynne Thaxter, Hoge, Fenton, Jones & Appel, Inc., San Jose, for defendants and respondents .IIn this case we determine that defendants Crocker Bank and its employees are not liable for wrongful dishonor of checks drawn against an account when the bank complies with its account agreement when faced with conflicting demands by the signatories on the account.   We accordingly affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants.IIScope of Review Since a summary judgment motion raises only questions of law regarding the construction and effect of the supporting and opposing papers, we independently review them on appeal, applying the same th...