Skip to main content

Law Professor

Ansari barely made it out of a now defunct law school! He claimed he was at New School yes, but at a time when it's credentials were found to be non-existent.  We now find those who attended at the time he did attend those degrees were declared fraudulent by the Department of Education.  He only went back after serving his sentence in jail of three years for the fraudulent divorces a d more time passed.

A law professor is a person who teaches law courses to students.  But a professor and any attorney has a basic understanding and grasp of law PERIOD. He can only focus on that UN 60/147 which Imam Jamil and his family during his murder trial refused to use as a defense. Ansari wanted him labelled a political prisoner and this resolution is clear, one using it must PROVE the thesis that African Americans are indigenous to North America.  That is something Ansari knows. In the past Ansari attempted with those of us who actually went to law school, passed Bar exams (he did not, he is prohibited practicing law in California because of the fraud), and went on to practice.  Ansari did not.  He took no tests to show under the laws of any state that he has practical and and a working awareness of law.

Note HE declared the women, who I say are accomplices in this as "law professors".  I saw where he inflated the credentials of those women and did to them  as he did to others of us. He took one "professor" from someone with a few  classes in criminal law to an MA! The other he claimed, falsely was one of his scholars on a mission for his "Institute" in Iran.  They allowed that.  He is using "International Law" as a cover for not having a law license. He has no idea of the policy and procedure governing international lawyers so he lies to you.

ANY book published in the US MUST have an ISBN number. Not one book has he ever published.  So he is asking you to spend money on a book and classes you can get free while we deal with the insanity of being Black in America.  It's at a time when what he is charging will one day mean bread and butter for YOU in Amerikkka. Now he is asking for the last four of your ssn and having you sign a payment plan.  MY god people, he will SUE you.  It does not matter it's all a fraud, but if you sign up for a payment plan for fake courses, the law will not allow you to NOT pay.  This snake will sue you. And he is messy with no sense of courtroom procedure.  NONE.  You can't get a job in America monitoring lynchings and not be hurt in some manner by racist whites.

Please give him no money.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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 E...

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...