The BAR Associations: Modern day grifters

Marti Oakley

____________________________________________

This is no different than if bank robbers formed a union and then voted to give themselves immunity from prosecution, based on the idea that without immunity they might be afraid to rob any more banks.

______________________________________________

To [grift] is to obtain money or other assets through swindle or fraud. That brief definition accurately describes what is practiced routinely by members of the BAR Associations across the country. And no where is it more prevalent than it is with regards to the insidious guardianship/conservatorship venues.

More money is stolen from the disabled, children and seniors ,conserved and/or guardianized, than can actually be calculated and much of that theft is going directly into the accounts of lawyers who use the probate and family courts as personal ATM machines.

Hiding behind self-protecting statutes and codes they themselves constructed through various state BAR Associations, and while our state legislators turned a blind eye, the trafficking of the disabled, children and seniors with assets, goes on unabated. All of it facilitated by specially constructed statutes that recognize no wrong doing by attorney’s or judges, much less by the professional vultures euphemistically called “guardians”.

The DoJ Dodges a Bullet on Wilson/Brown Decision

Marti Oakley

______________________________________________

A recent article made the statement that ” When officers are on duty, they don’t know if at the end of the day, they are going home, to the hospital or to the morgue”.  Strange, that is just how the public feels when they are confronted by them.

__________________________________________

The Department of Justice (an oxymoron if there ever was one) just issued its decision regarding the death of Michael Brown at the hands of Ferguson, Missouri police officer Wilson that occurred in November 2014. Like millions of other people, I was not there. I have no idea what did or did not happen other than what was related on the MSM, and you already know 99% of what comes from them is pure BS.

The DoJ determined that Michael Brown’s civil rights had not been violated. So, let me get this straight…… according to grand jury testimony, an officer confronts a man in the street and tells him to get on the sidewalk, they argue, scuffle, then he fires a total of 16 shots at him, two from inside his vehicle, one directly through the top of his head within 6-8 inches…..and the DoJ was concerned with whether his civil rights were violated? That’s what they were investigating?

As an aside:   Thanks to what had to have been careful questioning and very rehearsed answers, Wilson swore under oath that he stopped the men because he recognized their clothing from the description given for the robbery……. a robbery he could not and did not know about at the time he confronted Brown.  Did  Wilson knowingly commit perjury and intentionally lie to the grand jury about what really happened that day?