Looks like Obama will stoop to just about anything to get his way
It would be so refreshing to have news that is not biased, and would tell the complete truth about people. Journalism is in such a poor state in our world now that nothing seen, read or heard can be trusted unless one has the time to dig deeper on every news item to find what is true.Not mentioned in the following is the fact that Ms. Fluke's boyfriend is the son of a major Democrat Party contributor William Perlmutter. Her PR agent (she needs a PR agent) is Anita Dunn, former White House Communications Director under Obama who said Mao Tse Tung (a mass murderer) was her favorite political philosopher . Anita Dunn is the one that got Ms. Fluke to testify before the committee as a poor struggling student who could not afford to have safe sex. Ms. Dunn's husband, Robert Bauer is Obam's chief birther lawyer. His job is to keep Obama's personal artifacts hidden from the American People. He has demonstrated that he will use all available means to do this. Records show that $1,352,378.95 was paid to Mr. Bauer's Law Firm by Obama for America . As council for Obama's 2008 campaign, Bauer wrote letters to TV station managers stating that if they aired anti-Obama ads pointing to the known association between Obama and Weather Underground radical Bill Ayers it would violate federal election rules. Really!Fluke Is No FlukePosted by Thomas Purcell at 4:25 AM commentsSandra Fluke- CSPANHaving gone on information junket trips and been involved with how those sorts of things work, I can tell you that not just anyone is picked to have a seat before a congressional hearing and have a say on particular issues. Your name typically is submitted by people that either have a lot of drag with Congress or you are well known enough about a subject to be considered.That's why it came as a bit of a surprise when a supposed innocent college student by the name of Sandra Fluke sat before Congress and testified about the horrors of having to pay for her own contraception pills. The media types and pundits portrayed her as a struggling young student being victimized by the insurance companies and forced into poverty by the fact that she is a woman living in a man's world.Hardly.The red flag for me was twofold; one, that she was attending a very expensive school (Georgetown ) and two, that she was self-described as a public interest scholarship recipient. Public interest scholarships are not given as poverty scholarships, they are typically credits given for political purposes.Fluke is not your normal young college student. For one, she is a 30 year old experienced community activist, older and wiser than your typical college student. Experienced in spades she sits or has been a part of no less than 6 different advisory boards to women's rights groups, including the Manhattan Borough President's Taskforce on Domestic Violence and numerous other New York City and New York State coalitions. She is also a recipient of the 2010 Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles Fran Kandel Public Interest Grant. The foundation is a non-profit charitable corporation established by the Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles ("WLALA") to increase the utility of the law as an instrument of social justice. The Grant is given to law students for projects that make governmental and social institutions and agencies more accessible and responsive to members of society whose interests are not otherwise adequately recognized or asserted. In short, this is a woman who knows all the ins and out of the government and government aid systems, and a strong proponent of the concept of 'social justice'.Social justice seeks to create economic egalitarianism through taxation, income, or even property redistribution. It is merely just another term for socialism and communism.Therefore, the story about her friend that couldn't get affordable birth control, eventually leading to an ovarian cyst just doesn't ring true. As a career expert in women's rights and with access to at least a dozen different methods in getting low cost or free contraception, either Ms. Fluke is incompetent in her positions, or is a bald faced liar about the story. Keep in mind, even a rookie women's activist could and should have directed her to the Planned Parenthood site, which directly offers ways to get birth control pills for about fifteen bucks per month.So instead of an innocent poor college student discussing the difficulty in getting affordable birth control, we have a career women's rights advocate making the case for the redistribution of wealth in society. Quite a different matter than was originally portrayed.Furthermore, how is the argument for empowering women in society furthered by arguing that women are merely victims of the free market? Fluke is a member of the Polaris Project, a group that works toward ending human trafficking a noble cause. But making women slaves of the state instead is no way to go about it; and that's what she is doing by encouraging women to become reliant on the state and insurance payouts rather than on their own ability to earn a wage and educate themselves in institutions of higher learning. That's not empowerment, that's servitude.Georgetown is not innocent either, and ironically are creators of the very instrument that may be their own demise. An examination of the mentors of their public interest scholarship reveals some very interesting facts. The mentors of the program include but are not limited to:1. Katherine Barton, Attorney, Appellate Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice2. Bridgette Kaiser, Staff Attorney, Office of General Counsel , U.S. Department of Health and Human Services3. Sarah Lichtman Spector, Staff Attorney, Family and Children's Health Programs at U.S. Department of Health and Human Services4. Lynn Overmann, Senior Advisor, Office of the Assistant Attorney General , U.S. Department of JusticeAnd of course,5. Judith Scott, General Counsel, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) , James and Hoffman.This is the same SEIU that we all know and love as the purple shirted thugs of the AFL-CIO. It's interesting that these mentors are also the most likely lawyers to represent the Department of Health and Human Services in the Supreme Court case on Obamacare. It's no wonder they are so desperate to defend the issue of free contraceptive care because it rests upon the elimination of the First Amendment rights of Georgetown and other religious groups.If the President backs down on the Georgetown case, or any other Catholic objection to Obamacare mandates, it means that the First Amendment would apply directly to Obamacare and thus be struck down in its entirety. This explains why Fluke was called to testify, and why Obama is risking political suicide to defend this issue.It's all or nothing.So when you see these sob stories on the news take care and look into them carefully. When they are televised they are often used to manipulate the hearts and minds of those watching at home, who typically do not have the time or experience in understanding the motivations of those making the speeches.As for Ms. Fluke, you are no struggling college student defending an unaffordable need for yourself or others. You are just another leftist activist with an agenda, and that is something this nation does not need more of, nor should be addressing Congress under the false pretense of poverty or need.The cold hard light of truth should be the beacon upon which Congress makes its decisions. And that is something, Ms. Fluke, you simply do not represent.
Fwd: Check out who is behind Fluke
3/23/2012 08:13:00 AM | Key Words: LAWYER, Planned Parenthood, Sandra Fluke | 4 Comments
Fw: Lawyer Party
This is very interesting! I never thought about it this way.
The Lawyers' Party by Bruce Walker
The Democratic Party has become the Lawyers Party.
Barack Obama is a lawyer. Michelle Obama is a lawyer.
Hillary Clinton is a lawyer. Bill Clinton is a lawyer.
John Edwards is a lawyer. Elizabeth Edwards is a lawyer.
Every Democrat nominee since 1984 went to law school (although Gore did not graduate).
Every Democrat vice presidential nominee since 1976, except for Lloyd Bentsen, went to law school.
Look at leaders of the Democrat Party in Congress:
Harry Reid is a lawyer. Nancy Pelosi is a lawyer.
The Republican Party is different.
President Bush is a businessman.
Vice President Cheney is a businessman.
The leaders of the Republican Revolution:
Newt Gingrich was a history professor.
Tom Delay was an exterminator. Dick Armey was an economist.
House Minority Leader Boehner was a plastic manufacturer.
The former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is a heart surgeon.
Who was the last Republican president who was a lawyer? Gerald Ford, who left office 31 years ago and who barely, won the Republican nomination as a sitting president, running against Ronald Reagan in 1976.
The Republican Party is made up of real people doing real work, who are often the targets of lawyers.
The Democrat Party is made up of lawyers. Democrats mock and scorn men who create wealth, like Bush and Cheney, or who heal the sick, like Frist, or who immerse themselves in history, like Gingrich.
The Lawyers Party sees these sorts of people, who provide goods and services that people want, as the enemies of America. And, so we have seen the procession of official enemies, in the eyes of the Lawyers Party, grow.
Against whom do Hillary and Obama rail, Pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, hospitals, manufacturers, fast food restaurant chains, large retail businesses, bankers, and anyone producing anything of value in our nation.
This is the natural consequence of viewing everything through the eyes of lawyers. Lawyers solve problems by successfully representing their clients, in this case the American people.
Lawyers seek to have new laws passed, they seek to win lawsuits, they press appellate courts to overturn precedent, and lawyers always parse language to favor their side.
Confined to the narrow practice of law, that is fine. But it is an awful way to govern a great nation. When politicians as lawyers begin to view some Americans as clients and other Americans as opposing parties, then the role of the legal system in our life becomes all-consuming. Some Americans become adverse parties of our very government. We are not all litigants in some vast social class-action suit. We are citizens of a republic that promises us a great deal of freedom from laws, from courts, and from lawyers.
Today, we are drowning in laws; we are contorted by judicial decisions; we are driven to distraction by omnipresent lawyers in all parts of our once private lives. America has a place for laws and lawyers, but that place is modest and reasonable, not vast and unchecked. When the most important decision for our next president is whom he will appoint to the Supreme Court, the role of lawyers and the law in America is too big. When House Democrats sue America in order to hamstring our efforts to learn what our enemies are planning to do to us, then the role of litigation in America has become crushing.
We cannot expect the Lawyers Party to provide real change, real reform or real hope in America Most Americans know that a republic in which every major government action must be blessed by nine unelected judges is not what Washington intended in 1789. Most Americans grasp that we cannot fight a war when ACLU lawsuits snap at the heels of our defenders. Most Americans intuit that more lawyers and judges will not restore declining moral values or spark the spirit of enterprise in our economy.
Perhaps Americans will understand that change cannot be brought to our nation by those lawyers who already largely dictate American society and business. Perhaps Americans will see that hope does not come from the mouths of lawyers but from personal dreams nourished by hard work. Perhaps Americans will embrace the truth that more lawyers with more power will only make our problems worse.
The United States has 5% of the worlds population and 66% of the worlds lawyers! Tort (Legal) reform legislation has been introduced in congress several times in the last several years to limit punitive damages in ridiculous lawsuits such as spilling hot coffee on yourself and suing the establishment that sold it to you and also to limit punitive damages in huge medical malpractice lawsuits. This legislation has continually been blocked from even being voted on by the Democrat Party. When you see that 97% of the political contributions from the American Trial Lawyers Association go to the Democrat Party, then you realize who is responsible for our medical and product costs being so high!
Please -- DO PASS THIS ON!!!
10/27/2010 07:15:00 PM | Key Words: BARACK OBAMA, DEMOCRATS, GORE, HARRY REID, HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, JOHN EDWARDS, LAWYER | 14 Comments
Fw: Anthem
6/16/2010 11:49:00 AM | Key Words: LAWYER | 7 Comments
Fw: Gun Statistic's
Doctors
700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians
per year are
120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician
0.171.
Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Now think about this:
Gun Owners
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S.
is
80,000,000.
(Yes, that's 80 million)
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths
per year, all age groups,
is
1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths
per gun owner
is
.000188.
Statistics courtesy of FBI
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, statistically, doctors are approximately
9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Remember, 'Guns don't kill people, doctors do.'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN,
BUT
Almost everyone has at least one doctor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Please alert your friends
to this
alarming threat.
We must ban doctors
before this gets completely out of hand!!!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Out of concern for the public at large,
I withheld the statistics on
5/27/2010 11:59:00 AM | Key Words: GUN CONTROL, GUNS, LAWYER | 5 Comments
FW: You'll Like This....
Date: Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 9:48 AM
Subject: You'll Like This....
To:
Go here:
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/03/chicago-law-professor-on-obama-the-professors-hated-him-because-he-was-lazy-unqualified-never-attended-any-of-the-faculty-meetings/
4/06/2010 11:45:00 AM | Key Words: BARACK OBAMA, LAWYER | 7 Comments
Fw: A Lawyer or NOT a Lawyer?
Sent by a friend.......... interesting. I just wish they would PROVE without a doubt his citizenship/natural born status. Something is very wrong there also. Why else would he block all his information from the press etc. He needs to be removed from office!!!!
INTERESTING....MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND
US President and Former Constitutional Law Lecturer Makes Up Constitutional Quotes During State Of The Union (SOTU) Address.
Consider this:
1. President Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a "lawyer". He surrendered his license back in 2008 in order to escape charges he lied on his bar application. NOTE: Click on "lawyer" to see the actual documents.
2. Michelle Obama "voluntarily surrendered" her law license in 1993.
3. So, we have the first black President and wife - who don't actually have licenses to practice law: Fact
Source: http://jdlong.wordpress.com/
4. A senior lecturer is one thing. A fully ranked law professor is another. Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law professor at the University of Chicago.
6. "He did not hold the title of professor of law," said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago School of Law.
Source: http://blogs.suntimes.com/
7. This former Constitutional lecturer cited the US Constitution during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
8. The B-Cast posted the video: http://www.breitbart.tv/did-
9. Free Republic: In the State of the Union Address, President Obama said: "We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal.
9a. Wrong citing, wrong founding document, Mr. President. By the way, the promises are not a notion, our founders named them "unalienable rights." The document is our Declaration of Independence and it reads: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
10. And this is the same guy who lectured the Supreme Court moments later in the same speech? When you are a phony it's hard to keep facts straight.
Pres. Barack Obama - Editor of the Harvard Law Review- Has No Law License?
May 15, 2009 by Johnny Alamo
I saw a note slide across the #TCOT feed on Twitter last night that mentioned Michelle Obama had no law license. This struck me as odd, since (a) she went to school to be a lawyer, and (b) she just recently held a position with the University of Chicago Hospitals as legal counsel - and that's a pretty hard job to qualify for without a law license.
But being a licensed professional myself, I knew that every state not only requires licensure, they make it possible to check online the status of any licensed professional. So I did, and here's the results from the ARDC Website:
She "voluntarily surrendered" her license in 1993. Let me explain what that means. A "Voluntary Surrender" is not something where you decide "Gee, a license is not really something I need anymore, is it?" and forget to renew your license. No, a "Voluntary Surrender" is something you do when you've been accused of something, and you 'voluntarily surrender" you license five seconds before the state suspends you.
Here's an illustration: I'm a nurse. At various times in my 28 years of nursing I've done other things when I got burned out; most notably a few years as a limousine driver; even an Amway salesman at one point. I always, always renewed my nursing license - simply because it's easier to send the state $49.00 a month than to pay the $200, take a test, wait six weeks, etc., etc. I've worked (recently) in a Nursing Home where there was an 88 year old lawyer and a 95 year old physician. Both of them still had current licensures as well. They would never DREAM of letting their licenses lapse. I happen to know there is currently in the Indiana State Prison in Michigan City Indiana an inmate who is a licensed physician, convicted of murder when he chased the two burglars who entered his home and terrorized his family into the street and killed them. (And I can't say I blame him for that, either.) This physician still has an active medical license and still sees patients, writes prescriptions, etc all from inside the prison.
And he renews his medical license every two years, too.
I tried looking up why she would "Voluntarily surrender" her license, but Illinois does not have its 1993 records online.
But when I searched for "Obama", I found this: "Voluntarily retired" - what does that mean? Bill Clinton hung onto his law license until he was convicted of making a false statement in the Lewinsky case and had to "Voluntarily Surrender" his license too. This is the former editor of the Harvard Law Review who doesn't seem to care about his law license.
Something else odd; while the Search feature brings up the names, any searches for the Disciplinary actions ends quickly. As in, Too Quickly. Less than a half-second quickly on a Search Engine that can take five seconds to Search for anything. As in, "there's a block on that information" kind of thing.
So we have the first lawyer President and First Lady -who don't actually have licenses to practice law.
There's more to this story, I'm sure. I'll let you know when I find it.
2/27/2010 07:15:00 AM | Key Words: BARACK OBAMA, INDIANA, LAWYER, MICHELLE OBAMA | 13 Comments
FW: Ah, sorry to bother you Mr. Obama, Sir. . ..
Curator's note: This RW FWD: is an "updated" version of this entry already in the archive.
Subject: Ah, sorry to bother you Mr. Obama, Sir. . ..
Ah, sorry to bother you Mr. Obama, Sir. . ..
Excuse me Mr. Obama, I mean President Obama, Sir. Um . . I know you're busy, and important and stuff. I mean, running the country is very important and -- ah -- I hate to bother you, Sir. I will only take a minute. Ok, Sir?
See, I have these missing pieces that are holding me up, and I was wondering, Sir, if you could take time out of your busy schedule and help me out. You know, no big deal, just some loose ends and things.
Hey, you have a nice place here! The wife sees houses like this on TV all the time and says, boy, she wishes she had digs like this, you know? Is that painting real? Really? Wow! I saw something like that in a museum once. Oh, sorry Sir. I didn't mean to get off the track. So if you could just help me out a minute and give me some details, I will get right out of your way.
I want to close this case and maybe take the wife to Coney Island or something. Ever been to Coney Island Sir? No? I didn't think so... Well, listen, anyway, I can't seem to get some information I need to wrap this up. These things seem to either be "Not released" or "Not available." I'm sure it's just an oversight or glitch or something, so if you could you tell me where these things are I have them written down here somewhere -- oh wait.
I'll just read it to you. Could you please help me find these things, Sir?
1. Occidental College records -- Not released
2. Columbia College records -- Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper -- "Not available"
4. Harvard College records -- Not released
5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released
6. Medical records -- Not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule -- Not available
8. Your Illinois State Senate records -- Not available
9. Law practice client list -- Not released
10. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate -- Not released
11. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth -- Not released
12. Record of your baptism -- Not available
13. Why your wife, Michelle, can no longer practice law as an attorney? (Insurance Fraud?_
14. Why your wife has 22 assistants, when other First Ladies had one?
15. Why were you getting "foreign student aid" as a college student?
16. Which countries "passport" did you have when you visited Pakistan in 1981?
Oh and one more thing Mr. President, I can't seem to find any articles you published as editor of the Harvard Law Review, or as a Professor at the University of Chicago. Can you explain that to me, Sir?
Oh, but hey -- listen! I know you're busy! If this is too much for you right now -- I mean -- tell you what. I'll come back tomorrow. Give you some time to get these things together, you know? I mean, I know you're busy. I'll just let myself out. I'll be back tomorrow. And the day after. . ..
What's that Mr. President? Who wants to know these things? We the People of the United States of America ! You know, the ones that vote.
SEND THIS OUT TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS.....
I (WE) WANT TO KNOW.....
1/14/2010 05:17:00 AM | Key Words: BARACK OBAMA, college, HARVARD, ILLINOIS, LAWYER, SENATE | 10 Comments
Fw: I NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT IT THIS WAY..... Very enlightening!
----- Forwarded Message
There are some things I disagree with here (like the importance of pharmaceutical companies and I'm not sure it's the Democratic party that wanted to cap law suits) but there are some other good points......
This is very interesting! I never thought about it this way. Perhaps this is why so many physicians are conservatives or republicans.
The Democratic Party has become the Lawyers' Party.
Barack Obama is a lawyer.
Michelle Obama is a lawyer.
Hillary Clinton is a lawyer.
Bill Clinton is a lawyer.
John Edwards is a lawyer.
Elizabeth Edwards is a lawyer.
Every Democrat nominee since 1984 went to law school (although Gore did not graduate).
Every Democrat vice presidential nominee since 1976, except for Lloyd Bentsen, went to law school.
Look at leaders of the Democrat Party in Congress:
Harry Reid is a lawyer.
Nancy Pelosi is a lawyer.
The Republican Party is different.
President Reagan was an actor and a Union president (actors).
President Bush was a businessman..
Vice President Cheney was a businessman.
The leaders of the Republican Revolution:
Newt Gingrich was a history professor.
Tom Delay was an exterminator.
Dick Armey was an economist.
House Minority Leader Boehner was a plastic manufacturer.
The former Senate Majority Leader Bill First is a heart surgeon.
Who was the last Republican president who was a lawyer? Gerald Ford, who left office 31 years ago and
who barely won the Republican nomination as a sitting president, running against Ronald Reagan in 1976..
The Republican Party is made up of real people doing real work, who are often the targets of lawyers.
The Democrat Party is made up of lawyers.
Democrats mock and scorn men who create wealth, like Bush and Cheney, or who heal the sick, like First, or
who immerse themselves in history, like Gingrich.
The Lawyers' Party sees these sorts of people, who provide goods and services that people want in a free enterprise market system, as the enemies of America . And, so we have seen the procession of official enemies, in the eyes of the Lawyers' Party, grow.
Against whom do Hillary and Obama rail?
Pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, hospitals, manufacturers, fast food restaurant chains, large retail businesses, bankers, and anyone producing anything of value in our nation.
This is the natural consequence of viewing everything through the eyes of lawyers. Lawyers solve problems by successfully representing their clients, in this case the American people. Lawyers seek to have new laws passed, they seek to win lawsuits, they press appellate courts to overturn precedent, and lawyers always parse language to favor their side.
Confined to the narrow practice of law, that is fine. But it is an awful way to govern a great nation. When politicians as lawyers begin to view some Americans as clients and other Americans as opposing parties, then the role of the legal system in our life becomes all-consuming. Some Americans become "adverse parties" of our very government. We are not all litigants in some vast social class-action suit. We are citizens of a republic that promises us a great deal of freedom from laws, from courts, and from lawyers.
Today, we are drowning in laws; we are contorted by judicial decisions; we are driven to distraction by omnipresent lawyers in all parts of our once private lives. America has a place for laws and lawyers, but that place is modest and reasonable, not vast and unchecked. When the most important decision for our next president is whom he will appoint to the Supreme Court, the role of lawyers and the law in America is too big. When lawyers use criminal prosecution as a continuation of politics by other means, as happened in the lynching of Scooter Libby and Tom Delay, then the power of lawyers in America is too great. When House Democrats sue America in order to hamstring our efforts to learn what our enemies are planning to do to us, then the role of litigation in America has become crushing.
We cannot expect the Lawyers' Party to provide real change, real reform or real hope in America . Most Americans know that a republic in which every major government action must be blessed by nine unelected judges is not what Washington intended in 1789. Most Americans grasp that we cannot fight a war when ACLU lawsuits snap at the heels of our defenders. Most Americans intuit that more lawyers and judges will not restore declining moral values or spark the spirit of enterprise in our economy..
Perhaps Americans will understand that change cannot be brought to our nation by those lawyers who already largely dictate American society and business. Perhaps Americans will see that hope does not come from the mouths of lawyers but from personal dreams nourished by hard work. Perhaps Americans will embrace the truth that more lawyers with more power will only make our problems worse.
The United States has 5% of the world's population and 66% of the world's lawyers! The State of Georgia has more lawyers than the country of Japan . Tort (Legal) reform legislation has been introduced in congress several times in the last several years to limit punitive damages in ridiculous lawsuits such as "spilling hot coffee on yourself and suing the establishment that sold it to you" and also to limit punitive damages in huge medical malpractice lawsuits. This legislation has continually been blocked from even being voted on by the Democrat Party. When you see that 97% of the political contributions from the American Trial Lawyers Association goes to the Democrat Party, then you realize who is responsible for our medical
and product costs being so high!
Please -- DO PASS THIS ON!!!
1/02/2010 02:14:00 PM | Key Words: ACLU, COMIC SANS FONT, DEMOCRATS, DEMOCRATS ARE LAZY, GEORGIA, LAWYER, REPUBLICANS | 15 Comments
Fw: You've Got To Love This Lawyer
Even what we may think about lawyer's, this'n sure got his point across.
TCM
This is good.
A New Orleans lawyer sought an FHA loan for a client who lost his house in Hurricane
Katrina and wanted to rebuild. He was told the loan would be granted if he could prove
satisfactory title to the parcel of property being offered as collateral. The title to the
property dated back to 1803, which took the Lawyer three months to track down.
After sending the information to the FHA, he received the following reply.
(Actual letter):
"Upon review of your letter adjoining your client's loan application, we note that the request is supported by an Abstract of Title. While we compliment the able manner in which you have prepared and presented the
application, we must point out that you have only cleared title to the proposed collateral property back to 1803. Before final approval can be accorded, it will be necessary to clear the title back to its origin."
Annoyed, the lawyer responded as follows.
(Actual Letter)
"Your letter regarding title in Case No. 189156 has been received. I note that you wish to have title extended further than the
194 years covered by the present application. I was unaware that any educated person in this country, particularly those working in the property area, would not know that Louisiana was purchased, by the U.S. , from France in 1803, the year of origin identified in our application.
For the edification of uninformed FHA bureaucrats, the title to the land prior to U.S.
ownership was obtained from France, which had acquired it by Right of Conquest from Spain . The land came into the possession of
Spain by Right of Discovery made in the year 1492 by a sea captain named Christopher Columbus, who had been granted the privilege of seeking a new route to India by the Spanish monarch, Isabella. The good queen, Isabella, being a pious woman and almost as careful about titles as the FHA, took the precaution of securing the blessing of the Pope before she sold her jewels to finance Columbus ' expedition.
Now the Pope, as I'm sure you may know, is the emissary of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and God, it is commonly accepted, created this world.
Therefore, I believe it is safe to presume that God also made that part of the world called Louisiana . God, therefore, would be the
owner of origin and His origins date back to before the beginning of time, the world as we
know it AND the FHA. I hope you find God's original claim to be satisfactory. Now, may we have our damn loan?"
He got the loan.
10/10/2009 01:53:00 PM | Key Words: LAWYER | 5 Comments