America’s Future Lawyers. Look Out World!

by Mark S. McGrew

Photo: America’s Future Lawyers. Look Out World!

America’s Future Lawyers. Look Out World!

Most lawyers think they can do and say anything they want and are immune from punishment. They’re not immune. The first time I had an attorney disbarred for life, I was 22 years old.

Since then I have had three more disbarred for life, and more than 25 sanctioned, reprimanded or temporarily suspended. Besides the avenues available to me through the various State Bar Associations and Court Rules, I have used other means to destroy their practice, ruin their reputation and generally make life miserable for them.

I have caused the termination of employment from their firms of so many of them that I don’t even keep track anymore. I have caused careers to be vaporized and divorces to occur because the wife’s social standing was put into ridicule or she didn’t want to be saddled with a “loser”.

Two lawyers, that I know of, have had heart attacks after they took it upon themselves to engage me in hardball negotiations. One, that I know of committed suicide after he was disbarred in California. He called me up the night he did it and told me I had ruined his life; he lost his family and was going to commit suicide unless I made some effort to “correct” what I had done to him. While he was hysterically crying, he told me that his life was in my hands and that he had a gun ready to pull the trigger.

“It’s all up to you now Mark. What will it be?”

Golly was I touched. I told him the world and his family would be much better off without him. His crying stopped and he just mumbled, “That’s it? Don’t you care? That’s all you have to say?

“No……..Call me back when you’re ready to pull the trigger. I need a good laugh.” And I hung up.

Three days later, Los Angeles detectives came to see me, told me that the lawyer had shot himself and burned his house down to the ground around himself. I asked them what that had to do with me and they pulled out a letter that the lawyer had mailed to them, telling them that I was going to shoot him and burn his house.

So, I played them the tape recording of our conversation and case closed. They asked me what led up to the conversation and I told them how he had fleeced 750 investors that I knew, that I went after him, through proper legal channels. They made a few phone calls, and they found that he had recently been disbarred, from my complaint signed by over 500 of those investors.

We talked for a while and when they left they pumped my hand quite vigorously.

THAT is what we think about crooked lawyers.

From the lessons I had learned from cheating lawyers, and in the matter of self survival, I developed my own techniques as to how to do battle with them. I use mailing campaigns, telephone campaigns, I look into their financial dealings, their personal life, and anything else that a good investigator would do to dig up the dirt on a criminal. Even Federal judges are fair game if they’re crooked. I photographed one at a night club fondling a very young agreeable blonde bimbo. The next morning I was in his office, told him to quit screwing an investor group or his wife was getting the pictures. I showed him a picture of his wife walking to her car in their driveway. He tossed the case, released the investors and told me some not very pleasant things.

But the best way to beat a crooked lawyer is what I call “Mental Judo”. I use their words and actions against them. I had such fun with it that I put on seminars for Trial Lawyers in Denver and Los Angeles. I called it “How to Kick a Lawyer’s Ass”.

It was based on a very simple concept: Everyone makes mistakes.

Find those mistakes and crucify the guy with them. A very high percentage of lawyers are arrogant and think they are so smart, just because Daddy put them through law school and they passed the Bar Exam on their third try. Lawyers like that are the creeping cruds of society and it is any good person’s duty to do whatever possible to rid our society of them. There are many good attorneys who do perform a valuable service. They do things by the book, they follow the rules, they research and they present their case either in writing or orally in a very convincing manner. These lawyers are hard to beat. At best, I would tell attorneys to just be prepared for some very good training when they are up against one of them and to move for settlement before getting their butts kicked in a trial.

But the crooked ones, the arrogant ones, the braggarts and daddy’s boys? Oh, they’re fun to play with.

I went on the “LawSchoolDiscussion.org” board last week, for Law students, just to observe what America’s best and brightest had to offer. After sitting back and reading their postings I decided to get on board and see how they would react to a simple question that had already been asked by one of the posters, planet rugby:

He questioned whether Barack Obama had used other names such as Barry Soetoro and I wanted to ask if they could prove that Obama was eligible to hold office due to his citizenship status. I provided a copy of the Philip Berg Federal lawsuit which asked Obama to prove he is a US citizen. I produced the State of Hawaii statement that they had “seen” Obama’s original birth certificate and pointed out that the statement never once sayshe is a US Citizen. I posted Copy of Federal Court Rules to show that since Obama failed to deny he was not a US citizen that by default he had admitted that he WAS NOT a US citizen and therefore not eligible to be president.

I posted as much as possible to show that Obama has not proved that he is eligible to be President and I challenged the law students to prove to me that Obama is eligible, according to our constitution and to show any proof that Obama may have produced.

My challenge was accepted and we debated for two days. I posted about 10,000 words of documents, legal code and dozens of links to support what I was asking. Following are some of the absolutely brilliant responses to planet rugby: and my request for Obama’s proof to hold office. The bold type are my comments that I have added here.

planet rugby: Does anyone know? (would appreciate guidance)

If Obama's legal name is actually Barry Soetoro or some other name, are the election results valid? Also, if the presidential oath of office is taken under a false name is it binding? Is the person legally president?

Simple enough question you would think, but…….

Cui bono: LOL his name is Barack Obama- why would anyone lie about that name? Whoever the hell beat McCain is legally the prez; most if not all people wo voted for him didn't vote for his name so..........booooooooooo

Burning Sands Esquire: Is this person serious?!?

McCain was born in Panama and you're questioning whether Barack Obama is an American?

You realize this came from a paper[Pravda] that has a story titled

“Hitler only had one testicle”

“Pregnant baby girl born in Saudi Arabia”

“Woman gives birth to mutant baby in Malaysia”

“Extraterrestrials interested in human sperm ad ovules”

You know this right? And you couldn’t find anything on Pravda that was of a serious nature? You had to really dig to find the oddball stuff.

There's no extraordinary sensitivity surrounding the topic of Obama's history. This is a site comprised of logic minded law students and lawyers. We deal in reality. Therefore it gets a tad bit annoying when somebody wants to spend mind power discussing illogical conspiracy theories. In Reality then…Did Obama ever really prove he is a natural born citizen?
You'd get the same type of response from everybody here if you were to post questions like these about big foot, area 51, the lochness monster or anything else that might appear on the cover of the national inquirer.

Just when it couldn't get any more embarrassing being from Jersey.

What happens when the court doesn't grant you cert? That’s not the question

sluglaw: Yes, in order to make himself more electable Barry Soetoro changed his name to Barack Hussein Obama .

A.: And I thought it couldn't get worse than bluewarrior. Evidently, this “bluewarrior” fellow has a bad habit of asking questions too.

A Mr. Rugby asked what if Obama did have other names and the answer he got was from:

A.: Mr. Rugby, if I were to kick your ass under a false name, would I still have kicked your ass? It's the same issue, is it not?

Yet another poster asked why Obama had different names and I’m sure the following response would have totally destroyed our case in a real court.

Miss P: Blended families often use names for the sake of convenience without changing their names legally. I'm not interested in indulging you further and I suggest that you go to a more paranoid, conspiracy-minded site if you really find it necessary to spin out these theories.

Don't let him off so easily, Sands. It's particularly offensive to traffic in these kinds of rumors because it amounts to impugning the integrity of our duly elected president because he grew up with a single mom and was shuttled around a lot as a child. At least when someone babbles about the Sasquatch, he isn't emboldening those who irrationally hate our next commander-in-chief and hope to end his time in office by any means necessary.

How's that "real world" tactic of petitioning for cert. working out for you?
I find the blanket accusations about "Obama fans" rather silly, especially based on your (concededly limited) exposure here, and especially considering the fact that you are making baseless, and very serious, accusations against our duly elected president. “concededly limited exposure”?? So I don’t have standing to ask a simple question? I pointed out to her that citizens do not pick the president that the Electoral College does.

I provided Federal Rules showing that failure to respond to “Admissions”, deems that person to have admitted his guilt. Admissions is a set of questions that one party has the right to ask the other.

Miss P: The . . . presumption of the invalidity of state-issued documents and over a century of precedent on the definition of citizenship? of non-citizenship for people without Anglo names? Oh, no, I've got it: the presumption of OMG, BLACK PRESIDENT WTF ARE WE GOING TO DO WE'D BETTER MAKE SOME ISH UP RIGHT QUICK!

Miss P: I love the notion that admissions by failure to respond amount to "definitive proof. You really need to do some Wikipedia reading or something before posting here. I pointed out to her that wikipededia is not a legal source reference.

planet rugby: The matter shall not be pushed; however, the extraordinary level of sensitivity surrounding questions about Obama's history is very enlightening. That’s a nice way to put it after they went into hysterics on him.

Julie Fern: you might want cut back drinking coffee. Your Honor, I object! This statement insinuates, with no factual basis, that I am intoxicated on a licit substance

Two people said Obama was our “duly elected president” and after I pointed out the Electoral College, not voters, makes the decision for president.

Eugene Young: Gonna be a long 8 years for you, isn't it buddy? Here's a tip: Find another rabbit to chase. No, as law students we've never heard of the Constitution. Thanks a bunch for clearing up the confusion on the electoral college. Never could quite wrap my head around how it works. BTW, what kind of SAT score do you need to get in the electoral college? I might apply once I get my JD. I confess that I could not find out what SAT score is required to enter Electoral College

Eugene Young: Seriously. They should have hit that attorney with an 11(c)(2) for filing a frivolous claim in addition to the 12(b)(6). When you can’t answer a question, obfuscate. A good defense is always a good offense. Tie it up until your opponent dies of old age.

Never did any of the posters show any ability to post evidence to answers or refute my question and my claim that Obama has not shown any evidence to prove he is a US natural born citizen. It was all typical Obama tactics of bully, insulting and acting arrogant.

After I had completed my observation, I told them I had to get out to go take my GED test for the third time and didn’t respond to them any more. Somebody asked where I had gone and Eugene explained.

Eugene Young: Cat came in claiming to have a four of a kind and went all in, we called his hand, turns out he was chasing a busted straight to the river so we put him off the table.

LMAO. If dude was legit, he should know we have finals now and don't have time to be correcting his ass. Cat come up in here citing persuasive authority and what not, talkin' bout he trains trial lawyers. Yeah, right buddy. Nice job, Sands. No time to correct me but time to insult and evade the questions for the past two days?

Cui bono: Homie, are you looking at the Black's Law dictionary as you're posting?! You put in a whole bunch of legalese that doesn't make much sense in context. And goddamn, could you be more condecending? And not to "personally attack you" but if you actually taught trial lawyers, you wouldn't feel the need to say so and keep saying so. Of course not, I should just lay down and die.

In the dozen or so posters, one person sat back and observed and in the end, he offered up his summation:

bluewarrior: very entertaining indeed...most of the folks on here do not research...sands is one of the few...I like it when they finally google some things and make posts...but most don't get it...
good lawyers research...excellent lawyers are creative...that is where I find even the good ones lacking excellence...no creativity...no art...something reading eyes now should contemplate as I write this...no art...no art...no art...why not read a little shakespeare...some joyce...most of the creative lawyers I know understand it when I throw them a quote from either of these bards...most on this board can't do it...can't think outside of the triangle...
and I enjoyed your little game...some are even more beguiled than before and have more poop in their pants...well done!

Thank you, bluewarrior. I also enjoyed it. And may I leave you with a little something, to perhaps humor you some more and a question that you could answer in one second. I won’t ask the other posters because they have finals and I don’t want to distract them with conspiracy theories for another two days.

This is from the King James version of the Bible:

Luke 11:46
And [Jesus] said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.

Luke 11:52
[Jesus said] Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

The question I ask you bluewarrior is: Has anything changed in 2,000 years?

Mark S. McGrew