This letter was sent by Blogforce member Rees Lloyd to the Wall Street Journal’s Alan Cullison over its coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing case.

Greetings:

 While there are many questions, indeed, which surround the Boston Bombers,  including on the reporting of the WSJ, I raise but a simple one (or three, rather) to you:

 (1) The uncle who says he broke off relations with his brother’s family in 2009,  Ruslan Tsarni, is described by you in your group feature story  as working “as a legal consultant.”

 As an attorney, I am wondering, just what that is: a  “legal consultant,” as WSJ calls him?

 People who give advice on legal matters are not called “consultants,” they are called lawyers. As such, they are persons who must be licensed, and who are closely regulated by State Bar Associations in order to protect the public from being exploited by people who hold themselves out as being able to be consulted on legal matters, without bothering to become licensed to do so.

 In most jurisdictions, people who render legal advice without being licensed and therefore regulated, are guilty of “practicing law without a license.” That is a felony in some jurisdictions.

So just what is the work that the non-lawyer Ruslan Tsarni does as a “legal consultant,” as he is described by WSJ without explanation?

(2)  Also, how is it that under our immigration system, Anzor Tsarnaeve is able to enter and remain in the United States, with his family,  by grant of “asylum” on a claim he will be persecuted if he is forced to return to Russia; but, when it pleases him, he returns to Russia whereat he claimed he would be horribly persecuted if forced to return?

 Is there no penalty for such deception in asylum claims?  How is it that the family that he brought with him, all of whom were admitted under an “asylum” claim, is allowed to remain when he voluntarily returns to Russia, making the entire “asylum” claim appear to have been a sham to fulfill what your article says hid a long held “dream” of Tsaarnaeve to come to America, according to those who knew him, even when he was well-off as a government “prosecutor”?

 (3) Finally, how is it that WSJ, in headlines on the front page and in a banner sprawled all across page 2, proclaims that: “Turn To Religion Split Bomb Suspects’ Family”?

 Was it a turn to “Religion,” or a turn to “Islam”?

 Is even the WSJ so fearful of giving offense to Muslims that it would instead brand all “Religion,” or was it “Islam,” which was the cause of turning these immigrant beneficiaries of Americans generosity into murderous jihadist monsters so brave they set off bombs to slaughter even innocent little American children?

 Richard Dawkins and all the other self-proclaimed “Brights” of atheism must be smugly satisfied that it is “religion” which the WSJ blames for corrupting the minds of these nice immigrant Muslim boys, not the particular religion of Islam which, in fact, is that to which they turned and became rabid.

 The late Christopher Hitchens, the celebrated English Trotskyist atheist and prolific elitist blowhard who immigrated to America and made a fortune arrogantly preaching to us benighted Americans that religion is the root of all evil and Christianity its most evil expression of all, would no doubt rise up, if he could, to shout: “See, I told you so!”

 Rees Lloyd

California State Bar 

Rees Lloyd is a Veterans Activist, former ACLU attorney, civil rights attorney in private practice and nobody’s fool. He is a member of the Victoria Taft Blog Force.