Skip to comments.BOTH OBAMAS SURRENDERED law licenses in '93 & '08
Posted on 05/09/2012 11:01:49 AM PDT by Mich1193
This can be easily veriified at https://www.iardc.org Stands for Illinois Attorney Registration And Disciplinary Committee. It's the official arm of lawyer discipline in Illinois; and they are very strict and mean as hell.
1. President Barack 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.
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" your license five seconds before the state suspends you.
2 Michelle Obama "voluntarily surrendered" her law license in 1993. after a Federal Judge gave her the choice between surrendering her license or STAND TRIAL FOR insurance FRAUD.
(Excerpt) Read more at liberty.com ...
I agree. There is enough about them which is corrupt and shady that we don't have to make things up. We should always demonstrate proof for any accusations.
I too was disappointed at the lack of supporting evidence and left a comment in that regard.
This is Michelle Obama’s original link before it was scrubbed. http://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=138873458
At no time did she loose the fact that she had passed the bar and recived a law degree or that she could act as a lawyer (advisory) just could not practice in a court of law.
If she had wished to practice at court she could then and could now petition the court and the court would issue an ORDER to reinstate her after fulfilling the requirements of rule 759
Note I am not defending the Obamas I am just pointing out what the actual rules of the court state and that there is no evidence of a sanction on her record.
I am not Mitch.
Sorry for the error on my part on you name.
Here is Devvy’s article.
I wonder how many of the mindless mouth pieces giving their commentary about the “wonderful, smart First Lady,” know that in 1993, Michelle Obama, was ordered by the Illinois Supreme Court to stop practicing law? The faux First Lady was ordered by the court; it was not her choice. (Click here). The records are sealed by the court so we don’t know why, but I am told by lawyers sending me email, it had to be something major for such drastic action.
But the circumstances surrounding Michelle's surrender - which the author of the posted article alleges to be part of settlement of a matter in which she would otherwise be charged with insurance fraud - have not been documented, in so far as I've seen. If a judge forced her to surrender, would there be a court record of the proceeding? (Yes, I know the Obamas excel at making inculpating evidence disappear.) And if no such record exists, is there any alternative evidence for his allegation?
I'm no fan of either of them and maybe I'm missing something here, but this blogger should have at least some evidence to back up his statements.
FR had all this back in '08 but I suppose it's good to revisit.
If I understand this issue correctly, Michelle Robinson did not surrender her license under rule 759, but under rule 770. (From WND)
James Grogan, deputy administrator and chief counsel for the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois, or ARDC, has been with the commission for 30 years. He told WND that on July 1, 1994, the Illinois Supreme Court entered an order allowing Michelle to be transferred to inactive status pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court rule 770.
Apparently, under the rule 771 in place in 1993, it was regarding disbarment and suspension. You need to look over both rule 770 and 771 to see if you can explain this conundrum.
Pardon me if I don't find this issue so cut and dried. The available evidence suggests a real possibility that Michelle Robinson gave up her license to avoid disbarment proceedings.
Last week there was that composite commie/muzzy girlfriend Cook who’s story is quickly falling apart. Then today Hussein has finally decided he’s for same sex marriage. Naw, couldn’t be a coincidence, huh??? Yes, Virginia, on many things he is transparent.
This was posted on Freerepublic a long time ago. After that they scrubbed this one and made it read different.
The timing of this blog seems to be right?
Nope. This was discussed ad nauseum beginningin 2007 right here on FR.
This guy is a nOOb and all he has posted in his short time here is “his blog” Which he excerpts to drive traffic to his site.
Free Republic isn’t part of someone’s business plan and free for their use.
Both JR and the FR Community have set the terms for bloggers and they can post in the blogger section but they cannot just excerpt to drive traffic to their website.
I still call IBTZ and it will happen. The other Pimp police will be on this guy like white on rice.
I remember and it has been stated and shown on this thread that it was a court ordered surrender. Is this not correct?
It is correct but what is the definition of "court ordered surrender" and if it was indeed due to something illegal, what was it?
All their paperwork has undergone so many changes and updates I would not trust any of it.
What year did they buy the home they claim is theirs? I do not think it has ever even been listed as owned by them. Who represented that transfer? It all gets curiouser and curiouser as the expression goes.
How do they keep everyone quiet???
Everything about this bozo is fake.
I didn't realize it until I looked at the posting history that you're quite right. Not even a single page of commentary history (I've been here just under a year and even I have over 1,000 posts to my credit), with a two-year gap, and all of the posts are blog-pimp in nature.
Same here: IBTZ
You gonna zot him ace? :)
This story, coupled with Øbama's known deviant predilections, may just give fresh meaning to the 'Deep Thrøat' moniker.
2. Personal Attacks (blatant and repeated)
4. Profanity (blatant, repeated and especially, four-lettered)
I can however, still be IBTZ without being the one to personally pull the trigger.
I’m familiar with the nomenclature.
Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. (or II) was on the receiving end of the following complaints from fellow members of the bar:
(1) He never reported using the alias,"Barry Soetoro," (or Soebarka) or possibly several others"
(2)He failed to report traffic violations
(3)He failed to report Drug Use.
This is fairly heavy-duty stuff among the legal-beagle pack. Michelle seems to have made a serious, but IMHO,a somewhat more forgivable mistake: i.e., she appears to have believed a client, who was in fact, committing major insurance fraud.
Underlying both cases, it seems undeniable that both of these Affirmative Action wunderkinden were absolutely lousy lawyers! In point of fact, neither of them worked on very much legal stuff at all. Again, Michelle has a bit more actual legal work experience and product than Studley, even if she was never entrusted with anything too complicated or serious!
One more point: Obama "The Constitutional Law Professor:"
He was an adjunct instructor ... nothing more. To top it off, it was a political appointment, which required very few hours and little work. To ice the crap cake, he was absolutely lousy at that, too.
Of the two, Michelle might actually have a shot a reinstatement. Barack, never. As is quite common in Bar Association housekeeping, they were allowed to "surrender" their licenses, rather than face disciplinary hearings.
Then why the comment "You gonna zot him ace?"
Is my FR born-on date still too fresh to put up ibtz or or something? Forgive my temerity.
I use the term out of respect. I do not know you and try to be respectful.
Thanks for the ping!
In that case, thank you for the clarification. Appreciate making your acquaintance. See you around, FRiend. :)
Are you going to make our next interaction this difficult?
No, I'll make sure to take my meds beforehand next time around. ;)
You know what I’m talking about.
Actually, I'm not sure that I do. Is there some kind of lingering rancor that I'm unaware of?
I am trying to be nice.
We’re trying to figure out if they are brothers or chameleons..
It’s possible this poster and the OP are co-conspirators with one one identity as an OP and the other an object schill, to support the rantings of ....???? What???
We saw all this years ago and this guy is an agitator.
Its possible this poster and the OP are co-conspirators with one one identity as an OP and the other an object schill, to support the rantings of ....???? What???
We saw all this years ago and this guy is an agitator.Okay, time to make the donuts.
I can't speak to the poster "allmost" and the OP being co-conspirators or what the true aims of the blog being pimped are, but I was baffled and dis-possessed of my gruntle enough by the nature of the exchange that I had with them that I decided to do some perusing of the posting history of "allmost."
Shockingly, I didn't have to go back very far at all before finding a string of disruptive, condescending, rude, crude and oftentimes downright nonsensical statements, usually no more than a sentence or two long, and
"I am trying to be nice." one-liners or equivalent thrown in occasionally to "cool the rods," as it were.
This one deserves full citation: "Yes the tax laws are racist. Numbers hate. Females and minorities hardest hit as usual. White males are just coasting on their lovely racist pillow. Give me a f***ing break. Open your eyes, grow up, learn to think. Any of them work."
Follow the replies chain on this.
Rude, don't you think?
To my mind there are only two questions relevant at this time:
1. Will Ozone be served up?
2. Will it be a Double? (OP too)
For the Mods: All of the people Pinged here have had interaction with one or more of the other participants, with the exception of TOL.
For the unsolicited Pingees: My apologies if anyone was intruded upon; I felt it was relevant to Ping each of you, in case anyone wished to weigh in.
Thanks for the heads-up.
I feel left out. :)
Barry submitted what was in essence a fraudulent Bar App.
(1)Not disclosing aliases
(2)Not reporting traffic violations
(3)Not reporting drug use.
Michelle, probably through negligence, was complicit in an insurance fraud. Both were spectacularly incompetent attorneys with very little actual experience.
Nothing really unusual here, though. By this point in our legal history, every large law firm in the country and their clients have been burned/disappointed by Affirmative Action Ani. However, Bar Associations will always seek any reason to offer their members the opportunity to "Surrender," rather than face Disciplinary Hearings. Nothing unusual here, either. As GBS said, "Every profession is a conspiracy against the laity."
Barry was NOT THE EDITOR of the Harvard Law Review. He was the President. IOW, he managed the office, which was already managed by paid staff. His was largely a ceremonial post, although in addition to hanging around cocktail parties as a certified Harvard "exotic," he did attend meetings. He apparently neither wrote, nor edited anything for the review.
Barry was NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR. He received a political appointment as an Adjunct Instructor ... again a post which required very little actual work. What minimal work he actually did was reported by the students to be quite substandard.
What is quite amazing about the more or less accurate ... but rather dated .... information posted by so many of us in this thread is that most of the voting public have no idea WTF we are talking about or why it even matters. The Infotainment Industry has done its job very well indeed.
BTW, BJ Clinton was "Suspended" from the Arkansas Bar, not disbarred, which punishment many Bar Members sought.
(not so) humble gunner...have you ever posted ANY articles???? Apparently not or you’d know you have to EXCERPT every one of them. FR will not let you copy the entire thing to the post.
You’re just a pompass ass that doesn’t know what he’s talking about but is hellbent on attacking almost every person on here that posts something not to his liking.
Yeah, 94. How about you?
FR will not let you copy the entire thing to the post.
Correct, from sources on the excerpt list.
This does not apply to someone posting from someone's own blog.
Youre just a pompass ass that doesnt know what hes talking about
I guess we just put that to rest, didn't we, Spunky?
That was so nice, Gunner! You didn’t even correct the spelling or say that your bad reputation is just a bunch of speculation by blog pimps.
And what’s with the gentle lesson about what must be excerpted and what need not be?
Is the kinder, gentler humblegunner back again?
It’s going on 12 hours since he and himself have posted anything. You’re probably onto something here. We’ll see what happens.
Naw, I'm just more tolerant of ignorance lately.
The rules for excerpting do not apply to bloggers who are obviously posting their own material.
It is essentially a “Vanity” and as such the full content should be posted here.
KB, excellent summary. Which goes to show America was easily bamboozled by this lot and the MSM. The truth will out...
At least in the case of the OP, I don't see any significant behavioral difference between the "excerpt" of the blog being pimped on this thread and the one that led to this.
As you say, We'll see what happens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.