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 ...
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.
You’re just a pompass ass that doesn’t know what he’s 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?
Rats.
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.
It'll pass.
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...
Thanks justiceseeker93.
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.
Billy Jeff's record shows he was suspended for five years starting on 19 January 2001 for disciplinary reasons. His wife's record is a bit shorter. It shows her suspended as of 14 March 2002 for failing to keep up her continuing legal education.
Also, in November 2001, Billy chose to resign from the Supreme Court bar, rather than "be disbarred from the practice of law in this court." The Supreme Court bar is largely an honorary thing. Few of the lawyers in it ever actually practice before the Court.
Pompass? You?
I wish that statement really were in the past tense. This factual material has been posted on this site and at least a few others for over 5 years now, and it still has not registered on the collective "mind." IOW, only about some 15% of the electorate has the faintest clue about Obama's law "career," his removal from the bar, what the flap about Natural Born Citizenship is about, the forged documents, etc., etc.,etc. Apparently, half of the electorate would vote for the SOB again tomorrow!
I wish I shared the confidence some on this site have in their favorite "right-wing" talk show hosts, none of whom has ever mentioned any of the above, much less laid it out for all to see. The same goes for all our favorite "Conservative" candidates, never mind Romney, who says "Obama's a nice guy ... just misguided and inexperienced." .
The truth will out..
All right, then. Let's hope the conspiracy of silence about Obama ends in time for the election.
Believe it or not, I actually considered including you, along with a number of other people, but I decided against it for number of reasons.
One, I noticed on the site in question that you had posted there, and worried that including you as a recipient might color the mods conclusions regarding my smack-down of the disturbed joker who was trolling me.
I also really, really wanted to make the Zot stick, and so I copied only the offender(s), the mods, individuals who had tangled with this poster previously, and one singularly apropos FReeper for such a comment to try to give it the highest possible credibility that I could.
Alas, apparently my n00b status rendered my arguments at $.10 on the dollar compared to those with longer tenure. Congratulations on your recent FR birthday, by the way. Mine’s coming up in a month. :)
No worries, I was just joking. I understand completely what you are talking about. There are a lot of STRANGE postings/posters on eligibility threads. Many of them claim that "I'm against Obama and everything he stands for, but I think he's a legitimate president."
Yeah, right. Why on earth would anybody DEFEND him? Even if you thought he was being falsely accused, why lift a finger to protect this guy?
There are fewer of them around nowadays than there used to be (Probably as Democrat hacks they are too busy trying to get him re-elected, to bother posting over here anymore.)
Anyways, thanks for the congratulations and congratulations to you to on your upcoming 1 year. I had actually been a lurker for a couple of years prior to joining. Free Republic is one of the few places where you can actually discuss Obama's legitimacy because a lot of conservative web sites utterly refuse to tolerate a discussion of this issue. It's like they all became big brother marxists when it comes to questioning the legitimacy of "the won."
The fact that I found (mostly) intelligent and thorough conversation on the eligibility issue is what spurred me to first lurk (maybe three months or so), then sign up, and finally to become a monthly donor to FR.
This forum has been absolutely invaluable in expanding not only my understanding of the depth of the deception that has been and continues to be perpetrated on the American people, but also my understanding of the founding of our Republic and of the hopes, fears and plans related to its long-term viability on the part of the Founders.
"There are fewer of them around nowadays than there used to be (Probably as Democrat hacks they are too busy trying to get him re-elected, to bother posting over here anymore.)"
While the Democrat hacks busy with other duties explanation probably covers part of it, I think that there is also a realization on the part of the savvier Obots that their efforts have reached the point of diminishing returns here, due to the superior knowledge base of many FReepers being sufficient to quickly spotlight their lies and misdirection, dismantling their "arguments" with documented facts and simple, but ironclad logic.
Word must be getting around, too, because I'm seeing much more intelligent arguments lately on other threads at sites far removed from this one.
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.