Skip to comments.MICHELLE OBAMA ON "COURT ORDERED INACTIVE STATUS"
Posted on 12/26/2008 6:48:08 AM PST by Free America52
First off, the biggest ass-kissing media refers to Michelle Obama as a 'distinguished attorney" despite the fact that Michelle Obama has been"inactive" since 1993.
(Excerpt) Read more at atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com ...
“WHAT DID SHE DO THAT in 1993 — AFTER only 4 YEARS — HER LICENSE to PRACTICE LAW WAS REVIEWED AND PUT ON INACTIVE by a DISCIPLINARY AGENCY?
What Is the ARDC? (this is NOT the Illinois Bar-where one can voluntarily be inactive) As our name implies, the ARDC is the agency of the Supreme Court of Illinois which registers attorneys and investigates complaints of misconduct filed against attorneys holding a license to practice law in Illinois.
Our principal purpose is to assist the Supreme Court to determine a lawyer’s fitness to practice law in Illinois. If a complaint is made that an attorney, licensed to practice law in Illinois, has engaged in illegal, unethical or dishonest conduct, we will investigate and, if warranted, bring formal disciplinary charges. The Supreme Court of Illinois will then ultimately decide if a lawyer should be censured (publicly rebuked), suspended (having the law license to practice either taken away for a certain period of time or placed on a probationary period) or disbarred (having the law license taken away indefinitely).”
So, who do you like this season on American Idol?
The bit with Mayor Daley’s especially interesting...
Public service, anyone?
According to the Time article, that would have been around 1990 that she decided to leave law. Yet she wasn’t made inactive until 1993.
They haven’t gotten their stories straight yet.
Her and Barry only got into law school because of Affirmative Action. When I went to Syracuse, the Affirmative Action cases were so obvious. They just weren’t qualified, but they took a seat away from someone who was. I’m sure Michelle and Hussein were no different.
It was not put on inactive by a disciplinary agentcy. It was inactivated at her request. In Illinois, as in most states, the ability to practice law is supervised by the Supreme Court. Maintaining your law license requires continuing education, payment of dues, what have you. It is not at all uncommon for a lawyer to request that their license be inactivated when their job doesn't require them to pracice in order to avoid all those requirements. She can reactivate her license at any time.
Either the Time article has the dates wrong, or this Shmoo from Atlas Shrugs is wrong......
“Shmoo finds more:
In 1992 Michelle Obama left her job at Sidley Austin to launch a career in public service,...”
“No, really. Barack’s a hustler. I shouldn’t say hustler, but he’s a humper in terms of work.”
Yup bet he is. Harvard Law Grad and the woman can’t EVEN talk.
Well, well, well . . .
At the first hint of any negative Obama news, non-sequitur (logical fallacy) tries to come to the rescue again. Man your fingers must be down to the nubs by now.
Boy, the MSM on this side of The Pond are displaying a decided lack of curiosity, ain't they....
Makes far more money pandering than lawyering.....
Fishing? For what? I do not understand your comments.
Michelle was an African studies major at Princeton. I assume that is the same as the Ethnic studies program that we have at the University of WA. The course is a joke. One of the classes at the U of WA was entitled Minorities in the Military. The whole course requirement was to write a paper about how someone in your family was treated in the military. I suggested to a student that she write about her uncle’s experience during the Bataan March. She said that wasn’t the kind of experience that they were looking for.
The girl that I know got into law school as well. Her roommate was mad because she was a full blooded Indian, whose father was the VP of a bank, and she didn’t get in to U. WA. because she wasn’t an affirmative action student. Her parents were paying full tuition. She did get a late acceptance, though.
“Well, well, well . . .At the first hint of any negative Obama news, non-sequitur (logical fallacy) tries to come to the rescue again. Man your fingers must be down to the nubs by now.”
LOL! I wonder how non-sequitur feels about Odumbo being compared to his (non-sequitur’s) object-worship Abe Lincoln?
you cite a blog. there is a post that's typewritten, no link, no attachement, from something called "ardc" that appears to have editorial mixed with actual content -- if it is actual content from the site. there are idiotic photoshopped images everywhere on the thread.
If I'm looking for real information, why would I waste my time here?
Well then, don’t bother.
Sort of like OJ's friend Robert Kardashian who was not a practicing attorney (due to disbarrment) at the times OJ talked to him after Nicole's murder, but Judge Ito and the prosecuting attorneys made no obection to Kardashian reestablishing credentials so those conversations could retroactively have "attorney-client privelege".
This is NOTHING. My Illinois license was similarly placed in inactive status by the ARDC when I moved to Ohio and stopped keeping my Illinois law license active. I can reactivate it by paying the active lawyer fees and by taking all required Continuing Legal Education courses, just as Michelle Obama could do.
I included that information for people interested in the truth. Since that doesn't include you I'm surprised you bothered to read it.
With the frogmarching of Michelle and Obama pics one should ask your intentions for this forum.
They do this at DU with Bush, Cheney and Rove.
Ummm, I didn’t post the pictures of the frog marching, just the link to the article.
She probably just stopped paying dues when she didn’t need the licensed.
There’s no way she’s a “distinguished attorney.”
There was a piece on FR a few months back about her brief tenure at a distinguished law firm, Sidley and Austin. Sidley takes only the best of the best — plus a few affirmative action babies. Michelle has admitted that she couldn’t have made it into Princeton on her own merits. I would bet the mortgage that the same was true for law school. She is no great intellect. That is absolutely apparent. At times she embarrasses even her husband — another affirmative action baby, albeit a smarter one than Michelle.
At Sidley, although she was undoubtedly one of the least capable associates, she was the most demanding. She asked for, and got, plum assignments because everyone was bending over backwards to please the affirmative action hire, and to avoid looking like a bigot. Even then, she wasn’t satisfied.
Being an associate at a big law firm isn’t fun, even for the ones who make it on their merits. They are expected to put in killer hours, usually doing the boring, repetitive stuff that needs to be done, but that partners don’t want to do — like reviewing rooms full of documents. But the normal hires know that they have to pay their dues.
Not our dear Michelle.
There is nothing “distinguished” about that woman. And the only thing remarkable about her is her sense of entitlement.
You know, there hasn’t been a really great evil female for a while. Speaking in terms of recorded history. Yeah, I know about Hillary , but she was never great, more of a minor djin. Michelle has a real chance at greatness. Eva Peron? Good, not great, evil-wise. A woman at a Jezebel level, an Athaliah.
I don’t think she’s evil. I think she is a dolt. A dolt who has been told she is special because she is black. A dolt who resents people who aren’t dolts, and who has bought into racist anti-White philosophies to excuse he own doltishness.
She probably just didn’t want to bother with the continuing ed stuff.
Probably didn’t pay the require fee for renewal.
Well, we don’t know what we don’t know, nor does she know what she will blossom into in the hothouse. We only know she has been prepped and prepping, angling but not wrangling. Wrangling is beneath her.
Then the license would be cancelled, not suspended.
It’s pretty well established that’s how she got to Princeton and Law school; I think she said as much.
In his case, he’s too vain. But no SATs, no LSATs, being president of the law review w/o any signed articles - along with his being so inarticulate off the prompter - it adds up to his being an AA baby, too.
“nor does she know what she will blossom into in the hothouse”
Why does that phrase bring to mind “Little Shop of Horrors?”
Only if she completes all the continuing education requirements from past years and pay all past state license fees.
There is a 15 year span between 1993 and 2008. The number of continuing education hours to 'catch up' may be 300 hours or more. That is a long time of classroom hours.
An attorney writes me:
as an attorney i am telling you that people can "choose" to not pay their registration fees or take their continuing education of the bar and therefore go on "suspension...or inactive status that goes thru the CAL BAR--the california bar association this ADRC is for discipline reasons...not for those volunteering to stop practicing. it is COURT ORDERED...not "michelle obama ordered" their website was very clear about their function and why they step in.
It is not unusual for women with children to do this and many do reactivate their licenses later. I fail to see why this is even an issue...are we gong to be like Dems and attack, attack... for nonsense? Give me a break.
I doubt she could pass them, unless they are pay to play.
You look at the ARDC entry for Michelle Obama and is says her status is "Voluntarily inactive and not authorized to practice law." If her license was yanked for disciplinary reasons then how would the status be voluntary.
I have no idea how things work in California, but in Illinois the ARDC operates under the authority of the Illinois Supreme Court. In 1993 all suspensions, be they voluntary or involuntary, were covered by Supreme Court Rule 770 and went through them. Change from this voluntary inactive status required an act of the Supreme Court to implement. This act is purely administrative, but is still done under the authority of the court.
Here are the details Link.
my assumption is that when she left SA she wasn’t going to be able to pay for her malpractice insurance if she was going to work for Public Allies
could she have been found “unfit” to practice thru her employment at Sidley Austin thru her performance as an employee ,say,lacking the basics to complete her job task(s)?or some egregious type of behavior where she would have gone thru all the wrong channels to accomplish something?what would be the scenario here?
You can assume what you want.
Maybe, Ape Lincoln is close enough.
Amused. The same kind of reaction I get when I come across one of your posts.