"Citizen" vs "Natural Born Citizen"

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: Dr. Herb Titus Says Most Important Question: Is Obama, Constitutionally Speaking, A “Natural Born” Citizen? Answer: No, He Is Not

I'm very well aware of those sources. Rule 770 is exactly what I was talking about when I commented upon the vague usage of plausible deniability. Whenever the lawyer is being sanctioned due to a complaint to the ARDC, there is in some cases a certain amount of discretion exercised when selecting the type of discipline to be exacted upon the attorney. In some cases, the attorney to be disciplined is offered an opportunity to volunteer to volunteer for inactive status under Rule 770. The disciplined attorney gets an opportunity to escape more severe discipline and avoid public disclosure, and the lack of public disclosure avoids further discredit to the Illinois legal profession while also expediting an uncontested conclusion to the disciplinary proceedings.

Since there is little means by which the public can be informed about the confidential provisions of these proceedings, there is little means to differentiate between a voluntary inactive status due to disciplinary proceedings versus voluntary inactive status due to nondisciplinary proceedings. For an attorney subjected to disciplinary proceedings, the offer of a voluntary inactive status under Rule 770 provided plausible deniability on future professional resumes, except among people familiar with the ins and outs of these types of proceedings.

ARDC Individual Attorney Record of Public Registration and Public Disciplinary and Disability Information as of May 20, 2011 at 9:00:00 AM: Full Licensed Name: Michelle Obama Full Former name(s): Michelle Lavaughn Robinson Date of Admission as Lawyer by Illinois Supreme Court: May 12, 1989 Registered Business Address: Not available online Registered Business Phone: Not available online Illinois Registration Status: Voluntarily inactive and not authorized to practice law Malpractice Insurance: (Current as of date of registration; consult attorney for further information) No malpractice report required as attorney is on court ordered inactive status. ARDC Individual Attorney Record of Public Registration and Public Disciplinary and Disability Information as of May 20, 2011 at 9:00:00 AM:

Full Licensed Name: Donald Wayne Garlinger
Full Former name(s): None
Date of Admission as Lawyer
by Illinois Supreme Court: November 15, 1962
Registered Business Address: Not available online

Registered Business Phone: Not available online
Illinois Registration Status: Voluntarily retired and not authorized to practice law
Malpractice Insurance:
(Current as of date of registration;
consult attorney for further information) No malpractice report required as attorney is retired.

ARDC Lawyer Search Results from the ARDC database last updated as of May 20, 2011 at 9:00:00 AM: for the following terms: Last Name: Demasi, First Name: Anthony, status: All, Country: all Name Date Admitted City State Authorized to Practice?
Anthony A. Demasi June 12, 2001 Chicago IL No

Pedophile Lawyer Suspended for 3 Years. Wed, Dec 31, 2008
http://www.jdjournal.com/2008/12/31/pedophile-lawyer-suspended-for-3-years/

http://www.marketwatch.com/Community/groups/us-politics/topics/michelle-obama-disbarred-il-supreme

Disbarred Illinois plaintiff's attorney subject of child sexual assault complaint
5/19/2006 10:35 AM By Ann Knef
http://www.wvrecord.com/news/179243-disbarred-illinois-plaintiffs-attorney-subject-of-child-sexual-assault-complaint

ARDC Policies and Procedures
Attorney Discipline
If an attorney is found to have violated the Illinois Rules of Professional responsibility, discipline will be imposed. The types of discipline are set forth in Ill. S. Ct. Rule 770 and include: reprimand by the court, the Review Board or a hearing panel, censure, probation, suspension for a specified time, suspension until further order of the court, disbarment on consent or disbarment.
http://www.apexcle.com/pages/ARDCPolicies

If you’d chosen to claim that it was impossible to tell whether the Obama’s had had their law licenses revoked or they had voluntarily given them up just from the Attorney Registration documentation, you might have had a point.

You didn’t do that though, you claimed that they “were compelled by the Illinois Supreme Court to surrender their Illinois licenses to practice law.”

And, despite being ‘very well aware of those sources’ you’ve chosen to discount some of the content, such as:

“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.

The ARDC website explains, “Prior to November 1, 1999, former Supreme Court Rule 770 provided for a proceeding in the Court for any voluntary transfer to inactive status, whether because of some incapacitating condition or solely as a matter of the lawyer’s preference because the lawyer would not be practicing law.”

Grogan explained, “At the time, the only way to go on inactive status was to do what she did – which was to file a petition in the Illinois Supreme Court.”

He said attorneys often filed a petition for 770 when they wanted to pursue other careers, retire or begin raising a family.

“At the time, this happened all the time,” he said. “Our office would have to file what’s known as a consent.”

Grogan said his office would have immediately alerted the court in a public filing if there had been reason to believe she should face disciplinary action.

“We filed a consent in Michelle Obama’s case in which we had no objection to her transferring to inactive status,” he said. “In the event that she did go on inactive status and she engaged in any disbarrable offenses, there would be a disciplinary case of public record.”

He continued, “Just because someone goes on inactive it doesn’t deprive us of the jurisdiction to prosecute.””

or...

“A spokesperson the IlIARDC told TruthOrFiction.com that neither Barack nor Michelle Obama had any history of disciplinary actions.”

Why? What evidence do you have of malpractice? Or is it all too vague to express in words?

First, there were some articles in 2008 in which it was said Michelle Obama was supposedly disciplined after a complaint about her handling of some client funds. I'm trying to relocate one or more of those articles now, but no luck yet. I kept some links in a file, but the hard drive the file was o failed and corrupted before those just saved files had been backed-up. Grogan’s comments were in response to some of those stories in part.

Even if I could find the lost files and articles, they of course could not definitively prove the disciplinary actions, because the voluntary inactive status would make such actions confidential, because they would not have proceeded forward to the formal disciplinary hearing which is in a public record. This confidentiality is one of the incentives for volunteering for inactive status to escape the public hearing which becomes a public record against a professional reputation. The only way the public would have any information in such a circumstance would be the uncorroborated complaints from the plaintiffs and anyone else privy to the original complaints against the attorney. Under those circumstances, a disciplined attorney who volunteered for inactive status before a formal disciplinary hearing could make a plausible denial it ever happened, and there would be no publicly available records to prove otherwise. There would only be the accusations from the original plaintiffs and people they informed.

Grogan’s comments are therefore a half-truth, and suspicion is warranted because he did not disclose the practice whereby an attorney can escape a public record of disciplinary actions with a peremptory volunteering for inactive status. This is why Grogan’s comments about the court ordering of Michelle Obama to volunteer for inactive status is so misleading. He is being deceptive by omitting the other practice in which an attorney is sanctioned by the court's order to volunteer for inactive status.

If the people involved in these issues did not already have a past replete with examples of fraud, deceit, and other misconduct; there would still be good reason for suspicion, but perhaps not so compelling. In the case of the Obama and Dunham families, their past is replete with fraud, crimes, and other misconduct. You have a cleearcut record of polygamy, adultery, and perjury by Barack Sr. Barck Jr. has clearly lied about his family's history in his autobiographies or ghostwritten biographies. There are just so many reasons why it makes no good sense whatsoever to give the benefit of the doubt with regard to suspicion and the obligation to exercise public oversight under these extraordinary circumstances.

Furthermore, if you read Grogan’s carefully crafted statements in detail, it is quite possible for Grogan’s statements to have been technically 100 percent true, even if Michelle Obama did in fact volunteer to go on inactive status as a result of being ordered by the court to do so due to disciplinary action. Remember, you are dealing with Chicago lawyers who know how to parse the language or even break it.

No, it is not just suspicion. Few people go so heavily into debt to gain a law degree and go to work for a law firm and then volunteer for inactive status after being ordered by a court to do so. The law firm she worked for has a reputation consistent with extreme political activism and the notorious corruption of Chicago government. For Michelle Obama to so quickly after only four years give up being a lawyer while they were so deep in debt and needing income is a fact that warrants further inquiry into the cause.

It is a fact that Barack Hussein Obama II did not disclose his aliases as mandated by Illinois law, as can be seen on the ARDC Website. It is a fact that he did not disclose his illegal substance abuse and possession with intent to distribute illegal narcotics. It is a fact that he did not disclose his multitude of illegal parking tickets, a misdemeanor or felony. In other words he committed perjury, which may have been a felony. The ARDC database records his voluntary entry into inactive status as due to retirement. How does an openly guilty perjurer get away with “retirement” rather than disbarment, unless something improper is in fact going on?

The situation is more analogous to a Democratic Congressman being videotaped as he attacks a Republican Congressman from behind and stabs the man to death, dances around the victim's body whooping it up, and then later on saying he wasn't there and you can't believe the faked videotape because his Democratic buddies in the prosecutor’s office and the district court refuse to arraign, indict, and prosecute the murder. Then the Congressman's supporters go onto a blog and say, you only suspect the crime happened, because no court has ever prosecuted much less convicted him for the alleged crime. Who are you going to believe, the nutcase conspiracy waving around all of that so-called evidence, or these fine and respected attorneys?

“You claimed that they “were compelled by the Illinois Supreme Court to surrender their Illinois licenses to practice law.”

The ARDC database report stated it was ordered by the court. Grogan has tried to explain away the reason why the ARDC database said it was court ordered. His explanations appear problematical, however, because they conflicted with the changing versions of the Rule 770 andthe other Rules involved with Michelle Obama’s case. The latest ARDC database report has now deleted the court ordered phrase, which creates ad impression, true or false, that some database scrubbing and altering of the record could be underway. Rather than explain the changes to the data record, a change was made without explanation in the record. You cannot blame the public for being suspicious when these unexplained manipulations of the public reccords take place without enough transparency to avoid adverse impressions.

Since it is somehow supposed to be accepatable for the Obamas and their political allies to hide their records from the public behind hypertechnical interpretations of the law and regulations, it is only fair for the public to also take hypertechnical note of the fact that a court ordered voluntary change to inactive status is still a case of being compelled by the court and law to do so, whether it was for nondisciplinary or disciplinary purposes. So, the observation based upon the wording taken directly from the formeer ARDC record is technically accurate.

The question remains, however, why the ARDC spokesman's statements may be so misleading with respect to the actual Rule or Rules applied to Michelle Obama when she voluntarily relinquished her valuable law license after only four years of legal practice?

How can Grogan’s statements be regarded as trustworthy?

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.