Barack & Michelle Obama disbarred from Illinois Bar

Post Reply New Topic

This is from a former Chicago lawyer now practicing law in Tyler, TX.

This is legit. I checked it out myself 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. (Talk about irony.) Even I, at the advanced age of almost 65, maintain (at the cost of approximately $600/year) my law license that I worked so hard and long to earn.

Big surprise.

Consider this:

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.

3. So, we have the first black President and First Lady - who don't actually have licenses to practice law. Facts.

Source: http://jdlong.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/ ... w-license/

4. A senior lecturer is one thing, a fully ranked law professor is another. Barack Obama was NOT aConstitutional Law Professor at the University of Chicago.

5. The University of Chicago released a statement in March 2008 saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) "served as a professor" in the law school-but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed in 2008.

6. "He did not hold the title of Professor of Law," said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago School of Law.

Source: http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03 ... title.html ;

He is not a lawyer, just a liar.

I, Longshanks, have also checked this out. It's legit. The guy is a fraud. Vote him out!

Longshanks

romney doesn't have a heart. obama is better.

WP is not a racist site. Please find an appropriate forum to post your rants.

Here's something on factcheck

http://m.factcheck.org/2012/06/the-obamas-law-licenses/

The following might be a valid criticism. Perhaps Pres. Obama should have more understated his role, and say that he was a Senior Lecturer, describe what that means, that Senior Lecturers are considered to be professors by the university, and that Senior Lecturers have high-demand jobs in politics or public service which prevent full-time teaching.

I mean, the University of Chicago Law School itself says, "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track." (full quote below).

All the same, Yes, Pres. Obama probably could have handled this better.

http://m.factcheck.org/2012/06/the-obamas-law-licenses/

I disagree, in part, Longshanks.

A voluntary surrender is precisely what the name suggests. A person, subject to a disciplinary investigation voluntarily decides to surrender a license to practice. It is improper to draw any inference from the act of voluntary surrender because when an individual has undertaken a voluntary surrender, none of the allegations made againt that person have been proven before a disciplinary tribunal.

I'm certainly not going to question the fact of the misrepresentation. The facts seem to speak for themselves. But I am going to question the substance of the misrepresentation. It's clear that he did teach at the institution. It's clear that he did not hold the academic rank of "Professor." But in common usage is there a distinction between a professor (a generic term for a person who teaches at an institution of higher learning) and a Professor (a person who has been admitted to the academic rank of Professor at a degree granting university)? I don't mean that to be a flippant question--I mean, rather, to go to the question of whether there was a material misstatement that actually goes to the substance of whether the declarant is worthy to hold office.

Is it every lie that disqualifies a person from elected office? If so, is there any person who has made it to age 35 who would qualify by that standard?

It seems to me that both sides in American politics are looking for means by which to demonize the other. Every misstep, error or exaggeration is elevated to the level of a fatal flaw. Is it any wonder that public respect for elected officials is at an all-time low? If you spend your time doing nothing but looking for your opponents' feet of clay, guess what? You will find them. And your opponents will do so to you, as well.

So what? All he has to do when he leaves the presidency is retake the Il. Bar Exam, and he'll be able to practice law again.