SO HERE AND NOW

Conservative Political Views

IT MAKES SENSE BLOG by THE MEISTER

Bombshell: The Real Reason Barack Obama And Michele Lost Their Law License.

October 9th, 2012 | Author:

By David Herold    (It seems that Obama has had this habit of flipping us off for a long while! When we see this coded signal of his, we know he knows he’s been caught lying! teeheehahahoho  BTW, I haven’t verified the sources below, but I will do that as soon as I finish here.  I hope that others will do the same, that is, verify and pass along this extremely and profoundly important information.  JM)

I am reposting for those who have missed it.
FORMER LAWYERS?

I knew they had both lost their law license, but I didn’t know why until I read this.

This is 100% legit. I check it out 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. (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.

Former Constitutional Law Lecturer and U.S. President Makes Up Constitutional Quotes During State Of The Union (SOTU) Address.

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.

2. Michelle Obama “voluntarily surrendered” her law license in 1993, after a Federal Judge gave her the choice between surrendering her license or standing trial for Insurance fraud!

3. Facts.Source: http://jdlong.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/pres-barack-obama-editor-of-the-Harvard-law-review-has-no-law-license/

(Below is what was found on Michelle Obama’s record as late as May of 2009.  However, the information is no longer available on that site.  The bottom line, at the right, on the below document from ARDC, reads, “No malpractice report required as attorney is on court ordered inactive status,yet she “served as legal counsel for the University of Chicago Hospitals” after the court order–emphasis added.  Hmmmmmmm.  JM)

Obama Michelle law license

4. A senior lecturer is one thing, a fully ranked law professor is another. Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional 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.  (In other words, Obama was a substitute teacher.)

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/sweet_obama_did_hold_the_title.html ;  (This link is good, and below is what you get.)

“Sweet: Obama did NOT “hold the title” of a University of Chicago law school professor.

By Lynn Sweet on March 28, 2008 6:25 PM

WASHINGTON—The University of Chicago released a statement on Thursday 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 on Friday.

“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 school, on East 60th St. in Chicago

The U of C statement was posted on the school’s website two days after the Clinton campaign issued a memo headlined “Just Embellished Words: Senator Obama’s Record of Exaggerations & Misstatements.” The memo was generated by the Clinton campaign as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) was put on the defensive for claiming incorrectly that she dodged sniper fire while First Lady when her plane landed in Bosnia.

Another university spokesman, Josh Schonwald, said the Obama campaign did not request that the statement be generated and that it was posted because reporters were calling the school with questions about Obama’s status. However, the Obama campaign was interested in making sure reporters saw the U of C statement.

The university statement said, “From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School.” The school probably did not mean to imply that Obama became a University of Chicago professor a year out of law school. But the word “served” is key—Nagorsky said Obama carried out, or served, a function of a professor—teaching a core curriculum course while a senior lecturer—while at the same time not holding down that rank.

At issue in the Clinton memo was Obama’s claims—mostly specifically on several direct mail pieces produced for his 2004 U.S. Senate race– that said he was a law professor at the university.

Obama graduated Harvard Law School in 1991. He was a lecturer at the U. of Chicago law school between 1992 and 1996. During this time he was an attorney at the law firm of Miner, Barnhill & Galland. In his first years of teaching, he had only one course.

He was promoted to Senior Lecturer in 1996 and his teaching load eventually increased to three courses a year, less than the load of a professor. Obama won a state Senate seat in 1996. Obama maintained his senior lecturer post from 1996 to 2004, when he took a leave to run for the U.S. Senate.

Nagorsky said there is a major distinction between a lecturer and senior lecturer, though both are not full-time positions. She said the status of a senior lecturer is “similar” to the status of a professor and Obama did teach core courses usually handled only by professors. While Obama was also part of the law school community, his appointment was not part of an academic search process and he did not have any scholarly research obligations which professors often do.

In August of 2004, I wrote a column about Obama’s U.S. Senate campaign literature saying he was a law professor at the U of C when he was a senior lecturer on leave at the school. Neither the school nor anyone in the Obama campaign complained at the time.

The University of Chicago did Obama no favor by saying he was a law professor when he wasn’t. This parsing is not necessary. There is nothing degrading about being a senior lecturer and bringing to students the experience of a professional in the field.”  (But there is everything wrong with self-agrandizing and purposefully misleading the public.  Intelligent folks all speak the same language and understand the nuances of our native tongue.  One cannot twist and turn meanings of words to fit a personal agenda, and support that decision after the cat is out of the bag!  JM)

7. The former Constitutional Senior Lecturer (Obama) cited the U.S. Constitution the other night during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence … not the Constitution.

8. The B-Cast posted the video: http://www.breitbart.tv/did-obama-confuse-the-constitution-with-the-declaration-of-independence/ (This site is no longer relegated to the subject)

9. Free Republic : In the State of the Union Address, President Obama said: “We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal.

10. Um, wrong citing, wrong founding document there Champ, I mean Mr. President. By the way, the promises are not a notion, our founders named them unalienable rights. The document is our Declaration of Independence and it reads:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

11. And this is the same guy who lectured the Supreme Court moments later in the same speech?

When you are a phony it’s hard to keep facts straight. Keep this moving — educate others

MY other TWO SENSE

Throughout this article, I have interjected my research results, as well as my subsequent opinions, but I have to add that I find this to be a great informational piece, even though there is a bit of nitpicking within it.  The facts, however, are enough to support the fundamental charges that both the President and the First Lady are corrupt individuals, and even though the information is not earth-shattering, it is enough to make us realize there is much, much more to know!  In our reality, who self-aggrandizes just once, and who has the cachongas to defy a court order without an incremental history of wrong-doing?!

Just Me

October 10, 2012 - Posted by | Here And Now, Home, Must See, Political Corruption, The United States of America Constitution | , , , , , , ,

25 Comments »

  1. You are confusing because you are refuting your own post! What does it take for you to comprehend that?

    Like

    Comment by duckyack | November 21, 2012

  2. It was your post to begin with. You are arguing with yourself!

    Like

    Comment by duckyack | November 21, 2012

  3. The information below is all that remains now. The pertinent information regarding Barack Obama and Michelle Obama, is as follows, respectively: “ARDC Lawyer Search Results from the ARDC database last updated as of November 20, 2012 at 9:00:00 AM: for the following terms: Last Name: Obama, First Name: Barack, status: All, City: Chicago, State: IL, Country: USA Your search terms do not match the record of any lawyer licensed in Illinois.” The same shows for Michelle Obama, as well as searching under her maiden name. Nothing is available. No other information remains! Odd.

    Check to see if there are disciplinary actions against them. As you already know, both the President and First Lady are not practicing law, and have put their licenses in a dormant state (were you not so biased against the facts, you could read it at the Fact Check site). So of course you won’t find information that they are currently practicing law. They are not.

    But neither will you find information that they were subject to any disciplinary action. Yeah, that site doesn’t keep searches alive all the time — do the search yourself.

    Like

    Comment by Ed Darrell | November 21, 2012

  4. The post that has your panties in such a twist, was found on a blog entitled, “It Makes Sense Blog,” and posted by author, The Meister, aka, Ed Darrell, and if I’m not mistaken that is YOU!

    No, that’s not my post. I don’t call myself “The Meister.” That’s not my blog.

    You can find my work here: Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub.

    Like

    Comment by Ed Darrell | November 21, 2012

  5. You have me completed confused! In my response to your initial comment, dated 11-18-12, I asked you to give me a supportive and substantive link that I could go to and find your “truth.” The best you could do was offer a link to a left-leaning, “fact check” blog, authored, and operated, by a string of Liberals, and who offer no sources of their own! Are you kidding me?! That’s the best you’ve got?

    Fact Check is non-partisan and highly accurate. If anything, it’s been leaning right recently, letting a lot of crap from Mitt Romney pass, and calling Obama’s team when they cited the exact numbers. Fact Check is operated by the University of Pennsylvania, a non-partisan and fair group. It’s a project funded by the Annenberg Foundation — Walter Annenberg was a crazy conservative, by the way, our Ambassador to the Court of St. James in the Nixon Administration, and a partisan to radical conservative causes before and after. That you’d call a conservative-funded, certified and required by law non-partisan academic project “left-leaning” suggests the bias problem is yours, and not theirs.

    However, I also provided you with links to the Illinois Bar Association and their disciplinary board. I gave you the toll-free numbers to call and check. You shouldn’t dismiss even a biased source giving you fair and accurate information, but your dismissal of the actual authority on the issue is patently bizarre, and demonstrates your unwillingness to look at the facts.

    Even great Americans make math errors in their head when tired. Obama did not claim there are 57 states in the union. It may have been a slip of the tongue — not that you’d ever be subject to such a thing — or it may have been high sarcasm — would you recognize sarcasm? Nor would such an error have changed the fact that he’s brilliant, writes well, speaks well, and has a commendable record of accomplishment at every point of his life. Were you able to transfer to the Ivy League from your undergraduate school? Were you able to get into Harvard Law? Were you able to write onto Law Review, and then be selected the head of the organization? Did you, fresh out of college, start up a business and take it to $500,000/year in two years? Did you get hired by one of the top law firms in Chicago? Did one of America’s top 20 law schools ask you to teach Con Law and seminars on the Constitution as one of their top teachers? When you were in the Illinois legislature, did you get the first ethics reform bill in 50 years passed, despite opposition from all the usual suspects? Can you show me your keynote to one of the major party’s national conventions?

    Your attempts to denigrate the intellect of Obama do not impress me.

    Your attempts to denigrate my intellect and experience disappoint me. You’re a lawyer? I didn’t know. If you’re not a lawyer, your distaste for the ethical canons — and your apparent unfamiliarity with them and the trouble they can cause politicians — I find curious. Can you explain how you come to know that looking at the conflicts under the canons makes me “naive?” Of the five states whose canons I had to work to master, I didn’t find any that were far out of the norm from the ABA canons, but obviously yours are.

    I regret you find teaching and law practice “self-aggrandizing,” but that explains a lot of the rest of your odd, biased and tortured views.

    You still don’t have a license to spread false information. Get the facts, and stop spreading crass lies.

    Like

    Comment by Ed Darrell | November 21, 2012

  6. You should know!

    Like

    Comment by Ed Darrell | November 21, 2012

  7. Your post denied he was a professor. That claim was based on his title being a lecturer. I pointed out that the distinction was minor, particularly since his title was Senior Lecturer, which in many academic places is a rung above a professor.

    Then I found the actual press notice from the University of Chicago, which your source butchered. U of Chicago said his title was “Senior Lecturer,” but ALSO said it was professor rank, and he was considered a professor.

    I strive for accuracy. You’re hearing many voices because you’re using sources that work to confuse you, and others. Stick to the facts.

    Like

    Comment by Ed Darrell | November 21, 2012

  8. IT WAS YOUR POST INITIALLY, NOT MINE! Do you have more than one person in your head?

    Like

    Comment by duckyack | November 21, 2012

  9. I’m glad Obama refused a full-time teaching position. He is a master at dissemination of falsehoods.

    Like

    Comment by duckyack | November 21, 2012

  10. You have me completed confused! In my response to your initial comment, dated 11-18-12, I asked you to give me a supportive and substantive link that I could go to and find your “truth.” The best you could do was offer a link to a left-leaning, “fact check” blog, authored, and operated, by a string of Liberals, and who offer no sources of their own! Are you kidding me?! That’s the best you’ve got?

    In your first paragraph, you claim Obama is his own man and makes his own decisions inside the Oval Office. I should stop right here because reasonable people know that no President has the power and control that you attribute to Obama. He is not qualified to operate on his own. His so-called genius is groundless, and far from true. No intelligent American would repeatedly pronounce the ‘p’ and ‘s’ in the word “corpsman,” and only a moron would claim there are 57 states in the Union! And those two items are merely the tip of the iceberg relative to Obama’s brain. Most people know the difference between intelligence and charisma. (Furthermore, I don’t know how you define “snark,” but you misused it, nevertheless, and I’m confused about that, too.)

    I do thank you for straightening me out regarding which organization does not issue law licenses.

    The post that has your panties in such a twist, was found on a blog entitled, “It Makes Sense Blog,” and posted by author, The Meister, aka, Ed Darrell, and if I’m not mistaken that is YOU! You posted the article in question, on October 9, 2012. I reblogged it after I researched the information you provided and substantiated it. The source information I found in October is no longer available, and was removed when the “ardc.org” website was removed this month, November, when the site was “updated.” (Hmmmm . . . now, I ask you if YOU did your homework before you posted it in October? If you did, you would have seen what I saw.) The information below is all that remains now. The pertinent information regarding Barack Obama and Michelle Obama, is as follows, respectively: “ARDC Lawyer Search Results from the ARDC database last updated as of November 20, 2012 at 9:00:00 AM: for the following terms: Last Name: Obama, First Name: Barack, status: All, City: Chicago, State: IL, Country: USA Your search terms do not match the record of any lawyer licensed in Illinois.” The same shows for Michelle Obama, as well as searching under her maiden name. Nothing is available. No other information remains! Odd.

    You claim that it is common for attorneys to place law licenses “in a dormant state” while busy with other ventures, so as to avoid educational demands, as well as “massive fees” required to keep up the licenses. What a bunch of hooey! I cannot imagine anyone believing that ludicrous statement! The massive fees you refer to are not massive to multimillionaires, for one thing. And for another, not paying the fee makes the license null and void, leaving the ‘attorney’ incapable of legally practicing law. So then, how is it that Michelle Obama was legal adviser during the time she held no license?

    You also stated that another reason to dry-dock one’s law license is “to avoid issues with the very strict ethics code lawyers must follow, which sometimes makes it impossible to do stuff like negotiate a budget agreement.” You must be the most incredibly naive individual outside of a kindergarten classroom! But at least you admit that Obama lacks an ethical code, as if he ever had one, at any time, in any place, ever!

    Yes, I did look at your profile, and what I saw was a self-aggrandizing individual who has used his best years scratching and clawing and trying to make himself acceptable to those whom he sees as his betters. While I am sure, Ed, you have spent a lot of effort to gain what you have in life, boasting about those accomplishments tarnishes the gleam of such efforts. Besides, you never know if the individual to whom you are bragging is smarter, more clever, and more academically credentialed than you–and I don’t see why you think your profile makes you more credible. I don’t understand your need to patronize others, and I remain confused about what point you are trying to make in any of your three comments.

    Like

    Comment by duckyack | November 21, 2012

  11. Just for good measure, the University of Chicago said Obama WAS a professor.

    Media Inquiries

    The University of Chicago Law School handles media requests through the University of Chicago News Office. The Law School is happy to work with the media to provide access to our faculty members, who are experts on myriad subjects, or to provide comment on news stories where appropriate. For all media inquiries, please contact Sarah Galer at sgaler@uchicago.edu or 773 702 8365.
    Statement Regarding Barack Obama

    The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as “Senior Lecturer.”

    From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

    You need to get some new friends who won’t tell you such whoppers to post on your blog. They’re not doing you any favors.

    Like

    Comment by Ed Darrell | November 20, 2012

  12. “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 school, on East 60th St. in Chicago

    No, he was Senior Lecturer, a title reserved for distinguished teachers who have other fulltime jobs, like Nobel Economics Prize winner Gary Becker and Federal Judge Posner.

    Check the link in my immediately previous post; the University of Chicago more than once offered Obama a full-time, tenure-track position, but he refused it.

    Not even a molehill to make a mountain from, there. It’s kinda like saying you discovered Linus Pauling never won the Nobel Prize in Economics.

    What, Chemistry and Peace aren’t enough?

    Like

    Comment by Ed Darrell | November 20, 2012

  13. Yes, you’re wrong about the Obamas. Leaving aside your snark about “the agendas of the people surrounding them,” as if Obama doesn’t direct himself and isn’t the Commander in Chief, you’ve been sold a large bologna about their law licenses.

    No Illinois court, nor any other court, has ever barred either of them from practicing law. Elected and appointed officials, and corporate executives, frequently put their licenses in a dormant state, to avoid having to meet the continuing education requirements (which can be impossible for people in elected office), to avoid paying the massive fees states like to impose on practicing lawyers, and to avoid issues with the very strict ethics code lawyers must follow, which sometimes makes it impossible to do stuff like negotiate a budget agreement.

    See here, for example:

    Q: Did Barack and Michelle Obama “surrender” their law licenses to avoid ethics charges?

    A: No. A court official confirms that no public disciplinary proceeding has ever been brought against either of them, contrary to a false Internet rumor. By voluntarily inactivating their licenses, they avoid a requirement to take continuing education classes and pay hundreds of dollars in annual fees. Both could practice law again if they chose to do so.

    Anyone can go to the Illinois Bar website (not ABA — ABA doesn’t license lawyers), and research to see that no court ever ruled any ethical violation by either Obama. Had there been such a hearing, it would be noted at the Illinois Bar site — and it is not so noted. (Did you check? Are you sure?)

    Don’t take my word for it – call the Illinois Bar. Or call your attorney, and ask her to explain how law licensing works.

    Illinois Bar Association:

    Springfield Office

    Illinois Bar Center
    424 S. Second Street
    Springfield, IL 62701-1779
    217-525-1760
    800-252-8908
    Hours: 8:30 – 4:30, Monday – Friday

    Chicago Regional Office
    20 S. Clark St., Suite 900
    Chicago, IL 60603-1802
    312-726-8775
    800-678-4009
    Hours: 9 – 5, Monday – Friday

    Or contact the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Illinois State Supreme Court:

    One Prudential Plaza
    130 East Randolph Drive
    Suite 1500
    Chicago, IL 60601-6219
    (312) 565-2600 or, within
    Illinois, (800) 826-8625
    Fax (312) 565-2320

    3161 West White Oaks Drive
    Suite 301
    Springfield, IL 62704
    (217) 546-3523 or, within
    Illinois, (800) 252-8048
    Fax (217) 546-3785

    You have the gall to accuse me of being gullible. Have you even bothered to check out my blog, or my profile? Do you check stuff out, or do you just look for the meanest thing you can find about Barack Obama?

    Like

    Comment by Ed Darrell | November 19, 2012

  14. My dear friend, I hope I am wrong about the Obama’s. I hope I am wrong about the agendas of the people surrounding them. However, you beg the question as to the “why” that their law licenses were “retired” or “voluntarily surrendered.” Also, you can read for yourself, that an Illinois court did, in the early 1990’s bar Michelle Obama from practicing law. Do you have the answer? The fact that the Obama’s are no longer eligible to practice law, forever, unless they retake the Bar exam and reapply for licenses, seems very odd to reasonable thinkers. No attorney surrenders his/her license unless doing so is the lesser of two evils, meaning that it was either surrender or be charged with some kind of wrong doing. Precisely what that was, for both, remains unavailabe on the website I mentioned. However, anyone can go to the Illinois ABA website, do some research, and see that what I’ve just said is true. Do you never, ever attempt to verify or disqualify information, or do you simply swallow the kool-aid? What answer can you provide that would make the Illinois Bar claim these things if they are not true? And, by the way, if you can show me your proof that what you say is correct, I will be happy to take a look. But please do not lead me toward clearly biased, and unsubstantiated urls. I won’t go! Give me an Illinois Bar web address, or any ABA court judgements that disprove any of this.

    Like

    Comment by duckyack | November 19, 2012

  15. Is there no hoax you will not fall victim to?

    All of that stuff is false. Fiction. Made up.

    Like

    Comment by Ed Darrell | November 18, 2012


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Political Vel Craft

Veil Of Politics

Political Film Blog

money, power, injustice, sex, violence, propaganda, anti-fascism...

@AMeansstotheend

Fighting Against Government Harassment

Constitutional Clayton

Politics surrounding the Constitution

mike884

Smile! You’re at the best WordPress.com site ever

John Groves Art Stuff

Art from johngrovesart

swissdefenceleague

Swiss Defence League

the seaton post

A little bit of this and a little bit of that

Jericho777's Blog

Correcting Misinformation!

%d bloggers like this: