MirariNefas wrote:
From the link I posted that nobody read. About Michelle Obama, applies equally to her husband.
I read the link. It might be true, but I have learned not to accept everything i'm told at face value.
MirariNefas wrote:
Diogenes wrote:Scenario #2. Someone files a complaint with the Illinois bar asserting misconduct. The Charges are serious enough that the Illinois bar is required to take action, and Notifies Obama that he will have to appear before a Hearing to discuss his disbarment. Rather than be forced to endure the embarrassment of having to go to a disbarment hearing, and to avoid the entirely plausible possibility that he would be found guilty of the various alleged unethical conduct, He chose to voluntarily surrender his law license.
Because it doesn't work that way, I'd have to say that Scenario 2 doesn't sound likely at all.
Oh? How does it work then?
How does the Illinois Bar deal with an Accusation (backed up with proof) that someone lied on a Bar exam?
MirariNefas wrote:
Diogenes wrote:Scenario #1. Obama becomes President, decides he doesn't need his Law License anymore, and contacts the Illinois Bar and tells them to suspend his license to practice law in the state of Illinois.
...
It appears that you are suggesting scenario #1 is what happened. I find the idea incredible, and even were it true, it would indicate a sort of psychological derangement for someone to throw away something so valuable and that cost so much in money and effort to obtain. It is not the act of a normal or stable man.
wnd.com wrote:Inundated by numerous 770 filings that each required a separate court ruling, the Illinois Supreme Court later simplified the inactivation process. In 2005, after Barack Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate, he changed his status to inactive as well.
"By 2005, which is several years later than his wife, the rule had changed such that you no longer had to file a petition that was such a pain for the court," Grogan explained. "Instead, the court had changed it to two types of status: inactive or retired. Either situation involves merely sending a letter to us basically saying, 'I want to transfer to inactive status.'"
Active lawyers are required to pay $289 each year and take 30 hours of Continuing Legal Education, or CLE, every two years. Under inactive status, attorneys are not required to take the courses, but they must pay $105 each year. "Inactive" registrants are not authorized to practice law. Lawyers who retire do not have to pay fees or take courses.
"A lot of people who aren't practicing say, 'Why bother?'" Grogan said.
I can see where someone who spent +$100,000.00 and at least 4 years in College and Law school, might find it extremely onerous and burdensome to pay $289.00 and 15 hours per year to keep a law license. Why that's 0.00289 % of the cost of the law license!
MirariNefas wrote:Well, apparantly they were "inundated by numerous filings" petitioning for inactive status, so I'd have to say that you're pretty far off the mark.
You like those parts? I like this part.
"No Malpractice report required as Attorney is Retired."
Also, it is alleged that Michelle was serving as "Legal Counsel" at that Hospital Job where she miraculously doubled her salary after her Husband was elected to the US Senate, even though the Hospital has since eliminated that job which they were paying her so much to do. How do you serve as "Legal Counsel" without a law license? Wouldn't that be a requirement for anyone but a US Senator's wife?
In June 1996, she was named associate dean of student services at the University of Chicago. In 2002, she began working for the University of Chicago Hospitals, eventually earning $317,000 a year after her husband became a senator.
And without a law license! She also saved $2,601.00 from not having to pay for that pesky law license. Oh wait, I forgot the inactive status fee of $105.00 / year. So she only saved $1,656.00 over the nine intervening years. Perhaps she was a very clever girl and didn't even pay the inactive status fee, putting the savings back up to $2,601.00, for the nine years!
MirariNefas wrote:
Diogenes wrote:As I mentioned before, Bill Clinton KEPT his license until ...
All liberals are the same. I get it already.
I think you get the surface of it, but i'm pretty sure you're not seeing the bulk below the surface. I'm also pretty sure you don't want to.
"It is a terrible thing to see a beautiful theory being beaten to death by a gang of ruthless facts."