Why Obama was disbarred.

[MirariNefas]

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."

From the link I posted that nobody read. About Michelle Obama, applies equally to her husband.

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.

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.

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.

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.

As I mentioned before, Bill Clinton KEPT his license until ...

All liberals are the same. I get it already.

[Diogenes]

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. 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.

Neither. Instead: Scenario #3. Obama becomes President and decides that the continuous professional development/practice required of him to maintain his licence might be considered somewhat (perhaps?) secondary to him being responsible for what America does in the world and for its people and decided he might not have much time for both.
In the meantime, some maleficent nobody files an insolent objection to his licence, but is preempted 'cos Obama don't give no shyte no more, brother, and posts in his hash-stained legal papers (in a recycled envelope from his cache of such envelopes that his traffic viloation tickets usually come in).

Let's Juxtapose these two sentences.

Scenario #3. Obama becomes President and decides
#1. Obama becomes President, decides

that the continuous professional development/practice required of him to maintain his licence might be considered somewhat (perhaps?) secondary to him being responsible for what America does in the world and for its people and decided he might not have much time for both.
he doesn't need his Law License anymore,


...but is preempted 'cos Obama don't give no shyte no more, brother and posts in his hash-stained legal papers ...
and contacts the Illinois Bar and tells them to suspend his license to practice law in the state of Illinois.


I think you are mistaken. I think #1 and #3 are the exact same color.

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.

#3. Obama becomes President and decides that the continuous professional development/practice required of him to maintain his licence might be considered somewhat (perhaps?) secondary to him being responsible for what America does in the world and for its people and decided he might not have much time for both.
In the meantime, some maleficent nobody files an insolent objection to his licence, but is preempted 'cos Obama don't give no shyte no more, brother, and posts in his hash-stained legal papers


Scenario #3 is the Same basic equation as Scenario #1, you just didn't simplify and collect the terms.


As far as Obama being too busy to look after his law license, he certainly has time for a party every 2 days in the White house. This is the most "partying" White House in the History of the country. He's been drinking so much lately that the Doctors had to tell him to "Moderate." I personally think they've suggested the wrong treatment. I think he should drink more.

[Diogenes]

Geeze, this seems like explaining color to a blind man. How to do it? I know, i'll postulate two scenarios, and you tell me which one has a higher probability of being the truth.

Occam's razor: entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. Until real data to the contrary is presented, the simpler of the two, or a third if simpler still.

If the "evidence" presented in the complaint is all there is, we have a saint for president. I don't think he is a saint.

I'm having a hard time fathoming what you could possibly mean. (Not the Latin, i've heard that phrase plenty of times.)

The accusation is LYING on his Bar exam.

The Evidence presented appears to confirm that he lied on his Bar exam.

My understanding of the Legal system is that once a witness's truthfulness has been impeached, they are useless in a case. How much worse should the legal system regard a lawyer who is demonstrated to LIE on the Bar exam?


Are you seriously telling me that LYING on a Bar exam is no big deal to the Bar association?

To be honest, it probably isn't. We ARE talking about Lawyers here. I'm pretty sure most Lawyers don't give a rat's rear end about lying, but what they absolutely cannot tolerate is someone being able to PROVE they lied. It damages their pretense of honorableness. The other Chicago thug lawyers might get embarrassed. Obama committed the cardinal sin. He got caught, and so they quietly let him turn in his papers with nary a noise about it.

Officially, lying to the Bar is a BIG DEAL.

[Diogenes]

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.

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?

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.

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!

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!

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."

[krenshala]

Geeze, this seems like explaining color to a blind man. How to do it? I know, i'll postulate two scenarios, and you tell me which one has a higher probability of being the truth.

Occam's razor: entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. Until real data to the contrary is presented, the simpler of the two, or a third if simpler still.

If the "evidence" presented in the complaint is all there is, we have a saint for president. I don't think he is a saint.

I'm having a hard time fathoming what you could possibly mean. (Not the Latin, i've heard that phrase plenty of times.)

The accusation is LYING on his Bar exam.

The Evidence presented appears to confirm that he lied on his Bar exam.

My understanding of the Legal system is that once a witness's truthfulness has been impeached, they are useless in a case. How much worse should the legal system regard a lawyer who is demonstrated to LIE on the Bar exam?


Are you seriously telling me that LYING on a Bar exam is no big deal to the Bar association?

To be honest, it probably isn't. We ARE talking about Lawyers here. I'm pretty sure most Lawyers don't give a rat's rear end about lying, but what they absolutely cannot tolerate is someone being able to PROVE they lied. It damages their pretense of honorableness. The other Chicago thug lawyers might get embarrassed. Obama committed the cardinal sin. He got caught, and so they quietly let him turn in his papers with nary a noise about it.

Officially, lying to the Bar is a BIG DEAL.

How is it lying? The info you quoted specifically lists individual tickets of over $200, and whether he had been "... cited, arrested, accused, formally or informally, or convicted of any violation of any law ...".

The complaint talks about over $350 in fines over multiple years, none of which are in excess, individually, of $200. The complaint was also not that he had been arrested, charged, accused or convicted of anything but that he talked about drug use in his book. He didn't lie (unless he was cited, arrested, accused, formally or informally, or convicted of any violation of any law and it isn't mentioned) on the bar exam. He did like any good lawyer and answered the specific question without providing any additional (in this case, incriminating) information.

[Helius]

August 4 1961, it all began when he lied on his birth Certificate, at least according to talk radio. What a malicious infant, who'd do *anything* to be President.

Oh what a tangled web we weave......

[KitemanSA]

The accusation is LYING on his Bar exam.

I got you. But haven't you noticed that the LEGAL definition of lying is often quite different than a moralist's definition?

Now I am annoyed at you for making it seem that I am defending this rat, but I happen to think that one bogus accusation diminishes all righteous ones. And this strikes me as a planted bogus accusation.

Please, SPECIFICALLY show me where he lied on the quoted application. I didn't see it.

[MirariNefas]

You like those parts? I like this part.

"No Malpractice report required as Attorney is Retired."

I was totally waiting for you to commit that bit of stupidity. Go ahead, read where that's taken from. What's that entry listed under, there? Malpractice Insurance.

You don't believe everything you read, huh? Do you believe the form you posted on the first page, at least?

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!

You ever think that he went to law school specifically as a stop on the way to being a politician? He was never going to use it for being a lawyer. It served its purpose.

[MirariNefas]

How does the Illinois Bar deal with an Accusation (backed up with proof) that someone lied on a Bar exam?

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.

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

That's what they do.

Are you seriously telling me that LYING on a Bar exam is no big deal to the Bar association?

...

Obama committed the cardinal sin. He got caught

Please produce some of this proof. I haven't seen any in that complaint you listed. Surely you must have something tucked away.

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."

Right back at you.

[blaisepascal]

The accusation is LYING on his Bar exam.

The Evidence presented appears to confirm that he lied on his Bar exam.

One specific complaint is that Obama lied on his exam on a question which asked about accusations, arrests, or convictions for drug-related offenses. Obama said there were no accusations, arrests, or convictions for any drug-related offenses.

The evidence presented is that Obama admits to having used drugs in the past. Drug use is not an accusation, arrest or conviction for any drug-related offense. Accepting for arguments sake the validity of the evidence presented, it does not support the complaint.

The other complaint is that Obama lied on his exam on a question which asked about parking tickets, fines, violations etc individually in excess of $200. Obama said he had no past or current parking tickets or violations individually in excess of $200.

The evidence presented is that Obama has a record of numerous parking tickets over a period of time which all together total $350, and have all been paid off. No evidence is presented that any individual parking ticket or violation had a fine of over $200. Accepting for arguments sake the validity of the evidence presented, it does not support the complaint.

So I can't agree that evidence has been presented in support of the accusation that he lied on his exam.

[BenTC]

Thanks for that summary blaisepascal. Its the rebuttal I wanted to write but didn't have energy. My care factor for either side of American politics is low, but I was annoyed at evidence presented being misread. It seems an agenda is being pushed, but with poor ammunition. Shouting in pretty colours doesn't make it so.

In the specific detail of the questions asked of Obama, there was no contradiction in his answers. Specifically, the question didn't ask if he had ever taken drugs, it only asked if he had been convicted. To be clear, by way of an extreme example, if a defendant smothered someone to death with a pillow, and in court they were asked "Did you strangle that person", the defendant could answer "NO" and be not lying.

Disclaimer: IANAL, YMMV.

[blaisepascal]

Shouting in pretty colours doesn't make it so.

The specific accusation is that shouting was done in pretty colours. The evidence presented is text which is black, high intensity red, high intensity blue, and high intensity green on background colors of (to my eye) green-grey, blue-grey, and white.

Accepting the evidence as given, I can see shouting in colours, but not <b>pretty</b> colours .

And my spell-checker doesn't like the British spelling of "color".

[MSimon]

And my spell-checker doesn't like the British spelling of "color".

Colour me sceptical.

[Diogenes]

Gentlemen, this discussion is in the weeds. After perusing the responses, rather than apply my usual method of having at it hammer and tongs, I decided to ponder a bit to see if I could think of a clearer way of presenting my argument. I fear I have hardened your minds against my argument to the extent that Daniel Webster himself might not be able to persuade you, but none the less I shall try again.

I decided that my argument and the opposing arguments need to be boiled down to their essences.


The essence of My argument is that Obama turned in his law license to avoid having to respond to a complaint filed with the bar.

The opposing argument is offered by:
MirariNefas
krenshala
Helius
KitemanSA
blaisepascal
BenTC
chrismb
TheSeeker

and we'll throw in SkipJack and Bertruger for good measure. MSimon appears to be indifferent.


And the Opposing argument consists of "No he didn't." (If I understand it correctly.)

Granted, my argument appears to be similar to the "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy but there is evidence to support it.

A complaint was filed which alleges that he Lied on his Bar exam.

Does anyone dispute this point?


Many of you are trying to argue the merits of the charge, (that he lied) rather than realize the merits of the charge are tangential to the central point.

*I* believe the charges have merit (as did the person who filed them, and I daresay there are plenty of people who would regard the charges as meritorious) and the rest of you don't. Fine, we have a difference of opinion on the merits. Why you want to insist that the most lyingest bastard in history wasn't lying, I don't know, but that appears to be your position.


Let us assume that the Authorities of the Illinois bar Likewise have a difference of opinion on the merits of these charges.


Their method of dealing with a possible meritorious complaint would be to hold a hearing.

Does anyone dispute this point?



Obama would be notified that someone has made a complaint against him with the Illinois bar.

Does anyone dispute This point?


Obama would be obligated to defend himself against the charge, or he could abrogate his license and avoid the hassle and embarrassment of dealing with them. As many of you have said, he didn't need his license anymore anyway.


I opine that Obama chose to give up his license rather than fight the charges.

The rest of you seem to believe that Obama just felt like giving it up (for any reason except the one I name) and did so.



Is that about the right of it? (we can go back into the weeds later.)

[blaisepascal]

Gentlemen, this discussion is in the weeds. After perusing the responses, rather than apply my usual method of having at it hammer and tongs, I decided to ponder a bit to see if I could think of a clearer way of presenting my argument. I fear I have hardened your minds against my argument to the extent that Daniel Webster himself might not be able to persuade you, but none the less I shall try again.

I decided that my argument and the opposing arguments need to be boiled down to their essences.


The essence of My argument is that Obama turned in his law license to avoid having to respond to a complaint filed with the bar.

You have presented evidence that a complaint against Obama was filed with the bar in July 2008. You have presented evidence that Obama voluntarily retired his law license in 2008.

You assert causality between these two statements, but have not presented any evidence of such causality.

Your whole argument for the causality is based on an assertion of how serious the charges in the complaint are such that Obama must respond or quit, but you dismiss arguments from anyone who says the complaint is facially bullshit. In other words, you ignore arguments against one of your key points.

Your opposition has quoted (from articles you cited) representatives of the Bar as saying that retiring ones license would not be sufficient to stop a disciplinary hearing, so the supposed Obama reaction wouldn't work anyway. But you totally ignore these arguments, even though they undercut your entire thesis.

One key datum you haven't provided is timing: We know the complaint was filed in July 2008, but when in 2008 did Obama retire? By July the Primary season was well underway; did he retire his license in January, before the Iowa Caucuses? In December, after his election as President? Or in early August? You don't say, and I don't know. But the timing is critical. And undiscussed.