Why Obama was disbarred.

[MSimon]

This is a good point:

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

This is not:

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.

Can you name any other lawyer(s) who became President who voluntarily turned in their law license?

Personally I don't think the matter is going to sway many people one way or the other. I prefer to meet Mr.o on the political field of battle. He is getting his cranial hiding place handed to him on that field.

[MirariNefas]

Another point to consider: at the time this complaint was filed, Obama's law license was already inactive.

Obama agreed to work for the firm in summer when the legislature was out of session. His law license became inactive in 2002 as politics took over.

http://www.boston.com/news/education/hi ... _practice/

Heh, here is a thread called"How to Disbar Lawyer Obama" (it's a bit late though): http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2249993/posts

[MSimon]

Another point to consider: at the time this complaint was filed, Obama's law license was already inactive.

Obama agreed to work for the firm in summer when the legislature was out of session. His law license became inactive in 2002 as politics took over.

http://www.boston.com/news/education/hi ... _practice/

Heh, here is a thread called"How to Disbar Lawyer Obama" (it's a bit late though): http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2249993/posts

OK he wasn't using the license. That is still not an explanation of why he surrendered it. Is surrender usual for inactive lawyers? Or do they need a push. Now I can see this sort of thinking "Why fight the charges? I'm not using it". So why not?

OTOH it is obvious to me that some push occurred to make him do what he had not done previously.

Still. Not very significant in the scheme of things.

[KitemanSA]

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

If that was your arguement at the beginning then I misunderstood it. I thought your whole argument was the he was disbarred, and he was disbarred because he had lied on his application. My response was incredulity because it was obvious to me that he hadn't lied on his application.
I don't recall reading anything about "voluntarily turning it in" until what seemed to have been your original argument had been pretty thuroughly trashed. Indeed, it now seems that you agree that he wasn't "disbarred" at all.
So it seems you LIED about the subject in your title and that makes you an evil person and thus you should be disbarred.

[Betruger]

Diogenes - I'm in the indifferent camp too. I also only found the argument too reaching. Like I said, lots of little scraps of evidence but nothing to connect the dots as you suspect - which is the other problem, you don't seem to manage your bias at all.

[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.

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.

Nothing but a chain of logic.

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.

As seems usual with any discussion, the points of argument are multiplied. I am not dismissing the argument about the complaint being facially bullshit. (In my opinion the charges are not only serious, but obviously true.) I am setting it aside momentarily in the effort to demonstrate that bullshit or not, the process for dealing with a complaint will be the same.

Let me reiterate. Bullshit or not, if a complaint was filed, the complaint has to be answered. (or swept under the rug.)

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.

It was from a WND article which was originally cited by MirariNefas. WND is a bit of a kook site. Don't take my word for it, check it out yourself. Yes, WND has a quote from someone saying that. They also have a copy of Obama's Kenyan Birth Certificate, so pardon me if I don't accept their article as the final word on that.

On this point, I see three possible explanations.
1. The statement is true and accurate, and no special treatment for Obama was applied.

In this case, my argument falls apart and you guys win.

2. The statement is false.

This won't prove my argument, but it won't disprove it either.

3. The statement is true, but Obama was allowed to skate over the rules. (It's not like THAT has ever happened before.)

Likewise, it won't prove my argument, but it won't disprove it. It has the disadvantage (to me) of not being easily proven.

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.

I agree. If it can be demonstrated that Obama turned in his license prior to the complaint being filed, my argument falls apart and it becomes obvious that it is untrue. Unfortunately, the evidence is what it is. Last year I found out that his (and Michelle's) law licenses were no longer in effect. I, and others found this piece of news to be extremely peculiar. (who voluntarily gives up a law license?) I found this piece of information by reading an article written by a person claiming to be an attorney who flat out said that This is standard practice for an attorney wishing to avoid a hearing, and is often done to prevent disbarment.

It took me a year to find a reference to what the complaint against Obama was. As it so happens, the person filed the complaint anonymously, which the Illinois bar permitted at the time. Now, they have since changed the rule to forbid anonymous complaints. (funny timing that.)

More information would be welcome.

[Diogenes]

Another point to consider: at the time this complaint was filed, Obama's law license was already inactive.

Obama agreed to work for the firm in summer when the legislature was out of session. His law license became inactive in 2002 as politics took over.

http://www.boston.com/news/education/hi ... _practice/

Heh, here is a thread called"How to Disbar Lawyer Obama" (it's a bit late though): http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2249993/posts

And the mystery deepens! If his law license was inactive in 2002, then why does the ARDC list it as "Voluntarily retired and not authorized to practice law -Last registered year: 2008" ?

He was most probably on "inactive status", and he changed it to "retired status." Those $289.00 fees obviously add up.

This reinforces a point that I had yet to bring up. Obviously Obama didn't need his license when he was elected to the Illinois senate, or the US Senate, so why didn't he retire it then?

The answer is "He did." Well, put it on "Inactive status" anyway. Since he was elected President, he REALLY doesn't need it anymore.

Again, My argument implies that he would have left it on inactive status if a complaint had not been filed.

[Diogenes]

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

If that was your arguement at the beginning then I misunderstood it. I thought your whole argument was the he was disbarred, and he was disbarred because he had lied on his application. My response was incredulity because it was obvious to me that he hadn't lied on his application.
I don't recall reading anything about "voluntarily turning it in" until what seemed to have been your original argument had been pretty thuroughly trashed. Indeed, it now seems that you agree that he wasn't "disbarred" at all.
So it seems you LIED about the subject in your title and that makes you an evil person and thus you should be disbarred.

The basis of My argument is an article I read over a year ago in which a man claiming to be an attorney points out that Obama's law license was suspended. The attorney mentioned that it was a common practice for bar associations to allow a member to retire rather than face a disciplinary hearing. The Attorney said that it must have been in response to some sort of misconduct, but at the time, nobody had any idea what that might be. The attorney's opinion was that Had Obama not voluntarily retired, he would likely have been subjected to a humiliating hearing which he would have lost.

Now we can quibble about the meaning of the Pejorative term "Disbarred",

Disbarment is the removal of a lawyer from a bar association and/or the practice of law, thus revoking his or her law license and/or admission to practice law.

Procedures vary depending on countries.

but I think the term is accurate enough to describe what happened to Obama.

In any case, a year later, I stumble across some links that referenced what the complaint was, which was filed against Obama. "Ah Ha!" I said to myself. "THAT is what he was accused of."

Being a civic minded fellow that tries to keep others informed about matters that I perceive as important, I posted this information here because I thought other people would wish to know what I had found.

They vehemently did not.


Anyway, if you all want to concede that the merits of the charges are irrelevant to the outcome (Voluntary disbarment.) then we can go on to discuss the merits of the charges, in an attempt to ascertain whether Obama could have survived them at an actual hearing.

I don't think so. Obviously the rest of you think the charges are trivial and baseless.

[Diogenes]

And more importantly. Why did none of US hear of this from the News Media? Why did it take little ol Diogenes to ferret out these tidbits?

Had this been a Republican (Sarah Palin) the headlines on every newspaper in the country would have been "Palin Disbarred! License to practice law Suspended!"

The story would have gone on to cover the complaint, detail the misconduct and opine how it warrants disbarment.

H3ll, they tried to say she wanted to ban and burn books, make victims pay for rape kits, claimed to be able to see Russia from her house, etc.

If they had a real piece of dirt, we would never have heard the end of it.


It just goes on to demonstrate one of my favorite points. The Media is a greater threat to this country than are terrorists.

[Helius]

It's pretty obvious that for most of the decade, fundraisers held sway over hearings. You win elections by rallying your forces, not dickin' around with your enemies, regardless of the merit or ridiculousness of the accusations.

It's also a safe bet that if an Illinois bar license suit's his purpose, he will have it reactivated. Not arguing in court is not evidence of anything.

I think we can all agree, he knows his politics.

[BenTC]

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.

Ahhh... now that statement I don't have contention with. It is within the realms of possibility. As a general rule in life, even if you are innocent, rather win a court case (or similar) its preferable to avoid being in court at all. It doesn't seem to be special treatment...

"The attorney mentioned that it was a common practice for bar associations to allow a member to retire rather than face a disciplinary hearing."

You had seemed to be pushing the other "he lied" agenda - for which I read Obama's response differently than you. When it comes to splitting hairs, as is the wont of lawyers, the information in the complaint about Q18 & Q49 doesn't hold up. I've no opinion on Q51.

Try printing out these scenarios and put them to some neutral people who don't know this is linked to politics.

SCENARIO 1

During high school and college you used illicit drugs, but never had any encounters with the law.
In a job application you are asked:

"Have you ever, either as an adult or juvenile, been cited, arrested,
accused, formally or informally, or convicted of any violation of any
law other than moving traffic violations."

If you answer "NO", would you be lying?

SCENARIO 2

During college, you received four parking fines of $100.
In a job application you are asked:

Have you ever been charged with a traffic violation involving
a fine of $200 or more?

If you answer "NO", would you be lying?

[Diogenes]

Speaking of technicalities and how much lawyers love them, here's two more bits for you.







He didn't divulge that his former name was Barry Soetoro.

Yeah, it's silly, but how many people have been convicted and/or let go based on a silly technicality?

[Diogenes]

Diogenes - I'm in the indifferent camp too. I also only found the argument too reaching. Like I said, lots of little scraps of evidence but nothing to connect the dots as you suspect - which is the other problem, you don't seem to manage your bias at all.

I manage my bias in the best way possible. I admit it, and make sure everyone is aware of it. I'm not pretending to be objective, though I make every effort to present objective bits and pieces.

[Diogenes]

It's pretty obvious that for most of the decade, fundraisers held sway over hearings. You win elections by rallying your forces, not dickin' around with your enemies, regardless of the merit or ridiculousness of the accusations.

This is rather an amusing comment considering that Obama won his election to the Illinois Senate by getting his friends to dig into the Divorce records of his opponent (Blair Hull), and scattering the dirt all across the media.

His name Blair Hull and he lead the pack. Then suddenly events turned against Hull,

About a month before the vote, The Chicago Tribune revealed, near the bottom of a long profile of Hull, that during a divorce proceeding, Hull’s second wife filed for an order of protection. In the following few days, the matter erupted into a full-fledged scandal that ended up destroying the Hull campaign and handing Obama an easy primary victory.

Full fledged scandal. Hull’s

…lead in the polls collapsed. [Almanac]

Another newspaper puts it as

Then allegations surfaced that he had threatened to kill his wife during an argument, and that he was arrested for battery, although charges were never filed. Nevertheless, the damage to Hull’s campaign was done.


The Tribune reporter who wrote the original piece later acknowledged in print that the Obama camp had “worked aggressively behind the scenes” to push the story. But there are those in Chicago who believe that Axelrod had an even more significant role — that he leaked the initial story. They note that before signing on with Obama, Axelrod interviewed with Hull [nytimes]

Obama also won his election to the US Senate by getting his friends to break into the sealed records of his opponent (Jack Ryan) , and scattering the dirt all across the media.

How about his earlier elections?

first became a “public official” in 1996, he did so by kicking all competitors off the ballot by lying to them and sacking them with a massive mafia-like legal offensive. Till this day, his main opponent maintains that she would have won, had it not been for these spurious tactics.

http://www.stop-obama.org/?p=188

It's also a safe bet that if an Illinois bar license suit's his purpose, he will have it reactivated. Not arguing in court is not evidence of anything.

The complaint would reactivate. It would either have to be dismissed or processed.

I think we can all agree, he knows his politics.

His team knows how to fight dirty, and he's been extremely lucky.

[Helius]

His team knows how to fight dirty, and he's been extremely lucky.

So far, his actions had better traction against his enemies than his enemies action got against him. It's the new politics, Chicago rules.

The Democrats want to dump Governor Patterson here in New York in favor of,.... probably Andrew Coumo the current State Attorney General, and a son of a beloved left wing former Governor. The best "dirt" they have on Patterson is that a trusted aide beat his girlfriend, but they're pushing it for maximal value. I'm sure Patterson would prefer to rally his forces rather than defend his ramparts. He's going to lose.

The called Reagan the "Teflon" president, because no matter how hard they tried, He wouldn't stop rallying his forces, and wallow in defense. His enemies could get no traction. Is Obama another "Teflon" president? It seem he is, and it sure seems to stick in your craw.