Posted on 05/08/2010 7:07:50 AM PDT by jmaroneps37
Running down definitive evidence on the real story of law licenses for the Obamas is an exercise in futility and an example of the usefulness of Wite-Out.
According to the current information page for the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC), Michelle Obama was admitted to practice law in Illinois on December 30, 1899. This is NOT a misprint, thats what it really says.
Perhaps our First Lady had to be reincarnated to take her pricey job in a Chicago health care system. Curiously that position has not been filled since her departure.
Michelle Obamas Lawyer Search form reveals no full licensed name, no full former name, no registered business address, no registered business phone, or no Illinois registration status, only the curiously comical date December 30 1899.
Page has been removed
The page has been removed warning comes up for several sites and searches for the law license of Barack Hussein Obama, but a very interesting video called Dossier 2MP4 is still available.
The video calls Obama Renegade and asks lots of pointed questions. Check it out before to too is taken down.
It shows Obama did not give his second name of Barry Soetoro in the ARDC box for Full Former name(s). The accompanying dialogue suggests this failure to list a second name could well be the reason he relinquished his law license in 1993.
The Snopes fact check site likes to discount any out of the ordinary curiosities here, only saying Obama retired and Michelles turning in her law license was okay too. What is hard to fathom is why Obama, the President of the Harvard Law Review, just gave up his law license at age 47, at the cusp of his really big time earning power.
Just how stupid do these people think we are?
(Excerpt) Read more at collinsreport.net ...
These are great. Thanks for the link.
They don’t think we’re stupid, they rely on the fact that we are powerless to stop them.
LOL. I am sure he put it to good use when getting "inside info" for the book :-)
The Obamas have way too many secrets.
On the wrong side.
December 30, 1899 is what a computer recognizes as when time starts.
Or it could be a default date - as no date was entered. (Similar to Post 7) I've worked on systems where a blank date defaulted to that turn-of-the-century date, although it was usually the 31st of December.
Ping for you and others. Thanks.
We elected them and put them in power. What else should they think? In fact, on that one, I agree with them.
I believe New Mexico has a bar that issues a license to practice law- one of the requirements to practice law in this state. The state does issue a permit also but attorneys must have both. I think most states have a bar, is that what you mean- the bar gives licenses and the state gives permits? Or am I confused?
Firefox
You are so right- Snopes is a group of big time LIBERALS.
Back before most people learned to print screen (someone might have it), I remember both of their pages had real (or logical) dates. It also showed when each dropped their “licenses” and that MO’s was court ordered. Some have claimed the court ordered term means that she’s voluntarily gave it up but at one time there were articles about her getting into trouble with some money laundering or real estate scam or something and that was why she was asked to give it up or volunteered to give it up before it hit the fan.
I read on FR about a month ago that Michelle “surrendered” he lic. 2 weeks prior to a formal hearing(which could have revoked her lic.)
Interesting fact to ponder.
I wish I had kept a link to it, sorry about that ;-)
Lawyers who remain in good standing rarely “give up” their license. The requirements for procuring it are too stringent. It’s better to go on inactive status or just keep renewing it, it’s easy to attend a couple of seminars per year to keep up your CLE credits and they could certainly afford to pay the yearly fee and seminar costs.
Something is definitely fishy about this so-called “retirement”.
Your “admission to the Bar” is in the common vernacular, a “license” to practice.
True it is not an administrative license, but it’s merely semantics and I hardly think a cog in the wheel of the great progressivist conspiracy to say “law license”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.