Former Editor of the Harvard Law Review ...

Baja28

Obama destroyed America
Interesting. Michelle Obama's license is on "court ordered inactive status". Can't wait for him to find out what she did.

And why did Obama "retire" his license??
 

Lenny

Lovin' being Texican
This is old news. Obama shut up the press by showing them a photocopy of a handwritten note from one of his Harvard professors attesting to the fact that Obama had been editor of the Hahvahd Law Review. That shut them up in a hurry.
 

philibusters

Active Member

This is old news. I read about about what those two designations meant before but I have since forgot.

I can't remember what Obama's situation was. I think Michelle's is just inactive. For example in Maryland, you can be active or inactive. You pay less of a fee if you are inactive but you can't practice law in Maryland. On the other hand, by paying a small fee each year to retain it (even though you are inactive and can't practice law), if you do choose to practice law again in MD, you don't have to retake the Bar exam which is a huge hassle. I think I remember that for Michelle's that was standard language for having inactive status.

If Obama surrendered his, it would be more than inactive. Theoretically he would have to take the bar exam again to practice in Illinois. I read what Barrick's meant, but can't remember, though there was nothing sinister about it.

Based on their status, I think its much more likely that Michelle thinks she may practice law again in the future, hence why she is inactive rather than surrendering her license.
 

Baja28

Obama destroyed America
This is old news. I read about about what those two designations meant before but I have since forgot.

I can't remember what Obama's situation was. I think Michelle's is just inactive. For example in Maryland, you can be active or inactive. You pay less of a fee if you are inactive but you can't practice law in Maryland. On the other hand, by paying a small fee each year to retain it (even though you are inactive and can't practice law), if you do choose to practice law again in MD, you don't have to retake the Bar exam which is a huge hassle. I think I remember that for Michelle's that was standard language for having inactive status.

If Obama surrendered his, it would be more than inactive. Theoretically he would have to take the bar exam again to practice in Illinois. I read what Barrick's meant, but can't remember, though there was nothing sinister about it.

Based on their status, I think its much more likely that Michelle thinks she may practice law again in the future, hence why she is inactive rather than surrendering her license.
Why would a court order Michele's inactive?
And like the author said, why would anyone not maintain their active license when it costs so little?
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Why would a court order Michele's inactive?
And like the author said, why would anyone not maintain their active license when it costs so little?
Prior to 2000, attorneys in Illinois who wanted to become inactive had to seek the permission of the IL Supreme Court, and that's the court order being referred to.
 

Baja28

Obama destroyed America
Prior to 2000, attorneys in Illinois who wanted to become inactive had to seek the permission of the IL Supreme Court, and that's the court order being referred to.
Why after only 4 years would she want to go inactive? Her license to practice law was reviewed and put on inactive by a disciplinary agency (this is NOT the Illinois Bar-where one can voluntarily be inactive). Lets look at the ARDC....

The mission of the ARDC is to promote and protect the integrity of the legal profession, at the direction of the Supreme Court, through attorney registration, education, investigation, prosecution and remedial action. For more information on the ARDC Mission, https://www.iardc.org/index.html
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Why after only 4 years would she want to go inactive? Her license to practice law was reviewed and put on inactive by a disciplinary agency (this is NOT the Illinois Bar-where one can voluntarily be inactive). Lets look at the ARDC....

Who knows why she requested to become inactive, there could be a lot of reasons such as wanting to start a family or being employed in a position not requiring a law license and thus not wanting to pay the fees or maybe she felt that lawyering just wasn't her cup of tea. Again who knows and more frankly who cares.

The fact remains that prior to 2000 if an Illinois lawyer wanted to voluntarily make themselves inactive they had to petition the IL Supreme Court and receive an order from them authorizing it.
 

philibusters

Active Member
Why would a court order Michele's inactive?
And like the author said, why would anyone not maintain their active license when it costs so little?

It doesn't cost so little, its probably like $500 a year plus depending on the Illinois rules she may have to maintain malpractice insurance which could range depending on its price in Illinois.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Like University of Chicago Hospitals legal counsel?
When was she ever the legal counsel for University of Chicago Hospitals? She was the executive director for community affairs and then the Vice President for Community and External Affairs, but I can find no information about her ever serving as their legal counsel. Can you provide a source for your claim?
 

awpitt

Main Streeter
When was she ever the legal counsel for University of Chicago Hospitals? She was the executive director for community affairs and then the Vice President for Community and External Affairs, but I can find no information about her ever serving as their legal counsel. Can you provide a source for your claim?

Don't hold your breath.
 

chernmax

NOT Politically Correct!!
When was she ever the legal counsel for University of Chicago Hospitals? She was the executive director for community affairs and then the Vice President for Community and External Affairs, but I can find no information about her ever serving as their legal counsel. Can you provide a source for your claim?

Yeah and she received a salary jump over $300,000 dollars the day after her husband became a State Senator. The hospital also received a $1 million dollar earmark grant soon after. When Obama ran for president, Michelle resigned and the hospital never refilled the position again! :coffee:
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Yeah and she received a salary jump over $300,000 dollars the day after her husband became a State Senator. The hospital also received a $1 million dollar earmark grant soon after. When Obama ran for president, Michelle resigned and the hospital never refilled the position again! :coffee:
Wrong, from what I can find. Her salary increased from about $122K in 2004 to $317K in 2005, a significant increase, no doubt, but it wan't the $300K jump you imply and pretty much in line with other UoC Hospital VPs that were making between $291K and $362K. Furthermore, her salary in 2006 had decreased to $274K and in 2007 when she went to part-time her salary had dropped to $104K.

As to the earmark, we know Senators do that all the time for their home turf. Obama had requested the same earmark without success in 2005 and 2006 and that specific earmark was for a construction project at UoC Hospital. The hospital denies that it had anything to do with giving Michelle the job.

There is a lot that can be said is wrong with the Obamas, but I simply don't think that people need to be making stuff up or twisting the facts to achieve the desired affect. The truth is out there if you look for it.
 
Last edited:

ImnoMensa

New Member
Wrong, from what I can find. Her salary increased from about $122K in 2004 to $317K in 2005, a significant increase, no doubt, but it wan't the $300K jump you imply and pretty much in line with other UoC Hospital VPs that were making between $291K and $362K. Furthermore, her salary in 2006 had decreased to $274K and in 2007 when she went to part-time her salary had dropped to $104K.

As to the earmark, we know Senators do that all the time for their home turf. Obama had requested the same earmark without success in 2005 and 2006 and that specific earmark was for a construction project at UoC Hospital. The hospital denies that it had anything to do with giving Michelle the job.

There is a lot that can be said is wrong with the Obamas, but I simply don't think that people need to be making stuff up or twisting the facts to achieve the desired affect. The truth is out there if you look for it.

No one has to make up the fact that the hospital never found a need to replace her.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
No one has to make up the fact that the hospital never found a need to replace her.

Is that anything new or unique? There are many positions in many arenas when the person holding them leaves that position their functions get rolled into the duties of someone else. Keep grasping. :killingme
 
If anyone would like to read Illinois Bar and registration rules for themselves, in order to figure out what these status designations might actually mean and why someone might choose to assume inactive or retired status, rather than relying on someone else's wild and inaccurate (read: absurd) speculation as to what they mean and why someone would assume them (or have them imposed upon them), here they are. Admittedly, the latter approach does have the advantage of allowing people to continue thinking what they'd prefer to think (i.e. for ideological or other reasons) even if it doesn't actually comport with reality, so I'd advise anyone that wants to keep this rhetorical bullet in their anti-Obama arsenal (impotent though it is) to not investigate the situation for themselves.

Also, if anyone would like to look at the registration and public disciplinary records of the Obama's for themselves (e.g. in order to find out if they've been subject to disciplinary proceedings), here's a link to the IARDC search page. Make sure you have your stopwatch ready though, so you can figure out if the search results come back too quickly (which would prove that somebody's hiding something).
 

Baz

This. ------------------>
If anyone would like to read Illinois Bar and registration rules for themselves, in order to figure out what these status designations might actually mean and why someone might choose to assume inactive or retired status, rather than relying on someone else's wild and inaccurate (read: absurd) speculation as to what they mean and why someone would assume them (or have them imposed upon them), here they are. Admittedly, the latter approach does have the advantage of allowing people to continue thinking what they'd prefer to think (i.e. for ideological or other reasons) even if it doesn't actually comport with reality, so I'd advise anyone that wants to keep this rhetorical bullet in their anti-Obama arsenal (impotent though it is) to not investigate the situation for themselves.

Also, if anyone would like to look at the registration and public disciplinary records of the Obama's for themselves (e.g. in order to find out if they've been subject to disciplinary proceedings), here's a link to the IARDC search page. Make sure you have your stopwatch ready though, so you can figure out if the search results come back too quickly (which would prove that somebody's hiding something).

:lol:
 

Baja28

Obama destroyed America
It doesn't cost so little, its probably like $500 a year plus depending on the Illinois rules she may have to maintain malpractice insurance which could range depending on its price in Illinois.

$500.00 a year???? Holy mother of jebus!! :faint:

I see now why a lawyer who could bill out $200.00 to $400.00 per hour would surrender their license!! :killingme

My business insurance is more than that. :duh:
 
Top