Monday, March 01, 2010

To be (a lawyer) or not to be...

Larwyn received this "over the transom". Perhaps some of our reporters-in-training can give Biff Spackle a run for his money and chase down these leads. It's been a while since ol' Biff had a scoop, ya' know.

To be (a lawyer) or not to be...


Is the President's resume accurate when it comes to his career and qualifications? I can corroborate that Obama's "teaching career" at Chicago was, to put it kindly, a sham.

I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about "Barry." Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn't even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn't have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.

The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement).

Consider this: 1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a "lawyer". He surrendered his license back in 2008 possibly to escape charges that he "fibbed" on his bar application.

2. Michelle Obama "voluntarily surrendered" her law license in 1993.

3. So, we have the President and First Lady - who don't actually have licenses to practice law. Facts.

4. A senior lecturer is one thing. A fully ranked law professor is another. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, "Obama did NOT 'hold the title' of a University of Chicago law school professor". Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law professor at the University of Chicago.

5. The University of Chicago released a statement in March, 2008 saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) "served as a professor" in the law school, but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed in 2008.

6. "He did not hold the title of professor of law," said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago School of Law.

7. The former Constitutional senior lecturer cited the U.S. Constitution recently during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

8. The B-Cast posted the video.

9. In the State of the Union Address, President Obama said: "We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in ourConstitution: the notion that we are all created equal."

10. By the way, the promises are not a notion, our founders named them unalienable rights. The document is our Declaration of Independence and it reads: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

11. And this is the same guy who lectured the Supreme Court moments later in the same speech?

When you are a phony it's hard to keep facts straight.

President Barack Obama - Editor of the Harvard Law Review - Has No Law License?:

I saw a note slide across the #TCOT feed on Twitter last night that mentioned Michelle Obama had no law license. This struck me as odd, since(a) she went to school to be a lawyer, and (b) she just recently held a position with the University of Chicago Hospitals as legal counsel - and that's a pretty hard job to qualify for without a law license. But being a licensed professional myself, I knew that every state not only requires licensure, they make it possible to check online the status of any licensed professional.

So I did, and here's the results from the ARDC Website: She "voluntarily surrendered" her license in 1993. Let me explain what that means. A "Voluntary Surrender" is not something where you decide "Gee, a license is not really something I need anymore, is it?" and forget to renew your license. No, a "Voluntary Surrender" is something you do when you've been accused of something, and you "voluntarily surrender" your license five seconds before the state suspends you. Here's an illustration: I'm a nurse.

At various times in my 28 years of nursing, I've done other things when I got burned out; most notably a few years as a limousine driver; even an Amway salesman at one point. I always,always renewed my nursing license - simply because it's easier to send the state $49.00 a month than to pay the $200, take a test, wait six weeks,etc., etc. . . I've worked (recently) in a Nursing Home where there was an 88 year old lawyer and a 95 year old physician. Both of them still had current licenses as well. They would never DREAM of letting their licenses lapse. I happen to know there is currently in the Indiana State Prison in Michigan City, Indiana an inmate who is a licensed physician,convicted of murder when he chased the two burglars who entered his home and terrorized his family into the street and killed them. (And I can't say I blame him for that, either.)

This physician still has an active medical license and still sees patients, writes prescriptions, etc. all from inside the prison. And he renews his medical license every two years, too. I tried looking up why she would "Voluntarily surrender" her license, but Illinois does not have its 1993 records online. But when I searched for "Obama", I found this:

"Voluntarily retired" - what does that mean? Bill Clinton hung onto his law license until he was convicted of making a false statement in the Lewinsky case and had to "Voluntarily Surrender" his license too.

As usual, all feedback -- especially rumors, innuendo and outright speculation -- is welcome.


Update on 3/8/2010: Most Transparent President Ever Has Illinois Bar Records Partially Redacted This Week, Leaving Only Trace of His Existence Some Old Videos (Betamax).


Linked by: Ace o' Spades and Confederate Yankee. Thanks!

Labels:

28 Comments:

At 11:19 PM , Anonymous Matt said...

Actually, my understanding is that Mr.Obama was President of the Harvard Law Review, NOT the Editor. The President is an elected position; that is, it is determined by popularity rather than just merit. It is also my understanding that the President of the Harvard Law Review is a figurehead with no real duties and/or requirements to write or edit articles.
Looked at in this way it seems oddly appropriate, no?

 
At 12:49 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Litle Barry is a fraud and an illegal immigrant to boot.

 
At 2:15 AM , Anonymous Phil said...

"The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings"

That SO reminds me of this "Sorry I'm Late" video of Obama in the Senate:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ah9W24oMIRc

Oh, and about Obama becoming a "professor" -- more research into Dr. Khalid al-Mansour is needed. For starters, see:
http://www.cashill.com/intellect_fraud/how_the_media.htm

 
At 1:12 PM , Blogger The_Bad said...

Phil - thank you for pointing towards that youtube video. It is so worth watching that I will provide a link to it for ease of view.

 
At 9:25 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hmmm... there was a conservative at the U of Chicago that writes in Forbes(I can't quite remember his name now) that used to eat with Obama when he was there and all I can remember him saying was that he was pretty far to the left... he didn't say anything about him being unqualified or anything..

 
At 10:54 PM , Blogger Brett_McS said...

Anonymous at 9:25 "... there was a conservative at the U of Chicago that writes in Forbes...".

Dr John Lott. When he first met Obama he introduced himself. Obama just said "Oh, yeh. The gun guy. I don't believe people should have guns".

John offered to discuss the issue over lunch. Obama just made a face and turned away.

Lott says he never met any other academic so uninterested in hearing different points of view.

This is from a recent podcast interview - can't remember which! (ACU?)

 
At 11:39 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd just assumed all of that about Obama, anyway.

 
At 11:42 PM , Blogger Master Typo said...

This post has been removed by the author.

 
At 11:43 PM , Blogger Master Typo said...

I hate being put in the unusual position of defending Michelle Obama, but I too resigned my law license and I know that at least I was not under any cloud. In my case, I no longer practiced and was unwilling to keep my license current as it required keeping up my continuing education. This required a time commitment I could not keep with my other work.

 
At 12:03 AM , Anonymous Masturbatin' Pete said...

The license stuff is interesting. Would have been nice to have the media actually, you know, look in to Obama's history with a tenth of the intensity with which they looked through Sarah Palin's garbage.

Anyway...

I'm a practicing attorney who went to a top-ranked law school. And this whole "Professor Obama" thing really grinds my gears. Always has. Here's why:

Lawyers write. That's what we do. Pleadings, motions, briefs, memos -- we get paid to write. With a few exceptions (low-level criminal defense) you're writing regularly.

So it's absolutely incomprehensible to me that someone would spend as much time teaching law as Obama did without publishing anything. He never even jumped on someone else's paper as a second author. We're told that Obama's a brilliant writer, that Dreams from My Father is so well-crafted... but Obama doesn't have a shred of legal writing to his name.

I doubt that adjuncts ever had an official publication requirement, but Obama still could have published something at some point. Hell, I have, and I don't claim to be a brilliant writer or thinker. It's just that... when you practice in any area of law for more than a year or so, you probably become the world's foremost expert on some extremely narrow area of the law. It could be mechanic's liens in Texas, or Massachusetts public procurement law. But there's an area where you know all the important cases and all the little tricks, traps, and pitfalls. You certainly amass enough knowledge to put together thirty double-spaced pages on the topic, enough for a short article.

The fact that "Professor" Obama never published ANYTHING, not even for a boring trade publication or bar association newsletter should astonish anyone who ever practiced law or went to law school. It's just so weird.

I suspect that he hasn't written under his own name because he either cannot, or just isn't interested in doing it. And I'm going to lean towards the former, because the latter would certainly have burnished his intellectual credentials in advance of his run for national (or even state) office.

An aggressive independent news media would have asked the questions "why is there no paper trail from Obama's career, which is writing-intensive?" and "why has this man published two books but has written NOTHING else?" Alas, we don't have an aggressive independent news media.

 
At 12:25 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

IIRC, in 2008, during the campaign, it was mentioned on some blogs (might have been instapundit) that Obama did publish a brief article at the Harvard Law Review, but it was nothing remarkable, just some boilerplate stuff about abortion rights. Also, I saw a post-election mention on another blog, which unfortunately i did not bookmark, of an interview with another HLR editor. She said that Obama was basically an absentee Editor and hardly did anything. No surprise there!

 
At 12:52 AM , Blogger Phil said...

I like the article, but would like it more with links provided as substantiation. (like te B-Cast video quoted.

Thanks

 
At 3:51 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Doug--

A friend of mine had dinner with one of the senior partners at Sidley who handled the hiring of summers. The hiring committee was vehemently opposed to bringing on M.O. as a summer associate, but was overruled, evidently due to pressure from above.

Once she arrived, M.O. proved to be an impossible prima donna with little interest in doing actual work. The partners got so fed up with her that she was shuffled off to "work" with Bernardine Dohrn, who didn't even have a license to practice law anymore! The word was that Zero was only slightly less useless.

They're both complete frauds in every respect.

--Fresh Air

 
At 8:35 AM , Anonymous SFC MAC said...

By all appearances, he never graduated, either. Let's see: a socialist empty suit foisted into the world's most powerful position by liberal morons who voted pigment over substance. B. Hussein is the quintessential Peter Principle.

 
At 8:44 AM , Blogger MathMom said...

Anonymous at 12:25 a.m. -

Carol Platt Liebau is probably the person to whom you refer. She was on the HLR, I think Managing Editor, the year after Obama. She was familiar with his tenure as president of the HLR. She guest hosts on the Hugh Hewitt Show, and I recall the day she said this on the air. Here is part of what she had to say about his work ethic, which is the same thing you remember:

[Tom Pirelli was] the one who did most of the day to day work. Barack Obama was nowhere to be seen. Occasionally he would drop in he would talk to people, and then he'd leave again as though his very arrival had been a benediction in and of itself, but not very much got done.

Follow the link for the rest.

 
At 9:28 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

As an attorney, I can say that in my state if any attorney doesn't plan to practice anymore, they take "inactive status." They pay reduced bar dues, and do not have to keep up continuing education unless they come back to active practice. "Surrendering your license" means exactly that - you give it up. To practice again, you have to take the bar exam - AGAIN. No attorney in their right mind would "surrender" their license unless they had to, such as to avoid public disciplinary proceedings such as disbarment.

As far as Michelle surrendering her license in 1993, as I recall she was until just before the election actively employed as in-house counsel for the U. of Chicago hospital. In that position she would have had to be an active member of the bar, as she would be rendering legal advice to her "client" - her employer. I would be very interested to see a timeline of her work/bar membership relationship.

As far as publications go, it is really easy to get anything published in the legal field. The old joke goes: "Why are law reviews published? Because they can be." Many of the specialty journals are always looking for practitioners (or academics looking to build their publication credits) to submit manuscripts. The fact that Barack Obama published NOTHING is telling.

If his law school grades are sealed, it's because they SUCK. The very first question I was asked in every job interview (from giant top-tier law firms to small boutique shops) was: "what was your class rank?" If his grades were good, we'd never hear the end of it. Ergo, they were unimpressive or worse.

 
At 9:59 AM , Anonymous KHorn said...

Unless the records have changed recently, when I checked the Illinois ARDC site it says for Michele "Voluntarily inactive and not authorized to practice law." Inactive is very different the surrendered, it just means you don't plan to practice in that jurisdiction, so you want to pay a reduced fee (or tax) and not take your CLE. For example, I'm admitted in both DC and Texas, but haven't lived in DC for 20 years, so I've gone inactive there, while keeping my Texas license active. Since she'll be in DC as First Lady until 2012 (hopefully no longer), I don't see anything unusual about her going inactive.

 
At 10:16 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Chicago Tribune Magazine published a story on March 22, 2009 that described Obama's job at the University of Chicago Law School as created just for him. Read it in The Ivory Tower of Power.

Sniffing out Obama's plan to return to Chicago after graduation, Stone and Douglas Baird, who was chairman of the faculty appointments committee, cooked up a plan of their own: They created a faculty fellowship slot custom-tailored for Obama and then invited him to apply for it.

I didn't know about this detail, but it's worth exploring further.

A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach.

I take it the source for this claim is the former colleague of Obama at the UofC. It sounds like it could be campus whispers.

 
At 10:21 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

FYI: Sidley Austin is the Chicago firm that represents the interests of Exelon(formerly ComEd) the major energy supplier AND People's Gas(the natural gas supplier).

Bill Ayers' father was the President of ComEd and a close friend of the Daley Family. Sidley is where the supposed top lawyers go to represent the Chicago energy sector's interests.

Shockingly, the energy companies always play ball with the political machine when it comes to raising rates on people that can afford to pay while customers will smaller incomes routinely ignore their bills because they know the City and State will pick up the costs for them.

That is how you get midnight food stamps grocery shopping in poorer neighborhoods, yet the food stamps card holders are driving $25,000 sport utility vehicles.

 
At 11:42 AM , Blogger Kevin said...

Since she'll be in DC as First Lady until 2012 (hopefully no longer), I don't see anything unusual about her going inactive.

Neither would I, except that it was not reported that she "went inactive". She SURRENDERED it. And in 1993, more than a decade before her husband was elected to the Senate, much less running for Present.

Either she was supremely prescient, or she's hiding something.

I know which way I would vote, but 52% of America would probably disagree.

 
At 11:53 AM , Anonymous E Buzz said...

Well, this isn't shocking.

What is interesting to me is that that strawman the lefties created of Bush, idiot, Gentleman's Cs, not a man of letters, pushed ahead by privilege and fraud, not accomplished, bad with language, lunkheaded with foreign heads of state, corrupted with sleazy people all around him, drug addict, stolen election...

Well, that IS who Barry is, he IS who we thought he was. All of those actually apply to him.

It's incredible that it happened. Karma.

All those horror stories about manufactured consent and media manipulation were just dodges to blame Republicans and Conservatives, all the while they were using those tactics for guys like Obama.

It is incredible.

 
At 11:55 AM , Anonymous KHorn said...

Kevin,

Interesting change on the ARDC website. Reading earlier I could not get the screencap to show, but now I can (different computer) and the information on the ARDC has changed. Here is a link to what I found https://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=453401625, since I'm not savy enough to do screencaps (and how many of you can handle a teletype, huh? So I got that going for me). Note that now it just says voluntarily inactive with no reference to last registration date. So who changed the record between May 09 and March 10?

 
At 1:03 PM , Anonymous Oxrock said...

If you go to the sight now and search for Obama, it no longer list the year last registered:
https://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=453401625

But search for Rothrock and note that Alexander has a year last registered still.

How did that happen?

 
At 1:20 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ebuzz said: "It's incredible that it happened. Karma."
So eloquent, so perceptive, so learned, just one example of how this discussion trumps all for reaching at the truth. There is no obfuscation here, no betrayal of impetus, no willful ignorance, no bad faith.
Wait a minute, did I just increase everyone's vocabulary here - 'only to confuse the public more my pretty' - drat!
In all honesty, this upcoming generation is going to see how deeply rooted are the problems on boards like this, and, God-willing, the hoard of you will be left penniless...
Hey, at least, you will have hoarded up all that Karma in good faith, right?

 
At 6:17 PM , Anonymous Linda said...

It seems Barry's selective service records are not up to snuff either and there seems to be varying records being sent out via FOIA.

On one of the latest records it shows that Barry's SS record had activity in 1991. Can any of you legalese tell us, does one have to submit selective service records as a requirement for the BAR?

 
At 12:31 PM , Anonymous NC Mountain Girl said...

Master Typo, Illinois did not have a CPE requirement for lawyers until just a couple of years ago. I know because I had moved out of srate and into a different field and gave up my license at that point.

 
At 12:38 PM , Anonymous Taylor said...

"At 9:28 AM , Anonymous said...

As an attorney, I can say that in my state if any attorney doesn't plan to practice anymore, they take "inactive status." They pay reduced bar dues, and do not have to keep up continuing education unless they come back to active practice. "Surrendering your license" means exactly that - you give it up. To practice again, you have to take the bar exam - AGAIN. No attorney in their right mind would "surrender" their license unless they had to, such as to avoid public disciplinary proceedings such as disbarment."

Thank you for saving me the trouble of having to write the same thing.

I passed the California and Washington bar exams, and even though I live in neither state now I just returned to active status in the former and remain inactive in the other. There's no way I'd just throw away all the time, money and skull-sweat needed to pass those exams in the first place when "inactive" is an option.

If you "surrender" your law license, it's because you screwed up big time (likely) or somehow didn't know about the option of going on inactive status (incredible).

In the next 10 years or so, two interesting things are going to happen: George Bush is going to be "rehabilitated" (it's already happening), and Obama is going to be exposed for the fraud he's always been.

 
At 2:11 PM , Blogger tjbbpgobIII said...

Simple, in 2013 someone hire Obama as their attorney, maybe O.J. Simpson or someone else.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


Ten Previous Posts
Newsfeeds

Boycott the New York Times -- Read the Real News at Larwyn's Linx
Featured Posts
FEEDS
  • Doug Ross @ Journal
  • Add to Google
METRICS
RECENT REFERRERS
ARCHIVES

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?