General Question

JLeslie's avatar

What's this about Michelle Obama being disbarred?

Asked by JLeslie (55376points) August 19th, 2010

I assume it is bullshit just for the fact that this is getting stirred up now, and was not mentioned during the presidential run. Seems like it would be pretty easy to find this out for people who wanted to ruin the Obama’s.

When I google I get alll sorts of crap, so if anyone knows the real dope I would appreciate it. If you have a link from a reliable source even better.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

163 Answers

Seaofclouds's avatar

I hadn’t heard anything about it until now, so I decided to do a little looking around. I found that the Attorney Registration and Public Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois has her Illinois registration status listed as: Voluntarily inactive and not authorized to practice law, but under that in the malpractice section it says: No malpractice report required as attorney is on court ordered inactive status. I couldn’t find any other information about her though. So it doesn’t look like she was actually disbarred, but she was ordered to go into inactive status for some reason.

ETpro's avatar

That is a right wing smear based on spin. She voluntarily gave up her law license to do other work. That is not the same as being disbarred. The President also gave up his license after winning elective office. It is common for attorneys to do so when they are no longer practicing law, as it avoids renewal fees and continuing education requirements.

JLeslie's avatar

I understand being inactive. I am an inactive Real Estate Agent, and am voluntarily no longer a realtor, so I guess that is the same idea. But, court ordered seems odd.

ETpro's avatar

@JLeslie It’s a formal statement by the court accepting the volantary move. The link @Seaofclouds provided says, ”Illinois Registration Status:     Voluntarily inactive and not authorized to practice law ”

I have cataracts and turned in my driver’s license to the state. I am ordered not to drive or renew it till I get cataract surgery and pass a vision test. From what I can see on that link, it’s the same sort of thing. But great fodder for the right, who can’t be concerned with nuance or facts anyway.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@ETpro On that link, under the section about her malpractice insurance, it says “No malpractice report required as attorney is on court ordered inactive status”. That is were the court ordered part is coming from.

ETpro's avatar

@Seaofclouds Yes, I saw that. Since it clearly states that she voluntarily gave up her license, I am interpreting that just the way I do the Massachusetts RMV’s order that I not drive or renew my license. THey have ordered that she not proctice law because she voluntarily gave up the license to do so. If she wishes to return to law, she must complete any continuing education required and renew the license.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@ETpro Okay, I understand what you are saying now. Is there really a court order saying you can’t drive though? I mean, I get that you can’t because you no longer have a license, but as far as I know, not having a license is what means you can’t drive. It’s not that when you don’t have a license there is a court order saying you can’t drive. If I let my nursing license go inactive, there wouldn’t be a court order that says I can’t practice. That just seems a bit odd to me.

I didn’t think about it the way you describe it. I think they could have found a better way to word it though. I was thinking it was something on the lines of the court saying she either voluntarily went inactive or they disbarred her.

JLeslie's avatar

Oh, now I get it. I actually had not looked at the link, only because when I first saw the answer it did not compute with me that it is a link, which I blame on the fact that it is 1:00 in the morning where I am.

ETpro's avatar

@Seaofclouds In my case, it is an RMV order and not a court order. The state will not allow me to even take a test to reactivate the license until I show a doctor’s statement of the cataract condition being corrected. They explained this to me quite clearly.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@ETpro Ahh, that’s really interesting.

Void's avatar

Michelle Obama did not “volunteer”. The website, ARDC, is NOT the Illinois State Bar. The ARDC is a branch of the state supreme court, the DISCIPLINARY BRANCH!

Proof: IARDC

This is what they do:

“Since 1973, administrative responsibility for the registration and discipline of Illinois lawyers has been delegated by the Illinois Supreme Court to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, composed of seven members appointed by the Court. Ill.S.Ct.Rule 751. Four members of the Commission must be members of the Illinois bar, and the other three members must be nonlawyers. The Commissioners serve without compensation for three-year terms. The Commission acts as a board of directors for the disciplinary agency, setting general policy and overseeing its implementation. With the approval of the Supreme Court, the Commission appoints an Administrator to serve as the principal executive officer of the agency. The Administrator has a staff of more than 100 employees, including about 35 lawyers, who oversee registration, conduct investigations, prosecute disciplinary cases, support volunteer board members, and produce publications and programs related to ethics and discipline.”

They’re NOT the state bar association, they’re a DISCIPLINARY BRANCH OF THE STATE SUPREME COURT!

Again, Michelle Obama was absolutely discipled, as her DISCIPLINARY RECORD shows. She was ordered, by the ARDC, to go inactive without ANY case. Why? She didn’t fight the accusations and “volunteered” to accept the court’s order.

It says two things, I don’t deny it. These are them:

“No malpractice report required as attorney is on court ordered inactive status.”

“Voluntarily inactive and not authorized to practice law”

This is saying that she voluntarily complied with the Court Order, instead of defending herself and retaining her license.

I don’t know if you are aware of this,

Michelle Obama’s Patient-Dumping Scheme

The First Lady helped create a notorious program that dumped poor patients on community hospitals, yet the national media ignore the story. Imagine if her husband were a Republican.

The University of Chicago Medical Center has received a good deal of justly opprobrious press over its policy of “redirecting” low-income patients to community hospitals while reserving its own beds for well-heeled patients requiring highly profitable procedures. Substantial coverage was given to a recent indictment of the program by the American College of Emergency Physicians. ACEP’s president, Dr. Nick Jouriles, released statement suggesting that the initiative comes “dangerously close to ‘patient dumping,’ a practice made illegal by the Emergency Medical Labor and Treatment Act, and reflected an effort to ‘cherry pick’ wealthy patients over poor.”

Oddly absent from most of the unflattering press coverage of UCMC’s patient-dumping scheme is any mention of the role our new First Lady played in devising the program. A laudable exception has been the Chicago Sun-Times, which reported last August that Michelle Obama currently on unpaid leave from her $317,000-a-year job as a vice president of the prestigious hospital—helped create the program.”
On the rare occasions when other “news” media have bothered to connect the Urban Health Initiative to its glamorous creator, they have attempted to whitewash this tawdry program. Typical of such disingenuous coverage was a story in the Washington Post, which described “an innovative program to steer the patients to existing neighborhood clinics.”
But no amount of journalistic lipstick can hide the reality that Mrs.obama’s initiative is a patient-dumping scheme. Such “cherry-picking,” as Dr. Jouriles accurately describes it, was, at one time, fairly common. Prestigious institutions like the University of Chicago Medical Center routinely “dumped” Medicaid, uninsured and other unprofitable patients on less mercenary community hospitals. Many patients suffered needlessly, and more than a few actually died, as the result of this practice. So, in 1986, President Reagan signed the Emergency Medical Labor and Treatment Act (EMTALA) into law. EMTALA made such “redirection” illegal, but many high profile hospitals still chafed at being forced to treat poor patients. Enter Michelle Obama, UCMC’s “Vice President for Community and External Affairs.”
Mrs.Obama first hatched the UCMC program as the “South Side Health Collaborative,” which featured a gang of “counselors” whose job it was to “advise” low-income patients that they would be better off at other hospitals and clinics. The program was so successful in getting rid of unwanted patients that she expanded it, gave it a new name, and hired none other than David Axelrod to sell the program to the public. According to the Sun-Times, “Obama’s wife and Valerie Jarrett, an Obama friend and adviser who chairs the medical center’s board, backed the Axelrod firm’s hiring.” Axelrod helped the future First Lady formulate a public relations campaign in which the “Urban Health Initiative” was represented as a boon to the community actuated by the purest of altruistic motives.
The resultant PR campaign was a study in Orwellian audacity. Chicago’s inner city residents soon began hearing that UCMC’s patient dumping program would “dramatically improve health care for thousands of South Side residents” and that the medical center was generously willing to provide “a ride on a shuttle bus to other centers.” Likewise, the people who ran the community hospitals to which these unwanted patients were being shuttled began to read claims in local media to the effect that the Urban Health Initiative was good for them as well. Dr. Eric Whitaker, the Blagojevich crony who succeeded Mrs. Obama as Director of the program, repeatedly assured gullible reporters that the financial impact on these hospitals would be positive: “The initiative actually is improving their bottom lines.” The CFOs of those hospitals were no doubt relieved to learn that treating Medicaid and uninsured patients is profitable.
But you just can’t please some people. In one of the few frank passages of the Post article, we discover that many members of UCMC’s medical staff believe the program is nothing more than an “attempt to ensure that the hospital retains only affluent patients with insurance.” And another association of emergency physicians has joined ACEP in denouncing the Urban Health Initiative. The Chicago Tribune reports that Dr. Larry Weiss, president of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine is unhappy about UCMC’s failure to consult its own ER physicians before initiating the program: “Not including emergency-room physicians… would be analogous to changing the way surgery is performed in an operating room without involving any surgeons.” Dr. Whitaker assures us, however, that such critics are merely “opposed to change.”
Presumably, he would be similarly dismissive of Angela Adams, who brought her son to the medical center’s ER after his lip had been partially torn off by a pit bull. As the Tribune puts it “Instead of rushing Dontae into surgery… the hospital’s staff began pressing her about insurance.” Unfortunately for Dontae, he was covered by Medicaid. So, all he got from the UCMC emergency department was a shot, some antibiotics, and instructions to “follow up with Cook County.” Angela had to take her son across town to John Stroger Hospital, where he was immediately admitted for reconstructive surgery. Like doctors Jouriles and Weiss, Angela is having trouble seeing the community benefit of the Urban Health Initiative.
Meanwhile, the program’s parents, Michelle Obama and David Axelrod, have moved to Washington. As the First Lady and the President’s closest advisor, they wield enormous power. Indeed, they may be the most powerful people in the Obama Administration, aside from the President himself. If these two characters were willing to betray their Chicago neighbors—the South Side’s most vulnerable citizens—with a disgraceful program like the Urban Health Initiative, what sort of mischief will they devise for the hapless denizens of flyover country?
Come to think of it, isn’t Obamacare being sold to us in pretty much the same way the Urban Health Initiative was sold to Chicago?

More information,

Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs found the ARDC form online about December 2008, with Michelle’s maiden name, Robinson, dated 1993. The form clearly says it is a “disciplinary record.”

Some say the only way Michelle could choose to go inactive was to use a “disciplinary” form. Think about that for a minute. Do you really think a group of attorneys would put their name on a “disciplinary” form, when they have not been disciplined? Do you really think a proper form would not be available?

ARDC is governed by a set of rules. Michelle Obama became inactive through Rule 771. April 1, 2004, approximately 11 years after the First Lady went inactive in 1993, and the same year Barack Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate, some “reorganizing” of the rules happened.

Rule 771 became Rule 770 which did not exist before April 1, 2004.
Rule 771 was originally titled Code of Professional Responsibility
Rule 771 was retitled Finality of Orders and Effective Date of Discipline
Rule 770 was born and was titled Rules of Professional Conduct
Rule 770 covered disbarment, suspension, censure, reprimand

It appears that the Finality of Orders and Effective Date of Discipline was separated from Types of Discipline.

Rule 756 became effective February 1, 1973. This rule is titled Registration and Fees. Rule 756 is the vehicle for becoming voluntarily inactive, for whatever reason you want to do so, unless you have reason to be considered under Rule 753 – review and hearings.

Note that if you were “voluntarily inactive” pursuant to former Rule 770 see Rule 756(7), Rule 756 you must make a “petition for restoration” under Rule 759, and your petition must be reviewed by the Administrator – I assume because Rule 770 covers only disbarment, suspension, censure, reprimand. The Administrator decides to consent to the application or refer it to the Hearing Board. If go inactive under 771 770, you cannot become active again without hierarchical consideration. That is not the case for normal restoration procedure.

Rule 759 pertains to those attorneys inactive due to “disability” or “hearing and review” (Rule 753). Rule 759 says that if an attorney is restored to active status under Rule 759, which is not the normal route to restoration, any “disciplinary proceedings pending against the attorney may be resumed.

Rule 753 “hearing and review” appears to be the first step before disciplinary action.

Lynn Stuter another writer, did some great work on Michelle’s legal standing. The ARDC sent records at her request. They sent Rule 770, which did not exist in 1993. The page said that 770 was “Reserved” – and – it had no text attached to it.

Both 771 and 770 dealt with professional responsibility and professional conduct. Neither dealt with voluntarily going inactive, simply because an attorney chooses to do so. That would be under Rule 756.

I’m not an attorney. I cannot make a conclusive statement about this, but I can consider what I and others have found, and make an educated guess. My guess is that Michelle Robinson Obama gave up her license rather than go through some type of investigative review which might become public. And if this is not the case, then what? Why not Rule 756?

See the ARDC disciplinary form for Michelle at Pamela Geller’s Atlas Shrugs
One of Pams contributed the link to the ARDC rules.

Response moderated
jaytkay's avatar

@Void

Your Nancy Drew super sleuths missed something basic – every lawyer in Illinois is in the ARDC database. Being listed there is not some mark of shame. It is the “Registration and Disciplinary Record”. Not the “Disciplinary Record”.

Go ahead and look up anybody licensed to practice law in Illinois. Chief Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court Thomas Robert Fitzgerald, for example.

And as you can see in the screen shot you linked, Michelle Obama’s record says, “Public Record of Discipline and Pending Proceedings: None”

P.S.
Pam Geller also claims Obama is Malcolm X’s son. Not a reliable source.

Response moderated (Unhelpful)
Response moderated (Unhelpful)
squirbel's avatar

Pam Geller is not a reliable trustworthy source;
Void wrote a huge wall of text that is made up of Pam Geller’s words;

Therefore, Void’s wall of text is not a reliable trustworthy source.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@Void It’s the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission not the Attorney Registration of Disciplinary Actions. Many places that verify a person’s licensure status also include disciplinary action.

For example, the site that verifies my Delaware nursing license will also tell you if I have had any disciplinary actions. I have to be listed on that site, regardless of wether I’ve had any or not. That is just how the Board of Nursing does it.

aprilsimnel's avatar

Hey, if Michelle Obama had really done something resulting in a discipline-able action from the State of Illinois, why wasn’t this all over the news during the President’s run? Knowledge of lawyers’ misdeeds resulting in their licences being revoking are publicly accessible, right?

Fail!

aprilsimnel's avatar

I meant “revoked.”

My capabilities in English this morning: fail!

JLeslie's avatar

@aprilsimnel exactly. I figured if it was true the republicans would have to be total fucking idiots not to find this information 3 years ago. Just the fact that this comes out now basically proves it is a ridiculous rumor, or extremely embarrassing for the person responsible for digging up damaging info and taking down the other guy during an election. Still people out there will love to think she was disbarred.

Void's avatar

@jaytkay, ” Your Nancy Drew super sleuths missed something basic – every lawyer in Illinois is in the ARDC database. Being listed there is not some mark of shame. It is the “Registration and Disciplinary Record”. Not the “Disciplinary Record”. Go ahead and look up anybody licensed to practice law in Illinois. Chief Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court Thomas Robert Fitzgerald, for example. And as you can see in the screen shot you linked, Michelle Obama’s record says, “Public Record of Discipline and Pending Proceedings: None” Ps. Pam Geller also claims Obama is Malcolm X’s son. Not a reliable source.”

@Seaofclouds, ”It’s the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission not the Attorney Registration of Disciplinary Actions. Many places that verify a person’s licensure status also include disciplinary action. For example, the site that verifies my Delaware nursing license will also tell you if I have had any disciplinary actions. I have to be listed on that site, regardless of wether I’ve had any or not. That is just how the Board of Nursing does it.”

@aprilsimnel, “Hey, if Michelle Obama had really done something resulting in a discipline-able action from the State of Illinois, why wasn’t this all over the news during the President’s run? Knowledge of lawyers’ misdeeds resulting in their licences being revoking are publicly accessible, right?”

All three of you need to read again what I wrote and argue the facts, not if it’s a “unreliable source”. I linked you to all official sources as did she and it was more then a few sources. Argue the content. Furthermore, If she wants to add on the side about Malcolm X, that doesn’t mean everything she wrote isn’t true, this is her side claim. You’re nothing but manipulaters. @aprilsimnel, Read what I wrote in the scheme. “yet the national media ignore the story. Imagine if her husband were a Republican.”

Now, all of you. Yes, it’s registration as well, but you don’t register so that you can volunteer to be inactive. How conveniently you ignored the entire sourced story of the obama scheme as did the media. Again,

“No malpractice report required as attorney is on court ordered inactive status.”

“Voluntarily inactive and not authorized to practice law”

This is saying that she voluntarily complied with the Court Order, instead of defending herself and retaining her license.

And if this is not the case, then why not Rule 756?

I know how much you want to manipulate this, but it doesn’t fit in, sorry. The truth is Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama disbarred for being willfully and knowingly involved in her official capacity as an attorney in an insurance fraud conspiracy.

Barak Hussein Obama (aka: Barry Soetoro) disbarred for lying under oath on his application about having used any other names; lying about his place of birth; and lying about his citizenship.

I actually feel sorry for the good decent black & multiracial people in the United States that, with so many highly intelligent, accomplished, self-made, and patriotic minority leaders in this country to choose from, that the first black (well, half black) President & First Lady have turned out to be such socialist banned words and the mere puppet creations of wealthy, powerful, & shadowy, left wing fascists.

It’s amazing minorities aren’t burning down the DNC headquarters after their insulting promotion of this pretend-African-American muslim Barak Hussein Obama. Obama’s a failure.

@squirbel _“Pam Geller is not a reliable trustworthy source;
Void wrote a huge wall of text that is made up of Pam Geller’s words;
Therefore, Void’s wall of text is not a reliable trustworthy source.“_

You’re not a reliable source, therefore, whatever you say is unreliable. If you actually read what I wrote, I linked you to more then just Pam Geller’s words, clearly you don’t like reading. Furthermore, Pam Gellerr’s words are not all her words. She used the information available and compiled it. The knowledge is available to all.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@Void I have no desire to argue about the sources you posted. My statement still stands that all the lawyers in Illinois are listed on that site because it is for registration AND disciplinary actions. For whatever reason, it does say court ordered (I never said it didn’t). It does NOT say she was disbarred though. There is a difference. Also, on the site I listed, it does say none under “Public Record of Discipline and Pending Proceedings”, so while she may have been involved in what some call a “patient dumping” scheme, it doesn’t look like there is any record of her actually being charged with anything.

As far as the “patient dumping”, I know a lot of doctor’s offices and hospitals that will offer alternatives to their patients to decrease their wait time at the ER (this is from my personal experience working in several different states as a nurse).

Ohh, and here is the report from that site on President Obama. It only says that he is “voluntarily retired and not authorized to practice law” and that “no malpractice report required as attorney is retired” and his also says none under the pubic record of discipline and pending proceedings. So there’s nothing about either one being disbarred.

Void's avatar

Being court ordered to “volunteer” to go inactive is the same thing as being disbarred in my book. Don’t forget the positions these people have and their influences. All manipulations to hide the dirt. If the obama’s defended themselves in the case they would surely lose and be in more shit then they already are in now. You’re playing with the words but not looking at the whole picture, the main point that these words all mean. Read the rules again.

Seaofclouds's avatar

This is what the ARDC looks like for a disbarred lawyer. (Here are a few more examples.) There’s a big difference between what those say and what Michelle Obama’s says.

Void's avatar

@Seaofclouds, Then why wasn’t rule 756 used?

Seaofclouds's avatar

@Void How do you know it wasn’t used? Rule 756 (5) An attorney may advise the Administrator in writing that he or she desires to assume inactive status and, thereafter, register as an inactive status attorney. It then goes on to discuss their inactive fees and how they would become active again. That is exactly what it looks like to me.

Void's avatar

@Seaofclouds, because it would be labeled, not written out as court ordered to “volunteer” to be inactive. Consider the others rules.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@Void What would be labeled? The voluntarily inactive and court ordered inactive are listed in two separate places and may not be related. It could very well be that because Rule 756 says that the lawyer must put their desire to be inactive in writing that a judge then “orders” (grants) the inactive status for legal concerns in regards to maintaining malpractice insurance.

Void's avatar

@Seaofclouds, Note that if you were “voluntarily inactive” pursuant to former Rule 770 see Rule 756(7), Rule 756 you must make a “petition for restoration” under Rule 759, and your petition must be reviewed by the Administrator – I assume because Rule 770 covers only disbarment, suspension, censure, reprimand. The Administrator decides to consent to the application or refer it to the Hearing Board. If go inactive under 771 770, you cannot become active again without hierarchical consideration. That is not the case for normal restoration procedure. Both 771 and 770 dealt with professional responsibility and professional conduct. Neither dealt with voluntarily going inactive, simply because an attorney chooses to do so. That would be under Rule 756.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@Void How do you know which rule was used for Michelle Obama to go inactive? What is your point about the other rules?

bobloblaw's avatar

I may be a little bit late to this… discussion, but I’d like to point out that no one ever “voluntarily” complies with a court order (which is why I found the Illinois State Bar’s wording a little weird). You either comply w/the court order or they hold you in contempt until you comply. I’d also like to point out that, as it is in most states, the Illinois State Supreme Court has the ultimate authority in disciplining/admitting/administering attorneys. Any decision they make regarding an attorney (or any other matter) would be a “court order.”

Now, before anyone makes the conclusion that there’s a conspiracy to hide Michelle Obama’s record, I’d further point out that “court order” tends to be a legal term of art. That is to say, it’s a term that has a very specific legal meaning outside of the standard dictionary definition. In the legal sense, it refers to any order the court makes. The court telling you to make child support payments is a court order. The court telling you to stop mowing your lawn at 5AM is a court order. The court telling you that you can’t practice law b/c you voluntarily switched to inactive status? That’s also a court order. You can kind of see where I’m going with this.

Admittedly, I’m completely unfamiliar w/the Illinois State Bar and its exact relationship with the State Supreme Court. I’m also completely unfamiliar with any particularized legal terminology/rule that is unique to Illinois.

Void's avatar

@Seaofclouds, oh my, you keep going in circles. if you didn’t get what i’m saying until now then forget it. Let someone else try and explain it.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@Void I got everything up until you went from Rule 756 back to Rule 770 (you are the one that went in a circle by jumping back to previous rules, not me). Either way, you didn’t answer my first question, how do you know which rule was used when Michelle went into voluntary inactive statue? From the way it looks to me, Rule 756 was used when she went into inactive status. You are the one assuming things about the rules, not me.

Void's avatar

@Seaofclouds, I did answer you, and you still don’t understand it, so I give up in explaining things to you. Take it how you want to take it now, I spoke my piece.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@Void You said you assume. I get that. I’m asking what the other rules have to do with that? If anything, the fact that under Rule 770, inactive status is not listed as one of the disciplinary actions, it seems to point more to the fact that she did it herself and not that it was the result of a disciplinary action. I asked how do you know. Meaning is there a source for which rules you are stating must have been used for her to go inactive. I don’t want your assumptions, I want facts.

Void's avatar

@Seaofclouds, this is what I’m talking about, you keep dragging out what was already written. Look up and read, I didn’t say I assume, I wrote you the explanation, you obviously don’t get it. I’m sorry, I can’t be more specific then that.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@Void This is exactly what you wrote a few posts above:

”@Seaofclouds, Note that if you were “voluntarily inactive” pursuant to former Rule 770 see Rule 756(7), Rule 756 you must make a “petition for restoration” under Rule 759, and your petition must be reviewed by the Administrator – I assume because Rule 770 covers only disbarment, suspension, censure, reprimand. The Administrator decides to consent to the application or refer it to the Hearing Board. If go inactive under 771 770, you cannot become active again without hierarchical consideration. That is not the case for normal restoration procedure. Both 771 and 770 dealt with professional responsibility and professional conduct. Neither dealt with voluntarily going inactive, simply because an attorney chooses to do so. That would be under Rule 756.”

Notice the bolded word that you wrote. To that, I simply asked you how do you know which rule was used for Michelle and asked what that has to do with what I had said about it sounding like Rule 756 was used.

Void's avatar

@Seaofclouds, My apologies, I didn’t mean to write I assume. What I meant to say, is that it’s written in Rule 770 which covers only disbarment, suspension, censure and reprimand. Now, if you don’t understand what it’s saying here, then forget it. There is no point in repeating the same points when I said it multiple times.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@Void I understand that. I wrote why I believe 756 was followed, you then wrote about 770 which would be irrelevant since they don’t mention inactive status. I get what you are saying, it just seems to me that you really aren’t saying much of anything.

Going back to the original question, as I posted a while ago, when a lawyer is disbarred, it clearly says that on the site I posted originally. Since Michelle Obama’s reference does not clearly state it (as the others do) we know that she has not been disbarred.

Void's avatar

@Seaofclouds, I’m sorry that you are unsatisfied with my message. Maybe someone else can explain it to you.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@Void I don’t need it explained to me. I get it.

Void's avatar

@Seaofclouds, well then why are you asking the same questions over? Slowly, read from the top everything that was written. Then take the words from the content and piece it together with the rules, and my message will be clear. You don’t find it odd that everyone else understands my message accept you? As @bobloblaw pointed out, there is a possible legal terminology/rule that is unique to Illinois and the association to the ARDC. If you can investigate further into that, maybe we will have some better answers.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@Void I said pretty much the same thing about the legal terminology as @bobloblaw said (he worded it better than I did). I don’t need to read anything over again. As I said I get it. I also tried to go back to the original question at hand an stop going back and forth with you. I don’t have anything else to add to the discussion with you. I’ve said all I have to say about the rules and her inactive status. The question asked about her being disbarred, which she clearly hasn’t been.

Void's avatar

Indeed, she was disbarred, and so the left vs right remains. :)

john65pennington's avatar

Our country does not need this type of internal problem at this point. whether it is or is not true should not have a bearing on President Obama. i did not vote for him, but until some real facts and a statement from Michelle Obama is made, a rumor like this is not warranted.

Void's avatar

@john65pennington, I disagree. Not a rumor but rather a fact!, as clearly was presented.Plus, this is good for the country. We need a revolution to bring back the ways of Thomas Jefferson.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@Void Where has it been proven as a fact that she was disbarred. When a lawyer is disbarred in Illinois, it is clearly stated on the ARDC (as I gave examples of above). Hers does not say anywhere on it that she was disbarred. Therefore, there is no proof of her being disbarred (at least none that has been posted here so far).

john65pennington's avatar

Bottomline…....so what if she was disbarred? what effect with that have on the president? she is one person and he is another. you cannot blame him for her act, if he was not involved. agree?

Void's avatar

@Seaofclouds, that’s because you don’t understand the message. You’re stuck at your internal textbook standards.

@john65pennington, disagree. Look into what I wrote about him, he was disbarred too.
Barak Hussein Obama (aka: Barry Soetoro) disbarred for lying under oath on his application about having used any other names; lying about his place of birth; and lying about his citizenship.

They’re both failures. That’s just the way it is.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
john65pennington's avatar

I will wait until the presidents wife makes a formal statement, before coming to a conclusion.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
KatawaGrey's avatar

[mod says]: Please keep it on topic people. The question is about Michelle Obama being disbarred. If you want to continue this discussion, please take it to pm’s or ask another question. Thank you.

CaptainHarley's avatar

With all the stuff Blagojevich was up to ( you know, trying to sell Obama’s Senate seat to the highest bidder and etc. ), the history of the right dishonorable Mayor Daley and his son, and now the spooky shenanigans of the First Lady, it seems that nothing good ever comes out of Chicago.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Unhelpful)
Response moderated (Unhelpful)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
ETpro's avatar

@Void Here is the specific record. It does not say ”Court Ordered voluntary…” as you keep claiming. It says Voluntarily inactive and not authorized to practice law.. It goes on to say, ”Public Record of Discipline and Pending Proceedings: None

But as Mark Twain so wryly noted,, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” Seems the new right is VERY aware of this.

Void's avatar

@ETpro, No, it says two things in this specific record, one of which you conveniently disregarded.

It says, “Voluntarily inactive and not authorized to practice law”

AND, it says,

“No malpractice report required as attorney is on court ordered inactive status.”

Key word = court ordered ^^^

Why did you conveniently disregard that line? Obviously when you remove facts it favors your side, but with all the facts it shows she voluntarily complied with the Court Order, instead of defending herself and retaining her license. As I said, you’re nothing but manipulators.

Nice try.

Void's avatar

@ETpro, You also conveniently misunderstood for what the ARDC is, a Disciplinary Branch. Registration is for all, but not to get court ordered to “volunteer” to go inactive. Read the rules. Read everything again for that matter. She didn’t want to fight the case for her Patient-Dumping Scheme, thus, complied.

“Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs found the ARDC form online about December 2008, with Michelle’s maiden name, Robinson, dated 1993. The form clearly says it is a “disciplinary record.”

Seaofclouds's avatar

@Void It also says “Public Record of Discipline and Pending Proceedings: None”. Why are you ignoring that?

As I mentioned earlier “court ordered” could just be that a judge granted (ordered) her request to be inactive.

Void's avatar

@Seaofclouds, I’m not ignoring it. If she was court ordered to go inactive as clearly stated, then how can you write disciplinary pending to someone who is inactive? Obviously it’s none, she’s been ordered to “volunteer” to go inactive.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@Void It’s public record of discipline and pending proceedings. If in fact she had been disciplined (and ordered to go inactive) it should be listed as part of the public record of discipline.

Void's avatar

@Seaofclouds, it is listed. “No malpractice report required as attorney is on court ordered inactive status.” If you are court ordered to go inactive you have been disciplined. There is nothing else to say, when you are inactive. You are done with the system,hence, the none.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@Void That is not true. If you look at this example. It’s a lawyer that had been disbarred. He would be done with the system, but his disciplinary cases are listed on his page. “Court ordered” doesn’t always have to equal discipline. As I said, it could indicate that a judge granted her inactive status. Anything a judge grants is written as an order.

Void's avatar

@Seaofclouds, if it’s a disciplinary branch, then you don’t volunteer. She was disciplined to go inactive. The reason it says none, is because she complied. She didn’t fight the case. Furthermore, consider this,

A check of the State of Illinois Bar Association website shows no bar license for “Michelle Robinson” or “Michelle Obama”. It has been reported that Michelle Obama “voluntarily” gave up her law license in 1993, just five years after she got the license. Why would a black woman who worked at a prestigious law firm in Chicago, who had graduated from one of the most prestigious law schools in the country, and who had endured the grueling task of sitting for the bar exam TWICE, then voluntarily give up her law license?

Seaofclouds's avatar

@Void That site is not just the disciplinary branch. Every lawyer in Illinois must register with them or they are unable to work. You can search for lawyers with licenses that are completely active with no restrictions and they show up on that site. If she was disciplined for any reason, it would show on that site. The fact that she complied would not get rid of the discipline.

As far as why a women would give up a career she worked so hard to get, women do it every day for various reasons. Some do it so they can stay home with their children, some do it to follow their husbands around because of his career, and others do it just because they can.

Void's avatar

@Seaofclouds, How many times do I have to say it. I agree that you register, but not to volunteer! You only get disciplined in this branch and it does show up on the discipline form.

“No malpractice report required as attorney is on court ordered inactive status.”

@ETpro, only wrote this line “Voluntarily inactive and not authorized to practice law”. He didn’t include the line above because he’s a manipulator and done so to favor his side.

She complied instead of fighting the case. Thus it says none. The case being the patient dumping scheme that she did and no, you don’t give up a licensee that took her twice to achieve and within five year period, only so that she can go “be with her children” , “follow the husband” or “because she can”. It doesn’t make any sense. However, what does make sense, is that it’s a disciplinary branch and she was involved in a patient dumping scheme and now she was disciplined.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@Void Giving up a career may not make sense to you, but I know people that have done it. I know a lawyer that gave up her career to follow her husband’s military career. I know a doctor that gave up her career to stay home with her children (her husband was also a doctor).

jaytkay's avatar

_She complied instead of fighting the case. _

What case? You have no facts to back that up.

Void's avatar

@Seaofclouds, I’m going to explain the rules to you one last time.

ARDC is governed by a set of rules. Michelle Obama became inactive through Rule 771. April 1, 2004, approximately 11 years after the First Lady went inactive in 1993, and the same year Barack Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate, some “reorganizing” of the rules happened.

The 2000 total, which reflects an increase of only 147 attorneys over the number who registered in 1999 (as compared to average increases of 1,600 each year for the previous five years), was impacted by amendments to the rules governing registration categories and inactive status, first effective for the 2000 registration process. The amendments eliminated from Rule 756 the out-of-state registration category under which lawyers could pay a reduced fee if they did not reside, have an office in, or practice in Illinois, and deleted Rule 770, which had provided for a court-ordered inactive status that did not require annual registration or payment of any fee. At the same time, the amendments added to Rule 756 an inactive status registration category, which requires the payment of a reduced fee and annual registration, as well as a new retirement registration status, which requires no fee and no annual registration for lawyers.

2000 Annual Report of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission

So, prior to 2000, voluntary inactive status required a court order via Rule 770. Then Rule 770 was deleted and attorneys now had to go through a revised Rule 756 in order to get voluntary inactive status; which did not require a court order. With 770’s deletion, that left a gap in the numbering system so the court moved Rule 771 into 770 and created a new rule to take 771.

Clearly, she wasn’t disciplined. Why you persist in this is beyond me.

Now, something to clarify better.

What did she do that in 1993—after only four years—her license to practice law was reviewed and put on inactive by a disciplinary agency.

“Scmoo the attorney adds: ..as an attorney I am telling you that people can “choose” to not pay their registration fees or take their continuing education of the bar and therefore go on “suspension…or inactive status that goes through the CAL BAR—the California Bar association”

What was little Michelle from the Southside of Chicago doing in 1993?

1993: Public Allies Chicago with 30 Allies is launched by founding Executive Director Michelle Obama. President Clinton names Public Allies a model for national service. First Lady Hilary Clinton hosts Rose Garden reception for Public Allies at the White House. Say what? Michelle and Hillary go back that far?

“Shmoo finds more: In 1992 Michelle Obama left her job at Sidley Austin to launch a career in public service, serving as an assistant to Mayor Daley and then as the assistant commissioner of planning and development for the City of Chicago. (ask yourself how did a 2–3 year attorney…just wound up being Mayor Daleys “assistant” just like that…and what did she do as an “assistant” what does that even mean when you are a harvard trained attorney?)”

Too close for comfort. Coincidental?

Bernardine Dohrn, Bill Ayers wife was at Sidley Austin—- a law firm in Chicago from From 1984 to 1988. Dohrn was employed by the law firm Sidley Austin although her criminal record has prevented her from being admitted to either the New York or Illinois bar.

What Is the ARDC? (this is NOT the Illinois Bar-where one can voluntarily be inactive) As our name implies, the ARDC is the agency of the Supreme Court of Illinois which registers attorneys and investigates complaints of misconduct filed against attorneys holding a license to practice law in Illinois.

Our principal purpose is to assist the Supreme Court to determine a lawyer’s fitness to practice law in Illinois. If a complaint is made that an attorney, licensed to practice law in Illinois, has engaged in illegal, unethical or dishonest conduct, we will investigate and, if warranted, bring formal disciplinary charges. The Supreme Court of Illinois will then ultimately decide if a lawyer should be censured (publicly rebuked), suspended (having the law license to practice either taken away for a certain period of time or placed on a probationary period) or disbarred (having the law license taken away indefinitely).
We are not funded by taxpayers’ money. We are funded entirely by the annual registration fees paid by attorneys authorized to practice law in Illinois.

What Is a Request for an Investigation of an Attorney?

It is a request to us that we look into the conduct of an attorney who you believe has acted improperly. We will review your request to determine if an investigation is warranted. In most cases, we will initiate an investigation where the information you provide us suggests that the attorney engaged in illegal, dishonest or unethical conduct. Filing a request accusing an attorney of unethical conduct is a serious matter to the lawyer. We recommend that, whenever practical, you try to resolve any differences or disputes that do not concern claims of unethical conduct directly with the lawyer.

How Do I Request an Investigation of an Attorney?

By mailing to our office, either in Chicago or Springfield, a request that you want an attorney to be investigated by our office. Your request should be in writing. No special form is necessary. For your convenience, you may download a Request for Investigation form. Please return the Request by postal mail or hand-delivery. The ARDC does not accept an e-mail transmission of a Request for Investigation.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Seaofclouds's avatar

@Void Are you capable of posting anything in your own words or do you constantly have to post what other people have said? I have read what other people have said about Michelle Obama. Until someone can show court documents that shows there was a case against her, I’m not going to believe it and until I see something that actually says she was disbarred, I’m not going to believe that either. People can say whatever they want. It means nothing without the proof to back it up. You just said “Clearly, she wasn’t disciplined.” If she clearly wasn’t disciplined for anything, than she wouldn’t have been disbarred, so the answer to the original question remains that she has not been disbarred.

Response moderated (Personal Attack)
Void's avatar

@Seaofclouds, I did show you documents, you refuse to see it. The rules clearly show she was disciplined. I further explained what she was disciplined for as the lawyer said, and I further explained what the adrc does. You’re mistaking the IL with adrc. Of course this isn’t my words, I’m providing evidence, why would it be my words? If it was my words I wouldn’t be must of a credible source. And woops, that was a bad typo, I meant she was disciplined. If you don’t want to believe in it, that’s fine. I don’t want to believe in taxes, but they still exist.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@Void You have not posted any documents that mention a specific court case or her being disbarred. You have posted other people’s opinions on those things and the rules in Illinois. Those are not specific documents stating disciplinary actions she has received, cases she has been involved in, or that she was disbarred. You can post things in your words and then put a link for the source of your information. It’s not that I don’t want to believe it. It’s that the things I have seen do not equate to the things you are saying, so I want actual proof (court documents and documents that state she was disbarred) before I change my mind.

jaytkay's avatar

I gave you like five sources. Why don’t you scroll up and look?

What was she disciplined for, what actions were taken and what where the dates?

You provide no facts. None. Because it did not happen.

The ARDC web site you claim as “proof” clearly states Michelle Obama was not disciplined or disbarred.

Void's avatar

@jaytkay, I don’t know for which particular event she was disciplined for. It could the patient dumping scheme, dates above, could be what the lawyer found out, dates above. The point is, she was involved in illegal activity. Now if you still don’t understand the difference between ARDC and Illinois Bar, then forget it. I’m talking to a mute. A court order in a disciplinary branch is a disciplined court order. You can’t volunteer here.. Michelle Obama became inactive through Rule 771 now rule 770.

RULE 770 Types of Discipline

Conduct of attorneys which violates the Rules of Professional Conduct contained in article VIII of these rules or which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute shall be grounds for discipline by the court. Discipline may be:

(a) disbarment;

(b) disbarment on consent;

(c) suspension for a specified period and until further order of court;

(d) suspension for a specified period of time;

(e) suspension until further order of the court;

(f) suspension for a specified period of time or until further order of the court with probation; or

(g) censure;

(h) reprimand by the court, the Review Board or a hearing panel.

I don’t see anything about ‘voluntary inactive’ there, do you?
Doesn’t seem to be one of the options.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@Void And since that is not listed on the list of the types of discipline, it would seem to be very likely that she was not disciplined. If she had been disciplined, one of those would have been used.

You have assumptions of what she may or may not have been disciplined for, but no hard proof of discipline. You have no proof she was involved in illegal activity, only the assumptions of yourself and other people.

JLeslie's avatar

Maybe the BAR association disbars you, not the court? Just guessing.

Void's avatar

@Seaofclouds, i’m done talking to you on the account that you didn’t read any of the sources I gave you.

Source 1: American Thinker
Source 2: Sun-time Media
Source 3: American College of Emergency Physcians
Source 4: Washington Post
Source 5: Chicago Tribue
Source 6: Atlas Shrugs

If you read the sources, you would see, Michelle Obama became inactive through Rule 771. April 1, 2004, approximately 11 years after the First Lady went inactive in 1993, and the same year Barack Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate, some “reorganizing” of the rules happened.

If you read the sources you would see the details of the schemes. If you read the sources you would know the difference between ADRC and volunteer in IL-BAR.

Also, Michelle’s “choice” to go inactive was to use a disciplinary form. Think about that for a minute. Do you really think a group of attorneys would put their name on a disciplinary form, when they have not been disciplined? Do you really think a proper form would not be available?

Seaofclouds's avatar

@Void I read all of those sources. None of them give specific information about what she was disciplined for, what cases she was involved in, or that she was disbarred. There is talk about what people viewed as s patient dumping scheme. One of your sources even has someone that worked at that hospital in the comment section stating that patient dumping was not what the program was designed for. I am asking for those specific things since you believe that is what happened. Repeating the same thing over and over again is not proving anything. What is so hard to understand about me wanting specific case and disciplinary information and a source that directly says she was disbarred?

Void's avatar

@Seaofclouds, If she was disciplined with rule 771 (now rule 770) as the sources found out. Then read what rule 770 is.

(a) disbarment;

(b) disbarment on consent;

(c) suspension for a specified period and until further order of court;

(d) suspension for a specified period of time;

(e) suspension until further order of the court;

(f) suspension for a specified period of time or until further order of the court with probation; or

(g) censure;

(h) reprimand by the court, the Review Board or a hearing panel.

You’re answer is right in front of you, you refuse to see it. It doesn’t say what crime because she complied, didn’t fight the case. I keep pasting it because it’s right infront of you, yet you keep asking the same question over and over, so I repeat over and over.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@Void Even if she complied, she would still have had a crime. Agreeing to the discipline does not get rid of the crime the person committed. The rules are not a specific court case or case that she was disciplined for. What is so hard about posting what I am asking for? Is it because it does not exist?

Void's avatar

@Seaofclouds, alright. I’ll just keep doing what you’re doing. I’ll keep pasting until you stop asking questions. It didn’t reach the court system, hence, the discipline 771 was conducted. It does exist. Read sources. Oh, you don’t like any of the sources. Interesting. Where are your sources? Yourself? Hmm

Seaofclouds's avatar

@Void If it didn’t reach the court system, how could she have been court ordered? I’m not the one saying that she was participating in illegal activity, you are. If she had been, there would be factual proof in court documents and papers stating she was disbarred if she actually was. Since you can’t find any of those, I think it proves that those things aren’t true. It would be hard for me to give you a piece of paper saying she’s never been charged with an illegal crime since it would only be document if it had happened. I’m going to bed now, have a good night.

Void's avatar

@Seaofclouds, the court case. There is a difference. She was disbarred, hence rule 771 was used to discipline her. Factual proof is provided in all the sources. Due to the fact that the court disbarred her with rule 771 and she complied instead of fighting the case, thus, shows none.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@Void Show me proof that she was disbarred. No more rules and people’s assumptions, but cold hard proof that she was disbarred. The ARDC does not have her listed as disbarred, so where is she actually listed as being disbarred. I’m really going to bed now, goodnight.

Void's avatar

@Seaofclouds, Haha, “people’s assumptions”. I forgot the Washington post is only know for “assuming things” in their articles. Funny how everyone says rule 771 (now rule 770) was used to discipline her and the fact that it’s the disciplinary branch where you can’t volunteer… Interesting indeed. You can be disbarred in more then one way, hence, in her way, it shows as none, but was still disbarred using rule 771 (now rule 770). I’ll keep pasting it since you don’t seem to see it.

RULE 770 Types of Discipline

Conduct of attorneys which violates the Rules of Professional Conduct contained in article VIII of these rules or which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute shall be grounds for discipline by the court. Discipline may be:

(a) disbarment;

(b) disbarment on consent;

(c) suspension for a specified period and until further order of court;

(d) suspension for a specified period of time;

(e) suspension until further order of the court;

(f) suspension for a specified period of time or until further order of the court with probation; or

(g) censure;

(h) reprimand by the court, the Review Board or a hearing panel.

No volunteer option, sorry.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@Void No inactive status option either, sorry. If she was disbarred, it would say disbarred. Goodnight for real this time.

Void's avatar

@Seaofclouds, Rule 770 = (a) disbarment;

augustlan's avatar

[mod says] Personal attacks are not permitted and have been removed.

ETpro's avatar

@Void I am not trying to hide a damned thing because I am not trying to spin what I see on the ARDC page into something it is clearly not. I posted a link to the entire ARDC record so anyone who wanted to could go read it in entirety for themselves. We aren’t impressed by what you post because it doesn’t lead to the conclusions you so desperately want it to. I am not the ideologue here, my friend, you are. If the evidence showed Michelle Obama was disciplined or disbarred, I would have no problem admitting that. But it doesn’t show any thing of the kind, and you do have a problem admitting that. I can only conclude that the partisan desire to smear outweighs facts for you.

Here is what the entire page says, so all here can see without even having to click the link where the words Disciplinary that you are so fixated on actually occur in context.
_____________________________________________________________________
ARDC Individual Attorney Record of Public Registration and Public Disciplinary and Disability Information as of August 20, 2010 at 1:20:57 PM:
(NOTE the ARDC covers Registration (which would include voluntarism surrender of registration and not just disciplinary action as you falsely keep insisting.)

Full Licensed Name:   Michelle Obama
Full Former name(s):   Michelle Lavaughn Robinson
Date of Admission as Lawyer
    by Illinois Supreme Court:   May 12, 1989
Registered Business Address:   Not available online
Registered Business Phone:   Not available online
Illinois Registration Status:   Voluntarily inactive and not authorized to practice law
Malpractice Insurance:   (Current as of date of registration;
consult attorney for further information) No malpractice report required as attorney is on court ordered inactive status.
Public Record of Discipline
and Pending Proceedings:   None
_____________________________________________________________________

If you can find ANY evidence of wrongdoing by Michelle Obama and show that the ARDC acted to revoke her license due to that, or asked her to voluntarily give up that license, I will definitely read it and take that into account. So far, all you have done is grab a word from one part of the report, insert it somewhere out of context, and build a smear case that certainly appears entirely unsupported by the facts you yourself are referencing.

770 (a) is indeed disbarment under the rules of the Illinois supreme court. But nowhere is that number shown on the report regarding Ms. Obama. So again, unless you can provide a source to show that Michelle Obama was subject to 770 (a) I must conclude that stating what number disbarment comes under in Illinois is just another attempt at guilt by false association.

Void's avatar

@ETpro, You just caused your own downfall.

“Illinois Registration Status: Voluntarily inactive and not authorized to practice law”
“Malpractice Insurance:” No malpractice report required as attorney is on court ordered inactive status

In a disciplinary branch if you are court ordered to go into inactive status which rule 770 was used for displine(disbarrment) as sources say, then no malpractice report is required, hence, it shows NONE.

ETpro's avatar

@Void There you go again. My friend, I am actually seeking the truth here, not a given outcome. So there is no way I can “cause my own downfall.” I leave that sort of stuff to the partisan hacks who run the spin machines.

I obviously wasn’t trying to hide the words court ordered by posting them above not once but twice, and by twice linking to the page where they are found. Reading that sentence in its context, I deem it to mean that since this is the Registration board as well as the Disciplinary board, when an attorney voluntarily gives up their license rather than renew it, the court orders that they not practice law. Nowhere on the page does it say disbarred or 770 (a).

It does list phone numbers for the ARDC, and I will take the time to call them and find out who is reading more into or out of the document than is meant to be there. Again, I am not interested in supporting someone or in crucifying someone. I am interested in the truth.

Where is your source for this statement, “In a disciplinary branch if you are court ordered to go into inactive status, hence, rule 770 used for displine as sources say, which is disbarrment, then no malpractice report is required, hence, it shows NONE.” Citation, please, or I must assume you are just making this stuff up to suit the conclusion you wish to reach.

Void's avatar

@ETpro,

Source 1: American Thinker
Source 2: Sun-time Media
Source 3: American College of Emergency Physcians
Source 4: Washington Post
Source 5: Chicago Tribune
Source 6: Atlas Shrugs

Void's avatar

@ETpro, I asked you a question. Why did she use a disciplinary form to “volunteer” to go inactive? There was no other forms? Maybe because there is no such thing as volunteering in a disciplinary branch?

JLeslie's avatar

Is anyone on this thread a lawyer? I’m going to make a question asking a lawyer to comment if not. So we can straighten out the legal lingo once and for all.

Void's avatar

A lawyer did comment, scroll up. @bobloblaw “Admittedly, I’m completely unfamiliar w/the Illinois State Bar and its exact relationship with the State Supreme Court. I’m also completely unfamiliar with any particularized legal terminology/rule that is unique to Illinois.”

If you want “truth”. Then your best bet is to hear it from the horses mouth (ADRC).

JLeslie's avatar

@Void Oh right, I had forgotten. Thank you. His answer seemed to imply that the wording does not imply disbarrment.

Void's avatar

I know, he is perplexed by the wording, that’s why towards the end he said what I quoted of him. This is were the sources I gave come in to put more weight to what it is, a disbarment. If you have sources that say otherwise, by all means, although no on gave any other then arguing what is on the ADRC. The way I see it, is the way bob implied it towards the end. You have to find out from the ADRC. Sources say they did, hence, the proof of disbarment.

JLeslie's avatar

@Void I just don’t see how the Republicans, especially McCains camp, would not have used this if it was actually something that means anything. I mean it is public record; they must have looked up her law record. The Republicans would have to be total idiots if it is true. Don’t you think? It would be a huge miss.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@Void That patient dumping scheme you mentioned above happened after she went inactive. In 1993, she became the founding executive director of Public Allies Chicago, an Americorps National Service Program. So, in 1993, she was not working at the University of Chicago. She didn’t start working for the University of Chicago’s hospital until 2002(source). So that would not have anything to do with when she went to inactive status. I have yet to see anything that says she has been disbarred and I have done some more looking. I’m interested to hear what @ETpro finds out when he calls the ARDC.

Void's avatar

Michelle Obama became inactive through Rule 771. April 1, 2004, approximately 11 years after the First Lady went inactive in 1993, and the same year Barack Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate, some “reorganizing” of the rules happened.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@Void The point is she originally went inactive in 1993, 9 years before she ever started working for UoC Hospital, thus making the patient dumping scheme irrelevant. The rules changing in 2004 have no bearing on her originally going inactive in 1993.

Void's avatar

That’s why I gave you more information.

What did she do that in 1993—after only four years—her license to practice law was reviewed and put on inactive by a disciplinary agency.

“Scmoo the attorney adds: ..as an attorney I am telling you that people can “choose” to not pay their registration fees or take their continuing education of the bar and therefore go on “suspension…or inactive status that goes through the CAL BAR—the California Bar association”

What was little Michelle from the Southside of Chicago doing in 1993?

1993: Public Allies Chicago with 30 Allies is launched by founding Executive Director Michelle Obama. President Clinton names Public Allies a model for national service. First Lady Hilary Clinton hosts Rose Garden reception for Public Allies at the White House. Say what? Michelle and Hillary go back that far?

“Shmoo finds more: In 1992 Michelle Obama left her job at Sidley Austin to launch a career in public service, serving as an assistant to Mayor Daley and then as the assistant commissioner of planning and development for the City of Chicago. (ask yourself how did a 2–3 year attorney…just wound up being Mayor Daleys “assistant” just like that…and what did she do as an “assistant” what does that even mean when you are a harvard trained attorney?)”

Too close for comfort. Coincidental?

Bernardine Dohrn, Bill Ayers wife was at Sidley Austin—- a law firm in Chicago from From 1984 to 1988. Dohrn was employed by the law firm Sidley Austin although her criminal record has prevented her from being admitted to either the New York or Illinois bar.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@Void What does any of that have to do with her going to inactive status? All it says is what she did, perhaps she felt that switching jobs was enough reason to go to inactive status. Why does it matter why she chose to go to inactive status? Maybe she realized she really didn’t like it or something.

And perhaps things are done differently in California than they are in Illinois. A lawyer commenting on how things are done in his state does not necessarily indicate how things are done in another state.

ETpro's avatar

@Void It is a REGISTRATION and Disiplinary Agency. If you wanted to give up your registration, you would not go to the Dog Catcher. You would go to the agency that handles registration, which in Illinois is the ARDC. Yes, they also handle disciplinary actions, but you have sown NOTHING to prove that what their page says was a voluntary action on her part was in fact a disciplinary action.

None of the six media you listed are citations. A citation leads directly to the proof you have in mind. It is either a direct link in the case of Web citations, or a reference with page number if to a print source.

Your list would require years of research, reading back issues of daily newspapers to see if somewhere in there there is something relevant. And how on earth is Atlas Shrugged, written in 1957, relevant to Michelle Obama giving up her license to practice law in 1993?

Void's avatar

@Seaofclouds, Exactly, these are things she done that raises suspicion. The truth is, the ADRC doesn’t state why she was disbarred, accept that she was with rule 771 (now 770). I’m giving you information on the possibilities of why she was disbarred. Research that was done on her. The patient dumping scheme, although was later, is a good indicator she has unethical behavior in her, thus, was up to no good in 1992. You don’t get disbarred for nothing.

@Seaofclouds, “And perhaps things are done differently in California than they are in Illinois. A lawyer commenting on how things are done in his state does not necessarily indicate how things are done in another state.”

Isn’t that what @bobloblaw said? Then why are you arguing on something you don’t know? At least my sources clarify it. They did the research. Where are your sources that say otherwise?

Seaofclouds's avatar

@Void Nothing on the ARDC’s site says she was disbarred according to rule 771. Nothing. There still has been nothing posted in this thread that specifically says she has been disbarred. So please, if you have something that specifically says “Michelle Obama disbarred on such and such date”, share it with the rest of us. Otherwise, realize that there isn’t anything out there that says that because it has not happened.

The patient dumping scheme is a completely different issue and has nothing to do with her being a lawyer.

ETpro's avatar

@Void Where does it state that she was disbarred at all. All I have seen from your “references” is links to one page about Ms. Obama with not a word about disbarment, an assumption on your part that because it includes the word “court ordered” it means it was a disciplinary action even though it states she had no malpractice actions against her, and an explanation of 770 from another page which is in no way related to the page regarding Michelle Obama. I am not saying it’s impossible you are right. I am just pointing out that you have come nowhere close to proving your case.

Void's avatar

@Seaofclouds, ETpro, I asked you a question, are news sources unreliable sources? Has the washington post been known to write unsupported articles? I asked you another question. Why was a discplinary form used to vulunteer to go inactive? Was there no other form?

Seaofclouds's avatar

@Void None of the sources you posted said she was disbarred and none specifically said which form she used to go into inactive status.

Void's avatar

Because they use rules. It’s even better then writing disbarment. It’s a rule! Rule 771=disbarment. Stop avoiding my question and answer it.

ETpro's avatar

@Void If I posted the names of 20 of the worlds most respected news organizations and said they all show you are wrong, would you seriously go to each, read back through their acrhives of daily material from 2010 back to 1993, and see if I was right? Wouldn’t you ask me for a reference to the specific article I have in mind.

If you have found definitive proof of your case in the Washington Post, link to it. If it isn’t online, state the volume and date and the page number. If you are looking at this “proof” it should not be a hard thing for you to do. Once more, simply stating The Washington Post is not a citation. If you turned in a term paper in Freshman English with references like that, you’d get an F.

Void's avatar

@ETpro, I used Washington post as an example. Although I did use it as a source. If you want details, I already linked you to all of it in the first reply of this thread.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@Void Here’s something for you:
“In 1993, the same year she began working for Public Allies, she applied to change her Illinois registration status for practicing law – only four years after she received her license. It is now listed as “inactive”. James Grogan, deputy administrator and chief counsel for the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois, or ARDC, has been with the commission for 30 years. He told WND that on July 1, 1994, the Illinois Supreme Court entered an order allowing Michelle to be transferred to inactive status pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court rule 770. Prior to November 1, 1999, former Supreme Court Rule 770 provided for a proceeding in the Court for any voluntary transfer to inactive status, whether because of some incapacitating condition or solely as a matter of the lawyer’s preference because the lawyer would not be practicing law. Grogan explained, “At the time, the only way to go on inactive status was to do what she did – which was to file a petition in the Illinois Supreme Court. 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.” In the case of Michelle Obama, Grogan said she would need to obtain another court order to reactivate her status because her file still falls under old rules that required her to go through the court for all status changes. “There’s absolutely no indication of any disciplinary proceeding ever lodged against Michelle Obama,” he said.” (source).

Here is the Snopes article about both the President and Michelle’s licenses.

So the only reason it says “court ordered” is because the only way to go inactive at that time was to file a petition with the Illinois Supreme Court. When the rules changed, her status did not have to change because it was already in effect. If she would have been disciplined in any way, there would have been a public record of it.

ETpro's avatar

@Void Once more, you linked to documents that mention nothing about Michelle Obama.

Specifically,
https://www.iardc.org/article_cornell.html says what ARDC coers. We are entirely in agreement on that. What we do not agree on is the idea that because the word “discipline” is one of the words on that document, we can leap to the conclusion that discipline is the only thing the ARDC does. If that were so, then every attorney in Illinois would have been disciplined, because the ARDC is also the board that deals with registration to practice law in the state.

The link to the Right-wing website, The American Thinker does claim that the patient Dumping Scheme at The University of Chicago Medical Center was a plot hatched by Michelle Obama. Several other right-wing blogs and Fox News tout the story as well. However, looking at a non-biased source, The Office of Inspector General reports on a $50,000 fine levied for an action in 2010. Ms. Obama left the Hospital Administrator job in 2006. She voluntarily surrendered her license to practice law in 1993. Unless you can prove that she has a time machine, the suggestion that this is tied to her law license is an anachronism. Since the link to the “American College of Emergency Physicans covers the same chain of events in the same time-line and does not mention Michelle Obama in any way, it to is not proof of your allegations.

The Washington Post artiste is not about patient dumping but about moves Ms. Obama initiated in 2006 to enlist other neighborhood clinics and hospitals in taking some of the excess load off the Emergency Room facilities at the The University of Chicago Medical Center.

It’s late. I can’t carry on tonight. But so far, I see nothing to support your charges.

Void's avatar

@Seaofclouds, “Prior to November 1, 1999, former Supreme Court Rule 770 provided for a proceeding in the Court for any voluntary transfer to inactive status, whether because of some incapacitating condition or solely as a matter of the lawyer’s preference because the lawyer would not be practicing law.”

The current registration rules provide a procedure for lawyers on Court-ordered inactive status under former Supreme Court Rule 770 who might wish to register.

Whatever registration status the lawyer wishes to assume (active, inactive, or retired), the lawyer must first file a motion with the Supreme Court for restoration to active status under Rule 759. The motion process is necessary to screen for those who transferred due to circumstances that require some review of present fitness, and the motions will be contested only in such cases. In all other cases, the ARDC will consent to the transfer, and when a consent is submitted, the Supreme Court typically allows the motion within a few weeks of when it is filed.

Rule 770 NEVER was used for just simply going inactive. It does allow an attorney to VOLUNTARILY go inactive when there is some review or disciplinary action going on.

When a lawyer chooses to do this, but later wants to become active again, the review or discipline under Rule 770 continues before the decision is made to restore the law license. Under Rule 770, you can go inactive voluntarily, but it is court mandated, and you cannot practice law.

To go inactive, just because you no longer want to practice, Rule 756 is used.

It clearly says on the ADRC that Michelle Obama “is on court ordered inactive status.” She did not quit practicing law, she was required to quit.

jaytkay's avatar

@jaytkay What was she disciplined for, what actions were taken and what where the dates?

50 comments later, I see @Void still can’t answer this.

Because there was no disbarment. There was no disciplinary action.

Void's avatar

@jaytkay, “50 comments later, I see @Void still can’t answer this.”

50 comments later, I see @jaytkay, asking the same questions which I already answered. The ADRC didn’t disclose what she was disciplined for. I’ll bold it for you. “No malpractice report required as attorney is on court ordered inactive status.” Action taken is Disciplinary Rule 771, now 770, which is disbarment, taken as multiple sources are saying, date of action is also in the sources, as stated. Michelle Obama became inactive through Rule 771.April 1, 2004,

bobloblaw's avatar

My, my, my has this discussion gone into overdrive since I last put my two cents in.

@Void, I want to point out that there’s a problem with your analysis. Assuming that everything that you’ve posted about Michelle Obama’s activities to be true. Assuming that everything shady that she did at the hospital is true. I’m going to go that far with you. In fact, I’m going to go so far as to say that you present some relatively credible evidence that Michelle Obama may have done something extremely shady during her time at the hospital.

My problem w/your analysis is that you put the cart before the donkey. In fact, I’m not even sure it’s a cart or a donkey. As @jaytkay keeps alluding to, you’ve provided no information to the discussion indicating whether any of the disciplinary rules were applied to Michelle Obama in relation to her activities. Even if all her shady activities actually happened, you’ve provided no proof that the State Bar of Illinois has taken action against her for that specific act. All you’ve done is constantly repeat that the State Bar lists her as being listed as X status and that she might have done something shady. Therefore, she must have been listed as X b/c of something shady.

I’m going to ask it again: even if Michelle Obama has actually committed those shady dealings, what proof do you have to offer that connects her shady dealings with what is listed in the State Bar’s website?

By proof, I mean actual court documents. Actual disciplinary forms. I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt here, but I’m not going to condemn the First Lady to the void, so to speak, until I see some hard evidence that is admissible in a court of law. What you’re accusing her of is a violation of a Rule of Professional Responsibility. This is quite a serious matter. In order for your argument to actually matter and be argued in good faith, you’re going to have to show more than just links to articles.

To that end, I don’t want to see conjecture. I don’t want to see links to American Thinker, Sun-time Media, American College of Emergency Physicians, Washington Post, Chicago Tribue and Atlas Shrugs. I don’t want to see any of that. You know why? Because they are not making the conclusions based on a court proceeding or following court procedures. They, even with all of their expertise and knowledge, are not tribunals with the authority to discipline people. They are merely private investigative bodies and, thus, there are no real rules of procedure or evidence that they must follow to ensure that what they are saying is true, relevant and fair to all parties. If all of what they state were to be run through the court system and held as true, relevant and fair, then I would believe you; hook, line and sinker.

Since they have not, then I have to look at all that information with my ever increasingly one eye brow raised skeptical eye. The only documents that any of us can reasonably believe in good faith are those that come from the State Bar or Supreme Court of Illinois. Make no mistake: if you provide real hard court/official documents supporting your position, then all of us must believe you. We could not in good faith do otherwise.

Finally, don’t tell me that you can’t get the documents. Any and all disciplinary documents are typically considered public records so they should be easily accessible via request. Even if they are not, you can make a request under the Freedom of Information Act and get those same documents. Remember, the problem w/the website’s information is that it does not say exactly what she may have been disciplined for (even if I were to believe that she was actually disciplined and that she did something shadya). Also, before you say “why don’t you do it, bobloblaw,” the reason why I don’t do it is that you’re making the argument. You’re the accusator, the prosecutor, the plaintiff, the one making the complaint, if you will. The burden is, thus, on you to prove it before I am required to defend it, believe it, trust it.

Michelle Obama may be rotten to the core. She may be a crook. She may be a very bad citizen, but she’s still just that: a citizen of these United States. I think it would be un-American of us, even in this informal Internet discussion/flamewar, to condemn her based on mere conjecture when solid, documentary proof connecting A to B can be acquired.

So I ask you, my friend, what do you have to show me? Don’t worry, I’m willing to wait for you.

Void's avatar

@bobloblaw, Yes, I can’t link the dirt that she had been involved in with the ADRC. This is why, as I pointed out a line above yours, it simply says, “No malpractice report required as attorney is on court ordered inactive status.” So, the ADRC doesn’t state what the disciplinary charge was. Now, for instance, Atlas Shrugs, says that Michelle Obama became inactive through Rule 771.April 1, 2004. @Seaofclouds, gave me one article and snopes. although intented for counter argument, it confirms that the this rule was used. This rule deals with, (a) disbarment;(b) disbarment on consent; Then, @Seaofclouds, pointed out that “Prior to November 1, 1999, former Supreme Court Rule 770 provided for a proceeding in the Court for any voluntary transfer to inactive status, whether because of some incapacitating condition or solely as a matter of the lawyer’s preference because the lawyer would not be practicing law.” To which I answered, The current registration rules provide a procedure for lawyers on Court-ordered inactive status under former Supreme Court Rule 770 who might wish to register. Whatever registration status the lawyer wishes to assume (active, inactive, or retired), the lawyer must first file a motion with the Supreme Court for restoration to active status under Rule 759. The motion process is necessary to screen for those who transferred due to circumstances that require some review of present fitness, and the motions will be contested only in such cases. In all other cases, the ARDC will consent to the transfer, and when a consent is submitted, the Supreme Court typically allows the motion within a few weeks of when it is filed.Rule 770 NEVER was used for just simply going inactive. It does allow an attorney to VOLUNTARILY go inactive when there is some review or disciplinary action going on. When a lawyer chooses to do this, but later wants to become active again, the review or discipline under Rule 770 continues before the decision is made to restore the law license. Under Rule 770, you can go inactive voluntarily, but it is court mandated, and you cannot practice law. To go inactive, just because you no longer want to practice, Rule 756 is used. It clearly says on the ADRC that Michelle Obama “is on court ordered inactive status.” She did not quit practicing law, she was required to quit. I’m using the same website you’re, ADRC. This is simplification of the rules, I can provide the detailed rules, if requested.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@Void My quote came directly from James Grogan, the deputy administrator and chief counsel for the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois. Perhaps if you want to question him about your interpretation of the rules, you should contact him directly. Here is the contact information. Personally, I’m going to listen to what he said directly rather than what you are interpreting the rules to be because I think he knows what he is talking about. Considering he said that the only way she could have went inactive back then was to file a motion with the Supreme Court of Illinois, I’m going to believe him.

Void's avatar

@Seaofclouds, excellent, and you still call me out on bias sources? You just gave me a lefty news source, that is the only news source, that was able to speak with a member of the ADRC, that no other new sources was able to do. Furthermore, he mentioned changing from rule 770 inactive status, but then why is contradicting with what’s on the ADRC rule websites? Hmm, I think I’ll believe what the ADRC rules say, rather then a lefty bias news source, the only news source at that, which claims they interviewed a member of the adrc who is contradicting what’s written in the rules. I’ll see if this man has any contact information.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@Void That is the only source that I could find with a direct quote from speaking with someone at the ARDC. I looked for others, but could not find any. Perhaps they are the only source that even tried to talk to someone from the ARDC instead of making their own interpretations of the rules. I gave you the contact information. I don’t see what he is contradicting in the rules. He specifically said what the rules were and how they have changed. Since he has been working for the ARDC, I’m pretty sure he knows what he is talking about.

Regardless, the point remains that there is no disciplinary information for Michelle Obama and that she has not been disbarred.

Void's avatar

@Seaofclouds, yes, that makes sense. Only one lefty news source had a bright idea to actually contact the ADRC, everyone else is just to stupid to know what contact information means. Those are the current rules at the ADRC, they refer to what he was talking about, accept that it doesn’t add up. You just confirmed the same information that I gave you, that rule 771, now 770, was ordered to inactivate her. He is claiming there was an acception to the rule, however, under Rule 770, you can go inactive voluntarily, but it is court mandated, and you cannot practice law. To go inactive, just because you no longer want to practice, Rule 756 is used. And what is Rule 770? (a) disbarment;(b) disbarment on consent; So, she was disbarred, otherwise Rule 756 would of been used. I’ll give him a call and see what he says.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@Void I think you are missing the part where it says former Supreme Court rule 770. The rules were changed to what they are today. As you stated above the current rule 770 didn’t come to be what it is now until 2004. According to what I posed above, prior to November 1999 there was a different rule 770.

Void's avatar

The current registration rules provide a procedure for lawyers on Court-ordered inactive status under former Supreme Court Rule 770 who might wish to register.

An attorney may advise the Administrator in writing that he or she desires to assume inactive status and, thereafter, register as an inactive status attorney. The annual registration fee for an inactive status attorney shall be $105.

Upon such registration, the attorney shall be placed upon inactive status and shall no longer be eligible to practice law or hold himself or herself out as being authorized to practice law in this State, except as is provided in paragraph (j) of this rule.

An attorney who is on the master roll as an inactive status attorney may advise the Administrator in writing that he or she desires to resume the practice of law, and thereafter register as active upon payment of the registration fee required under this rule and submission of verification from the Director of MCLE that he or she has complied with MCLE requirements as set forth in Rule 790 et seq.

If the attorney returns from inactive status after having paid the inactive status fee for the year, the attorney shall pay the difference between the inactive status registration fee and the registration fee required under paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this rule. Inactive status under this rule does not include inactive disability status as described in Rules 757 and 758. Any lawyer on inactive disability status is not required to pay an annual fee.

(7) An attorney who is on voluntary inactive status pursuant to former Rule 770 who wishes to register for any year after 1999 shall file a petition for restoration under Rule 759.

If the petition is granted, the attorney shall advise the Administrator in writing whether he or she wishes to register as active, inactive or retired, and shall pay the fee required for that status for the year in which the restoration order is entered.

Any such attorney who petitions for restoration after December 31, 2000, shall pay a sum equal to the annual registration fees that the attorney would have been required to pay for each full year after 1999 during which the attorney remained on Rule 770 inactive status without payment of a fee.

I simplyfied all this for you.

The current registration rules provide a procedure for lawyers on Court-ordered inactive status under former Supreme Court Rule 770 who might wish to register.

Whatever registration status the lawyer wishes to assume (active, inactive, or retired), the lawyer must first file a motion with the Supreme Court for restoration to active status under Rule 759. The motion process is necessary to screen for those who transferred due to circumstances that require some review of present fitness, and the motions will be contested only in such cases. In all other cases, the ARDC will consent to the transfer, and when a consent is submitted, the Supreme Court typically allows the motion within a few weeks of when it is filed.

Rule 770 NEVER was used for just simply going inactive. It does allow an attorney to VOLUNTARILY go inactive when there is some review or disciplinary action going on.

When a lawyer chooses to do this, but later wants to become active again, the review or discipline under Rule 770 continues before the decision is made to restore the law license. Under Rule 770, you can go inactive voluntarily, but it is court mandated, and you cannot practice law.

To go inactive, just because you no longer want to practice, Rule 756 is used.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@Void You wrote:
“The current registration rules provide a procedure for lawyers on Court-ordered inactive status under former Supreme Court Rule 770”.

That right there says that a lawyers that went to inactive status using the former rule 770 did so through a court order, which James Grogan explained was the only way for a lawyer to go to inactive status prior to November 1999. It does not prove that she was disciplined for anything.

Void's avatar

Again, you’re not looking at the rest of it. The motion process is necessary to screen for those who transferred due to circumstances that require some review of present fitness, and the motions will be contested only in such cases. In all other cases, the ARDC will consent to the transfer, and when a consent is submitted, the Supreme Court typically allows the motion within a few weeks of when it is filed.

Rule 770 NEVER was used for just simply going inactive. It does allow an attorney to VOLUNTARILY go inactive when there is some review of disciplinary action going on. Under Rule 770, you can go inactive voluntarily, but it is court mandated, and you cannot practice law. To go inactive just because you no longer want to practice, Rule 756 is used.

Void's avatar

@bobloblaw, what’s your take on this latest info?

Seaofclouds's avatar

@Void The rest of what you wrote discussed the current procedures for lawyers to follow. There is nothing that has specifically show what the former rule 770 from prior to 1999 stated. I have not seen anything that says the former rule 770 from 1999 and earlier was not used to go inactive. I have provided you with a quote directly from the deputy administrator and chief counsel of the ARDC. If you do not believe what he said, there’s really nothing else I have to say on the matter. I will take his exact words of the misinterpretations of other on a rule that has been changed for many years. He was there then and knows what the rules were and what was used for her inactive status. He specifically said the only way to go into inactive statue at that time was through a petition with the Supreme court. Once that petition was granted, it became a court order.

I’m finished debating this with you until you post a specific document with either a court case for her disciplinary actions or her disbarment. I have no further desire to discuss your interpretations of the rules.

Void's avatar

@Seaofclouds, You’re taking the word of wndaily, not the direct word of the ADRC member. If you called him by phone, it would be a direct word. His word is quoted by the lefy new source. You don’t find it coincidental that it’s the only news source that was able to reach him? I’m giving the direct rules of the current former rule 770 on the ARDC website. It’s doesn’t get more official then that, no secondary lefty news source, the only one at that, quoting someone. There is nothing to interpret on this website, The rules are clear and speak for themselves. This isn’t the bible. Don’t you see the problem? If he is saying one thing, when the website says another? Rule 756 was around back then, why was rule 770 the only rule possible? Furthermore, rule 770 clearly shows, before and after rule changes, that it’s only designed for review of disciplinary. This is specifically why rule 756 was around, if needed for other reasons. If she really wanted to go inactive, she would of done it with rule 756, instead 770, which was used to court order her to quit. It clearly says for rule 770 at the ADRC website, the motion process is necessary to screen for those who transferred due to circumstances that require some review of present fitness, and the motions will be contested only in such cases. Big difference and discrepancy with what the wndaily quote of the ARDC member says and what the ARDC website actually says. If you’re done debating then stop repeating the same thing because I’ll just keep repeating it as well.

jaytkay's avatar

@Void ”“No malpractice report required as attorney is on court ordered”

You state that as proof of malpractice on Obama’s part.

The malpractice report merely states whether someone has malpractice insurance or not. Looking at any other lawyer’s record clearly shows that.

Does anyone else suspect maybe Orly Taitz has joined Fluther?

Void's avatar

@jaytkay, “No malpractice report required as attorney is on court ordered inactive status.” Read rule 770. Rule 770 is a disciplinary rule that court orders a lawyer into inactivity. Now put it the ”” into the rule, and you have your match. Rule 770 is (a) disbarment; (b) disbarment on consent; If she wanted to go inactive because she didn’t want to practice, then rule 756 would’ve been used. Rule 756 is the vehicle for becoming voluntarily inactive, for whatever reason you want to do so.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@Void The current rule 770 is a disciplinary rule. It did not exist until 2004. There was a previous rule 770 (prior to 1999) that allowed lawyers to request to go inactive by petitioning the Supreme Court. Why do you continue to argue what the rule states? You still haven’t posted an actual court document with disciplinary actions or disbarment information.

I can tell you the rules of a game all day, that doesn’t prove that someone broke them (especially when the rules have changed).

Void's avatar

@Seaofclouds, Yes, I did. Straight from the ARDC website, not from some secondary lefty news source, the only one at that, as you did. If you don’t understand the difference between a disciplinary rule and a regular rule, then that’s not my problem. She was disciplined with rule 770, which is a clearly disciplinary rule and states disbarrment, which was not the acceptation rule because if she was innocent, she would of used rule 756. The changes would only matter if you didn’t have rule 756. Before or after changes, rule 770 always allows an attorney to VOLUNTARILY go inactive when there is some review of disciplinary action going on. Get your facts straight. I’ll keep going all day.

@jaytkay, “Orly”

Ya, rly.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@Void Rule 770 as it stands now (the disciplinary stuff) was not in effect when she went into inactive status (you even said so yourself). There was a different rule 770 prior to November 1999 that allowed her to petition the supreme court to go into inactive status. Nothing you have posted from the ARDC says that “Michelle Obama was disciplined for ______ action and ordered to go into inactive status.”

If such a disciplinary action had occurred, it would be public information and you could find it and post it for us. The “court ordered inactive status” is because the Supreme Court granted her petition to go into inactive status. The order is the granting of the petition from the Supreme Court so that she does not have to continue with malpractice insurance.

I’m not responding again until you post a document that specifically states what she was disciplined for or a document that gives the dates and reasons for her disbarment. Happy hunting…

Void's avatar

@Seaofclouds, I asked you a simple question. Why was rule 770 used when rule 756 was available?

Rule 756: (5) An attorney may advise the Administrator in writing that he or she desires to assume inactive status and, thereafter, register as an inactive status attorney. The annual registration fee for an inactive status attorney shall be $105.

Why? A thousand lines later, you still don’t give my my answer.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@Void I have no way of knowing and neither do you. Enough about the rules. Post some real evidence already (court documents of specific disciplinary actions and disbarment information with a date and reason).

Void's avatar

@Seaofclouds, My point exactly. You can’t answer me, but I can answer you because it’s on the website. Documented in their rules.

ARDC Rules

This is the innocent rule. Rule 756: (5) An attorney may advise the Administrator in writing that he or she desires to assume inactive status and, thereafter, register as an inactive status attorney. The annual registration fee for an inactive status attorney shall be $105.

This is the guilty rule. Rule 770. Types of Discipline
(a) disbarment; (b) disbarment on consent;

IF you say that rule 770 wasn’t a disicplinary back when she wanted to be inactive, then why not use rule 756? Is she a dumb lawyer? I don’t think so. She knows what rule 756 is.
The reason is, even though rule 770 changed, it was still a disciplinary rule which is proven on the website. Right here. “The motion process is necessary to screen for those who transferred due to circumstances that require some review of present fitness, and the motions will be contested only in such cases.” Rule 770 does allow an attorney to VOLUNTARILY go inactive when there is some review or disciplinary action going on I gave you all the proof, it’s right on the main website. This why when it says that she was court order to go inactive, it can only be done with rule 770 which is, as written, disciplinary review in all cases, as stated. If rule 756 was used, such would not be written on her disciplinary form.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@Void For the last time. Nothing in the rules says what she did or didn’t use. Repeating yourself over and over again doesn’t suddenly make the rules say “this is what she did”. You still have yet to post any actual proof of disciplinary actions against here or information about when she was disbarred or why she was disbarred. Please don’t respond to me again about the rules. Your interpretations of them are not proof of anything.

Void's avatar

@Seaofclouds, Sure it does. Look at her profile. “No malpractice report required as attorney is on court ordered inactive status.” This says two things. To be court ordered to go inactive, rule 770 is used because that’s what it says rule 770 does on the ARDC website. No malpractice report required will not show the reason why she was disbarred, only that rule 770 was used which, as written in rules, says disbarment, and disbarment with consent. If rule 756 was used, you would not see court ordered inactive because that’s not what rule 756 does, as written on ARDC website. Again, if you choose to ignore the rules, then there is nothing to talk about. The answer is in her profile. I told you, I won’t let you manipulate this. I’ll keep going all day. The devil is in the details. The mere fact that you can’t answer me why rule 756 wasn’t used which is non disciplinary rule, clearly states you are out of words.

ARDC Rules

Seaofclouds's avatar

@Void I’m far from out of words. I’m merely tired of repeating myself. The current ARDC rules mean nothing considering the rule she used was changed. I have explained numerous times why it says “court ordered inactive status” in relation to the malpractice information. Why continue asking me the same thing when you know I’m going to give the same answer.

You still have not posted something that says what she was disciplined for (when even the ARDC says “NONE” under disciplinary actions) and you still have not posted anything that says she was disbarred. So why do you insist on continuing with me? You are the one trying to make a case, you are require to provide proof. I have defended what you have presented so far and have asked for specific evidence (which you have none). Please come back when you have specific evidence of disciplinary actions and disbarment.

This is the last time I will respond to you about the rules. If you absolutely feel like you must have the last word on the rule situation so be it, it is yours to have. I am done with this discussion until you show specific proof as mentioned before. I will not answer another question about the rules, so don’t be surprised if I do not respond again.

Void's avatar

What part of I’ll keep going all day did you fail to understand? You didn’t counter me on anything, sorry.

@Seaofclouds, ”The current ARDC rules mean nothing considering the rule she used was changed.”

The rule was changed, but it’s still a disciplinary rule. I showed you proof. It’s right here. “The motion process is necessary to screen for those who transferred due to circumstances that require some review of present fitness, and the motions will be contested only in such cases.*” Rule 770 does allow an attorney to VOLUNTARILY go inactive when there is some review or *disciplinary action going on. It always meant disbarment, despite the changes. Heres a better way to explain it. Here is another question for you. If you say rule 770 was changed to allow inactivity, then why is there a sepertion with between rule 770 and rule 756. It would be the same thing, yet, it’s not? Hmm. Let me guess, “I don’t know”? Now that it’s cleared up, and it says on her profile, “*No malpractice report required* as attorney is on court ordered inactive status.” This shows that rule 770 was always the same rule as written above, a disciplinary disbarment, and the fact that rule 770 is separate from rule 756. I keep telling you, I don’t know what she’s disciplined for because the ARDC write “*No malpractice report required* as attorney is on court ordered inactive status.*” It says NONE because *No malpractice report required The only thing that’s clear here, based on the current and previous changes to rules, and the mere fact that there is two different rules 770 and 756, shows that she has been disbarred, the reason, as stated, is not required, therefore, I don’t know.

bobloblaw's avatar

@Void The latest info doesn’t do anything but repeat what has been already said. In fact, everything said, by both sides, after your query to me has not added anything to the discussion. At most, what has been added is that the record retrieved from the website is non-specific as to what and why it was listed like that. Both sides agree that it is vague at best.

You haven’t proven that Michelle Obama was disciplined. Even if she was disciplined, you haven’t proven that Michelle Obama was disciplined b/c of her alleged involvement in the patient dumping scheme. You simply haven’t proven any it. Why? The reason is that we clearly have more reliable official documents regarding her status w/the Illinois State Bar. that can be accessed via official request, but you refuse to furnish them or request them and show them to us.

Until I am presented any combination of official documents or sworn testimony, you have not convinced me that the First Lady voluntarily complied with a court order requiring her to cease the practice of law due to a violation of the Rules of Professional Responsibility of the Great State of Illinois.

If you can provide me with a scan of the official court documents (remember, court orders are official documents of the court and, thus, are public records) or any sort of sworn testimony supporting your assertion, then I and, I’m sure, @Seaofclouds (for that matter, the rest of the community that is not tired of this exchange) will gladly oblige.

Until then, I respectfully disagree with your opinion on this matter.

Void's avatar

@bobloblaw, alright. I’m going to contact them.

Seaofclouds's avatar

I e-mailed the ARDC and received an e-mail in return from Mr. Grogan. I was going to do a screen capture and just post an image of the e-mails, but since I used my full name and legal title, I’d rather just copy and paste and leave out my personal information (so I’m putting spaces instead). So here goes…

Here is my e-mail to the ARDC:

Dear Sir or Ma’am:

I have been in the midst of a heated debate about the licensure status of Mrs. Michelle Obama. I found an article that quoted Mr. James Grogan as stating a lot of information about her case. I was unable to verify the information on any other site, so I was hoping to verify the information straight from the ARDC and possibly Mr. James Grogan himself. I’m sure you get a lot of inquiries about this information. I appreciate any help you can give me.

I was looking on your site for the direct contact information for Mr. James Grogan, but I was unable to find it, so I am e-mailing this message to you. If you could please forward it on to Mr. James Grogan or respond I would grately appreciate it.

Here (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105998) is the article I read with the quotes from Mr. James Grogan. I would appreciate any verification of the information I can receive.

The person I have been in a debate with is saying that since the current Rule 770 has to do with discipline information, that Mrs. Obama must have been disciplined. I believe that since Rule 770 changed, this information is falst. Can you please clarify what Rule 770 was back in 1993 and 1994?

Once again, I appreciate any information you can give me and I grately appreciate your time in the matter.

Sincerely,

___________

Here is the e-mail I received from Mr. Grogan (From: “Grogan, Jim” <jjgrogan@iardc.org>):

Ms. ______:

Thank you for your inquiry.

Ms. Obama has never been disciplined as a lawyer in this state. Neither has she ever been the subject of formal disciplinary proceedings. The article that you referenced does accurately describe the history of the Illinois Supreme Court Rules as they apply to registration status for inactive lawyers. Nonetheless, the process can be a bit confusing.

I would be happy to speak to you at any time about this matter. Feel free to give me a call. If I am unavailable, please leave a message on my voice mail. Let me know where you can be reached and I will get back to you.

Thank you,
Jim Grogan

James J. Grogan
Deputy Administrator & Chief Counsel
Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission
of the Supreme Court of Illinois
130 East Randolph Drive
Suite 1500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
312.565.2600

I might give him a call sometime tomorrow to talk some more, but that information would be hard for me to share other than telling you what he told me. Since he included his phone number, anyone else could give him a call as well to verify this information as well. Since his personal e-mail address was listed as who sent the e-mail to me, that could also be used by anyone else that wanted to contact him directly.

ETpro's avatar

@Seaofclouds & @Void

I just fired off the following email as well:

I’ve been having a bit of a debate in Fluther.com,. and online Social Q&A site, with a fellow who swears that your website says Michelle Obama was disbarred due to a Patient Dumping scheme she cooked up while she presided over while heading up the University of Chicago Hospital.

Looking at https://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=511842787 I see nothing that suggests her giving up her license to practice law in Illinois was anything but voluntary. Yet looking at this same page, my right-wing friend insists that because the word “Court Ordered” also appears on the page, that “obviously” means that she was bisbarred by the Illinois Supreme Court under 770 (a), What is the truth regarding her current status and whether she voluntarily gave up her license or was stripped of it by court ordered disbarment due to misconduct?

Sorry to trouble you, and thanks for any light you may be able to shed.

Will post the response I receive. Be it ever so difficult to finally dig out, truth always triumphs over speculation and innuendo.

ETpro's avatar

I got this in reply:

ARDC Information <information@iardc.org>
RE: Question About Michelle Obama’s Registration Status

Michelle Obama has never been charged with or disciplined for misconduct in Illinois.

All lawyer transfers to inactive status in Illinois were/are voluntary unless they were/are transfers to “disability inactive status” pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rules 757 or 758. (When a lawyer has been transferred to disability inactive status, his or her registration status will be reflected on our website as “Inactive due to disability and not authorized to practice law”.)

Prior to 2000, voluntary transfers to inactive status were accomplished through a routine procedure that involved petitioning the court and securing a court order for the transfer. Since a rule change in 2000, voluntary transfers to inactive status have been accomplished without a court order through a simplified procedure whereby lawyers simply request the transfer by letter to this office. Thus, pre-2000 transfers to inactive status were “court ordered”; whereas post-2000 transfers were/are not.

janbb's avatar

Is this not the final answer then??

Seaofclouds's avatar

I have received another e-mail as well. Hopefully this will help solve this for once and for all. I had responded to Mr. Grogan with this e-mail after receiving the e-mail I posted above:

Mr. Grogan,

Thank you so much for your timely response. I really appreciate it. I believe your e-mail clarifies things enough for me. I do have one other question. Since Mrs. Obama had to file a petition with the Supreme Court of Illinois to go into inactive status and the Supreme Court had to grant her petition, are those papers public? If so, would it be possible to see those papers? If not, is there a reason they are not public?

Thank you again,

________

Here is his response:

______ <<Consent & Motion to Transfer to Inactive Status Pursuant to
Supreme Court Rule 770.TIF>>:

The documents are indeed matters of public record. Attached, please find
a copy of the relevant pleadings in .pdf format.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Jim Grogan

James J. Grogan
Deputy Administrator & Chief Counsel
Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission
of the Supreme Court of Illinois
130 East Randolph Drive
Suite 1500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
312.565.2600

His e-mail does indeed have the court papers for her petition to go inactive and the subsequent approval of her petition. I will try to post a picture of them as soon as I can and I will gladly forward them to anyone that is interested in them (just send me your e-mail address in a private message).

Edit: I was able to save the images of the documents to my computer. The quality doesn’t look that great, so my offer to forward these to anyone that wants them still stands. Here are the six images. one two three four five six

ETpro's avatar

@janbb @Seaofclouds & @Void I am fully satisfied that we now know the truth and it is exactly what I said it was at the beginning of this discussion.

augustlan's avatar

@Seaofclouds @ETpro Thank you both so much for doing the digging required. It seems to me this matter is satisfactorily closed. Go team!

FR07en's avatar

Great work, and my only complaint is that the PDFs are so not clear:( But Seaofclouds… you did an amazing job of reporting (unlike the so-called “journalist(s)” that were sited elsewhere in this discussion.) Ah, how great to see someone with integrity instead of ignorance being on the side of “right” not THE right :)

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther