Vetting Odumbo: Both Barry Hussein and Moochelle forced to surrender law licenses!!!!!

[Marshall]

BOTH OBAMAS SURRENDERED law licenses in '93 & '08



Wed, 05/09/2012 - 1:53pm — AmericanPatriot

• National Issues, News & Elections

Did you wonder how President Obama could make un-Constitutional statements and challenge the Supreme Court when he was a "Constitutional Law Professor"?...............


This can be easily veriified at https://www.iardc.org
Stands for Illinois Attorney Registration And Disciplinary Committee. It's the official arm of lawyer discipline in Illinois; and they are very strict and mean as hell.

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

A "Voluntary Surrender" is not something where you decide "Gee, a license is not really something I need anymore, is it?" and forget to renew your license. No, a "Voluntary Surrender" is something you do when you've been accused of something, and you 'voluntarily surrender" your license five seconds before the state suspends you.

2 Michelle Obama "voluntarily surrendered" her law license in 1993. after a Federal Judge gave her the choice between surrendering her license or STAND TRIAL FOR insurance FRAUD.

3. So, we have the first black President and First "Lady" - who don't actually have licenses to practice law. Facts.
Source: http://jdlong.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/pres-barack-obama-editor-of-the-Harvard-law-review-has-no-law-license/

4. A senior lecturer is one thing, a fully ranked law professor is another. Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Chicago.

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

6. "He did not hold the title of Professor of Law," said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago School of Law.
Source: http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03/sweet_obama_did_hold_the_title .html ;

7. The former Constitutional Senior Lecturer (Obama) cited the U.S. Constitution the other night during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence ... not the Constitution.

8. The B-Cast posted the video: http://www.breitbart.tv/did-obama-confuse-the-constitution-with-the-declaration-of-independence/

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

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

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

[Whirlaway]

Interesting.

[Guest050715-1]

I got this email from a righty friend of mine. I looked it up. It doesn't say he is inactive like Michelle's does, but says he is retired. Apparently it was over some parking tickets he didn't pay. On the bar application it asks about unpaid tickets. The tickets were paid before he ascended the throne. If he wasn't so truthy, I'd say it is a witch hunt, but he can never manage to tell the whole truth so it is a valid point in my opinion.

Here's one of the links I read. I also looked at Snoops.

http://polination.wordpress.com/2012...l-law-license/

[Doove]

Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Here's one of the links I read. I also looked at Snoops.

http://polination.wordpress.com/2012...l-law-license/
[/FONT][/SIZE]

And the reason you didn't link to the snopes article?

Had nothing to do with the fact they debunked the whole thing, i'm sure.

http://snopes.com/politics/obama/lawlicenses.asp

Doesn't surprise me that an inactive birther would believe this nonsense.

[Marshall]

How Accurate Is Snopes.com?

18.05.2009 | Author: The Frog Prince | Posted in For Members, METRO NEWS HEADLINES, Online, political, US News
This questioned has been asked to me more than a few times. You be the judge of the “authoritative source.”
“For the past few years www.snopes.com has positioned itself, or others have labeled it as the ‘tell-all, final word’ on any comment, claim and e-mail. But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind snopes.com.
Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it -kinda makes you wonder what they were hiding. Well, finally we know. It is run by a husband and wife team – that’s right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers. It’s just a mom-and-pop operation that began as a hobby. David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the website about 13 years ago – and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research. After a few years it gained popularity believing it to be unbiased and neutral, but over the past couple of years people started asking questions who was behind it and did they have a selfish motivation? The reason for the questions – or skepticism’s is a result of snopes.com claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions or issues, when in fact, they have been proven wrong. Also, there were criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the ‘true’ bottom of various issues.
When I saw that Snopes had falsely claimed that Obama’s Birth Certificate had been properly validated, I realized something was wrong with either their research and/or their credibility. It seems something is seriously wrong with both.
Then a few months ago, when my State Farm agent, Bud Gregg, in Mandeville hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the Internet, supposedly the Mikkelson’s claim to have researched this issue before posting their findings on snopes.com. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort ever took place. I personally contacted David Mikkelson (and he replied back to me) thinking he would want to get to the bottom of this, and I gave him Bud Gregg’s contact phone numbers. Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec’s at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him about it. He never called Bud. In fact, I learned from Bud Gregg no one from snopes.com ever contacted anyone with State Farm. Yet snopes.com issued a statement as the ‘final factual word’ on the issue as if they did all their homework and got to the bottom of things.
Not!
So, I say this now to everyone who goes to www.snopes.com to get what they think to be the bottom line facts: Proceed with caution. Take what it says at face value and nothing more. Use it only to lead you to their references where you can link to and read the sources for yourself. Plus, you can always Google a subject and do the research yourself. It now seems apparent that’s all the Mikkelson’s do. After all, I can personally vouch from my own experience for their ‘not’ fully looking into things.”
Check it out and in the future when someone wants to “snopes.com” you, send them a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes

[Guest123018-4]

Snopes isnt infallable. They often fail to follow up and update the results..
Quite often they spin things.

For the most part they failed to maintain their licenses and associated fees along with other issues so they can pick and choose among a multiple number of reasons to not have their licenses.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Snopes isnt infallable.

I'll take them over Marshall, Whirlaway, IB Hankering, JD Barleycorn, COG and you.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by Doove

I'll take them over Marshall, Whirlaway, IB Hankering, JD Barleycorn, COG and you.

Thats why you drink the Koolaid.....

[CJ7]

sorry marshall, only idiots believe that shit


believers , raise your hand

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Doove

I'll take them over Marshall, Whirlaway, IB Hankering, JD Barleycorn, COG and you.

Doofus, it matters not what source is used -- you've already established that you'll lie and misrepresent what a source says in order to make it fit your agenda.

[Guest123018-4]

The Obama's figured they could make more money scamming the American public than they could ever steal as lawyers.

[gnadfly]

I don't understand why one goes to Princeton and then Harvard Law School and then basically gives up their law license 5 years after graduation and 5 years before their first child. Just doesn't make sense.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

I don't understand why one goes to Princeton and then Harvard Law School and then basically gives up their law license 5 years after graduation and 5 years before their first child. Just doesn't make sense.

Yup, don't make no sense. But then again, maybe it does. Hmmmm?

[Doove]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Doofus, it matters not what source is used -- you've already established that you'll lie and misrepresent what a source says in order to make it fit your agenda.

In a world where the sky is green, maybe.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Doove

In a world where the sky is green, maybe.

So you agree you lie and obfuscate regardless of what the source says, because a 'green sky' is common during a hurricane or tornado, i.e., it's not the impossible event you think you are suggesting.