RSS Feed
July 1st, 2012 
FAKE NEWS for the Zionist agenda Note*
I am sure Barack is or would be barred from obtaining a Law License due to admitted felony drug use. However, the same may not be true for Michelle. Her inactive status may have been voluntary and the court ordered status maybe due to the process she may have had to utilize to obtain ‘inactive’ status. Malpractice insurance may simply be a requirement of all attorneys!
But below are the reasons given for surrendered Licenses.
EVIDENCE Of FELONY DRUG USE:
The Respondent first admitted illegal drug use by disclosing it in his
book, Dreams from My Father. Obama, Barack. Dreams from My Father: A
Story of Race and Inheritance. New York: Three Rivers Press, 1995. In
that book he admitted, “Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow
when you could afford it. Not smack, though.” pp. 93–94. The
Respondent knew that his activities were illegal. The drug use
occurred from as early as high school at least until he completed his
bachelors degree in New York City. He entered law school in 1988,
living in and traveling in Somerville and Cambridge. He graduated
from law school in 1991.
Attorney surrenders license because of cocaine!
In about early 1991, Respondent submitted his application to take the
Illinois bar exam, in which he attested that his answers to the
questions were true and correct. In the Character and Fitness section,
questions 18 and 19 included the following statement:
NOTE. In connection with your answer to questions 18 and 19, you are
advised that no statute, court order, or legal proceeding withholding
adjudication, expunging information from any record, sealing any
record, or purporting to authorize any person to deny the existence of
occurrence of any information or matter shall excuse less than full
disclosure of any information or matter otherwise required to be
disclosed herein. You must answer questions 18 and 19; the attachment
of letters from law enforcement agencies in lieu of an answer is not
acceptable. Information provided in response to one of the two
questions need not be reported in response to the other.
18. Have you ever, either as an adult or juvenile, been cited,
arrested, accused, formally or informally, or convicted of any
violation of any law other than moving traffic violations.
In response to question 18, it is understood the Respondent answered
“no.” The Respondent did not disclose his multiple drug use occurring
through his time in high school and college.
By this time in his life he was very mature and sophisticated person
that he either did or should have given a great deal of consideration
to his response to question 18 a great deal of consideration. He has
not disclosed if he consulted with anyone, such as Illinois attorney
Michelle Robinson(later his wife) before answering the question.
On December 17, 1991, Respondent was admitted to the practice of law
in Illinois. At no time prior to his admission to the Illinois bar,
did Respondent apprise the Illinois Character and Fitness Committee of
his involvement in illegal drug activity. If he had been caught he
likely would have been charged with criminal possession of a
controlled substance in the fifth degree which is a class D felony.
New York Penal Law Sec. 220.06 (McKinney).
The following individuals have personal knowledge of, or access to
documentation of these facts:
William Shaheen, Esquire
Shaheen Gordon, P.A.
P.O. Box 977
140 Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Dover, NH 03821-0977
(603) 749-1838 fax
(603) 749-5000 phone
[email protected]
Also see: 1.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/observations
2. http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/latoyakidd/gGCJhC/
In about early 1991, Respondent submitted his application to take the
Illinois bar exam, in which he attested that his answers to the
questions were true and correct. In the Character and Fitness section,
question 49 included the following statement:
NOTE: In connection with your answers to questions 47, 48, and 49,
you are advised that no advice of counsel, statute, court order, or
legal proceeding withholding adjudication, expunging information from
any record, sealing any record, or purporting to authorize any person
to deny the existence or occurrence of any information or matter shall
excuse less than full disclosure of any information or matter
otherwise required to be disclosed herein. You must answer questions
47, 48, and 49; the submission of letters from law enforcement
agencies in lieu of an answer is not acceptable. If you are required
to report an incident in response to more than one of the three
questions, you are required to complete only one explanatory form
regarding that incident.
49. Have you ever been charged with a traffic violation involving
felonious conduct or the use or possession of alcohol or drugs or
which resulted in time spent in custody, a fine of $200 or more, or
the revocation or suspension of your driver’s license?
51. Do you have any outstanding parking violations?
In response to question 49 51, the Respondent answered “no.”
On December 17, 1991, Respondent was admitted to the practice of law
in Illinois. At no time prior to his admission to the Illinois bar,
did Respondent apprise the Illinois Character and Fitness Committee of
his multiple civil citations or his concealment of them on his bar
application.
The Respondent knew that he had incurred multiple violations. These
fines exceeded the $200.00 reporting threshold for a total of $400.00.
Between October 5, 1988 and January 12 1990, violations included
failing to put money in meters, parking in a resident-only area,
blocking a bus stop, and multiple tickets in the same day for
exceeding the time limit at a meter. At this time he was living at
365 Broadway, Somerville, Massacustts, 02144. The substance and
frequency of his disregard for legally valid rules demonstrate a
contempt for the rules. He obviously felt he was above the rules that
“the common folk” were expected to follow. All the time that he was
supposed to be attending to learning the law, he contemptuously
thumbed his nose even at simple parking rules. Do as I say, not as I
do! The fines and penalties went unpaid for almost two decades. He
asks others to obey the law yet he is too good and it is beneath him
to pay lowly parking fines. Its all about expediency, parking rules
don’t apply to the “important people” and its too inconvenient and
time consuming to bother with finding a legal parking space. He is so
smart and virtuous that merely electing him will end the illegal war
in Iraq but finding a legal parking space near the elitist law school
it too taxing for him.
The following individuals have personal knowledge of, or access to
documentation of these facts:
Mrs. Susan Clippinger, Director Mr. Tom Champion, Spokesman
Cambridge Traffic, Parking City of Somerville
Transportation Department Somerville, MA 02144
Cambridge, MA 02139 [email protected]
(617)349-4747 fax
Also see: 1. http://somervillenews.typepad.com/the_somerville_news/2007/03/obama_finally_p.html
2. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/03/08/obama_paid_late_parking_tickets/
Evidence Offered in Mitigation
None. The Respondent does not have a good reputation for truthfulness
and veracity but continues even to this day to shade the truth and
mislead. The Respondent has never expressed remorse for his
intentional misleading and dishonesty.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
In attorney disciplinary proceedings, the Administrator must establish
charges of lawyer misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. In re
Ingersoll, 186 Ill. 2d 163, 168, 710 N.E.2d 390 (1999). It is the
responsibility of the Hearing Panel to determine the credibility and
believability of the witnesses, weigh the conflicting testimony, draw
reasonable inferences, and make factual findings based upon all the
evidence. In re Timpone, 157 Ill. 2d 178, 196, 623 N.E.2d 300, 308
(1993). In this case, there is no dispute as to facts as the
Respondent readily admits them. With the above principles in mind and
after careful consideration of the evidence and exhibits, I ask the
Hearing Panel to make the following findings.
The Respondent should be charged with:
1.
making a statement of material fact in connection with a
bar application that the applicant knows to be false in violation of
Rule 8.1 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct (“Rules”);
2.
committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the
lawyer’s fitness to practice law in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(3) of the
Rules;
3.
engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit
or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(4) of the Rules;
4.
engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of
justice in violation of Rule 8.4(a)(5) of the Rules; and
5.
engaging in conduct which brings the courts or the legal
profession into disrepute in violation of Supreme Court Rule 771.
It is undisputed that the Respondent consumed illegal drugs and failed
to disclose that when completing his bar application. The Respondent
subsequently disclosed these actions in his own published writings.
Furthermore, he committed multiple criminal traffic violations which
he deceptively and intentionally failed to report them as required to
on his bar application. Of the 17 violations, cumulatively they
exceeded $350.00. By his own admission by his use of drugs he was
therefore in possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree
which is a class D felony. As a result, we find clear and convincing
evidence that the Respondent violated Rules 8.4(a)(3) and 8.4(a)(4).
It follows that such misconduct was prejudicial to the administration
of justice and brought the legal profession into disrepute.
In analyzing whether the attorney engaged in misconduct, we request
that the Hearing Board adopt the Administrator’s previous suggestions
to employ a two-step process. First, the Hearing Board ascertained
whether in that particular case, appellate opinions were of a nature
to be properly identified in response to the question on the
application. If they were, the Hearing Board then examined the
attorney’s state of mind to determine whether his failure to disclose
the information was purposeful.
The Hearing Board concluded that the appellate decisions were directed
at the trial court’s actions, not the attorney’s actions or
professional conduct and therefore found that the attorney responded
appropriately. In so finding, the Hearing Board did not reach the
second step of the analysis, but noted the attorney’s candor and
credibility.
In applying the two-step analysis in this matter, we must first
determine whether the Respondent’s conduct as a serial violator of the
criminal traffic laws was of a nature to be properly identified in
response to question 49 of the bar application. Question 49 asks,
“Have you ever been charged with a traffic violation involving
felonious conduct or the use or possession of alcohol or drugs or
which resulted in time spent in custody, a fine of $200 or more, or
the revocation or suspension of your driver’s license?” It is known
that prior to the time the Respondent submitted his bar application
the record irrefutable proves that he his multiple citations
represented fines in excess of $200.00. As a result, we find the
Respondent’s payment of the fines without objection in this case is
sufficient nature to be properly identified in response to question 49
on the bar application. Knowledge of his repeated violations when
understood in conjunction with the plain language of question 49, we
find the Respondent answered deceptively and that he therefore engaged
in intentional misconduct.
RECOMMENDATION
The purpose of the disciplinary system is to protect the public,
maintain the integrity of the legal system and safeguard the
administration of justice. In re Howard, 188 Ill. 2d 423, 434, 721
N.E.2d 1126 (1999). In determining the proper sanction, I ask that the
Hearing Board give deliberative consideration to the proven
misconduct. In re Witt, 145 Ill. 2d 380, 398, 583 N.E.2d 526 (1991).
In this matter the evidence demonstrates that the Respondent consumed
illegal drugs that should have resulted in felony charges and a felony
criminal conviction. The Respondent can be sanctioned under the Rules
of Professional Conduct for a criminal conviction even though he
committed such acts before he was admitted to the bar. See In re
Chandler, 161 Ill. 2d 459, 641 N.E.2d 473 (1994).
The Respondent has not cooperated fully with questions into his
illegal drug use and possible sale or distribution of drugs. While he
has no publicly known prior bar discipline we find multiple
aggravating factors. He has consistently denied his misconduct as it
relates to his bar application, failed to take genuine responsibility
for his actions, and demonstrated no remorse.
Based upon the well settled case law discussed above and the
considerable evidence in mitigation I believe disbarment is the
appropriate sanction.
BARACK OBAMA
BARRY SOETORO
CONCLUSION
Considering the nature of the Respondent’s misconduct, the lack of
significant evidence in mitigation and the numerous instances of
aggravating factors, the movant recommends that the Respondent be
disbarred.
Search Results Label/Receipt Number: 7006 2150 0002 2527 0708
Status: Delivered
Your item was delivered at 2:32 PM on July 23, 2008 in CHICAGO, IL 60601.
Related posts:
Views: 0
Posted in 
Tags: 
