XPost: ucb.math, alt.society.civil-liberty, ca.environment
XPost: alt.mountain-bike

They're both liars.

Obama Used Crack Cocaine And Has Admitted The Same! Anyone who
commits a felony cannot hold a Law License!

Obama seeks crack cocaine sentence changes – But Why? …

Obama Signs Crack Cocaine Sentencing Reform Bill …


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
wshaheen@shaheengordon.com

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 traffic@ci.somerville.ma.us
(617)349-4747 fax

Also see: 1.
http://somerv
illenews.type
pad.com/the_somerville_news/2007/03/obama_finally_p.html
2.
htt
p:/
/ww
w.b
ost
on.
com
/ne
ws/
loc
al/
mas
sachusetts/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

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.

Big surprise.

Former Constitutional Law Lecturer and U.S. President Makes Up
Constitutional Quotes During State Of The Union (SOTU) Address.

Putative 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.
 

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)