🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

����