Oh, about Mrs. Obama being disbarred….

Here is the pertinent excerpt from the Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission ARDC of the Illinois Supreme Court:

“E. Supreme Court - Non-Disciplinary Action

In addition to activity in disciplinary cases, the Supreme Court entertains pleadings in non-disciplinary matters that affect an attorney’s status. Chart 17 reflects the orders entered in such cases during 2000. With the amendments to Rules 756 and 770, adding an inactive status registration category and deleting Rule 770 court-ordered inactive status, effective beginning with the 2000 registration year, transfers to inactive status are now accomplished without Court order, and, therefore, are no longer reflected in Chart 17. As was true in 1999 when the rule amendments were announced, many lawyers who had transferred to inactive status under Rule 770 petitioned to return to active status under Rule 759, with the result that the number of petitions filed under Rule 759 was significantly higher for 1999 and 2000 than in past years. The transition stage will end during 2001, and there should be a significant drop-off in Rule 759 filings in future years. ”

This is a verbatim quote from the ARDC Website, found at:

https://www.iardc.org/main_annreport.html#7

To reiterate:

1) According to the ARDC, ALL lawyers who requested inactive status prior to 2000 had to obtain a court order in order to receive it.

2) There are NO disciplinary actions against Michelle Obama.

3) Her license is listed as “VOLUNTARILY [emphasis is mine] inactive.”

In other words, before 2000, any lawyer who wanted to go on VOLUNTARY inactive status had to get a court order to do so. Therefore, ALL lawyers who voluntarily became inactive - did so via COURT ORDER. There were NO disciplinary actions against Mrs. Obama. She is eligible to return to active status at any time by paying her fees and completing the continuing education required of all lawyers.

So, the ARDC’s site indicates that her VOLUNTARILY inactive status came at HER request and was granted by a court order, as was ROUTINE before 2000.

NOTHING on their site says or implies that there was a disciplinary aspect to it.

(FYI, it took 25 seconds for me to find this information. But then again, I’m not a liar with an agenda or a bigot.)