tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2616261316550803840.post2281925526985100331..comments2024-03-17T03:13:50.328-04:00Comments on Barackryphal: Bellying Up to the Bar, AgainUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2616261316550803840.post-10989569107982659202009-01-11T11:03:00.000-05:002009-01-11T11:03:00.000-05:00And personally, I find such an accusation to be di...And personally, I find such an accusation to be disgusting! It amounts to defamation per se, not that Michelle will take action against them, and they know it!<BR/>--------------------------------<BR/>Most jurisdictions also recognize "per se" defamation, where the allegations are presumed to cause damage to the plaintiff. Typically, the following may consititute defamation per se:<BR/><BR/>Attacks on a person's professional character or standing; <BR/>Allegations that an unmarried person is unchaste; <BR/>Allegations that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease; <BR/>Allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitudeallisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10748027945799167253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2616261316550803840.post-86289948281980884492009-01-11T11:00:00.000-05:002009-01-11T11:00:00.000-05:00I tried for weeks to explain this on the Berg Moth...I tried for weeks to explain this on the Berg Mothership and posted it on texasdarling (I was banned for the Berg blod and I believe it was moderated or deleted at TD). <BR/><BR/>Either they simply do not care to accept facts or are basically too stupid to grasp them. I believe it is a combination of both. <BR/><BR/>When unsophisticated, minimally educated people attempt to understand law with the "guidance" of those who have an agenda to misrepresent the truth, only bad can come of it, IMHO.allisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10748027945799167253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2616261316550803840.post-67373375093232277732009-01-11T10:36:00.000-05:002009-01-11T10:36:00.000-05:00Even the ARDC website explains:"Prior to November ...Even the ARDC website explains:<BR/><BR/>"Prior to November 1, 1999, former Supreme Court Rule 770 provided for a proceeding in the Court for any voluntary transfer to inactive status, whether because of some incapacitating condition or solely as a matter of the lawyer's preference because the lawyer would not be practicing law." (https://www.iardc.org/rule770inactivestatus.html)<BR/><BR/>Michelle Obama accepted employment in the nonprofit sector in 1993 -- not coincidentally the same year that her status was voluntarily transferred to inactive. Her transfer, being "Prior to November 1, 1999" require her to go through the ministerial court proceeding.<BR/><BR/>A Google search to find this provisions took 0.32 seconds -- the ARDC webpage with this info was the first one listed. Goes to show that accurate info is just 30 seconds away.GeorgetownJDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12480575066345399768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2616261316550803840.post-68296480035137830162009-01-11T02:56:00.000-05:002009-01-11T02:56:00.000-05:00Good to know. I've been hearing around this same t...Good to know. I've been hearing around this same thing about Michelle Obama being barred.<BR/><BR/>I do hope that you post this info on those site that are saying she has been court ordered barred.<BR/><BR/>ThanksAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com