Illinois Supreme Court Coverup For Obamas

Rate this post

[Please see my Update at the bottom of this post!]

The Illinois Supreme Court’s Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC) website is engaged in a coverup of Michelle and Barack Obama’s surrendering of their respective law license. Here is how I found out their coverup:
Yesterday I conducted the research for a post, “Barack & Michelle Gave Up Law License,” which I published early this morning. Early this afternoon, when I went onto the same ARDC webpages I had accessed a day ago, I discovered that the ARDC had scrubbed the pages clean.
As recent as yesterday, September 15, 2010, when I searched for “Michelle Obama” on the ARDC website, it directed me to this page ( where I found the information on when Michelle was admitted to the Illinois state bar and that she is no longer authorized to practice law because she had become ”voluntarily inactive.” Here’s a screen-shot of that page from yesterday:

Today, however, when I went on the same page (, it is no longer about Michelle Obama. Instead, the page concerns someone (unnamed), whose date of admission as lawyer by the Illinois Supreme Court was December 30, 1899!!!  
I then went on the ARDC’s lawyer search webpage and searched again for “Michelle Obama.” I was directed to a new page ( that is not the same as the page I looked at only a day ago, yesterday. The information on Michelle on the new page is even briefer:

Name Date Admitted City State Authorized to Practice?
Michelle Obama
Former name(s):
Michelle Robinson

[Note: Copying and pasting the above form somehow left out “May 12, 1989″ under “Date Admitted”, and the word “No” under “Authorized to Practice?”]
Left out of the new page is the information that she is “voluntarily inactive.” 
My friend, Mark S. McGrew, wrote an article for Pravda on Michelle Obama’s law license several months ago. In an e-mail to me today, Mark says when he accessed ARDC’s page on Michelle Obama (the same page,, that I had accessed yesterday), it says about Michelle, “No malpractice report required as attorney is on court ordered inactive status.” Here’s a screen shot of the ARDC’s web page on Michelle Obama which Mark saw, which was also what Chelsea Shilling had in her WorldNetDaily article of August 4, 2009:

But when I accessed that page yesterday, the sentence “No malpractice report required as attorney is on court ordered inactive status” had been scrubbed. Today, that page is no longer even about Michelle Obama.
The same scrubbing was also done on Barack Obama.
Yesterday, the URL of the ARDC page on Barack was Here’s a screen-shot of that page as I saw it yesterday:

Today, that URL is no longer about Barack Obama, but concerns the same unnamed person whose date of admission as lawyer by the Illinois Supreme Court was December 30, 1899.
I then searched for “Barack Obama” and was taken to this page (, with the same minimal information as Michelle’s current page:

Name Date Admitted City State Authorized to Practice?
Barack Hussein Obama December 17, 1991 N/A N/A No

This is not a glitch or malfunction of the ARDC website because, acting upon a suggestion by Mark McGrew, I searched for lawyer “John Q. Fitzpatrick” and was taken to the webpage, which is about John Q. Fitzpatrick instead of some unnamed person who was admitted as lawyer by the Illinois Supreme Court on December 30, 1899.
In other words, only the webpages on Michelle and Barack Obama had been tampered.

All signs point to the Obamas having gotten to the Illinois Supreme Court because this story about their law licenses has gone viral in the last couple of days. So now, the ARDC website has scrubbed away even more information on the Obamas.

It’s a friggin’ conspiracy!
Thanks to the patient and gracious commenter “rk”, we now know that the ARDC of the Illinois Supreme Court is not concealing information on Michelle and Barack’s law license status, but the ARDC is, for reasons known only to them, doing their utmost to make finding that information neither simple nor easy.
Upon the recommendation of rk, here’s what I did, which any reader of this can replicate:
Step 1: Go on the ARDC’s “lawyer search” page (
Step 2: Type “Obama” and “Michelle” to search.
Step 3: This brings you to a new page ( with bare-bones info on Michelle O. [Note: Clicking the above URL won’t get you there; you must go through Steps 1 and 2 first.]
Step 4: Click the words in blue: “Michelle Obama”
Step 5: One is now brought to the page on Michelle O ( with all the info that previously appeared to be missing and covered up, including the sentence “No malpractice report required as attorney is on court ordered inactive status.”
The same steps 1-5 can be performed to retrieve the ARDC’s info on Barack.
Why is the ARDC website making the retrieval of the information on Michelle and Barack Obama more circuitous and indirect? Just two days ago, when I searched for the Obamas, I was taken DIRECTLY to the Step 5 page, bypassing the intermediary Step 3 page.
This is NOT the behavior of a president who had promised his administration would be the most transparent ever.
~Eowyn (9/18/01)

Please follow and like us:

0 responses to “Illinois Supreme Court Coverup For Obamas

  1. This sounds fishy…yet again The Traitor has somehow covered his paper trail…

  2. Ya know,I’m so tired of their criminal content. America knows. They actually think one thing reported one day to the next we are gonna forget. They make me sick. I heard initially Michele lost her license for “Patient Dumping” which wouldn’t surprise me at all. They are criminal,corrupt and need to be ARRESTED. ILLEGAL AS HELL.

  3. Sometimes I just shake my head and wonder just how all this is going to end up. Every day brings some new shockers about these two imposters in our great White House.

  4. So much for “transparency”…

  5. Eowyn, this is an extremely disturbing cover-up you discovered! And, you did so innocently, proving to everyone what the posts said previously, and what they say now! There is so much that we do not know, and so much evil going on here that this is unfathomable! God bless you for your courage, wisdom, insight and skill in telling us about this!

  6. I don’t know about a coverup, but I went to the ADRC website and searched for each and got the original information contained in the screenshots. book marking a search page on the servers will give a default page or a fictitious page because the servers change the address with each search. Try the ADRC Lawyer search from their home page instead of a wonky link. while there, check out the definitions under the “change of status” link. It should give the same info which appeared to have been missing or changed.
    Even though this seems to be a misunderstanding and both seem to be inactive but by choice, they stink and probably should never have been admitted to the bar anyway.

    • rk,
      You are misrepresenting and misportraying what I’ve done.
      1. I did NOT bookmark the ARDC pages on Michelle & Barack. Nor did I use a “wonky link” (whatever that means). I went onto the ARDC (not ADRC as you had it) home page:
      2. I just repeated the same search that I conducted yesterday, for “Michelle Obama,” on the ARDC’s “lawyer search” page ( That brought me to this page ( with abbreviated info on Michelle O, and the information is NOT, as you put it, “the same info which appeared to have been missing or changed.” Missing are the words “voluntarily inactive.”
      3. I then repeated the same search that I conducted yesterday, for “Barack Obama,” on the ARDC’s “lawyer search” page. Again, the information ARDC gives on Barack is NOT, as you put it, “the same info which appeared to have been missing or changed.” Missing are the words “voluntarily retired.”
      In other words, the situation today is exactly the same as what I found yesterday. I’d appreciate it if you refrain from misrepresenting the truth. I invite ANYONE to replicate these procedures and report back here what they found. Here’s the URL for the home page of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission (ARDC) of the Supreme Court of Illinois:

      • Eowyn,
        Please don’t misunderstand. I am not misrepresenting anything anymore than you are, I believe there is a misunderstanding. My language may have given the impression I was attacking but I was trying to explain that the screen shot with the “missing info” is not a cover up but a place holder. Notice the attorney name is a link, if you click it, you will be taken to the page containing the full language with the “court ordered” status you originally saw. It is still there, just under an extra layer of html. I responded in the follow up story with further details of the status language. I am here to learn teach and share, not mislead, there is already too much of that in the world

        • Ah, now I get it! These are the steps you prescribe and which I just replicated:
          Step 1: Go on the ARDC’s “lawyer search” page:
          Step 2: Type “Obama” and “Michelle” to search.
          Step 3: One is brought to a new page with bare-bones info on MO:
          Step 4: Click the words in blue: “Michelle Obama”
          Step 5: One is now brought to the page ( with all the info that previously appeared to be missing and covered up, including the sentence “No malpractice report required as attorney is on court ordered inactive status.”
          I owe you an apology and a big “Thank you.”
          But…I wonder why the ARDC website decided to make the retrieval of the information on Michelle and Barack Obama more circuitous and indirect? Just two days ago, when I searched for the Obamas, I was taken DIRECTLY to the Step 5 page, bypassing the intermediary Step 3 page.

          • Eowyn. Thanks for the thanks and the apology. If there has been some sort of obfuscation of their record, I wouldn’t be surprised. I have never seen a candidate of any national office who has kept so much information either by refusing to share as most Presidential candidates do voluntarily or the even more troubling manipulation or hiding previously public information.
            I am an ardent supporter of the Constitutional protections of our inherent rights, including Privacy and the right to be left alone, but when you seek the Office of the President, you need to prove qualifications and, in some measure, give up some privacy to get it. I am too careful in my public speech to make a factual claim about why or what he hides, but there are only a few conclusions to be drawn from his actions in that arena.
            A refusal to prove his qualifications (the most basic, his birthplace and date of birth (age) are the only real Constitutional requirements) tells me he is either arrogant, not qualified, or not who he claims to be.
            Arrogance in the “oh, please, don’t you know who I am?” sort of way.
            Not qualified either Constitutionally – by claiming citizenship in another country, born outside the country (though this alone might not disqualify him or make him not a Natural born citizen), not old enough or
            Not Qualified – skills and experience or intelligence- Grades, degrees, true writing ability, legislation and voting records.
            Not who he claims to be- while this all encompassing, I mean hiding facts that contradict any of his claims about character, history or beliefs. If he puts it out as one thing , he should not try to hide any info which supports or contradicts. just my opinion.

            • Thank you for being so gracious, rk!
              Reasonable and reasonably intelligent people can all agree on the following:
              1. Secrets and secrecy are to hide something negative and deleterious to one’s image, public regard, and fortunes.
              2. Secrecy is a form of lying, whether active or by omission.
              3. Honest, decent, and good people don’t lie.
              4. Obama has shrouded in secrecy his entire life and personal documents — from his kindergarten (!) records to his long-form birth certificate.
              5. Obama’s secrecy extends also to his family members such as his mother, whose passport records the FBI recently said had been destroyed!
              6. The Obama Administration sure is NOT the most transparent administration evah! LOL

  7. Simply wanted to say thank you, Eowyn and rk, for the education, on law licenses (I had no idea) but more particularly, in perseverance, patience, and class. So often disagreements deteriorate to mudslinging, but you both rose above. I don’t suppose you could give lessons to some of our politicians?

  8. ya know we all have the same feelings here and i guess the best way to handle everything coming down the road that he has instore for us is
    “LOCK AND LOAD” after all even he can do one thing good for this country and he did! barry has worked for FREE and been the best salesman for the GUN INDUSTRY!!! we appreciate his dedication and all of his volunteer work to help ARM americans and also get the beginners going.
    thanks aka obama!

  9. You all need to read the book, “The Roots of Obama’s Rage” by Dinesh D’Souza. It is a true eye opener on what Obama wants to do to this country.

  10. The data on Michelle appears to be intact.

  11. Please don't vote for Obama!

    The explanation for your findings is that, at that time, when a lawyer applied for inactive status (which is what Michelle did) then the court was obliged to follow up with a court order in order to inactivate. The policy has changed since, and no longer requires a court order to voluntarily inactivate.
    With gas prices the climbing astronomically, you would be better-served to investigate the moritoriums against gulf shore drilling and the permit denials for drilling and infrustructure in Alaska…all perpetrated by the Obama administration. THAT subject really has some teeth!

  12. Yes, the court was “obliged” to make a court order to inactivate, you are barking up the wrong tree here go after the pipeline or gulf drilling permits.

  13. In 1935, J. Edgar Hoover said, “It is no coincidence that all criminals come out of Chicago.”

  14. STRANGE webpages,first attempt to search gave me a result of “search does not match criteria” second search reported “illegal operation” third search attempt reported the Obamas are inactive,1991 and 1989……so confusing I believe something is being covered up but being Canadian I just don’t understand the “whats” and “whys”. Thank you for you posts! may God bless us all! Amen.

    • Thanks, Sidney, for the update. It sure appears the Illinois Supreme Court website is making it even MORE difficult to search for Barry and Moochelle’s records. Some “transparency”!

  15. I’ve done the search several times and never came up with the original data as described…only the data you show as “scrubbed”. But the URL is different than any of the ones listed too:

  16. I want to cry every time I see Obama’s face and hear his voice…I know is not an American citizen and he is trying (doing) everything in his power (or out) of his constitutional power to destroy our country. What he did when the basic premis of the Arizona immigration law was upheld was no different than the abuses of King George listed in the D of I. “…he has declared us out of his protection and is waging cruel war upon us…” This man is worse than a king and has done more damage than any president before. I only hope we can reclaim our country in Nov.

  17. My concern over all of this clouded “illegal” record of Obama is that much of it, as well as other things that the dem’s have done, is obviously a breach of our laws and our constitution. So when an elected president does such a thing (specifically ordering things that Congress has not voted on), how do we bring him to trial? What venue do we the people have to state our charges or for even the senators or respresentatives to do so? I don’t see any. Once the president, whoever he is, is in office, he controls the Justice department, even down to such minute things as the goons with bats standing in front of the polling place. He simply dismisses it, and there seems to be no way that we can say, “Hey! That’s illegal. You and your justice department are breaking the law!” If he breaks the law, and puts it out in public to be seen, whose job is it and who will dare to tell him so and arrest (or impeach) him. We need to fix this loophole in the balance of power, and fix it so a person who is brave enough to call out the president, doesn’t risk everything! And right now, I believe he does. Look at the campaign speeches right now from his challengers. They all flatly say, that they will not ignore, change or defy the constitution, as, they say, Obama has! Well then, if he has, is that not “above the law”, and should he not be brought to trial?
    I believe that the Attorney General should not be in the same party as the president. Would that not give us a little more protection?

    • Yvonne,
      Thank you for your thoughtful comment. Here are my two cents:
      1. The Constitution does provide a method to bring a president to trial. It’s called Impeachment. Alas, the Constitution invests that authority to the Senate, and the Senate at present is dominated by Democrats, which means the Senate will not impeach Obama.
      2. The Constitution also provides for freedom of speech (and therefore of the press) in its First Amendment. A free press (or “free media” in our age) is supposed to be one of the most important “Checks and Balances” to government power, by informing the citizenry of government abuses. But the majority of the U.S. press, called Mainstream Media (MSM), are comprised of Democrats and liberals (which survey after survey has shown), and they continue to be complicit with Obama, beginning in refusing to vett him in 2008 and continuing to this day despite his many failures and plain ineptness in domestic and foreign policy. That is why the new Alternative Media of radio talk shows and blogs like FOTM are so important, because we do report and investigate what the MSM refuse to.
      3. The Constitution also provides for an important institution designed to ascertain when any government official, including POTUS, is being illegal or unconstitutional. That’s the Supreme Court. But the Constitution cannot force the 9 justices, including the Chief Justice (John Roberts), to actually do their constitutionally-assigned job. Which is why the Supreme Court, in a narrow 5-4 vote (with Roberts weighing in on the side of the very slim majority), delivered its grotesque ruling that Obamacare is constitutional because it’s a tax. Which is also why the present Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to hear every one of the many lawsuits on Obama’s contested birth and eligibility which had been appealed to the level of the highest court.
      4. Lastly, the Constitution says the U.S.A. is a Republic, which means we are not a direct democracy, but a representative or indirect democracy, wherein citizens vote/select certain people among themselves to represent them in government (Congress & Presidency). But the Constitution cannot ensure that citizens (a) inform themselves (Americans are notoriously uninformed and ignorant of politics and even our own history); (b) not vote for their narrow selfish interests; or (c) not be bamboozled by propaganda, hypnosis (Obama in 2008: “A light will fall upon you and you will want to vote for Obama”), and demagoguery (demonizing opponents and appealing to our basest passions).
      And so, we Conservatives now find ourselves in the powerless state we are in, wherein:
      1. We scream and holler, but no one in power listens, and so nothing is done.
      2. Many of us, esp. Ron Paul supporters, are unhappy with both parties, but not voting or voting for a 3rd alternative is simply throwing away our vote and in so doing, helps to reelect Obama to another 4 years — from which America may never recover.
      3. An armed uprising is mere fantasy because any incipient move will be snuffed out (since the DHS has already identified patriots, Christians, and veterans to be potential “domestic terrorists”) and, in the last analysis, the government has firepower that far far exceeds anything we can put together.
      If anyone can think of a way out of it, I would sure love to see your proposal.

  18. why would such a major issue be avoided during the political campaigns this crook was successful in? what is going on? why isn’t this being covered on tv? this guy and his wife are both unfit to be in the bar association, but they live in the White House and have access to Top Secret information….hmmm

  19. 12/30/1899 is the “base date” for access; also known as Date Zero; the date when information was transferred to electronic book-entry; said date has to do with the bankruptcy of the States, United.

  20. Additional information about the date of 12/30/1899 may be found here:

  21. It doesn’t show, “court ordered” portion of sentence anymore. Just checked it today.


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.