Elizabeth Warren- NO MASS LAW LICENSE

Here is the bottom line: Elizabeth Warren is a fraud and a liar.

There is no way the voters of Massachusetts are going to let this pretend Indian and pretend lawyer PRETEND to be a Senator. She's lost all credibility.

Scott Walker and his pick up truck - will both be reelected.

You assured us Sharon Angle would get elected

She should have been, but once people realized she was slightly crazy...:lol:

Tarkanian should have been the candidate- and would have easily won. One of the few bad apples that came out of the Tea Party movement...
 
It seems you didn't. You omitted this part:

Unless she used a New Jersey address, and her application for the SCOTUS bar listed the NJ address, you're still a Dickless Fuck who doesn't understand what he's talking about.

What a crock of shit

Latest Republican outrage of the day. I still dont see where she was practicing in a Massachusetts court. If she needed a Massachusetts license, she would have gotten one. It seems her practice centered on federal law where a state license is irrelevant

You obviously did not read the posted requirements to pass the SCOTUS bar. Color me shocked.
 
Here is the bottom line: Elizabeth Warren is a fraud and a liar.

There is no way the voters of Massachusetts are going to let this pretend Indian and pretend lawyer PRETEND to be a Senator. She's lost all credibility.

Scott Walker and his pick up truck - will both be reelected.

How is she a pretend lawyer?

As for the Indian thing, who fucking cares? My husband's family insists they are part native Americans because that is what their family lore tells them. As far as I know, none of them have been dna tested over it.

And again, HOW IS SHE A PRETEND LAWYER?
 
Unless she used a New Jersey address, and her application for the SCOTUS bar listed the NJ address, you're still a Dickless Fuck who doesn't understand what he's talking about.

What a crock of shit

Latest Republican outrage of the day. I still dont see where she was practicing in a Massachusetts court. If she needed a Massachusetts license, she would have gotten one. It seems her practice centered on federal law where a state license is irrelevant

You obviously did not read the posted requirements to pass the SCOTUS bar. Color me shocked.

She is on the SCOTUS now?
 
Here is the bottom line: Elizabeth Warren is a fraud and a liar.

There is no way the voters of Massachusetts are going to let this pretend Indian and pretend lawyer PRETEND to be a Senator. She's lost all credibility.

Scott Walker and his pick up truck - will both be reelected.

How is she a pretend lawyer?

As for the Indian thing, who fucking cares? My husband's family insists they are part native Americans because that is what their family lore tells them. As far as I know, none of them have been dna tested over it.

And again, HOW IS SHE A PRETEND LAWYER?

There are libtards in here who claim Romney is a Mexican immigrant. Where was your 'who cares' then?

Fucking douche nozzle hypocrite.
 
What a crock of shit

Latest Republican outrage of the day. I still dont see where she was practicing in a Massachusetts court. If she needed a Massachusetts license, she would have gotten one. It seems her practice centered on federal law where a state license is irrelevant

You obviously did not read the posted requirements to pass the SCOTUS bar. Color me shocked.

She is on the SCOTUS now?

The Travellers case was tried before the SCOTUS. I posted the specific requirements to pass their bar and be allowed to work on a case before the SCOTUS. Do try to keep up.
 
Elizabeth Lie-a-watha Warren, the fake Indian is also a fake attorney...big surprise!


and?

for the record, she wouldn't have to be licensed in Mass to do an of counsel on a US Supreme Court matter... she'd have to be admitted to practice before the US Supreme Court.

d'uh.
the natural extension of the liberal defense of Warren goes like this....
...Fauxahontas is a victim!! ..she meant well...she was good fake Indian.....she even copied a few recipes and passed them off as her own...to help the Indians......she does have those high cheekbones.....she was only 'of counsel'.....she's a minority!!! WAR ON WOMEN!!!! :clap2:

Face it Jillian- she is a joke.

Face it Zander, you're a fraud (dishonest, ignorant and a partisan hack). You also are to insecure to admit your little effort to demean Professor Warren failed miserably.
 
Did any of you bother to even look at the link in post 17?

It seems you didn't. You omitted this part:

Warren listed only one other place of admission on her Texas record, New Jersey:

Elizabeth-Warren-Texas-Bar-Entry-List-of-admissions.jpg

Unless she used a New Jersey address, and her application for the SCOTUS bar listed the NJ address, you're still a Dickless Fuck who doesn't understand what he's talking about.

IOWs, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. What else is new?
 
Elizabeth Lie-a-watha Warren, the fake Indian is also a fake attorney...big surprise!


and?

for the record, she wouldn't have to be licensed in Mass to do an of counsel on a US Supreme Court matter... she'd have to be admitted to practice before the US Supreme Court.

d'uh.
the natural extension of the liberal defense of Warren goes like this....
...Fauxahontas is a victim!! ..she meant well...she was good fake Indian.....she even copied a few recipes and passed them off as her own...to help the Indians......she does have those high cheekbones.....she was only 'of counsel'.....she's a minority!!! WAR ON WOMEN!!!! :clap2:

Face it Jillian- she is a joke.

i don't care what you think of her politics. we know what your politics are.

address my point... which is she doesn't need to be admitted in Massachusetts, and breitbart is once again compulsively lying and misrepresenting to people who don't know any better....

i've done work in the 1st Circuit pro hac vice... (that means being allowed to do a case in a jurisdiction in which you're not admitted)...and i'm admitted SEPARATELY to practice before the USSC...

as is she.

so how about you stick to the fact that you disagree with her and leave the nonsense out;.

there is nothing about elizabeth warren that is a joke... well, besides the abject hatred for her on the right
 
Unless she used a New Jersey address, and her application for the SCOTUS bar listed the NJ address, you're still a Dickless Fuck who doesn't understand what he's talking about.

What a crock of shit

Latest Republican outrage of the day. I still dont see where she was practicing in a Massachusetts court. If she needed a Massachusetts license, she would have gotten one. It seems her practice centered on federal law where a state license is irrelevant

You obviously did not read the posted requirements to pass the SCOTUS bar. Color me shocked.

you do not "pass" the USSC bar... you're admitted to practice before the USSC. it requires that you be admitted for 10 years or more in a federal district... and are sponsored by someone already admitted to practice before the USSC. most people never use it, but it's a nice certificate on your wall.

that may have changed in recent years, but i don't think so.
 
Here is the bottom line: Elizabeth Warren is a fraud and a liar.

There is no way the voters of Massachusetts are going to let this pretend Indian and pretend lawyer PRETEND to be a Senator. She's lost all credibility.

Scott Walker and his pick up truck - will both be reelected.

Reid will still lose.
 
"In making his arguments, [Warren's accuser] makes a fatal error by assuming that merely preparing legal briefs in (seemingly non-Massachusetts) federal cases or providing advice on federal law while located in Massachusetts and maintaining a primary office in Massachusetts constitutes the “practice of law in Massachusetts.” "

Warren has law licenses in New Jersey and Texas. She has an office in Massachusetts. She does not litigate on cases inside the jurisdiction of Massachusetts. She teaches law and prepares briefs for Federal court outside the jurisdiction of Massachusetts.

The Cornell professor who made the charge created what amounted to a rightwing hit job. This professor is notorious for this kind of stuff.

No, Elizabeth Warren Did Not Engage in the Unauthorized Practice of Law
 
Last edited:
What a crock of shit

Latest Republican outrage of the day. I still dont see where she was practicing in a Massachusetts court. If she needed a Massachusetts license, she would have gotten one. It seems her practice centered on federal law where a state license is irrelevant

You obviously did not read the posted requirements to pass the SCOTUS bar. Color me shocked.

She is on the SCOTUS now?

hey, stupid.

learn to read :thup:
 
Guys, I'd love for this to be the death pang for Elizabeth the fraud Warren. But she hasn't done anything illegal by being of counsel on a federal case with bar in NJ in Mass. It's all right here in the thread. She only needs a district bar, which she has, and admittance to the federal court, which she definitely has, as they check for these in federal cases. Unless you think the court went on vacation and Warren just jumped in and practiced law without the proper credentials.

This is a nonissue, unfortunately.

I checked Pacer and I couldn't find an Elizabeth Warren licensed to practice law in Mass. Federal District Court: (Link omitted since I can’t post a url until I have 15 posts.)

Is she registered in another state's Federal District Court?

I suspect not since, as I understand it, she is currently "inactive" in Texas and by her own admission in a recent radio interview she was "inactive" for a lengthy period of time prior to resigning her New Jersey membership sometime this month. She says she resigned due to the recent implementation of Continuing Legal Ed requirements but my cynical suspicion is that it was an attempt to obscure the fact that she wasn't registered as active anywhere, which (correct me if I'm wrong) she would need to be to fill out an application to practice before the Supreme Judicial Court.

A Mass attorney could have moved to have her admitted on a particular case but, as the article excerpted further below notes, the necessary document would be in the court docket. How hard would it be to produce such a document from each of the 5 or 6 cases she handled in recent years?

And, at the risk of seeming overly philosophical about this, I suspect this resonates with people since without even getting into the minutae of it there seems to be some sense that she is exploiting a loop hole or engaging in gamesmanship which reeks of hypocrisy given that she professes to advocate for the little guy against corporations that bend and twist the rules to their advantage. To say nothing of the subtle parallel between this and her questionable status as a native american indian.

Perhaps an even more subtle point is that the harder you dig (as I did and as I suspect you did) to try and figure out if she is licensed in Mass. and whether she needs to be, the more one is struck by how exclusive her legal services are. She's not listed on the Mass BBO site, or the Pacer Fed'l District Court site. Just how did Travelers get her name and number to represent them in that pesky asbestos suit in which the claimants were ultimately royally stiffed?

Finally, she has declined to produce records which would establish the scope of her practice. While documents in the public domain would suggest that she limited her practice to the venue where she could get away with practicing without an active law license I'm not inclined to give "Lieawatha" any benefit of the doubt.

(9/24/2012) “UPDATED WITH AUDIO OF WARREN’S ADMISSION — PROFESSOR’S BOMBSHELL CHARGE: ELIZABETH WARREN PRACTICED LAW IN MASS. WITHOUT A LICENSE” (The Blaze)

(Link omitted since I can’t post a url until I have 15 posts.)

But also bear in mind the following [via another veteran lawyer who wrote NRO]:
I have practiced law for 30 years. Your correspondent is correct that a federal court can permit an attorney from a state outside the state wherein the federal court sits to appear before that court. The practice is called*“pro hac vice,”*which is Latin for “for this occasion.” Here are the*pro hac vice requirements*for the District Court of Mass, which would be the relevant court in this case.

However, this does not conclude the issue. There would still need to be an attorney licensed in Mass. who moved for Ms. Warren to be admitted*pro hac vice*for the case at hand. Such a document would have to be in the docket of the case as to which she was representing her client. If Ms. Warren simply filed pleadings without first being admitted to the court*pro hac vice, she would be implicitly representing to the court that she was, in fact, licensed to practice in Mass., and if she was not so licensed, she would have violated the court’s rules, and, in effect, have committed a fraud upon the court.

TG
 
Guys, I'd love for this to be the death pang for Elizabeth the fraud Warren. But she hasn't done anything illegal by being of counsel on a federal case with bar in NJ in Mass. It's all right here in the thread. She only needs a district bar, which she has, and admittance to the federal court, which she definitely has, as they check for these in federal cases. Unless you think the court went on vacation and Warren just jumped in and practiced law without the proper credentials.

This is a nonissue, unfortunately.

I checked Pacer and I couldn't find an Elizabeth Warren licensed to practice law in Mass. Federal District Court: (Link omitted since I can’t post a url until I have 15 posts.)

Is she registered in another state's Federal District Court?

I suspect not since, as I understand it, she is currently "inactive" in Texas and by her own admission in a recent radio interview she was "inactive" for a lengthy period of time prior to resigning her New Jersey membership sometime this month. She says she resigned due to the recent implementation of Continuing Legal Ed requirements but my cynical suspicion is that it was an attempt to obscure the fact that she wasn't registered as active anywhere, which (correct me if I'm wrong) she would need to be to fill out an application to practice before the Supreme Judicial Court.

A Mass attorney could have moved to have her admitted on a particular case but, as the article excerpted further below notes, the necessary document would be in the court docket. How hard would it be to produce such a document from each of the 5 or 6 cases she handled in recent years?

And, at the risk of seeming overly philosophical about this, I suspect this resonates with people since without even getting into the minutae of it there seems to be some sense that she is exploiting a loop hole or engaging in gamesmanship which reeks of hypocrisy given that she professes to advocate for the little guy against corporations that bend and twist the rules to their advantage. To say nothing of the subtle parallel between this and her questionable status as a native american indian.

Perhaps an even more subtle point is that the harder you dig (as I did and as I suspect you did) to try and figure out if she is licensed in Mass. and whether she needs to be, the more one is struck by how exclusive her legal services are. She's not listed on the Mass BBO site, or the Pacer Fed'l District Court site. Just how did Travelers get her name and number to represent them in that pesky asbestos suit in which the claimants were ultimately royally stiffed?

Finally, she has declined to produce records which would establish the scope of her practice. While documents in the public domain would suggest that she limited her practice to the venue where she could get away with practicing without an active law license I'm not inclined to give "Lieawatha" any benefit of the doubt.

(9/24/2012) “UPDATED WITH AUDIO OF WARREN’S ADMISSION — PROFESSOR’S BOMBSHELL CHARGE: ELIZABETH WARREN PRACTICED LAW IN MASS. WITHOUT A LICENSE” (The Blaze)

(Link omitted since I can’t post a url until I have 15 posts.)

But also bear in mind the following [via another veteran lawyer who wrote NRO]:
I have practiced law for 30 years. Your correspondent is correct that a federal court can permit an attorney from a state outside the state wherein the federal court sits to appear before that court. The practice is called*“pro hac vice,”*which is Latin for “for this occasion.” Here are the*pro hac vice requirements*for the District Court of Mass, which would be the relevant court in this case.

However, this does not conclude the issue. There would still need to be an attorney licensed in Mass. who moved for Ms. Warren to be admitted*pro hac vice*for the case at hand. Such a document would have to be in the docket of the case as to which she was representing her client. If Ms. Warren simply filed pleadings without first being admitted to the court*pro hac vice, she would be implicitly representing to the court that she was, in fact, licensed to practice in Mass., and if she was not so licensed, she would have violated the court’s rules, and, in effect, have committed a fraud upon the court.

TG

What case in the Massachusetts Federal Court did she "practice law" in?

The briefs mentioned were for a Supreme Court case.
 
The nude model is toast.

Romney is going to bring down a lot of Senators.
 

Forum List

Back
Top