Elizabeth Warren- NO MASS LAW LICENSE

[hailreagan]

The Indian lied? Again?

 

[Polk]

What are you smoking?

My 'oops' post, and the post it was in response to, had NOTHING to do with what you just whined about.

My 'oops' was specifically in reference to the briefs she filed, nothing more.

You got smoked on the difference between 'brief' and 'amicus brief', and now you're claiming victory by moving the goalposts?

Pathetic hack.

Post the brief asshole! Provide evidence your attack on Professor Warren has merit.

Now, cut and run like all the other 'conservative assholes' are want to do.

moving the goalposts back again I see. I am going by the posted information. Post 75 tells you where to get it.

If you have something that proves the posted information inaccurate, produce it, dumb ass.

Similarly, in 2002 in FCC v. Nextwave Communications, Warren filed a Brief for the Official Creditors Committee and filed a Brief (available Westlaw at 2002 WL 1379031 ) along with her Harvard Law School colleagues Laurence Tribe and Charles Fried (each of whom is licensed in Massachusetts) using her Cambridge address:

Tribe was the counsel of record in the case. It is not a requirement that you licensed to practice in a state to work under someone who is licensed.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The Indian lied? Again?

She speaks with forked tongue.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Post the brief asshole! Provide evidence your attack on Professor Warren has merit.

Now, cut and run like all the other 'conservative assholes' are want to do.

moving the goalposts back again I see. I am going by the posted information. Post 75 tells you where to get it.

If you have something that proves the posted information inaccurate, produce it, dumb ass.

Similarly, in 2002 in FCC v. Nextwave Communications, Warren filed a Brief for the Official Creditors Committee and filed a Brief (available Westlaw at 2002 WL 1379031 ) along with her Harvard Law School colleagues Laurence Tribe and Charles Fried (each of whom is licensed in Massachusetts) using her Cambridge address:

Tribe was the counsel of record in the case. It is not a requirement that you licensed to practice in a state to work under someone who is licensed.

Do you have a link to support your claim that an attorney can practice law under someone elses license?

 

[Katzndogz]

moving the goalposts back again I see. I am going by the posted information. Post 75 tells you where to get it.

If you have something that proves the posted information inaccurate, produce it, dumb ass.

Tribe was the counsel of record in the case. It is not a requirement that you licensed to practice in a state to work under someone who is licensed.

Do you have a link to support your claim that an attorney can practice law under someone elses license?

That would be interesting since it's impossible. It's not against the law to be a secretary or a paralegal working for an attorney, but it is VERY illegal to engage in the practice of law, give advice, and sign documents as an attorney, while not being one.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Tribe was the counsel of record in the case. It is not a requirement that you licensed to practice in a state to work under someone who is licensed.

Do you have a link to support your claim that an attorney can practice law under someone elses license?

That would be interesting since it's impossible. It's not against the law to be a secretary or a paralegal working for an attorney, but it is VERY illegal to engage in the practice of law, give advice, and sign documents as an attorney, while not being one.

That's what I thought.

However, Polk seems to think otherwise. He'll have to show some proof to his claim.

But I won't hold be holding my breath waiting for it.

 

[Conservative]

Post the brief asshole! Provide evidence your attack on Professor Warren has merit.

Now, cut and run like all the other 'conservative assholes' are want to do.

moving the goalposts back again I see. I am going by the posted information. Post 75 tells you where to get it.

If you have something that proves the posted information inaccurate, produce it, dumb ass.

Similarly, in 2002 in FCC v. Nextwave Communications, Warren filed a Brief for the Official Creditors Committee and filed a Brief (available Westlaw at 2002 WL 1379031 ) along with her Harvard Law School colleagues Laurence Tribe and Charles Fried (each of whom is licensed in Massachusetts) using her Cambridge address:

Post 75 says nothing and links to nothing. If you have a copy of the brief post it!

he gave you the information, dumb ass. Prove he's wrong or give up.

 

[Conservative]

Tribe was the counsel of record in the case. It is not a requirement that you licensed to practice in a state to work under someone who is licensed.

bullshit. Link the something proving that please.

 

[Polk]

moving the goalposts back again I see. I am going by the posted information. Post 75 tells you where to get it.

If you have something that proves the posted information inaccurate, produce it, dumb ass.

Tribe was the counsel of record in the case. It is not a requirement that you licensed to practice in a state to work under someone who is licensed.

Do you have a link to support your claim that an attorney can practice law under someone elses license?

It's a common practice in most states (I think it's actually allowed in every state, but I'm not 100% sure). So common, in fact, that one of the articles from a prominent legal site posted earlier in this thread (An Update on the Elizabeth Warren Law License Controversy « Above the Law: A Legal Web Site) that they mention it without feeling the need to provide a direct link.

 

[Polk]

Also of relevance is that she wouldn't be in violation even if you weren't allowed to work for someone else, since the brief you guys keep citing is from a federal case and she had been admitted to that bar.

 

[Dreamy]

The general counsel for the Massachusetts bar has also said she's not in violation:

Michael Fredrickson, general counsel for the BBO [Board of Bar Overseers], says he does not believe a law professor would be considered to have “a continuous presence” or “an office practicing law.”

“If they actually practice here – as some part-time law professors at some of the smaller schools do – they might,” Fredrickson says. “But being a professor at one of the large schools, their office is a professor’s office, and the fact that they tend to dabble in the practice of law doesn’t run afoul of our rule. I don’t think Elizabeth Warren would fall within that, such that she would have to register here.”

An Update on the Elizabeth Warren Law License Controversy « Above the Law: A Legal Web Site

And according to Scott Brown she can't be a Cherokee because she doesn't look like one.

Well, the Fordham Law Review did called Fauxcahontas( aka 1/32 Cherokee Indian lol) "the first woman of color" I guess they were referring to her beige color. They did bring up the skin color issue not Brown. The bottom line is that the woman is a total fraud and a BSer.

There are few women of color who hold important positions in the academy, Fortune 500 companies, or other prominent fields or industries.
This is not inconsequential. Diversifying these arenas, in part by adding qualified women of color to their ranks, remains important for many reasons. For one, there are scant women of color as role models. In my three years at Stanford Law School, there were no professors who were women of color. Harvard Law School hired its first woman of color, Elizabeth Warren, in 1995.

*Bold mine

 

[Conservative]

Also of relevance is that she wouldn't be in violation even if you weren't allowed to work for someone else, since the brief you guys keep citing is from a federal case and she had been admitted to that bar.

The question there is, was she admitted fraudulently.

 

[Polk]

Also of relevance is that she wouldn't be in violation even if you weren't allowed to work for someone else, since the brief you guys keep citing is from a federal case and she had been admitted to that bar.

The question there is, was she admitted fraudulently.

Any basis for the claim that her New Jersey license is fraudulent?

 

[Katzndogz]

Also of relevance is that she wouldn't be in violation even if you weren't allowed to work for someone else, since the brief you guys keep citing is from a federal case and she had been admitted to that bar.

As Lawrence Tribe said.

“The fact that Charles [Fried] and I happen to be licensed in Massachusetts is immaterial. That wasn’t the reason I could practice in the U.S. Supreme Court. I was an inactive member of the California bar as well, which was all that was needed,” Tribe says.

At the time, Warren claimed to be a member of the New Jersey Bar and Texas Bar as well, so she could definitely practice in the federal courts (if she was a member of the Federal Bar) whether or not she was admitted to practice in Massachusettes. That's not the case, Elizabeth Warren isn't licensed to practice law anyplace. Her membership in both the New Jersey and Texas Bars were both untrue.

 

[Conservative]

Tribe was the counsel of record in the case. It is not a requirement that you licensed to practice in a state to work under someone who is licensed.

Do you have a link to support your claim that an attorney can practice law under someone elses license?

It's a common practice in most states (I think it's actually allowed in every state, but I'm not 100% sure). So common, in fact, that one of the articles from a prominent legal site posted earlier in this thread (An Update on the Elizabeth Warren Law License Controversy « Above the Law: A Legal Web Site) that they mention it without feeling the need to provide a direct link.

I see this on the link you provided...

“The fact that Charles [Fried] and I happen to be licensed in Massachusetts is immaterial. That wasn’t the reason I could practice in the U.S. Supreme Court. I was an inactive member of the California bar as well, which was all that was needed,” Tribe says.

If you go back and find the post I made with a link to the actual SCOTUS requirements for practicing in front of the SCOTUS, you'll see it clearly states that the person must have been actively licensed for 3 years immediately prior to applying. That would make your source a little suspect.

 

[Polk]

Do you have a link to support your claim that an attorney can practice law under someone elses license?

That would be interesting since it's impossible. It's not against the law to be a secretary or a paralegal working for an attorney, but it is VERY illegal to engage in the practice of law, give advice, and sign documents as an attorney, while not being one.

That's what I thought.

However, Polk seems to think otherwise. He'll have to show some proof to his claim.

But I won't hold be holding my breath waiting for it.

It helps to know what you're talking about:

A lawyer admitted in another United States jurisdiction, and not disbarred or suspended from practice in any jurisdiction, may provide legal services on a temporary basis in this jurisdiction that:

are undertaken in association with a lawyer who is admitted to practice in this jurisdiction and who actively participates in the matter

That's from Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct 5.5(c)(1).

 

[Katzndogz]

Also of relevance is that she wouldn't be in violation even if you weren't allowed to work for someone else, since the brief you guys keep citing is from a federal case and she had been admitted to that bar.

The question there is, was she admitted fraudulently.

Any basis for the claim that her New Jersey license is fraudulent?

Warren doesn't have a New Jersey license. See post #36.

 

[Polk]

Do you have a link to support your claim that an attorney can practice law under someone elses license?

It's a common practice in most states (I think it's actually allowed in every state, but I'm not 100% sure). So common, in fact, that one of the articles from a prominent legal site posted earlier in this thread (An Update on the Elizabeth Warren Law License Controversy « Above the Law: A Legal Web Site) that they mention it without feeling the need to provide a direct link.

I see this on the link you provided...

“The fact that Charles [Fried] and I happen to be licensed in Massachusetts is immaterial. That wasn’t the reason I could practice in the U.S. Supreme Court. I was an inactive member of the California bar as well, which was all that was needed,” Tribe says.

If you go back and find the post I made with a link to the actual SCOTUS requirements for practicing in front of the SCOTUS, you'll see it clearly states that the person must have been actively licensed for 3 years immediately prior to applying. That would make your source a little suspect.

Source that Warren had been licensed for less than three years when she applied?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

That would be interesting since it's impossible. It's not against the law to be a secretary or a paralegal working for an attorney, but it is VERY illegal to engage in the practice of law, give advice, and sign documents as an attorney, while not being one.

That's what I thought.

However, Polk seems to think otherwise. He'll have to show some proof to his claim.

But I won't hold be holding my breath waiting for it.

It helps to know what you're talking about:

A lawyer admitted in another United States jurisdiction, and not disbarred or suspended from practice in any jurisdiction, may provide legal services on a temporary basis in this jurisdiction that:

are undertaken in association with a lawyer who is admitted to practice in this jurisdiction and who actively participates in the matter

That's from Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct 5.5(c)(1).

I'm still waiting.


No mention of an attorney working off another attorney's license.

 

[Conservative]

It's a common practice in most states (I think it's actually allowed in every state, but I'm not 100% sure). So common, in fact, that one of the articles from a prominent legal site posted earlier in this thread (An Update on the Elizabeth Warren Law License Controversy « Above the Law: A Legal Web Site) that they mention it without feeling the need to provide a direct link.

I see this on the link you provided...

“The fact that Charles [Fried] and I happen to be licensed in Massachusetts is immaterial. That wasn’t the reason I could practice in the U.S. Supreme Court. I was an inactive member of the California bar as well, which was all that was needed,” Tribe says.

If you go back and find the post I made with a link to the actual SCOTUS requirements for practicing in front of the SCOTUS, you'll see it clearly states that the person must have been actively licensed for 3 years immediately prior to applying. That would make your source a little suspect.

Source that Warren had been licensed for less than three years when she applied?

That's kinda been my point. If you look at my posts, I don't believe I have 'said' she was breaking the law. I have 'implied' that it is possible, and listed the rules involved and what she has in fact done (worked as a lawyer while listing her office address as MA).

I'd like to know one way or the other, myself. How about you?