The lies continue to mount. Now it turns out- she practiced law in Massachusetts without a license......How anyone can trust this woman is beyond me....
» Elizabeth Warren represented Massachusetts client in Massachusetts - Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion
The rest of the article is pretty damning for Ms Warren as well...she's coming apart at the seams.
She has been lying about her ancestry to gain preferential treatment, she's plagiarized recipes and published them as her own, and now it turns out she's practiced law in a state she is not licensed to do so. Clearly she believes she is above the law, that she is somehow "special".
She is not Senate material. She can't be trusted.
» Elizabeth Warren represented Massachusetts client in Massachusetts - Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion
The case was an appeal in the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston in the case of Cadle Company v. Schlictmann.
The case involved a dispute as to a lien on a contingent fee earned by Beverly, Massachusetts lawyer Jan R. Schlichtmann, who was the subject of the film A Civil Action. The issue in the case was whether a creditor or Schlictmann was entitled to the contingency fee earned in a case which started prior to Schlictmanns personal bankruptcy but did not conclude until long after the bankruptcy.
The lien enforcement arose out of state law. Even though there were bankruptcy related issues, the question was whether the state law lien survived. As noted on the court docket and in the ultimate decision, the case only was in federal court because of what is called diversity jurisdiction, which permits a plaintiff to file in federal court if the plaintiff is a citizen of a different state than any of the defendants, and the dollar amount exceeds a minimum threshold (now $75,000).
The First Circuit ruled in favor of the creditor.
Based on the First Circuit docket available through PACER, it appears that Warren and three other Harvard Law professors were brought in to try to convince the First Circuit to reconsider its decision. The Schlichtmann representation is not a case previously disclosed by the Warren campaign.
Warren specifically entered an appearance:
Warrens name appears as one of the counsel of record:
The docket entry leaves some unanswered questions, specifically on what basis and using what license Warren entered her appearance. There does not appear to be any request by Warren for permission to appear in the case. Perhaps some enterprising reader can dig out the First Circuit appearance rules as they existed in August 2001, when Warren entered her appearance.
Regardless, the issue is not whether Warren was authorized under First Circuit rules to enter an appearance in the First Circuit. That is the strawman issue used by Warren defenders to distract.
The issue is whether Warren defenders can continue to maintain the charade that she did not maintain an office for the practice of law, or maintain a systematic and continuous presence in Massachusetts for the practice of law.
Warren defenders have proposed the standard that Warren never represented a Massachusetts client in Massachusetts or on any issue involving Massachusetts state law. Now we know she did.
The rest of the article is pretty damning for Ms Warren as well...she's coming apart at the seams.
She has been lying about her ancestry to gain preferential treatment, she's plagiarized recipes and published them as her own, and now it turns out she's practiced law in a state she is not licensed to do so. Clearly she believes she is above the law, that she is somehow "special".
She is not Senate material. She can't be trusted.
