Elizabeth Warren- NO MASS LAW LICENSE

[Polk]

you've already been told multiple times in this thread that YOU DON'T NEED TO BE ADMITTED IN MASSACHUSETTS TO FILE PAPERS WITH THE USSC.

i have to wonder why you people keep posting the same lies over and over...

I think she's moved on to claiming Warren was operating a law office without a license.

Elizabeth Warren represented not just Travelers but allegedly other companies in the late 1990s and did so working out of and using her Harvard Law School office in Cambridge, which she listed as her office of record on briefs filed with various courts. True or false?

True, but doesn't help your argument. She assisted in the representation of some firms, but she was:
a) not the counsel of record in those cases, and therefore is not required to have a Massachusetts license to practice as long as she's a member in good standing in another state unless she was handling a large caseload
b) the cases you've linked to are all Supreme Court cases, which only requires admission to the SCOTUS bar, which in turn requires at least three years as member in good standing in the bar of any state.

Since she was licensed to practice in New Jersey, those two things do not create an issue for her.

As for the use of her Harvard office, the determining factor under Massachusetts bar rules is if she was holding it out as a law office (as in a firm). That's certainly not the case, as has been noted by the general counsel of the Massachusetts bar.

 

[DauggyDaddy]

In case you've not noticed that there has been no case filed against Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts - not even by the guy who started this phony scandal, consider yourself informed. So ask yourself why? Oh, I suppose one or two on the right will try to argue that she hasn't been disciplined because the blue state Massachusetts won't punish a Democrat, but the fact is, ANYONE could file a complaint about it. So what's the REAL reason. Well, the REAL reason is because she's done nothing wrong. Really. Elizabeth Warren is a tenured professor at THE most prestigious law school in America and probably in the world. There is no requirement for her to hold a Massachusetts license to teach at Harvard. While teaching there full time, she has occasionally accepted requests to prepare or to help prepare briefs and arguments to go before the US Supreme Court. She needs no state license for that either. She DOES have a license in Texas, and until recently, she also had one here in New Jersey. She placed her NJ license in the "inactive" status when she went to work at Harvard, and has not used it. But the state has requirements for continuing education, even for inactive licenses. So, not planning to USE her NJ license, instead of taking the time to complete the required education, she chose to cancel the license, Again, she has done nothing wrong. And the truth is, it makes me wonder just how BAD her opponent is that THIS, along with the question of whether or not she has 1/32 Cherokee blood is what passes for an issue for them.

 

[Conservative]

In case you've not noticed that there has been no case filed against Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts - not even by the guy who started this phony scandal, consider yourself informed. So ask yourself why? Oh, I suppose one or two on the right will try to argue that she hasn't been disciplined because the blue state Massachusetts won't punish a Democrat, but the fact is, ANYONE could file a complaint about it. So what's the REAL reason. Well, the REAL reason is because she's done nothing wrong. Really. Elizabeth Warren is a tenured professor at THE most prestigious law school in America and probably in the world. There is no requirement for her to hold a Massachusetts license to teach at Harvard. While teaching there full time, she has occasionally accepted requests to prepare or to help prepare briefs and arguments to go before the US Supreme Court. She needs no state license for that either. She DOES have a license in Texas, and until recently, she also had one here in New Jersey. She placed her NJ license in the "inactive" status when she went to work at Harvard, and has not used it. But the state has requirements for continuing education, even for inactive licenses. So, not planning to USE her NJ license, instead of taking the time to complete the required education, she chose to cancel the license, Again, she has done nothing wrong. And the truth is, it makes me wonder just how BAD her opponent is that THIS, along with the question of whether or not she has 1/32 Cherokee blood is what passes for an issue for them.

you do realize that is incorrect, right?

 

[Wry Catcher]

you've already been told multiple times in this thread that YOU DON'T NEED TO BE ADMITTED IN MASSACHUSETTS TO FILE PAPERS WITH THE USSC.

i have to wonder why you people keep posting the same lies over and over...

I don't wonder, lies, half-truths, innuendo and rumors are the primary tools in the box of character assassins. Notice, there are few if any arguments in support of Scott Brown; Professor Warren could be running against a lemming (and maybe she is) for all a reader of this thread would know.

You bet.

David Axelrod being the first case in point.

You are very impressive, with just half a wit you demonstrate the ability to think outside the ... reality.

 

[Listening]

I don't wonder, lies, half-truths, innuendo and rumors are the primary tools in the box of character assassins. Notice, there are few if any arguments in support of Scott Brown; Professor Warren could be running against a lemming (and maybe she is) for all a reader of this thread would know.

You bet.

David Axelrod being the first case in point.

You are very impressive, with just half a wit you demonstrate the ability to think outside the ... reality.

Aw, your just jealous....you'd love to have half of wit...which would be half a wit more than you have now.

 

[jillian]

I'm not embarrassed at all sir. I am Brown supporter not a Warren supporter.

Coulda fooled me; all you do is attack Professor Warren. What is it that attracts you to Senator Brown? He seems to me to be one of those who votes in his best interests, not in the best interest of his constituents or the nation (of course that has become typical of most members of Congress - both R's and D's).

I do support Sen. Brown and work in one of his local campaign offices once or twice a week. Our founders created and adversarial form of government in this Republic for a reason. To keep the Feds from having too much power.

He is a US Senator keep in mind. His votes affect the country not just my state. I believe he does represent the people and no elected office holder can please all the people all the time nor should they try. I did not support a puppet. I support a man who I believe has the right ideas and understands what this country needs. Electeds need to listen to the people, follow the laws and US Constitution and serve the country and the people as directed by that which should guide all good people, honesty and integrity.

He is in the Peoples' Seat not Ted Kennedy's seat as some on the left mistakenly believed.

what are you talking about "an adversarial form of government"?

you don't want elected officials to listen to the people who voted for them. 52% of this country voted for the president.

you supporting the things he was elected to do?

didn't think so.

thanks for playing

 

[jillian]

you've already been told multiple times in this thread that YOU DON'T NEED TO BE ADMITTED IN MASSACHUSETTS TO FILE PAPERS WITH THE USSC.

i have to wonder why you people keep posting the same lies over and over...

I think she's moved
on to claiming Warren was operating a law office without a license.

Elizabeth Warren represented not just Travelers but allegedly other companies in the late 1990s and did so working out of and using her Harvard Law School office in Cambridge, which she listed as her office of record on briefs filed with various courts. True or false?

irrelevant. if you've actually bothered to read, she doesn't have to be admitted in massachusetts to file papers before the USSC... all she has to do is be admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court and whatever federal district court(s) she's admitted to.

 

[Listening]

Coulda fooled me; all you do is attack Professor Warren. What is it that attracts you to Senator Brown? He seems to me to be one of those who votes in his best interests, not in the best interest of his constituents or the nation (of course that has become typical of most members of Congress - both R's and D's).

I do support Sen. Brown and work in one of his local campaign offices once or twice a week. Our founders created and adversarial form of government in this Republic for a reason. To keep the Feds from having too much power.

He is a US Senator keep in mind. His votes affect the country not just my state. I believe he does represent the people and no elected office holder can please all the people all the time nor should they try. I did not support a puppet. I support a man who I believe has the right ideas and understands what this country needs. Electeds need to listen to the people, follow the laws and US Constitution and serve the country and the people as directed by that which should guide all good people, honesty and integrity.

He is in the Peoples' Seat not Ted Kennedy's seat as some on the left mistakenly believed.

what are you talking about "an adversarial form of government"?

you don't want elected officials to listen to the people who voted for them. 52% of this country voted for the president.

you supporting the things he was elected to do?

didn't think so.

thanks for playing

Unfortunately we see that Schillian is as ignorant on the constitution as Obama is.

Shameful.

 

[jillian]

I do support Sen. Brown and work in one of his local campaign offices once or twice a week. Our founders created and adversarial form of government in this Republic for a reason. To keep the Feds from having too much power.

He is a US Senator keep in mind. His votes affect the country not just my state. I believe he does represent the people and no elected office holder can please all the people all the time nor should they try. I did not support a puppet. I support a man who I believe has the right ideas and understands what this country needs. Electeds need to listen to the people, follow the laws and US Constitution and serve the country and the people as directed by that which should guide all good people, honesty and integrity.

He is in the Peoples' Seat not Ted Kennedy's seat as some on the left mistakenly believed.

what are you talking about "an adversarial form of government"?

you don't want elected officials to listen to the people who voted for them. 52% of this country voted for the president.

you supporting the things he was elected to do?

didn't think so.

Unfortunately we see that Schillian is as ignorant on the constitution as Obama is.

Shameful.

what are you blathering about, nutbar?

almost a response, though. i'm sorry you don't know enough to actually have a discussion with anyone. "

you're the one who should be ashamed...for lying compulsively.

 

[jillian]

hey, listening, is the brainless little hack a friend of yours? is that why you're not letting her answer for herself?

 

[Listening]

what are you talking about "an adversarial form of government"?

you don't want elected officials to listen to the people who voted for them. 52% of this country voted for the president.

you supporting the things he was elected to do?

didn't think so.

Unfortunately we see that Schillian is as ignorant on the constitution as Obama is.

Shameful.

what are you blathering about, nutbar?

almost a response, though. i'm sorry you don't know enough to actually have a discussion with anyone. "

you're the one who should be ashamed...for lying compulsively.

Reading comprehension issues...still ?

It's really quite simple.

You post nothing of substance and never have.

And generally, you do a us favor by keeping your posts under 50 words.

When you want to argue something, please let me know.

What is shameful is that people like you were actually allowed out of high school even though you obviously don't meet any of the minimum requirements for graduation.

 

[jillian]

Unfortunately we see that Schillian is as ignorant on the constitution as Obama is.

Shameful.

what are you blathering about, nutbar?

almost a response, though. i'm sorry you don't know enough to actually have a discussion with anyone. "

you're the one who should be ashamed...for lying compulsively.

Reading comprehension issues...still ?

It's really quite simple.

You post nothing of substance and never have.

And generally, you do a us favor by keeping your posts under 50 words.

When you want to argue something, please let me know.

What is shameful is that people like you were actually allowed out of high school even though you obviously don't meet any of the minimum requirements for graduation.

that's kind of funny coming from you.

i post a factual response and you come back with your usual useless twittery...

and you want a response that doesn't tell you what a moron you are?

lol.. that's kinda rich.

go back to your job at the gas station... mmmkay.

 

[Dreamy]

Coulda fooled me; all you do is attack Professor Warren. What is it that attracts you to Senator Brown? He seems to me to be one of those who votes in his best interests, not in the best interest of his constituents or the nation (of course that has become typical of most members of Congress - both R's and D's).

I do support Sen. Brown and work in one of his local campaign offices once or twice a week. Our founders created and adversarial form of government in this Republic for a reason. To keep the Feds from having too much power.

He is a US Senator keep in mind. His votes affect the country not just my state. I believe he does represent the people and no elected office holder can please all the people all the time nor should they try. I did not support a puppet. I support a man who I believe has the right ideas and understands what this country needs. Electeds need to listen to the people, follow the laws and US Constitution and serve the country and the people as directed by that which should guide all good people, honesty and integrity.

He is in the Peoples' Seat not Ted Kennedy's seat as some on the left mistakenly believed.

what are you talking about "an adversarial form of government"?

you don't want elected officials to listen to the people who voted for them. 52% of this country voted for the president.

you supporting the things he was elected to do?

didn't think so.

thanks for playing

Adversarial amongst the elected between the Federal and the States to reign in the Feds. Our founders wanted a very weak Federal government and a stronger state government because that was a government closest to the people. A central government with very limited powers. Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution points to a few deliineated powers, while leaving the rest of the powers to the states and to the people in the 10th Amendment.

you don't want elected officials to listen to the people who voted for them.

Never posted the above. Is that a question to me or a declarative statement from you?

 

[jillian]

Scott Brown supporters show their class

Cherokee Nation 'disappointed' with "war whoop chants" by Sen. Scott Brown staff | Politics - WCVB Home

ugly people...

Scott Brown is certainly not ugly. Warren is a ditz and sleazy as hell.

we were talking about the ijits who did the whoops...

scott brown is good looking. and he'd be perfectly fine being one of the two senators from Massachusetts... just not where he'd have to be loyal to scum like mitch mcconnell.

and i haven't seen anything "sleazy" about elizabeth warren except for the rightwing antipathy toward her.

 

[beretta304]

ugly people...

Scott Brown is certainly not ugly. Warren is a ditz and sleazy as hell.

we were talking about the ijits who did the whoops...

scott brown is good looking. and he'd be perfectly fine being one of the two senators from Massachusetts... just not where he'd have to be loyal to scum like mitch mcconnell.

and i haven't seen anything "sleazy" about elizabeth warren except for the rightwing antipathy toward her.

You would vote for a chimp if he was a Democrat. Oh wait, you did...he's in the White House. No insult to chimps since Cheetah was brighter.

 

[jillian]

I do support Sen. Brown and work in one of his local campaign offices once or twice a week. Our founders created and adversarial form of government in this Republic for a reason. To keep the Feds from having too much power.

He is a US Senator keep in mind. His votes affect the country not just my state. I believe he does represent the people and no elected office holder can please all the people all the time nor should they try. I did not support a puppet. I support a man who I believe has the right ideas and understands what this country needs. Electeds need to listen to the people, follow the laws and US Constitution and serve the country and the people as directed by that which should guide all good people, honesty and integrity.

He is in the Peoples' Seat not Ted Kennedy's seat as some on the left mistakenly believed.

what are you talking about "an adversarial form of government"?

you don't want elected officials to listen to the people who voted for them. 52% of this country voted for the president.

you supporting the things he was elected to do?

didn't think so.

thanks for playing

Adversarial amongst the elected between the Federal and the States to reign in the Feds. Our founders wanted a very weak Federal government and a stronger state government because that was a government closest to the people. A central government with very limited powers. Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution points to a few deliineated powers, while leaving the rest of the powers to the states and to the people in the 10th Amendment.

you don't want elected officials to listen to the people who voted for them.

Never posted the above. Is that a question to me or a declarative statement from you?

if we had a governmental system like you allege, we'd still be living under the Articles of Confederation. The 'states' rights' issue was resolved once and for all when the south lost the civil war. just how it is. the constitution got rid of the old system and set up a strong, centralized government.

don't quote the constitution to me. you're just parroting things you don't know anything about. absent caselaw analysis your assertions about the document are meaningless.

you did post 'that';... you said elected officials should start listening to "the people".

 

[beretta304]

what are you talking about "an adversarial form of government"?

you don't want elected officials to listen to the people who voted for them. 52% of this country voted for the president.

you supporting the things he was elected to do?

didn't think so.

thanks for playing

Adversarial amongst the elected between the Federal and the States to reign in the Feds. Our founders wanted a very weak Federal government and a stronger state government because that was a government closest to the people. A central government with very limited powers. Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution points to a few deliineated powers, while leaving the rest of the powers to the states and to the people in the 10th Amendment.

you don't want elected officials to listen to the people who voted for them.

Never posted the above. Is that a question to me or a declarative statement from you?

if we had a governmental system like you allege, we'd still be living under the Articles of Confederation. The 'states' rights' issue was resolved once and for all when the south lost the civil war. just how it is. the constitution got rid of the old system and set up a strong, centralized government.

don't quote the constitution to me. you're just parroting things you don't know anything about. absent caselaw analysis your assertions about the document are meaningless.

you did post 'that';... you said elected officials should start listening to "the people".

"caselaw analysis" "

Rich coming from the phony lawyer.

 

[jillian]

Adversarial amongst the elected between the Federal and the States to reign in the Feds. Our founders wanted a very weak Federal government and a stronger state government because that was a government closest to the people. A central government with very limited powers. Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution points to a few deliineated powers, while leaving the rest of the powers to the states and to the people in the 10th Amendment.




Never posted the above. Is that a question to me or a declarative statement from you?

if we had a governmental system like you allege, we'd still be living under the Articles of Confederation. The 'states' rights' issue was resolved once and for all when the south lost the civil war. just how it is. the constitution got rid of the old system and set up a strong, centralized government.

don't quote the constitution to me. you're just parroting things you don't know anything about. absent caselaw analysis your assertions about the document are meaningless.

you did post 'that';... you said elected officials should start listening to "the people".

"caselaw analysis" "

Rich coming from the phony lawyer.

you wish, troll...

you up to about 350 threads yet?

 

[beretta304]

if we had a governmental system like you allege, we'd still be living under the Articles of Confederation. The 'states' rights' issue was resolved once and for all when the south lost the civil war. just how it is. the constitution got rid of the old system and set up a strong, centralized government.

don't quote the constitution to me. you're just parroting things you don't know anything about. absent caselaw analysis your assertions about the document are meaningless.

you did post 'that';... you said elected officials should start listening to "the people".

"caselaw analysis" "

Rich coming from the phony lawyer.

you wish, troll...

you up to about 350 threads yet?

Count 'em bitch and let me know. Don't want to "fall short" like your replies do.

 

[Dreamy]

what are you talking about "an adversarial form of government"?

you don't want elected officials to listen to the people who voted for them. 52% of this country voted for the president.

you supporting the things he was elected to do?

didn't think so.

thanks for playing

Adversarial amongst the elected between the Federal and the States to reign in the Feds. Our founders wanted a very weak Federal government and a stronger state government because that was a government closest to the people. A central government with very limited powers. Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution points to a few deliineated powers, while leaving the rest of the powers to the states and to the people in the 10th Amendment.

you don't want elected officials to listen to the people who voted for them.

Never posted the above. Is that a question to me or a declarative statement from you?

if we had a governmental system like you allege, we'd still be living under the Articles of Confederation. The 'states' rights' issue was resolved once and for all when the south lost the civil war. just how it is. the constitution got rid of the old system and set up a strong, centralized government.

don't quote the constitution to me. you're just parroting things you don't know anything about. absent caselaw analysis your assertions about the document are meaningless.

you did post 'that';... you said elected officials should start listening to "the people".

I have no idea what your issue is with my statements. I believe in a weak central government as did the founders.

Don't quote the Constitution to you? Why? You asked me a question and I referred to the reasoning behind why I posted as I did.

I know exactly what I posted and they are there for anyone to read. If they confuse you and I have not clarified them your liking I am sorry. Not much more I can state to make my point.