Elizabeth Warren’s law license problem

You do realize that Warren doesn't have any obligation to prove anything to you?

Now- if anyone were to file a complaint with the Massachusetts Bar- maybe then- but no one seems to want to. Wonder why that is?

Why are the Bloggers willing to speculate and speculate but not file an actual complaint?

 

Like Ive said, there is no such "license". Warrens office, Bull and you are wrong. But it is amazing how well her claiming to have a federal license has worked so well, when there is no such thing as a Federal License.

 

LOLOLOLOL So you havent even read the Powerline article.

Afraid you might read something you didnt want to?

 

Massachusetts uses the term "licensing" for those who are either a) foreign, or b) whose license comes from another state. I would imagine this is a "commonwealth" term, and perhaps Virginia may use this term synonymously, too for admittance?

Is she or is she not admitted to the Supreme Court? It appears she is and that the issue is that she is admitted there without having a state issued license, yes?

I was under the impression that her "office" was at the school where she teaches, or am I mistaken?

 

Are you done interpreting? Neither of us have stated that there is a Federal License. I provided you with a link to a federal court that used that terminology "licensed to practice in this District Court" as the end result of the admission process. You are creating a non-existent argument for the purpose of attacking it.

What was said was that if you have a license from a state, that it does not have to be that specific state to apply for admission, so that you could be (as Texas' federal district court puts it) "licensed to practice in this District Court".

Does that mean there is a Federal License that can be walked around the country? No, and no one is implying that, either. Her people proved that she was admitted to the Supreme Court by meeting the licensing (their words) criteria.

What part of their story are you disputing? That she is admitted to the Supreme Court? Do you think the clerks there that took her money didn't check her credentials? Or are you saying that she actually had clients that she appeared with before a judge in Massachusetts without a law license for that state?

 

True enough without history.

Tribe has regularly come down on the side of the most ideologically poisoned leftwads. He's tainted.

This blogger may well be a political tool but that's unknown to me and likely to you. And that would require intellectual honesty from you where I expect none.

 

Cute, we were looking for an example of admission to practice in a federal court, referred to as a LICENSE.

 

If she practiced law in Massachusetts without a license they will assuredly find out and her career is pretty much over. As I've said, I try not to think about Massachusetts too much or I get the hives.

It would be easy enough to look her up on PACER or hit the unified system for that state and see if she's made any appearances.

 

I would expect it to be swept under the rug. And her career as a Harvard Law Professor will be just fine. Character isnt really an issue over there.

 

Neither the Certificate of Admission nor the Certificate of Good Standing would be called a Federal License by the courts, no, but I already stated that neither Dan nor I were calling it a "Federal License". The term "licensing" for better or for worse is used, perhaps incorrectly, but the fact is that no one is repudiating her for saying she had a license to practice in the Supreme Court which you are now avoiding by turning this into an issue of proper names and titles instead of focusing upon the actual issue at hand, hence why I asked that we stop quibbling and talk of terms earlier.

You cannot be admitted into federal courts without proof of being licensed somewhere. At bare minimum you must have a license to practice law in some state. Therefore, it stands to reason that somewhere...I don't know where...she is licensed.

Or else some clerk at some federal court will be in deep trouble.

As to practicing law, again I asked what was meant by that earlier. Is she a family counsel to someone? Is she practicing within the federal courts in Massachusetts only?

I don't have the answers to this, but I do know that it would be next to impossible to make it through the federal courts without ever having an actual law license. Now, I could very well be wrong and some clerk got paid to look the other way, but...I think she is a liar and therefore I would be more inclined to believe that she lied about practicing law in Massachusetts over lying about having a license to practice law.

 

I believe the original article stated that she had an actual, separate, office; apart from her Harvard office, although on some filings she used her Harvard office address.

Although I'm less concerned with her law license than her academic fraud with her bankruptcy study.

 

Soooooo when you claimed I was

you just made that up to try and argue your point. Which was my point.

 

On every public Court document she used her Harvard Address and only her Harvard address.

 

Right back at ya babe!

 

Seems in the heat of a campaign, she wanted to take the time to resign her license in NJ...

Shes a fraud and a crook, and trying to throw roadblocks in the way of people looking her over.

Lots of great info on her, and this issue here for those who want to read it.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/elizabeth-warrens-law-license-problem/

 

After researching this further- I can find no quote from her office that she claimed to have such a license. Powerline claimed that, but I can find absolutely no public statement by the campaign itself that it said this.

But as I keep saying the answer to your worries is to file a complaint with the Massachusetts Bar- so far none of the attorney's blogging about seem to want to.

Wonder why.

 

Here is the difference between maturity and the sandbox. I will retract and apologize for clear errors of fact and logic. I just don't make very many. I know what I don't know and my logic is dispassionate. I will read what you write and then stick your intellectual Cheese Whiz down your throat.

My opinion is terse, abrasive and often constructed to incite. I own that without apology.

 

Right back at ya babe!

LOL

 

Well, it came from
http://www.businessinsider.com/elizabeth-warren-and-law-license-2012-9

that Powerline linked to. I dont know where Business Insider got that.

And since the NJ Bar website doesnt give Warrens NJ law License status before she resigned on 9/11/2012, one of the Blogger has submitted a written request for that information, as instructed by the NJ Bar. If it comes back that she was on inactive staus, like she is in Texas. when she represented clients in court, she is going to need to come up with a law license from some oher state. Wouldnt be surprised if someone does log some kind of formal complaint if it shows that her NJ license wasn't active when she represented clients in court. Seems odd that her campaign would formulate a response to the allegations, without including an assertion of where she is LICENSED to practice law.

 

No, actually my point was referencing the instructions from the courts that used the words licensing, hence why I linked and copied. When requested by the court (judge) it is the Certificate of Admissions. The reason why I wished to get to layman's terms and have asked all along what we mean by things is that these articles are clearly using the terms licensing interchangeably with admissions, hence the original point being that we are quibbling.

She is obviously admitted because she argued before the court. So when her people said she was licensed that is exactly what she meant. Therefore, saying then that she is not licensed means just as little because she is admitted. You cannot be admitted without a law license somewhere and met the criteria of the highest court of the state.

 

Well, they probably were frightened that she was full of (*)(*)(*)(*) and would expose something that, as you've said, could be a lapse.

 

I also heard that she was often seen chewing gum in court, and speaking of breifs, she has been known to wear improper underwear according to a Massachusetts law circa 1789...That, along with Brown's shrewd, clever attacks regarding her whiteness should whisk your boy right into his first full term..... Keep digging champ, we're all pulling for you....LOL

 

In General. An attorney may be admitted to the bar of the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Texas if the attorney is licensed to practice by the highest court of
a state, is in good standing in that bar; and has good personal and professional character.
http://www.txwd.uscourts.gov/rules/online/at/at-1.pdf

 

You know how easy it would be to prove that? You just call up the state bar association and they will tell you right there.

 

The only briefs that have been fouled here are the one's you're wearing. Speaking of digging, you may want to go dig a hole and bury those you are wearing. LOL!

I didn't write the complaint chump, I just posted it. BTW, Warren looks to lose, and she should