Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Patradomous, Sep 24, 2012.
Bye bye Lieawatha on this one.
Boston Globe original source of all things.
Someone had better find a pleading that allowed her to argue the case "pro haec vice" for this case only......If not, like Lucy she'll have "some 'splaining to do"
Elizabeth Warren Admits She Is Not Licensed to Practice Law in Massachusetts
From the article she stated that she gave up her NJ law license because she couldn't keep up with the Continuing Education (CLE) requirement. It's 24 hours over 2 years over 12 hours a year!!!!
New Jersey Courts
And you can usually get it for under $200 and sometimes even online....
She couldn't find one long day a year to keep up with CE??????
Wow, I have three times that requirement for my licenses in my profession and I exceed that minimum easily.........
As a professor didn't she have the months of June,July and August off class????
Well when she fraudulently claims to be an American Indian, why would anyone be surprised she practices law fraudulently without a license?
I hope she isnt lying about being a Democrat.
She could have.....
* Alerted Whitey Bulger that he was going to be arrested.
* Cleaned the knife OJ killed his wife with.
* Burned the town of Lawrence in the 80's.
* Helped Chuck Stewart
As long as she has a D next to her name, she still has a good chance
to win in Massachusetts.
There is some good information in this Monday Sept 24 article created by
William A. Jacobson - Associate Clinical Professor, Cornell Law School
Â» Elizabeth Warrenâs law license problem - LeÂ·gal InÂ·surÂ·recÂ·tion
Very comprehensive......but he forgot one thing:
Apparently you don't need a state license to try a federal case.
Elizabeth Warren, Unlicensed Lawyer? - By Jim Geraghty - The Campaign Spot - National Review Online
It may be that she needed someone to move to have her admitted pro hac vice and that may or may not have been done. I don't know.
But it might be smart to wait and see.
Just so no one looks gullible or anything.
Truebut two things comes to mind
1) She needs someone to support her "pro hac vice" application and there has to be a written record of that.She has to reveal to the court whether she is admitted to practice in that court or have someone to support her application.
2) She hasn't revealed her list of cases that she worked on and whether any were non-Federal cases which would pose a problem. In light of this disclosure, do you think she should reveal the list to determine whether she worked on any state cases??
Yes, I think I said that.
Be that as it may, since virtually all of this latest "scandal" report is coming from right wig web sites, most of which are notorious for reporting things which are either A) not true or B) grossly exaggerated, I'm thinking it's more likely than not that those applications were filed and approved. Otherwise the outlets jumping all over this would have gone ahead and explained that a lawyer does NOT need to be licensed in the state to try a federal case and tried to hang her for not doing the federal thing correctly.
It seems to be their modus operandi to make a great hyping splash of some perceived wrongdoing based on supplying only half of the information - knowing that their readers and followers fall for it every time and seldom, if ever, bother fact checking it. That gets the story out there and any retraction is done quietly at some later date - long after the false story has gone viral and infected every right wing conservative who will never let it go no matter how much proof is offered to the contrary.
And if the Mainstream Media refutes it, well, either the original believers of the story either don't read MSM or, if they do, will claim they're all liars, anyhow.
Sure she should.
Yes, nice that you finally admit your true feelings about every member of the opposite sex, Harry.
We're all disgusting, aren't we?
Good of you to say so.
I suppose "The Left Wing Media Is Different".........
Miner: Elizabeth Warren’s biz ‘hypocritical’ - BostonHerald.com
And yet another example of the phony Lieawatha.
That tricky a or e will get ya
Yeah...I prefer to regard it as Fruedian.
Possible, but seeing the grammar of many posters here, I'm going with accidental.
Your -> You're
Their -> They're
Their -> There
Meet -> Meat
Woman -> Women
English is a tricky language, I'm sure if I was 97, I would have a tough time keeping all the rules straight
Warren law license matter called non-issue
Here's a link to an article in which a few legal professors exonerate Prof Warren. *(It would have been nice if they disclosed that they donated to her campaign- as one poster mentioned...) and comments finding fault with their arguments....
Brown is a do-nothing Senator and Warren is a carpet-bagging idealist. If Coakley had decided to run any semblance of a campaign or demonstrated that she didn't automatically deserve the "Kennedy Seat" we would be talking about Brown as a local political hack with little skill and less intelligence. If the Obama administration had put Warren in some powerful position in the administration- where she belongs-, we'd be talking about how she's still fighting the Wall Street lobbyists about re-regulation and insulation of the sectors, etc... Neither of these options are good choices for Senator from the Great Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It really sucks that we can't get decent people to run for public office these days, but then again, when did we ever?
Separate names with a comma.