২৮ সেপ্টেম্বর, ২০১২
Professor Jacobson drops a "bombshell" on Elizabeth Warren.
And I'm only quoting the word "bombshell" because it's from someone who's been defending Warren from Jacobson's attack: "With this bombshell, I would no longer view the case against her as weak."
এতে সদস্যতা:
মন্তব্যগুলি পোস্ট করুন (Atom)
পোস্টগুলি
৭১টি মন্তব্য:
According to an internet site, first offense is a misdemeanor, up to 6 months or a fine of $100 - second offense $500 fine or 1 year imprisonment. Whether a second offense is a felony depends upon whether, under MA law, imprisonment of a year or more automatically means the offense is a felony. This varies by state.
laws, taxes and licensing requirements are for the little people.
My guess is that this will have no impact.
Warren is a sleaze. Who doesn't know that by now?
Jacobsen writes a good blog, but he has become obsessed with his crusade against Warren.
Not so good on either side.
Warren appears to be a dishonest person, what with her disproven Cherokee affirmative action claim and now this issue with her not being licensed to practice law in Mass. Hard to believe she is worse than Coakley. Scott Brown looks like he is set to own that senate seat.
Elizabeth Warren appears to be emenantly qualified to "fill Ted Kennedy's seat."
Ewwwww!
Good find by LI, but it won't do much, I think.
"I can't believe I get paid for doing this."
Every State with registration/licensing laws regulating professionals has penalties for practicing unlicensed within the State. It's to protect the public, don't you know. And if Lizzy Warren feels entitled, on account of some unspoken good ol' girl wink'n'nod for Hahvahd brahmins, to practice unprotected law in violation of the Massachusetts statutes, she needs to learn about accountability.
It's time that an honest attorney with a current Mass license brought a formal complaint before the Board of Bar Overseers for her obvious violation.
The media support Warren, her practising law without a license will be dismissed as a mere technicality and a common occurrence. Then the media will point out that as a legal scholar, Warren is effectively above this requirement. Remember she's NOT A REPUBLICAN.
This will be a non story.
Hey, Senators don't need law licenses to write the laws that we have to follow, and a surprisingly large number of them are not legally trained at all. Which is, to some extent a good thing, but maybe not so when massive legislation like ObamaCare is being drafted.
And, remember, she is running for the Teddy Kennedy seat. Yes, the same Ted Kennedy who got thrown out of Harvard for cheating, and only got into law school apparently through his father's extremely large donation to his law school, and, then went on to kill a campaign aid he was likely diddling on the side, through extreme inebriation. Which, of course, he lied about to his dying day.
So, ask yourself this - who is/was more ethically challenged Ted Kennedy, or Lizzy Warren, who got her law school jobs through lying about having Indian blood, and then practiced law without a license (which, if she never had such there, cannot be taken away for lying)?
that's some fine back alley rusty coat hanger lawyering.
Diogenes is right- Warren is a Dem so nothing to see here.
But imagine the MSM and liberal outcry if Scott Brown had used just once an illegal immigrant to mow his lawn!
Regrettably, Diogenes is correct.
Animal Farm.
Some animals more equal than other.
Rules/laws do not apply to the pigs.
Animal Farm is the best book on politics ever written.
Remember how Joe the Plumber plumbing without a license (or with a license, but not the right one -- honestly, I never figured it out) was a scandal worthy of multiple news cycles.
This? Meh. It is just a politician behaving unethically. Nowhere near as important as a guy who questioned Obama.
Every State with registration/licensing laws regulating professionals has penalties for practicing unlicensed within the State.
Well, no. Arizona, at least for awhile (not sure the status right now, and I should check this out) let its UPL laws sunset. This means that they have an extremely hard time prosecuting most people who stray onto the turf of the legal profession.
I say most, because of the interesting example of a guy who was disbarred there. He continued to stray too closely to the practice of law, and the AZ Supreme Ct. ultimately held that once subject to their rules as an attorney, always subject to their discipline, even if disbarred.
One would think that HLS, with what they charge and with their reputation would hire a law professor who is actually licensed to practice law. One would think a law school would encourage law professors to do a little bit of actual trial work to keep them current and sharp on the law.
Scott Brown could get a speeding ticket and attract more attention than this.
But remember, media bias is a wingnut myth.
Any (legal, for now) means necessary to get rid of anyone who would support the Obama agenda and deconstruction of America.
And her, a law professor!
Alternately: and her, former head of the Consumer Protection Agency!
Fauxcahontas in heap big trouble.
Joe Wurzelbacher could perform plumbing work under the supervision of a duly-licensed contractor (which he did), but he couldn't had a contracting license (which he wanted to do) until he'd earned his Master certification and passed licensing screening.
We vet our plumbers more thoroughly than our Senators.
She ought to argue the free market case, that law licenses are rent seeking to restrict competition.
Roger J. said...
laws, taxes and licensing requirements are for the little people.
This is certainly how it works in practice, but elections are not quite the same. Especially for people basing their campaign on vastly increasing "consumer protection" regulation.
It's amazing to me this never would have become public if she wasn't trying to leverage her professorship into a cvil service fiefdom. This is starting to look a colossal overrreach that could threaten her Harvard tenure. Given her anti-profit rhetoric it would be ironic if her own greed cost her the Harvard sinecure.
If MA liberals kept reelecting Ted Kennedy for decades despite his sleazy behavior, there's little to suggest that practicing law without a license or being a fake Cherokee will disqualify Warren. Such are the low standards of MA liberals.
Elizabeth Warren is a lying scumbag. I think that's clear now.
She lied to advance her career, and she lied pursuing a few extra bucks rather than do the paperwork. Obviously, the rules do not apply to her.
Which brings up the other problem, hypocrisy. It's astounding. For someone who spent so much time advocating for the powerful to follow the rules, she breaks far too many herself to be taken seriously.
If we are to believe her rhetoric that no one stands alone, that we all depend on others, that we accomplish everything only through the cooperation of others, then how is it possible unless we all follow the rules? This isn't cooperation, this is hypocritical demagoguery.
Obviously she's full of shit, and she deserves to lose.
What Jacobson needs is a JDAM.
Or a stake.
Or some garlic.
But, yeah, get this stuff out now so the Lefties can't turn her into a martyr. This is the problem we had with Zero, nobody heard anything until it was too late.
Liberal women, who vote in droves in Massachusetts, will dismiss Warren's lawless acts as peccadillos.
Marshal has a very good point.
Elections are one of the few checks of power that keep our rulers from doing whatever the hell we want. They aren't really about representing the people, but about restraining those in power.
Yes, Warren would have got away with this forever. How did no one, no one, at Harvard or in the courts notice this? How did no one notice that she was using her office as a law practice?
Because she was an up-and-coming political talent and it was dangerous for anyone to question her. Who wants to anger a future Senator or cabinet member?
Warren isn't about protecting us from power but about using it for herself. She is exactly the kind of person we need to keep out of Washington.
It sounds like a technicality. Unlike the fauxcohantas move, it's not the kind of thing that offends common decency. I suppose you can argue that it shows a pattern of fudging the little rules to obtain larger goals, but good luck getting the Ted Kennedy fan club to consider that a disqualification.....As edutcher points out, this is more likely to feed into Warrren's martyrdom narrative than into doubts about her character.
How did no one, no one, at Harvard or in the courts notice this?..
Because she was an up-and-coming political talent and it was dangerous for anyone to question her.
Nobody at Colorado University noted Ward Churchill's faked ancestry or fraudulent scholarship until his "little Eichmanns" remark. He was an academic rock-star, too.
Folks do get prosecuted for unauthorized practice of law here in Massachusetts. I've typically seen it in the context of a person holding himself out as an attorney and accepting a fee in exchange for "legal" advice.
I believe the SOL has run in this case.
Unfortunately, I can't imagine this changing anyone's mind. It's not as if Warren is actually unqualified to argue the case. It's just the total hypocrisy of someone committed to a hyper-regulated society ignoring the regulations that people like her put in place. Of course, one could argue that this is good training for the senate.
Who will this piss off? People who have to get licenses to do just about anything in Massachusetts. But were they likely to vote for Warren in the first place?
I'd like to see her address this. Two excellent question would be: What are the penalties in Massachusetts for practicing law if you are not admitted to the bar? Do you think these penalties are too harsh?
furious_a said...
Nobody at Colorado University noted Ward Churchill's faked ancestry or fraudulent scholarship until his "little Eichmanns" remark. He was an academic rock-star, too.
Note the common thread: these "professors" are leftist poltical activists posing as faculty. If you look into the Duke / Nifong prosecutorial misconduct scandal you'll see the same thread surrounding the faculty who lead the PC lynch mob.
Fine, six months suspended, two years probation, that kind of thing, if you plead it out.
My guess is that this will have no impact.
Warren is a sleaze. Who doesn't know that by now?
Jacobsen writes a good blog, but he has become obsessed with his crusade against Warren.
Not so good on either side.
I'm glad he's keeping up on it because the media refuses to do shit.
Yeah, Todd Akin is the worst possible candidate. Not Princess Spreading Bull.
Oh, come on. The enlightened class are above the law.
Re: Marshal:
Note the common thread: these "professors" are leftist poltical activists posing as faculty.
Warren actually did do substantial original research. You can criticise that research, but it wasn't fraudulent. She wasn't a Ward Churchill, and she wasn't an Obama. She was a serious academic, actively engaged in intellectual debate, and rose to be a widely recognised expert in a field -- bankruptcy -- where no one would give a crap what race she was. It's not like she spent her career dickering around in the fever swamps of critical race theory or whatever.
I hope she loses, but if she wins, she is at least a person of substance.
Music break!
Could not care less about whether or not she had a license. (Were the clients happy? Then what difference does it make?)
Do care in the context that she seems to like the idea of making plenty of little rules for other people.
Did anyone actually believe that Warren had a coherent legal rationale for not getting certified? As in, she decided ahead of time that she would simply write briefs for Federal court, never touch on state law, and thus (arguably) avoid the necessity of joining the Mass. Bar?
As a legal strategy, that seems baffling to me. You have a huge downside risk (Mass. Bar gets upset, throws you in the slammer) and a tiny upside (skip Bar paperwork, dues).
Second question: if you don't believe Warren did have a coherent legal rationale, why would you be surprised that she handled State law cases as well as Federal ones?
Balfegor said...
So we disagree. No honest inquiry would use the definitions she did when setting up her "studies". She chose them specifically to inflate the results, which she then turned in to an alarming conclusion she felt would justify her desired political result.
I don't know why you're bring race into it, I never claimed Warren's political activism was on racial matters. But I disagree other professors and researchers treat everyone equally and that her existence in the field proves her seriousness. The bona fide researchers know who the charlatans are. And those with even the most basic sense of self preservation know not to challenge the political activists. Most fawn on them. The political activists are the golden children of academia. You screw with them and even if you're obviously right it negatively effects your future.
She didn't build that law practice, and you can't prove she did!
RE: Marshall:
I don't know why you're bring race into it, I never claimed Warren's political activism was on racial matters.
No you didn't -- but his (fake) race was Ward Churchill's whole academic claim to fame, and I don't think it's fair to put Warren and Churchill in the same category at all.
Did anyone actually believe that Warren had a coherent legal rationale for not getting certified?
Probably just didn't think of it. But there's obviously a practical rationale -- how hard is the Massachussetts Bar Exam? Prominent legal academics have failed their bar exams in the past. You can't just wing those things.
MadisonMan said...
Who will this piss off? People who have to get licenses to do just about anything in Massachusetts. But were they likely to vote for Warren in the first place?
I'd like to see her address this. Two excellent question would be: What are the penalties in Massachusetts for practicing law if you are not admitted to the bar? Do you think these penalties are too harsh?
====================
As follow-on questions:
1. What should we do about people dispensing prescription medication on streetcorners without an in-State Pharmacist's license.
2. If you say it is Federal work, then are you OK with Veterans being treated in one state by a doctor not licensed in that state for 17 years he has lived there..but a doctor who has an inactive license in another state where he has not practiced medicine for 16 years??
3. You have argued strongly, for many years, that businesses need more laws, regulations and strict licensing requirements to protect the consumer. In your mind, does this exempt lawyers and their businesses, their obligation to be educated to be current on issues affecting their business? Their obligation to carry insurance if they harm their customers?
4. The head of lawyers licensing board has said that what you did was probably OK, pending knowing the real details,,,because in effect you were just dabbling in private client business in your spare time. Never made more than 220,000 a year off a private client.
"At what point does an owner of an auto machine shop, deciding his skills are up to dabbling in making and selling cheap handguns without a license, have a problem? Or should have a problem with Massachusetts law?"
Bar license is a device to limit the number of lawyers to keep compensation high, like a trade union, and that is sold as connected to the higher levels of service and competence for the consumers.
So the LAST THING a consumer advocate and a union supporter should be caught doing is breaking that law.
She is a bad joke.
Balfegor said...
his (fake) race was Ward Churchill's whole academic claim to fame, and I don't think it's fair to put Warren and Churchill in the same category at all.
Her activism is far more sophisticated and effective. Does that sufficiently distinguish them?
Their shared background as imposter Native Americans is not relevant to my point. The activists I compared them to in the Nifong scandal don't share any similar characteristic.
Ms. Warren - Is it OK for a woman who has a decade-long inactive hairdressing license in Alabama to come to Massachusetts and set up a hairdressing and nail salon in her home garage. Something part-time, dabbling in it, only making 30K or so a year vs 220,000 a year on her part-time diversion??
Is this something consumers really mind?
And what if the women teaches hairdressing and cosmetology skills in a community college or a state prison jobs program..does teaching exempt the women from having to get the same license, insurance, Massachusetts Board of Health Inspection cert that she is training her students to get??
Would it be different if Harvard offered a degree in hairdressing and cosmetology, and the woman was a true Elite on Harvard Faculty lecturing on nail-buffing technology and hair dyes??
She billed at $675 an hour in 2002. Nothing wrong with that if that's what the lawyers' union is able to manipulate out of the system.
One thing that's clear about Warren is that she is highly motivated by money. Again, nothing wrong with that except for the way it clashes with her "woman of the people" front.
Re: Marshal:
Her activism is far more sophisticated and effective. Does that sufficiently distinguish them?
I think so, yes. His was crude. Hers was sophisticated. He told (made up) stories. She manipulated data in ways that -- in lawyerly fashion -- were misleading. She actually was a legal academic. That's not incompatible with advocacy.
Balfegor said...
She [Elizabeth Warren] was a serious academic, actively engaged in intellectual debate, and rose to be a widely recognized expert in a field -- bankruptcy -- ...
Based upon her contributions to TARP legal issues and the auto industry bankrupts that were effective nationalizations bypassing little people's bankruptcy law ... I'd say her expertise is in effectively writing new law without legislation.
Perfect for a bureaucrat, lousy for a Senator...she is a fraud, and always has been a fraud.
For others, YMMV....
Re: Aridog:
Based upon her contributions to TARP legal issues and the auto industry bankrupts that were effective nationalizations bypassing little people's bankruptcy law ... I'd say her expertise is in effectively writing new law without legislation.
All these things may be bad from the perspective of policy, philosophy, or even morals. But law isn't fundamentally about any of these things, regardless of what lawyers tell you. Law is language twisted to the service of the terrible power of the state. And you've just set out the case for why Warren is a fantastically effective lawyer.
She's a really good little manipulator. Plus she has those high cheekbones and ,you know, she's got all that money. She really went out there and found ways to make the system work for her. Well, she found ways to get around the system that was supposed to work for everyone. Actually, she gamed the system that she herself and other reliable inmates of the liberal establishment set up. She's very cute. She says things like "hammered" a lot, so people think she might know what a real hammer is. She gets all upset about things like a tomahawk chop, which is so sensitive and respectful. You have to respect a person who can play politics like that. Don't you?
Balfegor said...
She manipulated data in ways that -- in lawyerly fashion -- were misleading. She actually was a legal academic. That's not incompatible with advocacy.
I distinguish between people who (1) push for policies likely to alleviate a problem discovered by their honest research and (2) people who design misleading research because honest research doesn't support their political preferences.
I know the underlying study isn't fradulent in the sense that the data is outright false (like Michael Bellesiles). But the definitions she used and conclusions she drew are so ridiculous it's not reasonable to conclude she was merely mistaken. She'd have to be an idiot to believe her decisions were reasonable, and I'm saying she's a political activist not an idiot.
What she did is analagous to an investment banker making overly optimistic claims about a pending IPO to potential investors, pumping up the price. In this circumstance the investors see the financials. Do we say that as long as the financials aren't outright made up the result is fine no matter what else the IBs say? No, and an IB caught pumping the IPO can be barred from working in the field, along with other penalties. I thought business is supposed to be the world of underhanded operators, but you're telling me what's verboten there is just fine in academia?
I say no.
Re: Marshal:
I know the underlying study isn't fradulent in the sense that the data is outright false (like Michael Bellesiles). But the definitions she used and conclusions she drew are so ridiculous it's not reasonable to conclude she was merely mistaken. She'd have to be an idiot to believe her decisions were reasonable, and I'm saying she's a political activist not an idiot.
You may be right, but the criticisms of her research that I've read have not gone nearly so far.
Re: Marshal:
I thought business is supposed to be the world of underhanded operators, but you're telling me what's verboten there is just fine in academia?
Honestly, yes, I think that the de facto standard of honesty for businessmen is much higher than for legal academics or for lawyers. Lawyers, of course, live in a profession where you're expected to slant the presentation of facts and law heavily in your favour -- it's why people think we're dishonest. A businessman who did that kind of thing, even if he never made an outright misrepresentation, would be mistrusted by customers, business partners, commercial counterparties, and investors. No one who has reasonable alternatives would choose to do business with someone whose words you have to parse with a fine toothed comb.
I think in academia in general, there should be an expectation of greater frankness and honesty. Legal academics seem to me to be a little different, though, because they're lawyers.
Balfegor ....we obviously have a different perspective on what "law" is. You said....
Law is language twisted to the service of the terrible power of the state...
I'd say law is intended to limit the terrible power of the state, but I will agree that all too many lawyers feel to misinterpret, to "deem", the law, to "twist" it as you say, for their own personal purposes...solely depending on the case(s) at hand.
In other words, many lawyers are prostitutes of the first order, and Elizabeth Warren is the mac-damsel of that order.
So I guess you win this round. :-(
Balfegor said...
You seem to be saying that fraud to bilk an investor out of money should be prohibited.
But fraud to bilk the public out of money - and force everyone to live under fradulently enacted restrictions - is just fine because we shouldn't expect academics to be as honest as businessmen.
I'm sure many IBs think they should be allowed to pump IPOs. The point is we don't let them. And we should apply that same restriction to academia despite the fact that they would prefer we not.
Re: Aridog:
I'd say law is intended to limit the terrible power of the state, but I will agree that all too many lawyers feel to misinterpret, to "deem", the law, to "twist" it as you say, for their own personal purposes...solely depending on the case(s) at hand.
Law is just the word we use fro the rules governing how the terrible power of the state is going to be deployed. They become "law" as opposed to mere arbitrary tyranny when they're written down -- they can still be monstrously oppressive or unjust. I think legislators ought to try and structure laws in a way that defends rights etc. etc., but that is in no way, shape, or form essential to "law" as a general category. Both just and unjust laws are still law.
Re: Marshal:
But fraud to bilk the public out of money - and force everyone to live under fradulently enacted restrictions - is just fine because we shouldn't expect academics to be as honest as businessmen.
Marshal, look at what you're writing. Doesn't that accurately reflect the world we live in? Fraud by businessmen is punished, sometimes even under criminal statutes. because we expect people engaged in commerce to live up to high standards of honesty.
But fraud in connection with legislation or regulation? Can you sue a legislator for that kind of thing? I've never heard of it. We assume politicians and lobbyists and think-tanks and academic activists are dishonest. We don't expect them to avoid materially misleading statements, or to correct their own materially misleading omissions. Within our system, the check on misleading speech by lawyers, academics, and politicians is more speech from other lawyers, academics and politicians.
I won't say this system is ideal. But I don't think I'm exactly out on a limb here, saying that businessmen are held to a much higher standard than lawyers, academics, or politicians.
Re: Marshall:
Sorry to break up across so many replies:
I'm sure many IBs think they should be allowed to pump IPOs. The point is we don't let them. And we should apply that same restriction to academia despite the fact that they would prefer we not.
Okay, I don't really disagree with this. But that's not the set of expectations that are built into the culture of academia or public discourse today, as far as I can tell.
Actually, let me backtrack on what I just said. I don't really agree with that. I can just imagine the nightmare we'd live in if it were possible to sue people for making misleading political arguments. A brief madness came over me. Sorry.
Balfegor....Law is just the word we use fro the rules governing how the terrible power of the state is going to be deployed.
I don't have time, at the moment to engage you on the words you used there, conflating "laws" and "rules", but perhaps at a later time.
Suffice it to say, Elizabeth Warren is far more inclined to "rule writing" than "legislation" with said "rules" having the force of law, sans representation in the formulation.
Gotta go now, dinner out & fancy with the daughter who works too much.
I walk by multi million dollar mansions on my way to work through Cambridge.
These are the 1 percenters.
All of them have Elizabeth Warren signs on their yards.
Granted, Cambridge is a commie hell hole but it is a very wealthy commie hell hole.
Tons of jews in Cambridge too. And no 47 percenters either.
ATTHE WHITE HOUSE, WE DID ELIZABETH WARREN.
We believe she is our next female POTUS.
SO, SHE WINS AND THEN AFTER 4 YEARS, SHE HEADS TO THE WH.
OH, MY, WE AT THE WH ARE HAPPY. SO HAPPY.
Warren is the best thing happened to America than Obama announcing he wants to be POTUS.
Balfegor said...
Actually, let me backtrack on what I just said. I don't really agree with that. I can just imagine the nightmare we'd live in if it were possible to sue people for making misleading political arguments
I don't want to sue her. I want everyone to recognize she's a political activist and a liar. I want everyone to quit putting academics on a pedastal. Further I want academia reformed so taxpayers aren't funding political activism. Then I want people to recognize that those the President and his minions demonize in every speech are actually doing less harm than people like Warren.
Elizabeth Warren appears to be emenantly qualified to "fill Ted Kennedy's seat."
I dunno. I'd like to see her "waitress sandwich" before I can make that determination.
Also, how much bourbon can she put away in one sitting?
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন