View topic - Elizabeth Warren for President! • Redscape

: Doctor Fate; Ambassador; Posts: 21062; Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

26 Sep 2012, 6:09 am

danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:Hey, you're the one with the crux.
You what? Is this third grade now? You were moving goalposts and you know it.

So, did you find any more about her (as you put it) 'ripping off her clients'?

Nope, you brought up "crux."

She made a lot of money and her clients received very little. She practiced law without a license. You can't have a Federal license to do so.

: danivon; Ambassador; Posts: 16006; Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

26 Sep 2012, 6:33 am

Repeating the allegations is not the same thing as substantiating them.

And, yes, I used the word 'crux'. Because I was referring to your post, which linked to an article focused on the licensing issue and did not go into the outcome of the Travelers case. Excuse me for reading what you wrote and the article you linked to and then came to the conclusion that what you were squawking about was your main beef. You didn't mention the case until you decided to inform me that it was actually more important.

Well, your secondary beef. Your main beef with Warren is that she's a Democrat who may win an election.

: Doctor Fate; Ambassador; Posts: 21062; Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

26 Sep 2012, 8:10 am

danivon wrote:Repeating the allegations is not the same thing as substantiating them.

And, yes, I used the word 'crux'. Because I was referring to your post, which linked to an article focused on the licensing issue and did not go into the outcome of the Travelers case. Excuse me for reading what you wrote and the article you linked to and then came to the conclusion that what you were squawking about was your main beef. You didn't mention the case until you decided to inform me that it was actually more important.

Well, your secondary beef. Your main beef with Warren is that she's a Democrat who may win an election.

Nah, just that she's dishonest.

She's been practicing law without a license. She's portrayed herself as fighting for the little guy, when actually she's profited off the little guy. To this day, she still claims to be Cherokee even though there's no evidence and she won't do anything to prove/disprove it.

: danivon; Ambassador; Posts: 16006; Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

26 Sep 2012, 8:16 am

So, no actual answers to my question on the Travelers case?

:shrug:

: Doctor Fate; Ambassador; Posts: 21062; Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

26 Sep 2012, 9:32 am

danivon wrote:So, no actual answers to my question on the Travelers case?

:shrug:

Google broken?

She got $212K. The company she represented agreed to set up a fund and didn't. So, she got her money and those who suffer ill-effects from asbestos got hosed.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/edito ... legal.html

: rickyp; Statesman; Posts: 11324; Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

26 Sep 2012, 10:52 am

from your link Fate:

McMorris and several union representatives, including Francis Boudrow, the business manager of Asbestos Workers Union Local 6, spoke to the media after Brown’s press conference at his South Boston campaign headquarters. They were there to defend Warren and support her argument that she was helping victims, not hurting them, when she represented Travelers.

“He’s distorting her role,” said McMorris, in a telephone call after Brown’s press conference. “Clearly, he’s doing it on purpose. He’s a lawyer...He’s either a very lazy or inept lawyer, or he’s lying.”

When a candidate is losing, they will often attack the oppossing candidate over what they perceive to be soft spots. If Warrens soft spots are claiming she wass 1/32 Cherokee (a pretty common thing in Oklahoma) or this issue Brown is in tough. Warren has a well earned reputation fighting for consumer protections and these are pretty thin reeds with which to try and tarnish her credentials...
Brown was always going to be in a tight race. However, with his parties Presidential candidate tanking, its even tougher...
The issues he's trying to raise here have little chance for traction among the undecided And could well back fire if McMorris's rejoinder and many like his put Brown on the defensive....
Its all pretty desperate.

: Doctor Fate; Ambassador; Posts: 21062; Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

26 Sep 2012, 11:10 am

rickyp wrote:from your link Fate:
McMorris and several union representatives, including Francis Boudrow, the business manager of Asbestos Workers Union Local 6, spoke to the media after Brown’s press conference at his South Boston campaign headquarters. They were there to defend Warren and support her argument that she was helping victims, not hurting them, when she represented Travelers.

“He’s distorting her role,” said McMorris, in a telephone call after Brown’s press conference. “Clearly, he’s doing it on purpose. He’s a lawyer...He’s either a very lazy or inept lawyer, or he’s lying.”

When a candidate is losing, they will often attack the oppossing candidate over what they perceive to be soft spots.

She represented the company against the victims, right? If you're disputing that, provide some evidence.

If Warrens soft spots are claiming she wass 1/32 Cherokee (a pretty common thing in Oklahoma) or this issue Brown is in tough.

Nah. She claimed it and has lied and obfuscated ever since.

Worse, she called for $1T annually in new spending. Where's that money coming from?

Warren has a well earned reputation fighting for consumer protections and these are pretty thin reeds with which to try and tarnish her credentials...

Actually, she has a pretty good rep for lying.

Brown was always going to be in a tight race. However, with his parties Presidential candidate tanking, its even tougher...

Tanking? Right, Obama's up by what 20 points nationally? You're funny.

Romney has no chance in MA. This place is democratic-socialist, perfect for President Obama.

The issues he's trying to raise here have little chance for traction among the undecided And could well back fire if McMorris's rejoinder and many like his put Brown on the defensive....
Its all pretty desperate.

If you say so, after all, I'm sure you thought Brown would beat Coakley . . .

: danivon; Ambassador; Posts: 16006; Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

26 Sep 2012, 1:54 pm

Yes, I've seen those facts. What I'm asking is what goes between them to substantiate that she ripped off her clients. If her client was Travelers, and they paid her to do work to allow them to do something, which they later decided not to (or not to as great an extent), that is her client's choice. So how did she rip them off?

You are great at assertion, but where is the cause-effect evidence to back your words up? Google is not helping you.

: Doctor Fate; Ambassador; Posts: 21062; Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

26 Sep 2012, 3:01 pm

danivon wrote:Yes, I've seen those facts. What I'm asking is what goes between them to substantiate that she ripped off her clients. If her client was Travelers, and they paid her to do work to allow them to do something, which they later decided not to (or not to as great an extent), that is her client's choice. So how did she rip them off?

You are great at assertion, but where is the cause-effect evidence to back your words up? Google is not helping you.

By misrepresenting herself as a lawyer and charging $675 an hour?

: danivon; Ambassador; Posts: 16006; Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

26 Sep 2012, 3:11 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:By misrepresenting herself as a lawyer

Unproven. She clearly is a lawyer, and while she may not have been licensed in Mass, that does not mean she was not eligible to work as counsel on Federal cases.

and charging $675 an hour?

Is her client (Travelers) disputing her rate? Did they not get advised of it beforehand? Do you really get free market economics and the concept of pricing?

: Doctor Fate; Ambassador; Posts: 21062; Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

27 Sep 2012, 6:12 am

danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:By misrepresenting herself as a lawyer
Unproven. She clearly is a lawyer, and while she may not have been licensed in Mass, that does not mean she was not eligible to work as counsel on Federal cases.

I've looked. I see no evidence that an unlicensed lawyer can practice in Federal courts. There is no "federal license" per se.

and charging $675 an hour?
Is her client (Travelers) disputing her rate? Did they not get advised of it beforehand? Do you really get free market economics and the concept of pricing?

More jerk-like behavior.

: danivon; Ambassador; Posts: 16006; Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

27 Sep 2012, 9:57 am

Doctor Fate wrote:I've looked. I see no evidence that an unlicensed lawyer can practice in Federal courts. There is no "federal license" per se.

And I see no evidence that she was unlicensed at the time she was practising law. With the lack of real evidence either way, I think it's basicaly moot.

and charging $675 an hour?
Is her client (Travelers) disputing her rate? Did they not get advised of it beforehand? Do you really get free market economics and the concept of pricing?

More jerk-like behavior.

Pardon? You said that the accusations was that she'd 'ripped her client off'. If her client (Travelers) feel that way, let's see evidence that they do. If not, then how did she rip off he client?

If they knew the rate, and they paid it, that's an example of a market economy. If they didn't want to pay that rate, then they should not have hired her. If her price is too high, she won't get the work.

And, if Traveler then went and ripped of other people, how is that her fault?

: freeman2; Dignitary; Posts: 1573; Joined: 19 Dec 2000, 4:40 pm

27 Sep 2012, 10:46 am

To practice before the US Supreme Court you need to be admitted to a state court for at least three years but it does not appear to require that you be an active member of the bar, just that you are in good standing (see Ricky's quote of Lawrence Tribe with regard that he could have used his inactive California Bar membership).http://www.supremecourt.gov/bar/barinstructions.pdf

There is no doubt that Ms. Warren was a member of the New Jersey bar, there is no evidence that she was not in good standing with the New Jerseu bar, and there is no doubt that DF cannot admit when she is wrong. (btw Danivon when DF starts calling you names that means you have won the argument...)

As for ripping off Travelers, I hardly think that a multi-billion dollar entity with enormous experience in dealing with lawyers is going to be ripped off in negotiating a fee with lawyers. They probably thought that getting a lawyer who taught at Harvard Law School was worth it (apparently it worked out well for Travelers)
,

: Doctor Fate; Ambassador; Posts: 21062; Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

27 Sep 2012, 11:15 am

danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:I've looked. I see no evidence that an unlicensed lawyer can practice in Federal courts. There is no "federal license" per se.
And I see no evidence that she was unlicensed at the time she was practising law. With the lack of real evidence either way, I think it's basicaly moot.

Where was she licensed? According to her own statements on radio, she was licensed nowhere.

Is her client (Travelers) disputing her rate? Did they not get advised of it beforehand? Do you really get free market economics and the concept of pricing?

More jerk-like behavior.
Pardon?

I guess I'll have to use bold (again). Did that help you?

You are free to dispute what I say. And, if you choose to be condescending, smug, and a jerk about it, I'll respond to that part only.

: Doctor Fate; Ambassador; Posts: 21062; Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

27 Sep 2012, 11:30 am

freeman2 wrote: There is no doubt that Ms. Warren was a member of the New Jersey bar, there is no evidence that she was not in good standing with the New Jerseu bar, and there is no doubt that DF cannot admit when she is wrong.

Actually, I can and I have. And, I will again if/when it happens.

(btw Danivon when DF starts calling you names that means you have won the argument...)

There is an alternative explanation: his behavior warrants the characterization.

Now, was she legally in that case? I don't think it's been established. It's true Federal courts have their own rules. However, it appears she would have violated a couple of MA laws: 1) establishing an office without a license; 2) not buying malpractice insurance.

Furthermore, there is a possibility, even a likelihood, that she was misrepresenting herself:

I have practiced law for 30 years. Your correspondent is correct that a federal court can permit an attorney from a state outside the state wherein the federal court sits to appear before that court. The practice is called “pro hac vice,” which is Latin for “for this occasion.” Here are the pro hac vice requirements for the District Court of Mass, which would be the relevant court in this case.
However, this does not conclude the issue. There would still need to be an attorney licensed in Mass. who moved for Ms. Warren to be admitted pro hac vice for the case at hand. Such a document would have to be in the docket of the case as to which she was representing her client. If Ms. Warren simply filed pleadings without first being admitted to the court pro hac vice, she would be implicitly representing to the court that she was, in fact, licensed to practice in Mass., and if she was not so licensed, she would have violated the court’s rules, and, in effect, have committed a fraud upon the court.

Should be easy to clear up. All she has to do is produce the document wherein she was admitted pro hac vice.

As for ripping off Travelers, I hardly think that a multi-billion dollar entity with enormous experience in dealing with lawyers is going to be ripped off in negotiating a fee with lawyers. They probably thought that getting a lawyer who taught at Harvard Law School was worth it (apparently it worked out well for Travelers)

Yes, they were able to stiff the asbestos victims--because she always looks out for the little guy.
,

Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Elizabeth Warren for President!