THE QUESTION WON’T GO AWAY: WHO IS ELIZABETH WARREN, REALLY? … BLOGGER PUBLISHES EVIDENCE THAT SUGGESTS SHE MAY NOT BE LICENSED TO PRACTICE IN MASSACHUSETTS … WHY BROWN IS THE RIGHT CHOICE … BEACON CINEMA WELL WITHIN ITS RIGHTS SEARCHING PATRONS FOR CONTRABAND FOOD AND DRINK
By DAN VALENTI
PLANET VALENTI News and Commentary
(FORTRESS OF SOLITUDE, TUESDAY, SEPT. 25, 2012) — THE PLANET has nothing to say about the silly speculations and wild-eyed canards about our supposed work for the Scott Brown campaign. As always, our client list remains proprietary.
We only bring this up because of a funny thing that happens to us each election season. As we know, most voters don’t bother. “None of the above” wins most elections and every one that has a turnout under 50%. The non-voters, who are either apathetic enough or too wise not to vote, don’t bother with the funny business of which we speak. It’s the others, especially the Fundamentalists, who play The Loose Lips Limmerick.
Participants in the game are the True Believers who for whatever reason attach themselves to a campaign. They include the candidates themselves, families, loved ones, friends, and assorted hangers-on — anyone who is personally affected by the outcome of an election qualifies as a candidate to play LLL.
Anyone who reports and comments upon political news finds him- or herself in this position each election season. For THE PLANET, it’s a sign that we’re doing our job. When candidates and supporters on both sides rip you, you’re likely engaging in a huge dose of truth telling.
THE PLANET supports Scott Brown and endorses his candidacy. He’s done solid work representing the interests of all in Massachusetts, not just Democrats. Example: the Bay State Jobs Agenda that he introduced in the Senate. The initiative includes tax credits for businesses that hire veterans and repeal of the 3% withholding tax cities, states, and the feds charge on nearly all contracts made to private companies (Medicare payments, farm subsidies, grants, and the like). Example: His bipartisan track record. Example: Brown is the only member of the Massachusetts congressional delegation to oppose those pork-barrel markups of budget bills known as earmarks. Example: He opposed the $700 billion freebie given to bail out banks from their own ruinous and avaricious practices. We could go on.
In short, we like Brown because of his record. Brown represents a rare case of being able to vote for a candidate rather than against his or her opponent. Usually, a vote or endorsement comes down to “the evil of two lessers,” but not this time, although matched against Brown, Elizabeth “Cherokee People” Warren simply can’t compete. That’s why she has raised a record amount of money, the only commodity with enough pull to keep her in the race. It might, in the end, win it for her. It certainly won’t be a victory on her character or integrity.
With that, let THE PLANET know what you think of this latest news about the Warren candidacy, and consider this, won’t you. According to evidence obtained by Legal Insurrection, she may not have been forthcoming about her law credentials.
—– 00 —–
September 24, 2012
Elizabeth Warren not licensed to practice law in Massachusetts
This is some extraordinary detective work performed by Legal Insurrection’s William Jacobson. Digging through voluminous records and following up with calls to pertinent licensing agencies, Jacobson has made the shocking discovery that Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren is not licensed to practice law in the state of Massachusetts.
The fact that Warren used her Harvard Law School office to dispense legal advice, write briefs, and represent clients — all activities that meet the legal definition of “practicing law” — is also problematic, as Jacobsen explains:
As detailed below, there are at least two provisions of Massachusetts law Warren may have violated. First, on a regular and continuing basis she used her Cambridge office for the practice of law without being licensed in Massachusetts. Second, in addition to operating an office for the practice of law without being licensed in Massachusetts, Warren actually practiced law in Massachusetts without being licensed.
Warren refused to disclose the full extent of her private law practice when asked by The Boston Globe. If Warren denies that she has practiced law in Massachusetts without a license, Warren should disclose the full extent of her private law practice. The public has a right to assess whether Warren has failed to comply with the most basic requirement imposed on others, the need to become a member of the Bar of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in order to practice law in and from Massachusetts.
As any good lawyer, Jacobson builds his case methodically, thoroughly, and dispassionately. The evidence is overwhelming and the good professor followed up with phone calls that confirmed his findings:
I confirmed with the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers by telephone that Warren never has been admitted to practice in Massachusetts. I had two conversations with the person responsible for verifying attorney status. In the first conversation the personindicated she did not see any entry for Warren in the computer database, but she wanted to double check. I spoke with her again several hours later, and she indicated she had checked their files and also had spoken with another person in the office, and there was no record of Warren ever having been admitted to practice in Massachusetts.
Warren’s own listing of her Bar admissions is consistent with not being licensed in Massachusetts. In a June 25, 2008 CV Warren listed only Texas and New Jersey.
Warren’s Texas Bar information indicates she is not eligible to be licensed in Texas, but does not indicate when she went on that inactive status. Consistent with our finding that Warren was not admitted in Massachusetts, Warren listed only one other place of admission on her Texas record, New Jersey:
This information should be a game changer. But in deep blue Massachusetts, will voters avert their eyes to these transgressions and vote for Warren anyway? It’s a distinct possibility but at the very least, it gives GOP candidate Senator Scott Brown some potent ammunition. Much will depend on how the Massachusetts media responds to this new information. Will they dismiss it because it comes from a blogger? Or will they act like journalists and work to confirm Jacobson’s charges?
It should be a very rough few days for Elizabeth Warren.
Thomas Lifson adds:
Elizabeth Warren is far from the first lawyer to move to Massachusetts and join the Harvard Law School faculty. The question of practicing law from her office almost certainly came up in the process of her joining the faculty. When I joined the Harvard Business School faculty in 1978, the outside consulting that I did from my office on campus was subject to strict reporting requirements, and received scrutiny from the Dean. There were limits on how much consulting one could do, and the nature of the clients and engagements were evaluated. Of course, I was a mere junior faculty member with the ink barely dry on my PhD. Nevertheless, I know that senior faculty at HBS faced the same reporting and scrutiny at the time.
I have to assume that Warren faced review of her outside legal activity from former-Dean Elena Kagan, among others. I wonder how Justice Kagan can explain the apparent fact that she allowed Professor Warren to practice law in Massachusetts without a license?
BEACON CINEMA WELL WITHIN ITS RIGHTS TO POLICE FOOD AND BEVERAGES
You’ve got to understand, cinema houses make the most profit not on tickets but on snacks, foods, and beverages. Beacon Cinema in Pittsfield is well within its rights to check into purses, knapsacks, and under coats to see if people are sneaking in these items.
In the kind of picayune tempest that plays well in Pittsfield, a handful of people who got caught shuffling in their own repast vociferously complained against the “unfair” policy. Guess what, though: Beacon Cinema has every right to do this.
The policy pat-downs got started after staff noticed food and beverage wrappers and containers from items not sold at the theater, including alcohol. The Beacon has a bar. The alcohol license has with it strict provisos, and the cinema could be at risk of losing the license if it does not enforce the rules. Theater manager John Valente said there was even a case where one of the employees had to be taken to the hospital after experiencing an allergic reaction to a food product not sold at the Beacon.
Valente said in the searches, the staff doesn’t touch the insides of bags or put their hands on people. Patrons are simply asked to open up bags and coats for visual inspection. THE PLANET thinks that’s reasonable. The policy is printed on the tickets, and we not-so-respectfully advise those who want to make a federal case out of a simple inspection a company needs to do for its economic survival to stay home and watch the Honey Boo Boo Marathon on the telly.
MAN, LIKE THE GENEROUS VINE, SUPPORTED, LIVES. THE STRENGTH HE GAIN IS FROM THE EMBRACE HE GIVES.
“OPEN THE WINDOW, AUNT MILLIE.”
LOVE TO ALL.