Article

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

Rick Moran

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?

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/09/elizabeth_warren_not_licensed_to_practice_law_in_massachusetts.html#.UGBjBU8WByg.facebook#ixzz27PbSdBtH

—————————————————————

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.

44 Responses to “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”

  1. Ron Kitterman
    September 25, 2012 at 1:03 am #

    Thanks Dan, You don’t need a law license to teach law and “you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows” as Bob Dylan says. She is a phony to the highest degree my vote proudly goes to Scott Brown….

  2. dusty
    September 25, 2012 at 1:15 am #

    The reason I don’t ever go there is because of it’s GOB connections. The place was built with very little of the owners own money and Pittsfield taxpayers are making up for the tax breaks this guy gets with money from their own pockets. I avoid GOB backed restaurants and other business that I don’t feel deserve tax breaks that fall on Jo Kapiinskis back as well.

    • skier1
      September 25, 2012 at 8:05 am #

      well said Dusty! City hall needs to do away with the Beacons tax breaks. They haven’t met the employment requirements and it’s not fair to all of the other businesses. Why do they have a liquor lisence? Is it being used?

      • Scott
        September 25, 2012 at 4:55 pm #

        Yes they should stop the tax breaks for sure I too have only been there maybe three times but all in all it’s not that great they shouldn’t even have booze there. I’ll sit home and watch a red box movie or netflix and I can do it with out being harassed for a lot cheaper and eat/drink whatever I want. If the majority of the people feel like we do it’s why they’re not doing good so their answer to that is to crack down on the small customer base they have pretty stupid PR strategy good luck with that one.

  3. joetaxpayer
    September 25, 2012 at 4:21 am #

    Funny thing is she went on a Boston radio show and admittted she has no license in MA..Someone must have gave her some smoke signals.Now is time to circle the wagons and cover tracks.Heard her mother told her she didn’t need a license,because she has high cheek bones.

  4. ambrose
    September 25, 2012 at 4:26 am #

    “Cherokee People” – the planet can’t resist name calling – i’m for warren because she won’t vote for mitch mcconnell.

  5. Ron Kitterman
    September 25, 2012 at 4:35 am #

    Yeah I’m for Laugenour because he won’t vote for DeLeo , give me a break ambrose!

    • ambrose
      September 25, 2012 at 1:20 pm #

      Who will he votefor? He’ll definitely caucus with the democrats. Give me a break ronny.

  6. Hilly Billy 2 in Ward 4
    September 25, 2012 at 5:31 am #

    The name calling is beneath you DV…Well, if she doesn’t have a MA license to practice law that is one thing but did she practice law is another thing altogether. I will read your link because I assume it gives more evidence she did practice law…
    So Dan do you really think a Republican Controlled White House, House and Senate is what is best for our ailing Country? C’mon DV do you really think the zanny flat earthers are what we need to get this Country going again? Look , I have concerns about Liz Warren and President Obama but I don’t trust the other guys! I’m all for fiscal conservatism and tackling the big issures like the deficit and debt and reforming programs but not gutting programs to leave good hard working people to rot while giving big breaks to the “job creators”? Cmon Dan do you really think that less regulation and trickle down economics work? How did we get in the freaking mess we are in Dan??
    How about 2 unpaid for wars, huge tax breaks, presciption drug plan! Should I go on? Your Republican Party is NOT the same party it once was. The Sensible Republicans like Tom Colburn from OK get drowned out by all the other crazies Dan….I’m not saying Scott Brown is some right wing zealot but I am saying his agenda is catering towards the elite and rich with less regulations and more tax breaks….Am I wrong?

  7. Hilly Billy 2 in Ward 4
    September 25, 2012 at 5:37 am #

    Where does it show she ACTUALLY practiced law Dan? I don’t see it….It does seem that Brown and his operatives, you included it seems, think that distracting voters from the real issues, Native American heritage and now this…What about the real issues Dan , how will Brown help right the ship for us here in MA and the Country as a whole…

  8. joetaxpayer
    September 25, 2012 at 5:43 am #

    She has nothing to worry about in MA. it is not illegal to be illegal.She is merely a undocumented lawyer.

  9. Bull Durham
    September 25, 2012 at 7:06 am #

    I’m not a fan of Warren’s, I’ll be voting for Brown, but based on what I’ve read, it would appear that Warren’s representation work was in the federal courts, and it appears you do not need a state license to practice before a federal court. That still doesn’t excuse her doing private law work out of her Harvard office, but if Harvard didn’t say it was wrong… who’s to say?

  10. joetaxpayer
    September 25, 2012 at 8:45 am #

    Yes federal court,where she represented a steel company trying to screw works out of there benefits and pension’s.Nice article in the Herald today.

  11. Dave
    September 25, 2012 at 10:39 am #

    Funny thing is the New Berry Place used to have on their sidewalk sign “Movie candy” as one of their products. I don’t think it is on the sign anymore though. My advice to anyone who has something in their purse or coat is to say they are diabetic and it is case of emergency. I dare to say the staff would be hard pressed to confiscate then.

  12. silence dogood
    September 25, 2012 at 11:22 am #

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJESFDgvwK4

  13. Scott
    September 25, 2012 at 4:46 pm #

    I do not agree on the Beacon they are solely doing it because they are losing profits by people not buying the food they sell there it has nothing to do with safety or liquor license violations. They very well may be with in their rights but it doesn’t mean that it’s right and they should have signs up before you buy a ticket so that you can choose to comply or not by patronizing their establishment or walking out the door. Also I’d like to point out that the food on the menu is terrible and some may even view it as poison. You should be able to bring in your own bottled water in a plastic container. I personally never had a problem but we never buy the food at the movies anyways but I have been known to bring a peanut butter cup and my own water. I would be willing to bet over 90% of the crap on thier menu is made on the same equipment as peanuts, has peanuts and or peanut oil give me a break.

    • danvalenti
      September 26, 2012 at 8:20 am #

      SCOTT
      That’s my point, though: Staying in business is Job 1 for any enterprise. Irrespective of the Beacon’s menu, they have the right to enforce their policies. For the record, I have yet to see a movie there or step inside.

  14. Rick
    September 25, 2012 at 7:38 pm #

    Dan; I will be back after the elections……….Can’t take the shameless endorsements of your picks………

    • Still wondering
      September 26, 2012 at 6:44 am #

      Typical liberal. Don’t accept the radical left agenda? They shun you.

    • danvalenti
      September 26, 2012 at 8:18 am #

      RICK
      Can’t blame you in the least!

  15. Hilly Billy 2 in Ward 4
    September 26, 2012 at 6:03 am #

    Looks like the Brown campaign is imploding DV…3 heads of his campaign seen “tomahawk chopping”…Politico http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81646.html?hp=r8

    Stay Classy Scott , Stay classy

    • Scott
      September 26, 2012 at 6:35 am #

      It quotes Brown in the link you provided as saying he doesn’t condone the actions of those few people. This is what’s wrong with politics there’s a vast majority of people who vote on garbage news such as the link you provided other then based on what these people are actually doing while in office. Tell me three things about Sarah Palin then go read what she actually has done in Alaska I bet you’d be as surprised as I was. The same can be said about a lot of things in politics. Look at the tea party as another example if you read the objections on their site some of it makes sense but you’ll never get past the media coverage of a few radical members. The same thing can be said about the NPR people saying all tea party members are gun toting racists. That’s not what all Democrats think. I hate the media.

      • Hilly Billy 2 in Ward 4
        September 26, 2012 at 7:55 am #

        @ Scott-That would be fine to dismiss these actions if the people doing them were just supporters of Senator Brown, although it would still be in poor taste and show the low intellect of these supporters…However when 3 MAJOR PLAYERS in Senator Brown’s campaign do this without repercussions that’s when you can’t dismiss it….

        So it is ok to use the “garbage” rhetoric when it comes from one side but not the other? Sounds hypocritcal man…

    • joetaxpayer
      September 26, 2012 at 7:58 am #

      I will have to vote for Warren now because of some idoits Indian chants ,honest injun! Not, instead I think I will vote the best person for the job.Scott Brown

      • danvalenti
        September 26, 2012 at 8:15 am #

        There’s a reason Warren refuses to make her hiring records from Harvard available. She wanted Harvard to think she was a Cherokee. Along with being female, that’s “Must Hire” for many colleges.

        • taxmano
          September 26, 2012 at 9:12 am #

          As well it should be, Dan, as well it should, what with the wholesale genocide and near-extermination of one of the groups you mention, and the historical, systematic, and structural inequality imposed on the second.

          (Assuming equal qualifications otherwise, of course.)

          Wait… did I say that out loud?!?

    • danvalenti
      September 26, 2012 at 8:18 am #

      Oh my, HILLY. Is that all you can muster. Warren brought up the Cherokee issue. Brown has only wanted information, which she refuses to supply. As for the actions of three people, you can’t indict the entire campaign not the candidate. The True Believers, that is, the Fanatics or Fundamentalists, in both camps cannot be taken seriously. Nonetheless, you have done just that, given then credence because they happen to suit your politics. Hilly, you’re much smarter than that!

      • Hilly Billy 2 in Ward 4
        September 26, 2012 at 11:18 am #

        Warren didn’t bring up the Cherokee issue Dan, Brown opened with it in the debate…even conservative pundit Joe Scarborough of Morning Joe agrees that this is not the way Brown should be going after having run a brilliant campaign up til this point…http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/#49176520

        Why can the Extreme Issues be brought up by you to suit your candidate but when the other side brings up fringe, non issues you cringe and accuse me of playing smallball…Cmon DV..Nonetheless, you have done just that, given then credence because they happen to suit your politics, you’re much smarter than that!

        Just a copy and paste right back at you DV..I respectfully disagree..

        • Levitan
          September 26, 2012 at 11:43 am #

          Simplest explanation is that Warren claimed Native status to cover up the fact that she is just a boring wasp. Good going, Lizzie! Keep up the entertainment.

        • danvalenti
          September 26, 2012 at 1:30 pm #

          HILLY
          We respectfully disagree with your respectful disagreement. And when is the last time you believed anything Joe Scarborough said?!

        • joetaxpayer
          September 26, 2012 at 3:10 pm #

          You watch way to much msnbc. I guess somebody’s got to watch there propaganda.

        • JUST SAYING
          October 1, 2012 at 10:27 am #

          Joe S a Conservative? LOLOLOLOL. Good one Hilly. Messnbc a news source? HAHAHA

      • Hilly Billy 2 in Ward 4
        September 26, 2012 at 11:42 am #

        Not just 3 people DV, 3 MAJOR PLAYERS IN HIS CAMPAIGN DV, that’s no small thing

  16. Scott
    September 26, 2012 at 6:36 am #

    objectives*

  17. Judas Priest
    September 26, 2012 at 6:42 am #

    As DV said in the article, when you state a view about politics you will have one or both sides mad at you. Means DV is doing the job!

  18. taxmano
    September 26, 2012 at 7:25 am #

    Please see this short clip for major league analysis concerning Scott Brown.

    http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-rachel-maddow-show/49172936#49172936

  19. Still wondering
    September 26, 2012 at 8:07 am #

    MSNBC should not be considered a creditable news source. Totally in the tank for the liberals. Liberals whine about Fox News (the most popular news channel) but MSNBC has a miniscule viewership that drank the kool-aid years ago.

    • danvalenti
      September 26, 2012 at 8:14 am #

      MSNBC as well as FOX should be considered legitimate, though biased, news sources. Watching both can give you a more informed picture than watching just one or none.

  20. taxmano
    September 26, 2012 at 8:58 am #

    Scott,

    DOCTOR Rachel Maddow is smarter than anybody I’ve ever come across on this site, bar none.
    And she doesn’t pretend she’s news. Of course its opinion/analysis, silly.
    The point is that Scott Brown is racist (as evidenced by his line of reasoning in the first debate), and his campaign is racist, too.

    But vote for who you want.

    • Scott
      September 26, 2012 at 9:40 am #

      I will thanks, you too.

  21. Still wondering
    September 26, 2012 at 9:10 am #

    Ah, the racist card. Always a last resort.

    • taxmano
      September 26, 2012 at 9:15 am #

      Sometimes, it’s an accurate assessment of a situation.

      Or would it be okay if Scott Brown determined your ethnic heritage by looking at you?

    • Scott
      September 26, 2012 at 9:36 am #

      I think it’s stupid his campaign is making it an issue. It’s all to discredit her and make her look like she lacks integrity. It makes him look bad too though.

      • tizio volpe
        September 28, 2012 at 7:00 am #

        I agree. Mr. Brown, imho, had this race won until he started with this personal attack. Not sure whether he was feeling panic because of declining poll numbers or he just got some bad advice. Either way, it doesn’t matter. I don’t know if he realizes that when he starts talking about Ms Warren’s heritage it makes him look like an amateur (which he’s not). The fact is, though, it seems to be alienating the very people who helped him win against Martha Coakley including me because it makes him look amateurish and petty.