Elizabeth Warren, Democrat candidate for Senate in Massachusetts, can’t shake free of unflattering revelations from her past. First to be exposed was her unverified claim to be a Cherokee, which upset actual Cherokees and raised ethical questions. Then came accusations from fellow academics that Warren had fudged data for a book, followed by the discovery that the former mortgage fraud czarina had herself made a tidy profit flipping foreclosed homes. Now comes the shocking news that, not only did Warren represent a string of big businesses in cases against workers, she seems to have been practicing law for over a decade without a license.
Family Lore vs. Hard Evidence
The first setback to Warren’s maiden election campaign came in April, when it was revealed that she’d publicly listed herself for years as a “Person of Color”, specifically, a Cherokee. (See earlier post for details.) Despite Warren’s insistence that the Cherokee controversy has been “put to rest” it keeps dogging her, partly because her opponent, Scott Brown, has made it a question of her character, partly because of Warren’s own bizarre compulsion to keep raising the subject.
Brown hit Warren on her false Cherokee claim in the first question of their first debate. Warren insisted Harvard’s decision to hire her had nothing to do with her claim to minority status, yet refused to comply with Brown’s request for her to release her Harvard paperwork. Brown and the debate moderator then moved on to other issues, but a few minutes later Warren felt the need to retell the thoroughly-debunked fable of her family’s claims to Cherokee and Delaware ancestry.
Not content to leave it be, Warren released a TV ad insisting yet again that the family lore she heard as child makes it OK for her to call herself a Native American. This subject is not a winner for Warren, as: 1) exhaustive research by the Cherokee genealogist, Twila Barnes, has proven conclusively that Warren has zero native american ancestry; 2) even had Warren’s claim to 1/32 Cherokee blood been true, under federal law, that was not sufficient for her to claim minority status as a native american.
Underdog Champion or Hired Gun?
Warren’s claim to fame, which made her the darling of proglodytes, is as a champion of the underdog against avaricious corporations. In the debate, Brown cast doubt on this image when he questioned Warren’s decision to represent Travelers Insurance in its 2009 attempt to avoid paying compensation to thousands of workers with asbestos poisoning. Warren insisted that by representing Travelers (“it was an insurance company versus another insurance company” she later explained), she actually helped the poisoned workers by getting Travelers to set up a trust fund, which was better than nothing. The settlement was later negated by the Supreme Court, leaving the victims with nothing.
Less clear is how Warren was aiding the downtrodden when she represented LTV Steel in 1995, when they attempted to renege on health & pension benefits to thousands of retired coal miners.
Warren has also served, in an advisory or litigating capacity, the following clients in their attempts to use Chapter 11 legalities to avoid liabilities for asbestos poisoning:
- Kaiser Aluminum
- Dow Chemical
- Johns Manville
- National Gypsum
- Fuller Austin
- Fairchild Aviation
- Piper Aircraft
- Babcock & Wilcox Company
- Pittsburgh Coming Corporation
- Owens Coming Corporation
- Armstrong World Industries, Inc.
- W.R. Grace & Company
- G-1 Holdings, Inc.
- United States Gypsum Corporation
- Federal-Mogul Global, Inc.
- North American Refractories Company
Unlicensed Practice of the Law
All this scrutiny into Warren’s legal work (conducted primarily by the blog Legal Insurrection) has uncovered a potentially devastating blow to Warren’s Senate aspirations. It now seems certain that Warren has been practicing law for years in Massachusetts without a license. That’s a felony.
Warren admits she’s never passed the Mass. bar, but insists it doesn’t matter as: 1) She’s never really practiced law in Mass, just “dabbled” a bit; 2) She maintains no law office in the state; 3) She’s never appeared in a Mass. court regarding Mass. law; 4) She’s a member of the TX and NJ bars. All four statements are lies.
Warren has engaged in continuous practice
The long list of clients above, most from 2002 and discovered by chance, belie Warren’s claim of “dabbling.” Warren refuses to release a comprehensive list of clients, but her annual tax returns list six-figure earnings from legal work.
Warren has maintained a permanent law office
Warren insists she has no law office in Massachusetts. Yet in amicus briefs to the Supreme Court, and in numerous other cases over the past decade where she was listed “of counsel”, Warren gave her Harvard address as the location of her law practice. On her Texas bar file, she also lists Cambridge, MA, as the location of her practice.
Clearly, Warren’s lawyerly endeavors meets the State’s criteria of someone who “establish[es] an office or other systematic and continuous presence in this jurisdiction for the practice of law,” and who “hold[s] out to the public or otherwise represent that the lawyer is admitted to practice law in this jurisdiction.”
Warren practiced law in Massachusetts
Legal Insurrection has uncovered Cadle Company v. Schlictmann, a 2007 appeal before in the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, involving a state lien law. Both plaintiff and defendant were from Massachusetts. Warren represented the defendant.
Warren held no active state bar memberships
In 2003, Warren affirmed to the Supreme Court that “I am a member of the bar of the States of Texas and New Jersey.” Warren also listed her Texas and New Jersey bar memberships in a 2008 CV.
Trouble is, Warren’s Texas bar membership lapsed in 1992. Texas lists Warren as “inactive” and not permitted to practice law. On September 11, 2012, Warren suddenly resigned from the New Jersey bar, effectively blocking searches into when her membership was last active. Warren claimed she was too busy with the campaign to keep up with the continuing education requirements, even though the NJ bar extends magnanimous waivers and extensions.
Surpisingly, in a recent radio interview, Warren laughingly revealed “I’ve been inactive in the New Jersey bar for a very, very long time.” That’s two “very’s” and a “long”, which probably takes us back before 2002, when Warren represented at least ten clients in court, and submitted an amicus to the Supreme Court. Certainly 2009’s Travelers v. Bailey wasn’t “very, very long ago” at all.
That’s known as Unlicensed Practice of the Law, and the State of Massachusetts take a dim view of it:
“Whoever has been so removed and continues thereafter to practice law or to receive any fee for his services as an attorney at law rendered after such removal, or who holds himself out, or who represents or advertises himself as an attorney or counsellor at law, or whoever, not having been lawfully admitted to practice as an attorney at law, represents himself to be an attorney or counsellor at law, or to be lawfully qualified to practice in the courts of the commonwealth, by means of a sign, business card, letter head or otherwise, … shall be punished for a first offence by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months, and for a subsequent offence by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year.”
We now have compelling and damning evidence that Elizabeth Warren is an hypocrite, a compulsive liar, a cheat, an impostor, a perjurer, and a felon. In an earlier age, a person of Warren’s low character would have been labeled a ‘scoundrel.’ Today, she’s called a ‘progressive hero.’
But hey — Warren gave a speech on youtube that thrilled the proglodytes (they do love their demagoguery!) So the Dem Machine in Chicago tapped her for the Mass. Senate race. Like obama before her, the Dems didn’t give a hoot about a proper vetting. And now, like with obama, the Dems reflexively defend their candidate, Warren, for truly indefensible conduct.
Elizabeth Warren is unfit to hold office. (If justice be served, she’ll soon trade that hideous red blazer for an orange jumpsuit.) No true liberal in Massachusetts, who values honesty and integrity, can vote for Warren with a clear conscience. They must cast their ballot for either Socialist Laura Garza, independent Bill Cimbrilo, or, (gasp) Scott Brown.
And vote for Jill Stein for president.
Note: This article is greatly indebted to the findings presented by Legal Insurrection.
(c) 2012 by True Liberal Nexus. All rights reserved.