Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-24-2012, 03:51 PM
 
Location: Old Mother Idaho
29,212 posts, read 22,344,773 times
Reputation: 23853

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jt800 View Post
So it's idiotic to think that Elizabeth Warren shouldn't be practicing as an attorney in a State where she has no law license?
Silly man. Do you honestly believe that any person does not need a license to practice law? Totally unlicensed prisoners who were high school dropouts before they went to jail and memorized the prison's law library defend themselves and other convicts daily someplace, and are heard by the court.

You have the right to advise anybody who wants to seek your nonsense, in or out of court, and you have the right to represent yourself in a legal proceeding. It's in the Constitution. Did you skip over that part?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-24-2012, 03:53 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,861,612 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000 View Post
The person writing in the OP link is making a lot of the location of her office, saying that she must have a MA license in order to have a physical office in MA? Do you know if that's true if her practice is limited to federal court?
She does not have to have a MA license in order to have an office in MA.

And if you look at the MA bar members list, you will note that many of the MA bar members don't even have offices in MA. Some have offices in NH, RI, NY, VT, DC, even, but because they might have a case in MA state courts they maintain a MA license and bar membership. Elizabeth Warren teaches law in Massachusetts, and specializes in bankruptcy law in the federal court system. She has no reason the practice law in Massachusetts, and plenty of incentive not to. A law practice is a demanding profession. Her academics and the work she does on the federal level, the books she writes, her political career are all time-consuming, intensive occupations. She only has 24 hours in a day, just like the rest of us.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2012, 03:57 PM
 
Location: Old Mother Idaho
29,212 posts, read 22,344,773 times
Reputation: 23853
Quote:
Originally Posted by dnvrsoul View Post
Well maybe she can ask her.....maybe Native American Grandmother this question?
I know a native American grandmother who would slap the silly off your face if you said that to her!

She only graduated high school. But she became a law clerk, and passed the bar exam with only her own self-taught efforts. She was aided and coached by her lawyer-employer, though, and she's now working for him as a junior partner.

I'm not going to accuse you of racism, but when it smells like a dead rat, it's usually a dead rat. And this reply stinks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2012, 03:58 PM
 
998 posts, read 1,214,900 times
Reputation: 536
Elizabeth Warren is a wallstreet fat cat. In the case, Warren defended Travelers as it sought protection from future claims as part of an agreement that allowed it to avoid paying victims. Travelers won & avoided paying victims from the settlement.

So why was Elizabeth Warren was representing Travelers Insurance? Democrats are best buddies with the insurance giant. After all it was the merger of Travelers Insurance, Salomon Smith Barney & CitiBank that formed CitiCorp thus breaching the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 & the Glass–Steagall & Banking Acts of 1933. That is when Bill Clinton publicly declared, "The Glass-Steagall Act is no longer relevant."

Bill Clinton and many prominent democrats pushed to overturn the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 & Glass Steagall act of 1933. Bill Clinton personally signed all the laws that deregulated Wallstreet & turned it into a gambling casino that raises prices on citizens, steals their savings, caused the subprime housing bubble & the depression of 2008.

Quote:
Feb 27, 1995 TIME: CLINTON PROPOSES BANKING REFORMS - The Clinton Administration proposed sweeping changes in the nation's banking system that would permit commercial banks to sell insurance and underwrite securities. Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin outlined the new proposal, which would allow banks to "affiliate" with Wall Street firms, insurance companies and other financial service providers. It would repeal several federal restrictions, including the Depression-era Glass Steagall Act, which forbids banks from underwriting securities or selling insurance.
Quote:
New York Times Feb 27, 1995 White House Is Joining in Efforts To Loosen the Limits on Banking - The Clinton Administration plans to call this week for legislation that would allow commercial banks, securities firms and insurance companies to merge, forming giant financial services companies that would offer everything from checking accounts to mutual funds and life insurance, Federal officials say.

In a speech prepared for delivery in New York on Monday and in Congressional testimony scheduled for Wednesday, Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin will urge Congress to repeal the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, the officials said. For more than 60 years, the law has forced financial concerns to choose between owning commercial banks or owning securities companies like brokerage firms and investment banks, but not both.

Mr. Rubin also plans to call for broad changes in the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, which has effectively barred most financial concerns from owning both commercial banks and insurance companies, said the Federal officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Mr. Rubin's speech will represent the first time that the Administration has taken a position on eliminating the legal and regulatory barriers among financial industries.

Regulatory changes in recent years have already allowed commercial banks, like Citibank, to begin selling stocks and mutual funds on a limited basis. But the Glass-Steagall Act still bars Citibank, for example, from merging with a brokerage firm like Merrill Lynch or an investment bank like Goldman, Sachs, which provides corporate investment advice and helps companies issue stock. The Bank Holding Company Act bars Citibank fom merging with a big insurance company like Prudential.

The Administration's plan would allow such deals, provided they complied with antitrust laws. The plan would pave the way for new consolidation in the financial system.

Who repealed the Glass-Steagall Act?

Quote:
Nov 13, 1999 New York Times: Clinton Signs Legislation Overhauling Banking Laws - President Clinton signed into law today a sweeping overhaul of Depression-era banking laws. The measure lifts barriers in the industry and allows banks, securities firms and insurance companies to merge and to sell each other's products.

''This legislation is truly historic,'' President Clinton told a packed audience of lawmakers and top financial regulators. ''We have done right by the American people.''

The bill repeals parts of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act and the 1956 Bank Holding Company Act to level the domestic playing field for United States financial companies and allow them to compete better in the evolving global financial marketplace.

''With this bill,'' Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers said, ''the American financial system takes a major step forward toward the 21st Century -- one that will benefit American consumers, business and the national economy.''
Quote:
Time: 25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis - President Clinton's tenure was characterized by economic prosperity and financial deregulation, which in many ways set the stage for the excesses of recent years. Among his biggest strokes of free-wheeling capitalism was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, a cornerstone of Depression-era regulation. He also signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which exempted credit-default swaps from regulation. In 1995 Clinton loosened housing rules by rewriting the Community Reinvestment Act, which put added pressure on banks to lend in low-income neighborhoods. It is the subject of heated political and scholarly debate whether any of these moves are to blame for our troubles, but they certainly played a role in creating a permissive lending environment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2012, 04:18 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,863 posts, read 46,596,242 times
Reputation: 18521
Quote:
Originally Posted by MA2NC2012 View Post
This is nothing but Mr Brown trying to derail the warren campaign...
I think and hope that MA residents will see thru it ...


She is already 6% points behind, according to the last polling. Does he need to put the dagger in now, or just cut off her fluids and slowly let her die?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2012, 04:49 PM
 
Location: Hinckley Ohio
6,721 posts, read 5,199,738 times
Reputation: 1378
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
She is already 6% points behind, according to the last polling. Does he need to put the dagger in now, or just cut off her fluids and slowly let her die?
It's a non issue. Warren law license matter called non-issue
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2012, 05:18 PM
 
Location: Chicago
38,707 posts, read 103,138,905 times
Reputation: 29983
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000 View Post
Your question was would this be a criminal violation?
No, it wasn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000 View Post
Your question has been answered by Marlow:

//www.city-data.com/forum/26231931-post42.html
No it hasn't, though it comes a lot closer than any of your responses so far. A state bar obviously has the power to investigate those practicing law within its jurisdiction, but I'm still at a loss as to how a state bar can "censure" someone who isn't even a member of the bar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000 View Post
The person writing in the OP link is making a lot of the location of her office, saying that she must have a MA license in order to have a physical office in MA? Do you know if that's true if her practice is limited to federal court?
If she's practicing in federal court then it doesn't matter what state her law license is from or where her office is located. I'm not even sure it would matter if she was practicing at the state level in, say, New Hampshire as long as she was filing the paperwork in their court system, abiding by its laws and rules of procedure, and if that's where her clients were located.

Last edited by Drover; 09-24-2012 at 05:27 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2012, 05:45 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,863 posts, read 46,596,242 times
Reputation: 18521
She has not been a member of the Bar, for some time now. Then it was in New Jersey, when she was a member and also licensed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2012, 05:59 PM
 
8,560 posts, read 6,405,040 times
Reputation: 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
She does not have to have a MA license in order to have an office in MA.

And if you look at the MA bar members list, you will note that many of the MA bar members don't even have offices in MA. Some have offices in NH, RI, NY, VT, DC, even, but because they might have a case in MA state courts they maintain a MA license and bar membership. Elizabeth Warren teaches law in Massachusetts, and specializes in bankruptcy law in the federal court system. She has no reason the practice law in Massachusetts, and plenty of incentive not to. A law practice is a demanding profession. Her academics and the work she does on the federal level, the books she writes, her political career are all time-consuming, intensive occupations. She only has 24 hours in a day, just like the rest of us.
It appears that the cases she has worked on at all are all federal court cases. I was just wondering why the guy who did all that "investigation" in the OP link was focusing so much on WHERE her office is located. It seemed to me that maybe HE did not understand that she could practice in federal court/bankruptcy and not need a MA law license. I thought that was odd. Certainly with all the other work she does she does not have time for much of a law practice.

I've noticed that most bankruptcy lawyers focus on that area of the law and don't do much state court work, other than complex business litigation. I'm sure Elizabeth Warren knows what she's doing and has not broken the law. And I agree she has only 24 hours a day and is very busy with other things.

p.s. after reading the link in Post #56, it appears this whole thing is of course just political, since the guy writing about/investigating this issue is a law professor himself and surely knows better.
//www.city-data.com/forum/26233178-post56.htm

Last edited by FancyFeast5000; 09-24-2012 at 06:21 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2012, 06:06 PM
 
8,560 posts, read 6,405,040 times
Reputation: 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover View Post
No, it wasn't.


No it hasn't, though it comes a lot closer than any of your responses so far. A state bar obviously has the power to investigate those practicing law within its jurisdiction, but I'm still at a loss as to how a state bar can "censure" someone who isn't even a member of the bar.


If she's practicing in federal court then it doesn't matter what state her law license is from or where her office is located. I'm not even sure it would matter if she was practicing at the state level in, say, New Hampshire as long as she was filing the paperwork in their court system, abiding by its laws and rules of procedure, and if that's where her clients were located.
Why don't you make a mountain out of a molehill with the "censure" remark. It was pointed out to you that, yes, it would be illegal and it would be up to a prosecutor to charge her. If you're so interested in whether or not the MA Bar could "censure" someone practicing law in their state without a MA state license, just go to their web site and find out for yourself.

I do believe it would matter if she was practicing in a state court and did not have a license in THAT STATE. Is New Hampshire some exception where that state doesn't require a NH law license to practice in that state??


Actually, read the link in Post #56.

“If they actually practice here – as some part-time law professors at some of the smaller schools do – they might,” Fredrickson says. “But being a professor at one of the large schools, their office is a professor’s office, and the fact that they tend to dabble in the practice of law doesn’t run afoul of our rule. I don’t think Elizabeth Warren would fall within that, such that she would have to register here.”

Last edited by FancyFeast5000; 09-24-2012 at 06:18 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:14 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top