Sep 27, 2012|
Prof.William A. Jacobson of Cornell Law School and the publisher of LegalInsurrection.com and the first reporter to discover that Elizabeth Warren engaged in the unauthorized practice of law joined us to discuss his newest bombshell that Ms. Warren entered an appearance in a federal appellate court as a representative of a Massachusetts client in a case that appears to have clearly implicated Massachusetts law.
Transcript - Not for consumer use. Robot overlords only. Will not be accurate.
We wanted to be we wanted to join with the professor William Jacobson of Cornell law school. And he is also he also has a great great blog post -- legal insurrection dot com. He and I he's been one of the people in the forefront of of -- the the fake Indian candidates for the United States senate here in Massachusetts Elizabeth Warren. And -- he's got a he's got another story today. As you know last week it was revealed that she she did not have licensed practiced law in Massachusetts. And that today turns and and that was pooh poohed by her or her rock. -- minions. They said that -- she had I not been practicing law in Massachusetts maybe if she handle few federal cases but it was there where it was Massachusetts. Well today William Jacobson and legal insurrection has has he knew. Knew that. Revelation about the her practicing law in Massachusetts invited in federal court in the federal appeals court one step below the US Supreme Court. The first Circuit Court and -- malls in Massachusetts case and joining us on the line is a professor William Jacobson thanks for being with us here professor Jacobs and great care and congratulations on on a fine job but -- you've been doing on this on this matter what to tell us please tell us the latest on -- you've discovered. Right well as you mentioned the. Big defense that Elizabeth Warren's defenders have put forward is that while she may have been making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. For legal fees from her Cambridge office for a decade. She wasn't really practice. In law in Massachusetts because she only handles cases out of state and I disagree with that -- to different issue. That was their different their defense is what their defense it. That she never did anything in the state of Massachusetts for Massachusetts. -- client. In court located in the state of in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Or anything relating to in Massachusetts law if she. I discovered that that is not the case. The Easter. Electronic -- system for the little longer course. And that is isn't a professor yeah. That there to deal with the case in 2001. I'm not sure how it's pronounced cattle company the AD LEC. First issue with dementia Whitman is the guy from. Who got very famous. Civil action played a lack guest tried I was in the movie I was in the I was I was -- I was the radio host I played Jerry -- of the radio host in the opening scene so. Okay where were all very and he later represented people who were trying to get the -- pike tolls that turnpike tolls abolished he's a very well memorial there. And he's a lawyer in Massachusetts. And he -- Our client on in the Court of Appeals on that case along with three other Harvard professors or to -- Harvard professors. For whatever the reason may be because he was high profile they wanted to get involved in -- publicity or whatever but you what's her client. In the Court of Appeals to right on the docket sheet listed in -- You can download it at Scott and my web site she put in an appearance as his attorney she was listed as one of the attorneys of record. And the police involved in -- anchor -- well but really get involved. Where their old mean that a creditor had on the man's law firm. Were the same case concluded. Essentially survive the bankruptcy you know got the proceeds when he eventually settled -- later. First circuit events actually ruled that the -- got it actually but the important point -- That we have and uncovered case. Never before disclosed by ms. Warren's campaign professor Warren's campaign in which he represented. In Massachusetts client. In a court located in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts although -- federal court. On in at least one of these issues involving Massachusetts law. So by their own standard which I think is an erroneous standard but by their own standard -- practiced -- in Massachusetts. Now -- it now in in most cases that I've seen you know briefs that are filed the lawyers when they signed -- may have to sign their name. And then they have to sign BBO number. Now -- he did she saw -- she list of BBO number or is does her -- signature not appear at the bottom of the the argument. Well we the. Because it's an older case the actual documents are not linked to. On the electronic docket but what it does show that she was council -- put an appearance in which you represented. -- somebody would have did I believe physically go to the first circuit didn't there are tied to request the file and see how she's going to. Because that's very interest as she never had a -- beyond -- so. Right so couldn't it's. Signed one I don't know there's nothing in -- indicate that you got any sort of special admission of something called pro proxy -- admission to clear if you're not. Admitted to the court. You can request special -- nothing in the docket that indicate that. So there's no indication again on but the doctor may not be complete I mean I want to be -- are deducted may not be complete may -- it was something in her brief. Where she disclosed that she was not a member of the Massachusetts bar I don't know. Because I don't have access from you know almost six -- -- too hard copy violent. Court right so well up to you what sort through it. If she's got some excuse I assume her campaign we get -- if there is no why if there is no law. It is possible -- at explanation that Mitt puts her a good light I assume that they will be left to. One of the newspaper -- -- of the globe to get it. Right neither one has shown at least because interest in -- I don't understand. I work for the Harold I I just -- I don't understand though why I I told them today that this that this is the story is up there on the web and I don't get it. What is that so what does the what does this indicate to you about. We're about her truthfulness and and about her rather her her and her career as as the warriors and should be agency she went to Harvard Law School was a tenured professor. It's her will indicates first -- -- she really needs to make full disclosure what has been on an unfortunate pattern in the campaign so far issue make categorical statements -- her campaign well. And -- -- not been released files to back from a social say well I never gained any advantage I never checked the box I never -- Harvard and no -- Four I was tired of what my ethnicity wise and things they find release the files -- want. Do it here which are rounded -- as most as recently as last Thursday night. -- and it's the same thing here because the Boston Globe. Actually last may know Biederman. Wrote me an article about her handling of the travelers case where you make 2121000. Dollars as the lawyer. In that case. And he specifically asked the campaign to release. To give a complete list of the cases she's handled over the years they wouldn't do well they would do. -- disclosed six Supreme Court cases she had handled. And the reason they were willing to do that and the the article didn't say it but I know why they were willing to do that. Is that she had and you have -- to -- floating around from 2008. Which was on the Internet it's off now have a copy that. And she listed six Supreme Court cases so or she was willing to disclose to the Boston Globe list -- Within six cases she -- or disclosed. In a great to -- -- released on the -- if she only will tell you what she think she probably can find out anyway. Right I wish you well sort of torture wasn't telling the truth when she said in the debate that what the Boston Globe has looked into this and a they've basically is on. Well protecting in the debate she was talking about the travelers cases where there -- and whether she had essentially that. Her actions that led. To the workers and not getting paid. And actually -- globe -- follow up into these so -- fact checked on Brown's statement that the debate. And in -- very curious frowned fact -- found that they were true. But could get people's from the crash. So he got. Evening standard meaning and negative impression of their candidates set. That's right that's the standard on -- back checked applied to as a bit warranted but it's true. What that might give people the misimpression. Right just like she just like she grow she rodent who. Her parents told her supposedly that you was an Indians in her hand. So that makes it okay even though when her aunt by -- fell about the death certificate and should choose a white woman. That's right and it and we've always that's right that was actually submitted to this state of Oklahoma authorities by Elizabeth Warren. Better yet be the one with this supposed good high cheekbones. Actually was white and that was submitted by Elizabeth Warren yet she tells the story of her in the having native American ancestry. The other thing -- told during the debate which you know I don't know of any local papers has picked up on it is to keep saying how well what did. -- caring for -- that's what this. Via an interesting thing is she never checked the box when she was. Did he denied checking the box for going to college to law. Right when she got into let's face it. Putt not top tier. Under grad or law school she she never got anywhere as a white woman. When she began checking the box that's when her meteoric career begin and that's why she won't answer the question about when she started Jack in the Box. And that's why she won't. Released files because she keeps saying well I just believe to my parents told us what she was 38 years old when she started checking the box you question yourself. And the other thing is. I believe that she'd like we signed forms in the course of her employment at ten and at Harvard. Which on reforms would had a standard federal EEOC definition of what it means to be native American. And that definition does not include family -- you have to prove two things both of two things you have to prove that you actually have the ancestry. And you have to prove that you have. Either you have tribal affiliation or use the card. That's either through membership -- through community recognition. Will be interesting thing is even if she believed -- -- -- -- age 38. And didn't ask for any proof there's no way she could -- the second test which is tribal affiliations that we should. Is that the OC documents signed on their pains and penalties of perjury. I don't know and that's the interesting thing it would be but even if it wasn't. What it would've meant is that -- it was just Horford form and an Harvard's form has that definition on it right now. What it would mean that she knew she was submitting it to Harvard for the purpose of Harvard reporting it to the federal government. So if she signed the form with that definition on it. She could not cheap must've known she didn't meet the definition and the air force sheep participated. In corporate making for -- And that's why I believe she will not release the record. I don't know that the records show winners he got an advantage or not what we do know that you try to get an advantage which is -- enough which is -- Her name in the the directory. Right. She gets to -- out listed in. In a relatively small listed minority or teachers she also gets herself listed in the -- wins or journal Russia was visiting Harvard. It was 1993. As a woman of color in legal academia. And you know and we are supposed to believe that the Harvard women's lord journal publishes. She's on this relatively exclusive list. In the faculty directory and nobody at Harvard knew that she was claiming to be a minority. Will release the records and let's find out. Right that you was offered that issue each and she was shot sold secured her position as a quarter and -- woman a -- But she could turn down the opera tenure the first time it was offered because she wanted to get her husband. To come up to the university of Harvard and she had a she animal over such a barrel over after all these these that diversity demonstrations. And protests in the later eighties and early nineties that she knew what she hung on long enough she can get the job for the husband -- I mean that's that's common sense tells you that. Yeah well I think has been. Didn't follow for quite a number of years I don't know whether whether she was able to parlay that or not. But the point is that the notion that they would not have understand. Understood. That she was in minority status in light of current listing in the faculty directory in light of the publication. In the Horford women's -- journal that she was that woman of color. And in the fact that soon after she actually came on board they started promoting -- American where you -- Michael Patrick Leahy of -- probably talk -- people from the -- the faculty of the University of Pennsylvania law school who said that she was she was very. Open about allegedly being at the woman of color correct. I didn't speak -- when Michael Patrick Leahy is a bright -- did right about that he's interviewed people air and said that she was open about it. So again we're supposed to believe that people -- to law school knew about it. But nobody -- in the batting and who you know what schools to law school world is a relatively small girls things get around. And when your name is in -- and remember back in. Which he was trying to get the Harvard there was essentially no Internet. So if you wanted to find out who minority law professors where you went to the printed version of the association of American law schools. Faculty directory. And if you want to define it minorities where you went to I think it was it was too. And number two they had a couple of pages of people who were in their cards. Changes that's all he would -- Well -- -- hey listen I know I -- you gotta run here but a wanna find out you you worked sniffing around on this for awhile and then she she wants somebody in her in in her campaign. Apparently went down to New Jersey and that took her off the but the list of practicing lawyers in New Jersey is correct. Well I don't know if someone from her campaign went there which aren't -- of all day. On September 11 of this year she withdrew voluntarily withdrew from the new injury bar. So in the middle of this intense. Senate campaign which all the things must that must be weighing on the candidates find -- She either by phone or email or however she did it took the time to which Droid an attorney in New -- Now why would she do that I don't know any action that it's very strange. But I what I have heard is that the up from from other people. That that may be she may be it was hard it would be harder to proper legal for legal background if she if there was a dead end there in New Jersey. What would it did result in -- normally if you go to an injury C web -- he would tell you that status of the attorney. Are they active war one of the others not active status it. Now that she's withdrawn the only thing that the web site shows is that she's withdrawn -- it's impossible to know just from the web site what her status was before that. I don't know that that's an issue and I've always tried with her not to engage in speculation but to deal with what we found out. So I don't know why she did that she may be there's an innocent reason why in the middle of the and it came to you. Are you she knew she probably knew that you were you were on our on this this issue with the -- -- a case by that point right. I don't know I mean certainly the issue of for travelers representation come up the other thing that's interesting she's been saying very recently in the media. And her campaign has been saying it. -- how she's been a member of the Texas spark. -- essentially forever you know. And she she graduated. Well it turns out let me -- group got the documents posted on the web site yesterday she's been in active in Texas since 1992. And -- she and her listing in Texas while in active. The Cambridge Massachusetts. As the primary. Some place for the practice of law so our primary practice location I think is the term that this is somebody who is defending not having a mayor or light since. By saying I never practiced law and I never maintained it will -- it in the commonwealth that method justice. -- who represented. To protect it that teams -- Massachusetts which proprietary. Practice location. And I assume the offices is in is in the Harvard Law School -- that correct I. You know that that's where she's always listed numerous priests we do you have that you participated in she always listed and that's not unusual. Alan Dershowitz and nobody is -- bones you know nobody using member of the Massachusetts -- Because if you big issue here is if you're gonna maintain an office for the practice of law in Massachusetts. No matter what type of -- -- if you can maintain that office in Massachusetts. You have to be licensed in Massachusetts. And that's the problems she had. Okay you and you say there's more slid as more cases coming out to thank him. Yes I mean we have found I don't know that there's more Massachusetts cases because you've got to realize we can only discover what these electronic docket if captured. And they're very incomplete particularly if you go back 81012. Years and that's quite a campaign. Needs to come clean on it and give it full list of all the legal representation she's been doing. Can you do have the docket number on on the of the the appeals case. Yes it's. That the 0000. PX 1512. 0151700. -- 1517. Okay I'll try to get somebody down their arms I apologize for the -- monitoring more interest in this case it's you know there's just so much there's just so much coming out on a daily basis. And it's not an easy issue to get your arms around here technical issues about who have to be registered and who doesn't. When you get down to it's actually quite simple if you have a law -- -- and offered to practice floor which did you have to be licensed. No I just wanna see that number because I I don't think I've ever seen a filing without without at a signature and a BB hole number and then the number and that's what policy if she's. He didn't physically sign that they should have been lifting her behavior and number. Okay go -- professor William Jacobson on -- legal insurrection dot com we look for W back on the show when that keep up the good work you're doing a great job -- I -- my excellent.