Elizabeth Warren and “Nice” Facism

William Teach looks at, and destroys, Elizabeth Warren’s 11 commandments

Progressives, who Jonah Goldberg referred to as “nice fascists” in his book Liberal Fascism, have been gaga for Elizabeth Warren from the first. They willing ignored her blatant lies about being a Native American, because of racial politics. They excuse her fundraising from big wig 1%ers. She pushes a progressive populism, while being one of the very rich who work the system she pro-ports to despise (remember that at the end). Search “hypocrite” and you’ll find more than enough to take on her 11 Commandments. But, there is no doubt that the Nutroots, the hardcore Progressive activists, want her to run for President in 2016. Hence, here we go, per National Journal

You have to go read the whole thing, here are some highlights with Teach’s responses

  • “We believe that the Internet shouldn’t be rigged to benefit big corporations, and that means real net neutrality (in other words, Government should fully control it)
  • “We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage.” (and putting the low wage workers on the unemployment line. Oh, say, has Liz started paying her interns yet? 
  • “And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to their bodies. We will overturn Hobby Lobby and we will fight for it. We will fight for it!” (hooray, no one has to pay $9 a month for birth control pills! Screw your religious freedom)  

I know most folks are assuming that Hillary will be the Democratic nominee in 2016, just like that was assumed in 2008. But Warren is a real threat to Queen Hillary, and, she is just as far Left, if not more s that Hillary is. Do not be surprised if Warren becomes Obama version 2.0

Remember kids, Liberals are free to lie. But if you expose their lies, then you are a hater!

Oh Elizabeth Warren, you fake Cherokee you

In her new book, Elizabeth Warren blames the controversy over her fake Cherokee ancestry on “some blogger,” and since William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection was particularly merciless in exposing her lies, he’s giving credit where credit is due:

In fact, Warren has no one to blame but herself for her false claim to be Cherokee. Read Elizabeth Warren Wiki, and these posts responding to the claims in her book:

Here is some advice for Warren. She might wish to heed my words, even though I am just “some blogger”. Dear Ms. Warren If you do not wish to be called out for lying, then do not tell lies. The days when political hacks like you could just spew lies without fear of being exposed are no more. Mainly because if the main stream media does not do their job, as they usually do not, then “some blogger” will do some checking. In short Ms.  Warren, there is there is one way to avoid such inconveniences in the future, it is called honesty. Try that and quit whining.

Elizabeth (Lie-awatha) Warren Wikipedia Page Ethnically Cleansed

Elizabeth Warren Wikipedia Page Ethnically Cleansed – Legal Insurrection

One of the greatest controversies surrounding Elizabeth Warren was her claim to be Native American, specifically Cherokee.

The controversy was sparked in late April 2012, when the Boston Herald revealed that in the late 1990s Harvard Law School had promoted Warren as a Native American faculty member. The public was unaware that Warren claimed to be Cherokee. When confronted by reporters, Warren claimed not to know why Harvard was promoting her as Native American.

Over the ensuing weeks, information was uncovered by a law professor that starting in the mid-1980s, when she was at U. Penn. Law School, Warren had put herself on the “Minority Law Teacher” list in the faculty directory of the Association of American Law Schools but dropped from that list when she gained tenure at Harvard. When confronted with this information, Warren admitted she had filled out forms listing herself as Native American, claiming she wanted to meet other Native Americans. That explanation was irrational because the faculty directory only listed her as “minority,” not as “Native American,” so putting herself on that list was not a way to meet other Native Americans.

Later, reporters uncovered that Warren had represented herself to both U. Penn and Harvard for federal reporting purposes as Native American. Warren, however, did not meet the two part test under Harvard and EEOC definitions of Native American, a definition which likely was on the page when she checked the box. Warren has refused to release these records.

Detailed genealogical investigation by Cherokees showed that Warren had no Cherokee or other Native American ancestry. Initial claims by a genealogist in Boston that Warren was 1/32nd Cherokee were withdrawn as lacking evidence. Her own nephew, when documenting family genealogy, called claims of Native American ancestry a “rumor.”

Warren insisted during the campaign that believed that she was Cherokee based on family lore, but that family lore (including the famous elopement story) was substantially debunked. Warren’s family always self-identified as white, and her great grandfather even made the local newspapers for shooting an Indian.

Warren’s false claim to be Cherokee, and her comical explanations, such as that her ancestors had “high cheekbones” and a plagiarized entry in the Pow Wow Chow cookbook, have become a large part of Warren’s political persona, and is the subject of widespread mockery.

There was a time when Wikipedia, the source to which so many people refer for basic information, contained a detailed explanation of the controversy under its own subheading, and there was an effort made to document the story.

For example, as of June 16, 2012, Warren’s Wikipedia page contained a subheading and detailed explanation (click image to enlarge):

During Warren’s 2012 senatorial campaign, on April 26, 2012 the Boston Herald reported that in 1996, Harvard Law School had “touted” Warren as Native American based on her claim of that ancestry soon after she was hired. The Boston Globe noted other media reports by Harvard in 1997 and 1998; the Crimson in 1998 said, “Harvard Law School currently has only one tenured minority woman, Gottlieb Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren, who is Native American.”[46] The law school was responding to critics at the time who said it had not hired sufficient numbers of women and minorities.

To that point in the campaign, Warren had seldom, if ever, mentioned her ancestry.[47] Three days later, the Herald reported that Warren had identified as a minority from 1986 to 1995 in a directory of law professors. It was often used as a resource by recruiters to make diversity-friendly hires.[48][46][49] The Brown campaign, the Native American Rights Fund,[50][51] and others have questioned her motives and the propriety of her claiming minority status, which was intended under diversity programs to help historically “disadvantaged” populations.[52][53][54][55][56] A Cherokee group, made up of fewer than 175 members,[57] protested her trying to gain advantage under affirmative action programs, and said that only the Cherokee Nation could determine tribal membership.[58]

The Globe noted on May 25 that “both Harvard’s guidelines and federal regulations for the statistics lay out a specific definition of Native American that Warren does not meet.”[46] Harvard’s guideline is twofold; it says that a Native Americans is “a person having origins in any of the original peoples of North America and who maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition.”[46] By the end of May, Warren had not documented her ancestry. She is not a member of a tribe and the “current executive director of Harvard’s Native American program has said she has no memory of Warren participating in any of its activities.”[46]

On April 30, the genealogist Christopher Child at the New England Historic Genealogical Society said he had found that everyone in Warren’s family, through her great-grandparents’ generation, has been listed or classified as white in records. He has noted that documenting Native American ancestry can be difficult.[47][59][60][61] Warren said that she had heard family stories about her Cherokee ancestors her entire life.[62] She said she had identified as a minority in the law directory listing (of the 1980s and 1990s) for chances to to meet people of similar tribal background. (The reporter Hillary Chabot noted the directory does not identify the specific minorities.)[49] Warren said she eventually “stopped checking it off”.[63]

Warren said her family talked of links through her maternal grandparents’ lines to the Cherokee and Delaware peoples in Oklahoma.[55] On April 27, the Warren campaign said she had never authorized HLS to claim her as a minority hire.[47] On May 4, Harvard refused to confirm whether Warren was the one Native American minority claimed in its 2011 diversity report, which notes it is based on self-reporting. No gender was indicated.[49]

On May 12, the Boston Globe reported that, in providing federal diversity data statistics, the Harvard Law School (HLS) had reported employing a Native American woman professor in 1992-93, when Warren was a visiting professor; and for at least six consecutive years beginning 1995-96, after Warren had returned as a tenured professor.[64][65] The diversity census notes: “Race/Ethnicity designations are from self-report data.”[49] The same day, the AP reported that in 1994, the University of Pennsylvania listed Warren as a minority (she was still working there). She had not identified as such earlier in her career, neither when applying to Rutgers Law School nor when teaching at the University of Texas.[66]

On May 25, Alan Ray, the former Harvard Law School administrator responsible for its diversity statistics during the period examined, confirmed that the data came from self-reporting by faculty; he said that Harvard “always accepted whatever identification a faculty member wanted to provide”.[46] (Ray is an enrolled member of the Cherokee nation.[46])

On May 31, Warren acknowledged for the first time that she had told people at Penn and Harvard that she was Cherokee, but denied that “there was [any] reporting for this”.[64] She said she had learned of Harvard’s diversity census after reading about it in the Boston Herald.[64]

In a campaign appearance in early June, Warren repeated that she had not received any preferential treatment due to her claimed minority status. “I never received any benefit from it. Every single person who has been involved in hiring me has issued a statement to that effect.”[67] In campaign appearances in early June 2012 posted on YouTube, Elizabeth Warren said that, if elected by Massachusetts voters, “I would be their first Senator, so far as I know, who has Native American heritage.” [68][69]

Yet as indicated just below the sub-heading on the historical Wikipedia page above, someone has been objecting to such a detailed explanation. Those efforts resulted in a truncated version of the subsection by early September, after which point – on or about September 13 – the subsection was removed and the explanation buried in a few sentences in the 2012 Election section.

The history of the page reveals that there was an ongoing attempt to cleanse the page of substantial information (also here) about the Cherokee controversy:

The net result of this effort is that there no longer is a Cherokee Controversy subsection, and the entire discussion of Elizabeth Warren’s claim to be Cherokee are three sentences meant to present Warren in the most favorable light possible:

In April 2012, the Boston Herald reported that in the 1990s, Harvard Law School had, in response to criticisms about the lack of faculty diversity, publicized Warren’s law directory entries from 1986 to 1995, which listed her as having Native American ancestry.[47][48][49] Warren said she identified herself as a minority in the law directory listing (of the 1980s and 1990s) in hopes of being invited to events to meet people of similar background.[50][51] Harvard Law professor Charles Fried, who had served as Solicitor General in the Reagan administration [52] and had sat on the appointing committee that recommended Warren for hire in 1995, said that her heritage was never mentioned and played no role in the appointments process.[47]

The current entry not only is woefully incomplete, it is misleading.

Harvard promoted Warren as Native American because Warren represented herself on federal filing forms to be Native American; the law directory only revealed that she was a “Minority Law Teacher.” Warren’s explanation of why she listed herself that way in the law directory makes no sense, as indicated at the top of this post. Charles Fried’s statement referenced, while accurate in isolation, ignores the fact that Warren and Harvard refuse to release her hiring file, which would be the best evidence of who knew what when. Also, just about everyone else at Harvard seemed to know that she was claiming to be Native American, including the Harvard Women’s Law Journal which in 1993, while Warren was a Visiting Professor, listed her as a Woman of Color in Legal Academia.

The current Wikipedia page has been cleansed of Warren’s most embarrassing ethnic history, a history which is a fundamental part of the political controversy surrounding her.

We will continue to investigate these changes, including attempting to ascertain who it was that engaged in this ethnic cleansing. If there are readers who are savvy in the ways of Wikipedia, we welcome your assistance.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

$16 Million Of Elizabeth (Lie-awatha) Warren Donations From Sites Lacking Foreign Donor Protections

$16 Million Of Warren Donations From Sites Lacking Foreign Donor Protections –

The Boston Globe reported Monday that Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren raised $12.1 million for her campaign in the 3rd quarter ending September 30, 2012. That brings the total raised to $36 million. Yet more than 40% of these funds–an estimated $16 million–have come online via two websites that do not have industry-standard protections and are vulnerable to fraud and illegal foreign national donations.

………………

Today’s report, which will be available for full public scrutiny by Tuesday morning, includes $8.7 million raised between August 18 and September 30 after her most recent Federal Election Commission filing–an August 17, 2012 pre-primary report that showed she had raised $3.7 million between July 1 and August 17, and $28 million from the start of her campaign.

Warren made her reputation as an anti-fraud advocate for consumers.

Of the $28 million Democrat Elizabeth Warren raised for her Massachusetts Senate campaign at the time she had filed the August 17 pre-primary report (covering contributions to June 30, 2012), 42% (approximately $13 million) came from “unitemized” individual contributions donated on two online websites that lack industry standard security protections to prevent illegal donations from foreign nationals. When the Warren campaign’s third quarter reports are finally available, we’ll see if that percentage remains.

It is likely that her most recent $8.7 million of donations includes approximately the same percentage of unitemized small donations. If that pattern holds, then slightly more than $3 million of her previously unreported donations came from unsecure online websites, bringing the total amount that her campaign has raised through websites that are vulnerable to fraud to approximately $16 million.

According to FEC regulations, political campaigns are not required to list the name, address, and occupation of individual donors who contribute less than $200 in an election cycle. Campaigns are only required to report the total amount received from these small donors as “unitemized” individual contributions.

The $13 million Warren has reported as “unitemized donations” in her FEC filings up until August 17 constitute an unprecedented 42% of her total contributions. It dwarves the “unitemized donation” percentage of most other Senate campaigns in the 2012 election cycle.

Warren’s 42% of “unitemized” donations is more than double the 15% of her opponent Scott Brown. It is also more than double the percentage of donations of Republican or Democratic candidates in five other 2012 Senate campaigns examined by Breitbart News (Nevada, Missouri, Montana, Arizona, and Nebraska) this cycle, and the range was a low of 1% (Bob Kerrey, the Democratic candidate in Nebraska) to a high of 15% (Claire McCaskill, the Democratic candidate in Missouri).

According to the New York Times, “In 2008, of donations to House candidates, only 8 percent were less than $200; small donations accounted for 14 percent to Senate candidates.”

The Warren campaign’s prolific fundraising among small donors has been accompanied by disregard for industry security standards designed to prevent fraud and illegal foreign donations. While Ms. Warren is not alone among political candidates in her failure to install basic online security provisions, the scale of her small donor fundraising success suggests that she may have created an online fundraising machine that is particularly vulnerable to fraud and illegal foreign donations.

Warren’s 42% puts her in the same category as, and even slightly ahead of, President Obama, who has raised 38% of the $431 million he’s raised from unitemized donations, according to Open Secrets. But, like President Obama, whose lack of online security was highlighted in the Government Accountability Institute’s America the Vulnerable report, Warren seems to have similar vulnerabilities.

As that report found:

The FEC requires campaigns to make their “best efforts” to collect identifying information on all contributors who donate more than $50.30 and even more specific information, such as the donor’s occupation and employer, for donations over $200.

As the report notes, donations less than $50, though, fall under the “Pass-the-Hat” rule, which means campaigns can report all such donations under a lump sum and do not have to make their “best efforts” to collecting information on these small-dollar donors.

Because foreigners can exploit the “Pass-the-Hat” rule, the report found that “any campaign not using these industry-standard security tools is increasing its costs and unnecessarily increasing the risk of at least two types of potential fraud”:

The Fraudulent High Dollar Donor(s): – the fraudulent high dollar donor is politically motivated and is seeking to avoid detection by making numerous donations below the $200 dollar threshold, over which their donation must be identified; they may seek to exceed campaign donation limits.

The Unintentional Fraudster –a foreign national who is unaware of U.S. election laws but sympathetic to the campaign. Such an individual can easily end up on a campaign donation page. Given that a number of campaigns list the U.S. donation laws in an inconspicuous place on the “donate” page, it is easy to see how illegal donations can be made with no malicious intent.

And the Obama campaign is most vulnerable to both types of fraudsters…

Even though the Obama campaign is touted for its technological sophistication and sites run by top Obama technology advisers use the “CVV” feature, the Obama campaign itself does not use the “CVV” feature on its donation pages – even though it does use the feature on the merchandise pages where it sells campaign merchandise.

This means someone who donates $2,500 to the campaign online has to go through less security than someone who goes online to buy an Obama campaign mug.

“This creates a security risk that is compounded by the considerable foreign interest in President Obama’s political history, personal story, and views,” the report notes.

The Warren campaign seems to have the same donation vulnerabilities as the Obama campaign. Though a small percentage of the $13 million in donations may have come from other than online sources the vast majority came from donors who contributed online at one of two sites:

ElizabethWarren.com, the official website of the Warren campaign, accounted for an estimated $9 million of this $13 million.

ActBlue, a prolific “conduit” website for donations to Democratic candidates and organizations that provides legal “passthrough” services to an estimated 750 clients, accounted for an estimated $3.7 million of this $13 million.

Neither of these websites have the standard credit card industry CVV and AVS code protections designed to prohibit donations from foreign nationals (which is illegal) or “multiple giving” robo-fraud.

Breitbart News has learned that more than $6.2 million in donations to Democratic nominee Elizabeth Warren’s campaign for the Massachusetts Senate seat came through the Act Blue conduit website. $2.5 million of this amount was itemized and reported in Warren’s FEC filings. $3.7 million came from small donors and was unitemized.

Incumbent Senator Scott Brown does not use a similar conduit website to raise money for his campaign.

ActBlue reports that it has funneled $6,290,125 from 162,470 donors to the Elizabeth Warren campaign in the year and one month between the time Ms. Warren announced her candidacy in September, 2011 and the first week in October, 2012. The average donation is $38.72, which is well below the $200 threshold that is required for the candidate to publicly disclose the name, address, and occupation of the donor in its regular reports to the Federal Election Commission.

According to FEC reports, the names and addresses of only 9,556 of these 162,470 have been included in FEC documents filed by the Warren campaign. These 9,556 named donors contributed $2.5 million of the $6.2 million raised by ActBlue for the Warren campaign. Their average donation was $267.98.

This leaves a total of 152,914 donors who contributed $3.7 million to the Warren campaign through the non-secure ActBlue website unknown and unnamed. Their average donation was $24.79.

In July, 2012, ActBlue reported that the $240,000 it raised for the Warren campaign placed her in the top five of funding passed through among their 750 clients.

The ACT Blue website has virtually no protections to prohibit the acceptance of donations from non-US citizens.

According to its website:

ActBlue is an online toolset that makes it easy for donors to connect with the candidates and causes they support… At ActBlue, our mission is to democratize power by putting powerful fundraising tools in the hands of grassroots donors across the United States…

ActBlue only accepts donations from individuals, and we direct the money as they specify. We disclose every donation made through ActBlue to the relevant bodies, working to keep the lines of accountability between donors and recipients open.

Both the ActBlue website and the Elizabeth Warren campaign website are among the political websites that lack the basic CVV security code protections to limit fraud and the receipt of foreign donations. The Scott Brown campaign website does have the CVV security code protection.

The ACT Blue website, which acts as a funnel to dozens of Democratic candidates in addition to Ms. Warren, appears to be one of the online websites that lacks this basic security protection.

Visitors to the Act Blue website can browse through an array of Democratic candidates to whom they can contribute. When the Elizabeth Warren contribution page is selected, the drop down box allows contributions from residents of any country. When Canada is selected, another drop down box allows the donor to select a specific province instead of a state.

While American expatriates who live in foreign countries but retain their US citizenship may legally contribute to the campaigns of candidates for office in American federal elections, it is illegal for non-US citizens who reside in foreign countries to contribute to the campaigns of American candidates. It is also illegal for the campaigns of candidates for American federal offices to accept donations from non-US citizens or solicit donations from non US Citizens.

The ACT Blue donation page includes this language at the bottom of the page where donors submit their credit card information:

Contribution rules:

1. I am a United States citizen or a permanent resident alien.

2. This contribution is made from my own funds, and funds are not being provided to me by another person or entity for the purpose of making this contribution.

3. I am making this contribution with my own personal credit card and not with a corporate or business credit card or a card issued to another person.

4. I am not a federal contractor.

5. I am at least eighteen years old.

Despite this language, foreign nationals who ignore these contribution rules could easily donate to Elizabeth Warren through the Act Blue website without any detection.

ActBlue was founded in 2004 by Harvard graduate Benjamin Rahn and MIT graduate Matt DeBergalis. It is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, home of Harvard University.

Executive Director Erin Hill, a Wellesley graduate, is a veteran of Democratic political operations in Massachusetts and Washington, D.C. As her Twitter account shows, she’s a big fan of Elizabeth Warren.

Phone calls placed to ACTBlue by Breitbart News requesting comment were not returned.

While illegal foreign national donors who go to the official Elizabeth Warren campaign website may not have such an easy time selecting their foreign residence in the drop down box, the Warren site offers a drop down code (AA) which seems to serve a “catch all” purpose which they could use.

Donors to the Warren campaign are required to select either their state of residence (the 50 plus DC) or one of eleven other location codes, only five of which are US territories or commonwealth. According the the ISP 3166 two letter country code standards, here are those eleven non state or DC codes:

AA- User assigned

AE- United Arab Emirates (a sovereign independent nation)

AP – not used

AS – American Samoa (US territory)

FM – Micronesia (a sovereign independent nation)

GU – Guam (US territory)

MH – Marshall Islands (a sovereign independent nation)

MP – Northern Marianas Islands (US commonwealth)

PR – Puerto Rico (US commonwealth)

PW – Palau ( a sovereign independent nation)

VI – Virgin Islands (US territory)

The only way to determine how many of these donors are foreign nationals is to conduct an audit of the ActBlue and Elizabeth Warren financial records for small donors.

The race between Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown remains neck and neck. A poll released by Rasmussen Reports on Wednesday showed Warren with a 2 point lead over Brown, 49% to 47%, which is within the poll’s 5 point margin of error.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

*LIVE STREAMING* U.S. Senate Debate: MA Candidates Scott Brown And Elizabeth “Lie-awatha” Warren – (7pm Eastern – 10/10/12)


Stream 1 – C-SPAN

Stream 2 – NECN

Click HERE for more information on the debate.
.

Elizabeth (Lie-awatha) Warren Law License Problem Goes To Court

Elizabeth Warren Law License Problem Goes To Court – Legal Insurrection

……..

As you are aware, I have pointed out that Michael Fredrickson, the General Counsel of the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers, has some explaining to do:

As detailed here before, within hours of my posting about Elizabeth Warren’s lack of a Massachusetts law license, Michael Fredrickson, the General Counsel of the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers, gave an interview to Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly in which he defended Warren.

Fredrickson did not indicate in the interview as reported that he was speaking in any capacity other than on behalf of the BBO and seemed to be exonerating Warren.

That Mass Lawyers Weekly interview has been the basis for the defense of Warren. After all, if the General Counsel of the entity with quasi-regulatory authority publicly announced a conclusion, why treat the issue seriously? Even The Boston Globe has a similar quote from Fredrickson today, and uses that quote to dismiss the issue out of hand.

Yet the issue is serious, as even people who did not initially agree with me have acknowledged.

Fredrickson effectively quashed the public discussion by virtue of his title and position.

Fredrickson later admitted, however, that he was not speaking on behalf of the BBO and was not reaching any conclusions as to Warren individually because he knew so little about her practice

Normally, Bar officials everywhere are very closed-mouthed about matters under their jurisdiction. Indeed, the Massachusetts Bar Counsel, a separate office which investigates and prosecutes, did not respond to requests for comment from Breitbart.com. Even Fredrickson now is refusing further comment, according to Michael Patrick Leahy at Breitbart.com.

While Fredrickson no longer is talking publicly, his prior “personal” opinion, which was not based on an actual knowledge of Warren’s law practice, hangs out there as the purported BBO verdict exonerating Warren. That creates a false impression which should be remedied.

Frankly, I considered that the very serious issues I raised about Warren’s practice of law would be buried by Fredrickson’s quite unusual and ill-considered statements.

But there is hope.

The Massachusetts Republican Party has sent a letter to the Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court complaining that Fredrickson appeared to politicize what is supposed to be a non-political office and judicial function. Here is the press release, which was forwarded to me by someone on the Mass GOP’s email list:

For Immediate Release
October 8, 2012
Contact:
Tim Buckley
617-947-8670

MassGOP Sends Letter To SJC Questioning Recent Comments By Michael Fredrickson That “Appear To Advance A Partisan Agenda”

Boston- Today, MassGOP Chairman Bob Maginn sent the following letter to the Honorable Chief Justice Roderick L. Ireland of the Supreme Judicial Court regarding recent comments made by Board of Bar Overseers General Counsel, Michael Fredrickson. The letter raises concerns about Mr. Fredrickson’s public comments that “appear to advance a partisan agenda that is inconsistent with any agency within the judicial branch.”

Supreme Judicial Court
The Honorable Roderick L. Ireland
John Adams Courthouse
One Pemberton Square, Suite 2500
Boston, MA 02108

October 8, 2012

RE: Michael Fredrickson

Dear Chief Justice Ireland:

I am writing to express concern that the Board of Bar Overseers General Counsel Michael Fredrickson has made public comments without the benefit of any investigation or due process regarding legality of U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren’s practice of law from her office in Cambridge without admission to the Massachusetts bar. Mindful that Attorney Fredrickson has a fine reputation as General Counsel to the Board of Bar Overseers (“BBO”), a fictional writer, and law professor, I am nonetheless compelled to make your office aware of his recent public statements, as follows:

• “Michael Fredrickson, general counsel for the BBO, says he does not believe a law professor would be considered to have ‘a continuous presence’ or ‘an office practicing law.’ ‘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.’ (Lisa Keen, “Warren law license matter called non-issue,” Mass Lawyers Weekly, 9/24/12).

• “Fredrickson stated that he did not purport to determine whether Warren violated the applicable law. He said he was just ‘speaking hypothetically’ and not specifically as to Warren because ‘I know so little about Elizabeth Warren and her practice.’” (http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/no-mass-board-of-bar-overseers-has-not-exonerated-elizabeth-warren/)

• “Fredrickson confirmed that he did make the comments attributed to him in MLW, but also made clear that he was not speaking on behalf of the BBO. Fredrickson said it was his ‘personal reading’ of the law, and that he was ‘not speaking on behalf of the Board of Bar Overseers.’” (http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/no-mass-board-of-bar-overseers-has-not-exonerated-elizabeth-warren/)

Taking into consideration the honored tradition of the Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) and the BBO with regard to not politicizing the carrying out of your respective responsibilities, Mr. Fredrickson’s public comments appear to advance a partisan agenda that is inconsistent with any agency within the judicial branch. Foremost, Mr. Fredrickson’s statements arrived in the public dialogue devoid of any formal investigation, fact finding, or proper evaluation. Further, upon consultation with counsel, I understand Mr. Fredrickson’s conclusions to be incorrect. As a threshold, the part-time practice of law is not any less the practice of law; and, without an appropriate exception to the Rules of Professional Conduct, a license is required for the practice of law in the Commonwealth. Lastly, while I notice Mr. Fredrickson’s repackaged his statements as those of his own and not of the BBO they still may be attributable as opinions of the SJC and the BBO without a formal correction.

In view of the aforementioned, it may be appropriate for the SJC or the BBO to issue a statement recognizing the lack of authority and enforceability of Mr. Fredrickson’s personal views. Accordingly, with this correspondence, I deferentially request that the SJC issue a statement or direct the BBO to issue a statement to that effect.

Respectfully,

Bob Maginn

cc:
Susan Mellen, Supreme Judicial Court, Clerk
Christine P. Burak, Legal Counsel to the Chief Justice
Michael Fredrickson, Board of Bar Overseers, General Counsel
David S. Mackey, Board of Bar Overseers, Chair

Several readers have alerted me to a prior disciplinary problem Fredrickson had at the BBO in which he let a personal agenda get in the way of his job responsibilities.

Whatever the motivation of Fredrickson, his statements need to be corrected forcefully and promptly.

[Note: The title of this post was changed shortly after publication]

Click HERE For Rest Of Story