Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts

Friday, June 1, 2012

Did Elizabeth Warren commit a federal felony?

And Harvard, too, for that matter.  Legal Insurrection, a blog run by Prof. William Jacobson at Cornell Law School, brings up a very good point in his post entitled "It's Elizabeth Warren's and Harvard's federal filings, stupid."
We now know that starting in 1986 Warren filled out forms for a faculty law directory as “Native American“ putting her on a relatively short list of “Minority Law Teachers.”  Her explanation of why she did it, to meet others like her, didn’t hold up.
We now know (because Warren finally admitted it last night after The Boston Globe found more documents) that Warren told her prior employer, U. Penn. Law, that she was Native American and that Penn reported it that way for federal filings.
We now know that in its Spring 1993 issue (which would have been prepared substantially before that), during Warren’s 1992-1993 “visiting” year at Harvard, the Harvard Women’s Law Journal listed Warren on a relatively short list of Women of Color in Legal Academia.
We now know (again last night after The Globe found documents) that Warren was listed for the 1992-1993 academic year as Native American in Harvard Law federal filings.
We now know that all these federal filings were false.  There is no evidence that Elizabeth Warren is Native American, and substantial evidence she is not.
Making a false federal filing potentially was a crime.  18 U.S. Code § 1001 as it existed prior to 1996 revisions provided:
“Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”
The statute since 1996 has provided:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully–
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

So Elizabeth Warren and Harvard, what did you know and when did you know it?  If you made a false federal filing, you may have committed a federal felony.  How about the US Attorney for the District of Massachusetts starts a real investigation that the two potentially guilty parties cannot stonewall.

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Is this guy the worst solicitor general ever?


The Solicitor General is basically the President's top appellate attorney.  He or she argue important matters of federal law in front of the Supreme Court of the United States.  The office was first established in 1870.  Among our past Solicitors General are the likes of William H. Taft, Archibald Cox, Thurgood Marshall, Robert Bork and Ken Starr.  Impressive barristers one and all.  Obama chose one Mr. Donald Verrelli, Jr. to be his principal advocate before the Court.  And I am not sure if this guy can even string a sentence together let alone parse through a cogent argument at law.  You may remember that he was universally slammed for stammering his way through the oral argument over Obamacare.  Don't get me wrong, he was dealt a bad legal hand.  Nonetheless, there were arguments he could have and should have made.  He just could not seem to get any of them out.  Well, my brother at the bar Mr. Verrelli is once again showcasing his advocacy skills, this time in arguing to overturn the Arizona immigration law.  And once again he fumbled and stumbled.