Judge issuing order to reinstate booted Philadelphia election officials, Republicans say

A Pennsylvania judge is issuing an order to reinstate Republican election officials across Philadelphia who allegedly were ejected or refused entry by on-site Democratic voting chief judges, GOP officials tell Fox News.

One Republican official claimed that "just under 70" Republican election officials were blocked from Philadelphia polling sites Tuesday morning by Democrats on site. One of them, the official claimed, "was shoved out of the polling place." 

"For this many inspectors to be ejected from polling places is rare, even for Philadelphia," the official told FoxNews.com. 

Elsewhere in the city, a representative from the New Black Panther Party was also spotted outside a polling site. The New Black Panthers stirred controversy in 2008 when members appeared outside a polling site, one of them holding a billy club. The representative seen Tuesday morning was not armed. 

The flap over the election judges, though, was widespread. Republicans claim they are obtaining a series of court orders to seat the so-called election "inspectors," and sheriff's deputies will be available to escort them. 

Despite the high number of officials who were allegedly booted, the dispute itself is not uncommon for Philadelphia. Fred Voigt, legal counsel for the city commissioners, said these kinds of face-offs happen "with regularity" in the City of Brotherly Love. 

"It happens all the time," Voigt said. He said court-appointed Republican officials typically show up on Election Day and end up squaring off against stand-in officials at the polling sites filling in the open seats. Part of the problem, he said, is that the Republican inspectors are appointed on relatively short notice, leading to a string of confrontations on Election Day. 

"There are no cool heads here," Voigt said. 

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading...

Claim: Elizabeth Warren doesn't need Massachusetts law license

Legal Insurrection's William Jacobson questioned the legality of Elizabeth Warren's engaging in legal practice from her office at Harvard Law School without having gotten a license to practice law in that state. Now a counter-argument has been offered. Mark Thompson writes:

 most importantly, Professor Jacobson ignores Massachusetts Rule of Professional Conduct 5.5(d), which states that:

"A lawyer admitted in another United States jurisdiction, and not disbarred or suspended from practice in any jurisdiction, may provide legal services in this jurisdiction that...are services that the lawyer is authorized to provide by federal law or other law of this jurisdiction."

The Official Comments to Rule 5.5(d) further elaborate to make explicit that 5.5(d) permits such an attorney to have even a "systematic and continuous presence in [Massachusetts] for the practice of law as well as provide legal services on a temporary basis."

As the cases to which Professor Jacobson has drawn our attention are entirely cases from the federal courts, and indeed appear to be cases lying even outside the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts federal courts, and as there seems to be no allegation that Professor Warren was unauthorized to appear in those cases, the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct appear to explicitly exempt Professor Warren's actions in those cases from the prohibitions on the unauthorized practice of law.

Although it is true that Rule 5.5(d) does "not authorize communications advertising legal services to prospective clients in [Massachusetts] by lawyers who are admitted to practice in other jurisdictions," merely listing the location of one's office in an official court filing in which one is properly authorized to appear cannot possibly be construed as a "communication advertising legal services."  

Via: The American Thinker

Continue Reading...