It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: MOMof3
Her "backing" of the corporations. That meant she was practicing law.
Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown and challenger Elizabeth Warren are accusing each other of “not telling the truth.” Brown says Warren worked to “restrict payments” to asbestos victims, while Warren says she worked to “get more money” for them. We find Warren is correct; Brown’s ad is a distortion.
It may seem counter-intuitive that Warren’s work on behalf of an insurance company that covered an asbestos manufacturer could be work on the same side as the victims of the case. But Warren was brought in as a bankruptcy expert on a case before the Supreme Court to secure a $500 million trust to pay asbestos victims. As part of a settlement that Warren worked to preserve, the insurance company sought immunity from lawsuits in exchange for releasing the $500 million trust. Attorneys for most of the asbestos victims supported Warren’s efforts.
Warren’s Work
At the heart of this issue is an ongoing asbestos case involving the nation’s largest asbestos manufacturer, Johns-Manville Corp. The company ended up in bankruptcy, leaving some victims, who did not develop symptoms until more than a decade after others, seeking compensation from an ever-shrinking victims fund. By the time Warren entered the case in 2008, more than $3.2 billion had been paid out to over 600,000 claimants.
Warren was brought into the case by Travelers Insurance, one of the insurers of Johns-Manville. Specifically, Warren worked on the case Travelers v. Baily to preserve a $500 million trust from which current and future victims would be paid — part of a settlement agreement previously reached between lawyers for Travelers and the victims.
According to Warren’s financial disclosure forms, Warren was hired by Travelers in April 2008 and did work for the company through September 2010. By that time, Travelers and the asbestos victims were working together on a common goal: to preserve the $500 million trust both sides had agreed to. Another insurance company, Chubb, was contesting the settlement agreement, and Warren ended up making her one and only appearance before the Supreme Court arguing on behalf of Travelers to uphold the trust. As part of the deal, Travelers would be permanently immune from future asbestos-related lawsuits concerning Johns-Manville. Warren’s argument prevailed. According to the Globe, Warren was paid $212,000 over three years by Travelers.
So it’s true, as the Brown ad says, that a Boston Globe headline on May 1 described Warren as playing a “key role in an asbestos court case.” But the subhead of the story — “Worked for insurer on fund for victims” — belies the ad’s claim about her opposing the interest of the victims.
Specifically, the ad leaves out this pivotal paragraph from the same Globe story:
Boston Globe, May 1: Travelers won most of what it wanted from the Supreme Court, and in doing so Warren helped preserve an element of bankruptcy law that ensured that victims of large-scale corporate malfeasance would have a better chance of getting compensated, even when the responsible companies go bankrupt.
Unfortunately for the asbestos victims, the Supreme Court’s decision wasn’t the final word on this case. After Warren left the case, it took a “disastrous” turn for the victims when a lower court issued a ruling on Feb. 29, 2012, that, as the Globe reported, took Travelers “off the hook for paying out the $500 million settlement.”
The Globe noted that according to one judge who tried to preserve the settlement, Travelers received “something for nothing” — immunity from future lawsuits without having to pay out the $500 million trust.
Dont waste your vote. Vote third party.
Warren never claimed to be Native American on any school applications or job applications. She told colleagues that she is part Native American and Harvard decided to put that into their brochures.
You don't necessarily need to be licensed in a state in order to practice law in a state, it depends on how you are doing so.
originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit
originally posted by: buster2010
originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit
originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Boscov
And for me, just to be clear, HRC is not even imaginable. No way.
But the fact is that the middle class IS being ripped to shreds. Voting R across the board? Really??
sigh
By whom is the middle class being ripped to shreds, Buzzy? You still blaming Bush? Really??
It's rather easy to figure that out. Just look for the people that keep crying for tax cuts for the rich while blocking the middle class and poor getting a wage they can live on. People that vote across the board just because it's Democrat or Republican have no place in the voting booth because they do more harm than good.
I have quite literally never seen so much hypocrisy in one sentence. Not to mention off-topic. Since you need educating, it is the democratic leadership who are responsible. The prior administration can only be blamed for so long before it is obvious who is doing what.
originally posted by: buster2010
originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit
originally posted by: buster2010
originally posted by: ScientiaFortisDefendit
originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Boscov
And for me, just to be clear, HRC is not even imaginable. No way.
But the fact is that the middle class IS being ripped to shreds. Voting R across the board? Really??
sigh
By whom is the middle class being ripped to shreds, Buzzy? You still blaming Bush? Really??
It's rather easy to figure that out. Just look for the people that keep crying for tax cuts for the rich while blocking the middle class and poor getting a wage they can live on. People that vote across the board just because it's Democrat or Republican have no place in the voting booth because they do more harm than good.
I have quite literally never seen so much hypocrisy in one sentence. Not to mention off-topic. Since you need educating, it is the democratic leadership who are responsible. The prior administration can only be blamed for so long before it is obvious who is doing what.
Was it the Democrats that started the policies? How do you think Obama got the nickname the rubber stamp president? Because everything Bush started he continued just like the Republicans wanted. Just look at that "God" of the Republicans Ronald Reagan he cried about Carter for eight years straight even though Carter was a better president than him. Obama has spent less than Bush and that is fact. So you may want to get a little education yourself.