Little Miss Princess Summerfall Winterspring just doing her Doody to be everything for everybody in every season, boy Howdy!
You gotta be a certified Peanut Gallery member to vote for this clown!

Did have a license to practice law at that time. Yesterday it was revealed that she does not have a license. At least none was found.

Another poster explained yesterday that since Warren was apparently licensed in NJ, she was allowed to practice in Mass.

This woman is the personification of hypocrisy and pure evil self interest. In other words, the perfect Liberal!!!

To poster 3: The poster who explained yesterday that since Warren was apparently licensed in NJ, she was allowed to practice in Mass is full of it.

NEW JERSEY: No reciprocity with other states

MASSACHUSETTS: To gain license in this state, an applicant must have been admitted to practice in another state, district or territory for at least five years prior to application for admission and be in good standing in each such state, district and territory. An applicant must be a graduate of a law school which at the time of graduation was approved by the American Bar Association or was authorized by a state statute to grant the degree of bachelor of laws or juris doctor.

TEXAS: This state has limited admission for certain lawyers to be admitted without examination and after passage of the full student examination.

http://attorneys.uslegal.com/licensing-of-attorneys/reciprocity/

I am currently in Taxachusetts and I am amazed to see fauxcahontas yard signs. How could people be so stupid? However surprisingly I do see almost as many Scott Brown signs. Press on to Nov.

I have never come across a lawyer with license in one state allowed to practice in another. She has no bar license in Nj.

Whoa, #6 and#8. Unless you are schooled in the practice of law in Massachusetts and any reciprocity therein, maybe you can accept a different interpretation of what Warren might or might not have done.

My slight acquaintance with the referenced poster tells me she would fling a gauntlet at your feet and issue a challenge to a duel with weapons of your choice at your assumption she supports Elizabeth Warren.

Re the question posed by poster #3: the key word is "apparently."

Based on the commentary I have been hearing and reading, some claim that Warren could practice law from her Harvard office in MA as long as she maintained an active license somewhere, in her case New Jersey.

However, yesterday on a Boston radio show Warren said her NJ law license has been inactive for a "long long time" -- how long is that? She didn't say. Later in the day we learn that just two weeks ago, on 9/11/12, Warren suddenly resigned from the NJ bar, a move that immediately closes all her records so we can't find out exactly when her NJ license became inactive, or what her status was with the NJ bar as recently as 9/10. Seems an odd thing to be doing when she must be so busy on her campaign.

At any rate, these details bring us back to square one. If Warren has never been licensed in MA, and her NJ license has been inactive by her own admission for a "long long time," may she have been practicing law on any of these cases without authorization?

The diminutive Elizabeth Warren has been "out there" sacrificing and fighting for the working people. She cannot say who or which people she has helped. The msm has not asked, and none have come forward.

From The Blaze:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/professors-bombshell-charge-elizabeth-warren-practiced-law-in-mass-without-a-license/

The [Legal Insurrection] post indicates that this is a federal case. You do not need to be licensed to practice law in Massachusetts to practice law in federal courts located in Massachusetts or anywhere else. Federal courts decide who can practice before them, and individual states can’t tell federal courts that an attorney cannot practice before them. It’s that whole supremacy clause thing. Constitution 101 and all that.

It is really well established that a federal district court can admit an attorney to practice before it even if the attorney is not licensed in that state. You most certainly do not need to be licensed in the state where a federal court of appeals sits to appear before the federal court of appeals. I am clearly practicing law when I argue before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. It does not matter that I am not licensed in Ohio.

The blurb also mentions taking the case to the US Supreme Court. I have submitted an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court on a case that originated in West Virginia state courts even though I am not licensed to practice there. I was not practicing law without a license when I did so because I was admitted to practice before the Supreme Court.

But also bear in mind the following [via another veteran lawyer who wrote NRO]:

I have practiced law for 30 years. Your correspondent is correct that a federal court can permit an attorney from a state outside the state wherein the federal court sits to appear before that court. The practice is called “pro hac vice,” which is Latin for “for this occasion.”

Then the question is: Was she so approved?