So does Orly have a local sponsor for a pro hac vice appearance?
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTYUPON THE PETITON OF ) ) CASE NO: 01-CV-2011-002321.00ALBERT E. HENDERSHOT JR., ) (JUDGE HELEN SHORES LEE)Plaintiff, ) )AND CONCERNING ) ) MOTION FOR A STAY OFMARK KENNEDY, CHAIRMAN, ) EXPEDITED STATUS CONFERENCEOF THE ALABAMA DEMOCRATIC )PARTY )Defendant )COMES NOW the Plaintiff Albert E Hendershot Jr, and respectfully moves this Honorable Court for a stay of the STATUS CONFERENCE currently scheduled for January 9, 2012 to January27, 2012 so as to not prevent Plaintiff of his right for representation of professional legal counsel.As grounds in support of this motion, the Plaintiff states as follows: Currently Plaintiff is not represented by legal counsel and is Pro-Se; however, legal counsel has been obtained Pro-Bono. Dr. Orly Taitz Esq. (CA Bar Number: 223433) has agreed to represent Albert E Hendershot Jr. (Pro Hac Vice) in the above mentioned case and I am requesting that I have time to prepare a proper case with the aid of legal counsel to properly show cause for my case against the Alabama Democratic Party. Mr. Ragsdale, Counsel for the Defense is siting Cases in his MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW JUST CAUSE that the Plaintiff has no knowledge of due to his lack of legal knowledge and therefore cannot site or argue competently in and for his case hence the need for the delay in the proceedings so Plaintiff may be properly prepared with the aid of legal counsel provided by Dr. Orly Taitz Esq. for the conference requested by Mr. Ragsdale, Counsel for the Defense. As Plaintiff in this case I am also seeking a stay in the STATUS CONFERENCE until January 30, 2012 which is unfairly scheduled for January 9, 2012 so as to properly prepare my evidence, and properly argue the cases cited by Mr. Ragsdale, Attorney for the Defense with the aid of my attorney, Dr. Orly Taitz Esq.
From Orly's blog but linked to Jack's...
So I read that Mr. Hendershot has convinced Orly Taitz to represent him in the Alabama case and is going to try to get the hearing continued. I bet she is not admitted in Alabama and I suspect that Judge Lee will not be inclined to grant her the privilege to appear.
[link]Motion for Stay of Expedited Status,http://www.scribd.com/doc/77229656/Alabama-Primary-Ballot-Challenge-Obama-Motion-for-Stay-of-Expedited-Status-Hendershot-v-Kennedy-A-Hendershot[/link]
And bringing Orly on board changes this HOW...?
Mr. Ragsdale, Counsel for the Defense is siting Cases in his MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW JUST CAUSE that the Plaintiff has no knowledge of due to his lack of legal knowledge and therefore cannot site or argue competently in and for his case...
The poster later corrected the "great firm" comment... was mixed up and was referring to the defense firm. =))
Oh God, Helen Shores Lee is the biggest liberal DemocRAT ever! AND an [highlight]ignorant african-american woman[/highlight] to boot! Trust me on this one, I've talked to her on the phone before (I worked for an attorney for 24+ years) and [highlight]she is dumber than a rock[/highlight]. Could be a win for us or she could go off the deep end...time will tell. Hendershot has a GREAT firm behind him though so I'm not too worried.
Told ya. Stays are really "in" this season.I hate be the one to tell you this, Al, but it's very doubtful that you have any such right to counsel in a civil suit you brought yourself. (Foot meet bullet.) And you certainly don't have a right to be represented by an out-of-state attorney who is not a member of the Alabama Bar.So could the judge grant this request? Yes, she could. But it's hardly your right to foist Orly on an innocent Alabama Court.Also, Al, I can appreciate that you're "pro se" and I'll grant you that legal work is kinda confusing if you don't happen to have a profeshnal ejumacation. But still, only a moron would submit an important document with all three numbered paragraphs labeled "1". Did you have trouble in second grade?
COMES NOW the Plaintiff Albert E Hendershot Jr, and respectfully moves this Honorable Court for a [highlight]stay[/highlight] of the STATUS CONFERENCE currently scheduled for January 9, 2012 to January27, 2012 [highlight]so as to not prevent Plaintiff of his right for representation of professional legal counsel[/highlight].
But...but...how could he have known that the opposing party would complicate things by siting cases n' stuff? I mean, can't they just remove the president without a lot of mumbo-jumbo? ;)
He brought this matter pro se. He should not have initiated litigation pro se that he did not intend to prosecute pro se.
1. The reason for the request of expeditious treatment is that the ADP is facing a hard deadline (Jan. 19, IIRC) of when it has to submit its candidates. If Hendershot wishes to moot his own case....
COMES NOW the Plaintiff Albert E Hendershot Jr, and respectfully moves this Honorable Court for a stay of the STATUS CONFERENCE currently scheduled for January 9, 2012 to January 27, 2012 so as to not prevent Plaintiff of his right for representation of professional legal counsel.
2. Taitz (thinks she) will be in Georgia on the 26th.
Yes, Judge Land allowed her to appear twice in his court without a sponsoring attorney... obviously he regretted it.As far as I can remember she's never been denied phv, whether she met the court's rules to be admitted or not, and I don't believe she's ever been able to acquire a local sponsoring attorney.Court's have basically treated her as a poor pro se, even though she's a licensed (who knows why still, or how she ever obtained it in the first place) attorney. She instead has filed pro se all over the country, except in NH where she is practicing without a license before the Supreme Court, claiming to represent the nutter state reps and "vanity" presidential "candidates." I doubt they'll care. No one ever seems to.The only judge (setting aside Land) who has ever held her to the fire on procedure, etc., is Judge Nishimura in HI, in Taitz v Fuddy.[link]Here,http://www.scribd.com/doc/76186157/TAITZ-v-FUDDY-HI-Cir-Ct-Certified-Transcript-Hearing-Held-Nov-30-2011-tfb[/link] is a transcript of her last appearance before Judge Nishimura.
Has Mrs. Taitz ever been denied pro hac admission in any of these cases? I read the Rhodes case in which she was sanactioned and scolded.
As what if the ARP fails to comply with this demand? (Jan. 19 is the deadline for the parties to submit their candidates.)
WITH EXPLANATION OF ARTICLE II
Below please find a letter faxed to Chairman Bill Armistead, Alabama Republican Party, letting him know we are taking seriously the Constitution of the United States and the requirements for Presidential Candidates.
As you are no doubt aware [highlight]we[/highlight] have filed a Temporary Injunction against the Chairman of the Alabama Democratic Party to prevent him from certifying Mr. Obama for Alabama 2012 Primary Ballot Access. Yesterday, a Georgia Judge denied Obama’s Motion to Dismiss and set Trial Date. Other States have similar Obama actions now pending.
Chairman Bill Armistead [highlight]we expect you to vet every Presidential Candidate[/highlight] to ascertain they are in fact Constitutionally qualified for Office of President of the United States. We are aware that [highlight]Rick Santorum’s father[/highlight], Aldo Santorum, was an Italian Immigrant and [highlight]Willard Mitt Romney’s father[/highlight], George W. Romney, was born in Chihuahua, Mexico. Therefore, [highlight]you should obtain their Naturalization Documents to make sure they were in fact Naturalized American Citizens prior to the birth of their Children[/highlight], Rick May 10, 1998 and Mitt March 12, 1947. Along with their Birth Certificates and Residency requirements this will assure that Rick and Mitt meet the Constitutional requirement of Natural Born Citizen prior to their being Certified for Alabama 2012 Primary Ballot Access.
[highlight]So as to prevent future Court Action we would appreciate your confirming the Republican Presidential Candidates have been certified as Natural Born Citizens[/highlight] as stated above prior to January 19, 2012.
I'm sure Obly will ask to waive the local counsel requirement since she is doing this Sonny Bono.
The Alabama rules for pro hac vice require the foreign attorney to associate with local counsel. Local counsel must personally appear and participate in all pretrial conferences, hearings, trials and other proceedings.Looks like Al is up a creek, paddle free.
Dean Haskins seems to have limitless funds.
There has to be some retired 86-year-old former Klan defense attorney looking for a way to kill a few hours, doesn't there?/quote]I think they want money. Birfers are notoriously cheap.
For some reason, whenever Southern Klansmen get in legal troubles, they seem to hire Jewish lawyers from New York or, if they are impoverished, the ACLU defends them. Their racism evaporates and they are even willing to have a black lawyer. Funny that.
There has to be some retired 86-year-old former Klan defense attorney looking for a way to kill a few hours, doesn't there?
That's a great question. I believe she was denied PHV in Rhodes v. Gates (a related "Rhodes" case; see below) but the denial was for mootness. Most often the issue has been skirted or mooted.
Has Mrs. Taitz ever been denied pro hac admission in any of these cases? I read the Rhodes case in which she was sanactioned and scolded.
If Orly continues to behave as expected, her application for pro hac vice status in this Alabama state court matter will almost certainly be made without the benefit of local counsel. She’s done this time and time again and has, in fact, usually gotten away with it. In other instances, she’s just ignored the need for PHV admission altogether and proceeded to practice law (“Orlylaw”, that is) under the radar wherever she pleases.
In fact – and others here will no doubt correct me if I am wrong – I do not think that Orly has ever filed a motion for PHV admission in any court that was properly endorsed or sponsored by local counsel.
At this very moment, Orly is up to the top of her hip boots (not an Alabama slur – we fish in waders up here in the Great State of Maine too!) in an election challenge in New Hampshire wherein she nakedly purports to represent eight other persons even though she is not licensed in the State of New Hampshire, nor has she applied to any court in that state for PHV admission. (Petition filed w/NH Supreme Court [link]here,http://www.scribd.com/doc/76422276/UPDATED-New-Hampshire-Primary-Ballot-Challenge-From-Orly-s-Site-Petition-to-Stay[/link].)
Although her appeal was summarily dismissed on December 27th ([link]Order here,http://www.scribd.com/doc/76692646/New-Hampshire-Primary-Ballot-Challenge-Obama-NH-Supreme-Court-Decision[/link] ), she persists in practicing law without a license in that state by filing meritless motions, including a motion for reconsideration filed, I believe, only yesterday.
Orly is also embroiled in what can only be characterized as unseemly vexatious litigation in the Circuit Court for the 1st Circuit of Hawaii. Although the case is styled Taitz v. Fuddy, and includes the disclaimer that Dr. Taitz is proceeding pro se, in her most recent Amended Motion for Reconsideration, she avers:
“Attorney herein Orly Taitz provided the court with evidence, that she is not an idle petitioner, seeking inspection of the original birth certificate of the person of interest Barack Hussein Obama. She is an attorney, who is representing over 200 clients challenging Obama’s legitimacy…”
Perhaps the classic instance of Dr. Taitz, ESQUIRE “getting away with it” was her 2009 train wreck in Brockhausen v. Andrade (District Court for the 368th District, Texas, 2009) ([link]transcript here,http://www.scribd.com/doc/18284002/BROCKHAUSEN-v-ANDRADE-Transcript-of-Proceedings-Pleas-to-Jurisdiction-Hearing-12209[/link]).
Although Brockhausen leads the pack chronologically, and is arguably one of Orly’s funniest slap-stick performances, the case with the most bang for the buck was no doubt Rhodes v. MacDonald, where Judge Clay Land begrudgingly granted Orly’s PHV motion despite the fact she could not come up with local sponsorship. We all know how that one turned out (i.e., a hefty $20k in sanctions) and, given the non-stop bombing campaign directed against him by Orly’s flying monkeys, by I’m sure that Judge Land rues the day he cut Orly any slack.
As noted above, in the short-lived related case of Rhodes v Gates (M.D. Fla., 2009), Orly’s PHV application was denied as moot by Judge Xavier Rodriguez. However, it represents yet another example of Orly’s consistent habit of moving for PHV admission without local counsel.
And then there was Cook v Simtech ([link]sordid synopsis here,http://www.therightsideoflife.com/tag/cook-v-simtech/[/link]) in which the Hon. Richard Lazarra (M.D. Fla., 2009) characterized Orly’s complaint as a “shotgun pleading” and subsequently dismissed several of Orly’s motions as “frivolous and without merit.” Here, Orly was unable to find a sponsor and, AFAIK, was never granted PHV admission.
This is an abridged list that could be lengthened considerably with more digging into the past.
Orly’s nationwide unauthorized practice of law is enabled largely because courts have taken the simplest path of summarily dismissing her suits. That is, the judges think this is the simplest path. But that’s before they are bombarded with attempts to re-amend already amended pleadings, motions for recusal, motions to reconsider, motions to reconsider previous denials of motions to reconsider, motions for stays and, of course, predictable attacks by squadrons of flying monkeys.
Just once, I’d like to see a judge nip things in the bud by closing the unauthorized door to the forum in the first place, preferably with the admonition that Dr. Taitz cease and desist from the unauthorized practice of law in _fill in the jurisdiction___. Wouldn’t it be nice if, upon consideration of Dr. Taitz’s (presumably unsponsored) PHV application, the Court were aware of Dr. Taitz’s history? And in opposing her admission, I wonder if Mr. Ragsdale is fully aware of the scope of Orly’s “practice.”
It strikes me that this information would best come from a member of the Alabama Bar, rather than one of them “outside agitators”. Just a thought, hint, hint. ;)
Yup. Whether for want of clients or fear of discipline (or both), most of her 2010 work was purportedly pro se. But these election challenges are bringing roach-like clients out of the woodwork all over the place. Apparently, she's the best attorney the challengers can find.
After Rhodes and the departure of her dear dear CL III, haven't the majority of Orly's filings been pro se?
Until the recent flurry of ballot challenges, she seems to have avoided having clients all together. She acts like she is representing a great multitude but it's just Taitz v. ______.
With her most recent VICTORY (i.e., surviving an initial motion to dismiss), Orly's batting average is now on a par with Eddie Gaedel's.
Fixed the spelling of Eddie Gaedel's name.[/edit]
See Eddie Gaedel's career Major League stats [link]here,http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/g/gaedeed01.shtml[/link]
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests