Video of the Debbie Tharp arrest, from orangejuiceblog.com.

It appears that Taitz was in on this stunt all along. She even may have advised Tharp to go and break the law again to get arrested. (Is that ethical)? Orly's got Tharp citing anti-SLAPP statutes, and Tharp - like Taitz - believes that laws do not apply to her.

Orly's perfect client!

Even the stoners are unhappy about Tharp's choice of legal counsel.

Lawyers for those who engage in civil disobedience have a bit of an ethical dilemma. It is generally against a lawyer's oath to advise a client to break the law, and certainly, to assist in breaking the law. However, there are occasions when a statute is against the higher law that is the Constitution, and an attorney can certainly advise that a planned course of conduct is in violation of a statute, but nevertheless, that the activity is protected by the Constitution. Similarly, an attorney may advise that a certain course of conduct is not prohibited by any statute, but that a police agency nevertheless has a policy of prosecuting this conduct.

Such advice must be consistent with the interests of the client, not the political goals of the attorney. However, the client is the one who decides what her interests are, not the attorney.

Generally, an attorney is only permitted to disclose client confidences about lawbreaking when known future actions by the client threaten the life, health, or property of another.

In another vein, there have also been attorneys who pursued their clients' interests by themselves engaging in civil disobedience or violating court rules. This is an even dodgier practice, but some, like William Kunstler in his defense of the Chicago Seven, managed to pursue this kind of radical lawyering successfully. Kunstler's tactic in this defense was essentially to violate nearly every rule of courtroom decorum to enrage the judge to the point that he displayed his overt bias against the defendants, then use that in a defense. Kunstler obtained an acquittal on the most serious charges and a reversal on the single conviction. He also obtained a reversal of his own contempt conviction by a unanimous Seventh Circuit. Needless to say, this kind of conduct is not for the meek and opinions are mixed as to Kunstler himself.

In any event, whatever subtle nuances there are to this kind of legal representation, without knowing any details about it whatsoever, Orly fucked it up completely. Call it a hunch.

The issues raised in Tharp's case involve the continuing fall out of the California state supreme court Pruneyard decision. The issues are subtle and complex and the law has been evolving for years. Given the right vehicle I anticipate Pruneyard being abandoned altogether in California (as it has been rejected everywhere else). And this is as good a case as any.

Of course, with an attorney at the helm for the signature-gatherer who has no idea of the law, or how to write a brief, or anything else amounting to the practice of law or zealously representing a client's interests, the law could change a lot faster. While usually in such cases amicus briefs come to the rescue, an attorney can so screw up the issues and presentation of a case as to make that impossible.

Too bad Orly Taitz has decided to associate herself with a real lawsuit, involving real people and real rights. If she performs as usual this will be another complete mess.

Gee, and then a real client might be harmed and a real state bar might take notice...

See, that's the thing. Journalists don't gather petitions.

I disagree.

This case is, from what I can tell, well outside of the Pruneyard framework. It does not represent a good vehicle for doing away with one of the few free speech cases worth a damn that we have left.

While I agree that the Pruneyard decision has not been adopted by a majority of jurisdictions, and that this is, in fact, obvious, I am not at all sanguine about this country's current direction, where corporations have nearly absolute control over public discourse, and where the "traditional public forum" is basically nonexistent.

I view the prospect of Pruneyard being abandoned even in California as an abomination.

Thank you! That's exactly what I was thinking!

Also, too, she's a journalist just Iike Obly is a lawyer. Poifect for each other.

This^^^^. Problem is anyone who "writes" a sentence on the internet considers him/herself to be a journalist these days. They have no inkling real journalists used to be taught something called "ethics".

Don't forget Orly considers herself to be an investigative journalist too. She even submitted her for the "Pullet Surprise" as Obot Pat says.

Based upon Dr. Orly's track record outside of traffic court, I have every confidence that a jaywalking client of hers would end up with a 5-10 year sentence.

If we Californians had a real state bar, that might be the case, but alas...

I agree. Dr. Orly will near certainty practise her usual schtick of not guilty because of "massive corruption," "stolen Connecticut Social Security Number that's publicly available online," and "worse than back in the Soviet Union" but now in the context of criminal law. It reminds me of nothing else than how the Freeman-on-the-Land-type people will turn a simple traffic stop into serious jail time by directly antagonizing their court with their stupid conspiracy theories.

I wouldn't have Taitz as my lawyer if she actually held beliefs I sympathized with rather than fringe right-wing lunacy. She's a) been kicked out of the incompetent people's society for making them look bad. b) a conspiracy-addled nutcase. You simply couldn't pay me enough money to have her represent me if my hobby of loitering ever had consequences. I fear that Ms. Tharp may find out exactly why I hold this truth to be self-evident.

"For the record": Tharp was arrested; we do not know yet if she will be charged with a crime (by the DA).

And the article says Taitz may sue the city on Tharp's behalf. What Taitz doesn't know about suing a governmental entity (and its officials) in tort is legion. So I'll believe it when I see it.

I expect she will sue the manager of Mother's as well. She's the one who made the citizen's arrest after numerous requests for Debbie to leave the premises.

Surprise, surprise. Does anybody care to start rating Orly who has a pretty high score as a lawyer in this rating system?

http://www.avvo.com/search/professional ... =1&q=taitz

ROFL -- That's the Taft Alumi Society in action!

Thank Gawd!

This is known as "damning with faint praise". Saying that Taitz never gives up is not the same as calling her competent or professional.

Even Levy couldn't utter that nonsense.

She never gives up because she never succeeds.

They wouldn't accept my review (I admitted I wasn't a client but said I had been following her cases for 3 years).

I see someone got in an appropriate client review.

Looks like lawyer types can file a "peer endorsement" like Levy did, but what if you don't endorse her?

She says she is doing this for the American people, so aren't we all clients?

Yes. In exactly the same sense each of us is the employer of Barack Obama and entitled to his social security records.