HORNBECK v SALAZAR, et al.

Butterfly Bilderberg · **Posted:** Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:28 pm

bob wrote:

Quote:

MR. ROSENBLUM: Only this, Your Honor. I appreciate the Court calling us and letting us know that we were going to have a hearing.

The attorneys will still be in front of that judge after Taitz leaves; just being "polite" (and the attorney was actually make a dig at Taitz).

Although he was not identified in the transcript, it was Mr. Rosenblum who made the dig at Orly for violating the local rules after her cell phone went off the first time. That remark actually drew laughter in the courtroom. So this was his SECOND jab at her. :-bd

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Thu Jun 09, 2011 8:13 pm

We should make Mr. Rosenblum an honorary Obot.

SueDB · **Posted:** Thu Jun 09, 2011 8:23 pm

GreatGrey wrote:

ducktape wrote:

By the way, did she ever actually get a ruling denying her motion, or did it just go off into the ether of frivolity?

It was deNINED ages ago.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/55300298/Horn ... ed-5-12-11

Orly just never told her minions.

Nice except from the closing.

Quote:

Finally, the “unusual circumstances” of the timing of the assertion of intervenor’s claims and the President’s recent public postings contesting those claims,which the proposed intervenor and her experts assert in the reply papers are forgeries,weigh against any exercise of this court’s discretion to permit this intervention in a different existing case.For all of the foregoing reasons, the motion is DENIED. This intervention should not be permitted

poutine · **Posted:** Thu Jun 09, 2011 8:26 pm

And unlike Taitz, who for some strange reason brags about every court around the country she has somehow, accidentally, unknowingly been temporarily/briefly admitted to by unwitting judges...

Quote:

Mr. Rosenblum practices in both state and federal courts in Louisiana and Texas and has [highlight]been admitted on a pro hac vice basis in Oklahoma, New Mexico, Kansas, New York, California, Florida, Delaware, and Wyoming[/highlight].

http://www.joneswalker.com/professionals-149.html

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23944

Just FYI, the Court entered its Order today assessing fees and costs against the Defendants (the gubimint).

Quote:

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiffs’ Motion to Set Amount of Attorney’s Fees and Costs,
Record Doc. No. 233, is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART and that
plaintiffs are awarded $528,801.18 in reasonable attorney’s fees and $444.33 for costs.

Reality Check · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2011 6:00 pm

So $528k of our tax dollars are going to some off shore drillers thanks to a very pro-oil Bush appointee federal judge ruled in their favor? The birthers no doubt will miss this point.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23944

Reality Check wrote:

So $528k of our tax dollars are going to some off shore drillers thanks to a very pro-oil Bush appointee federal judge ruled in their favor? The birthers no doubt will miss this point.

No, it's going to the attorneys for those drillers and subcontractors. The plaintiffs did not seek monetary damages in the suit.

mimi · **Posted:** Thu Jun 23, 2011 7:26 pm

Let the lawyer jokes commence!

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

HORNBECK v SALAZAR, et al.

Who is online