Mmmm, yes, Orly.

And you haz PHV, haz you?

Or maybe you haz UPL.

Can't wait to see.

Hasn't Kern already lost to Carson? (As he has lost so many elections over the years, running under a couple of names.) On the face of it, the son-in-law connection with the judge would seem to be a reason that the judge would recuse himself. However, does Kern have any business being before a court at all?

No, Primary is in May I think.

May 8th.

Is Bob Kern running against President Obama? Along with the judge's brother-in-law or whatever? If not I don't see a conflict. Also, why do I see Orly Taitz's name on this stuff? Wasn't she a "witless"? Is she pretending to be a lawyer again?

Please -- someone -- explain how the outcome of this case could give an edge to Bob Kern in a Congressional race. I don't follow the reasoning.

Did you forgot for a moment that we're talkin' Orly-Law here? C'mon now, rub some dirt on it and walk it off!

Yep. Kern went down in flames when Carson won in 2010, but redistricting happened.

Easy peasy: The judge will rule against Kern (and the other plaintiffs) because any disadvantage to Kern helps the judge's relative.

You know, as tenuous as the connection is, it actually might be best to have a different judge. Could this judge write a blunt decision saying that Kern was full of shit (in nice polite legalese, of course) without it being passed off as the judge trying trash his son-in-laws political rival? There's a need to be blunt with the plaintiffs, and a connection of some sort there, where any hint of impropriety should be avoided. Look at how the birthers spin things even when there is no connection at all...

Like Shaheed is the only judge in Indiana who would tell Kern he's an idiot for birthing? Nah.

That would reward Orly and encourage her to continue hurling bigoted, racist language at judges in the hopes of getting them to recuse themselves. I would agree that it would make sense for a different judge to preside over a hearing on an Order to Show Cause why Orly should not be found in contempt or sanctioned for this conduct, but not over the underlying matter. Orly has presented no adequate reason for recusal and should be punished, not rewarded.

Yeah, he's lost. And lost. And lost. Only to rise to run once again. The Primary is May 8, 2012. Kern is listed as Bob "Citizen" Kern, for real.

http://www.in.gov/sos/elections/files/2012_Primary_Candidate_Abbreviated_List_Mar_16.pdf

Sadly, I think the judge will recuse himself, he will have to. And Orly will treat this, as always, as a HUGE victory. Expect, "Thank God. I won!" on her website, her usual mantra to get her FMs to donate when she really hasn't won anything much. In her twisted mind, she will have a better chance with another judge. As if!

Wish Shaheed had quietly and proactively reassigned this case to another judge. He is considered one of the finest and fairest trial judges in the country. Yet I too think he should remove himself from this Pandora's box. How was this case even assigned to him ?

I disagree. A judge's recusal is a disruption to the normal operation of the judiciary, sometimes even making it necessary to reassign other cases to clear congested dockets. Recusal should only occur when the high standard for it is met.

If Judge Shaheed refuses to recuse, and that is appealed, it will be reviewed to an abuse of discretion standard and upheld. The mere existence of a joke candidate with no chances of election does not constitute a situation justifying recusal.

I agree with Loh. A judge has a duty to hear cases assigned to him unless there is a legal reason not to.

The corollary to the duty to recuse is the duty to not recuse. Courts control the courts, not the litigants. Rewarding bad behavior will only encourage it.

I would be surprised if the judge was even aware of who Kern is. I suspect the judge will rule (to the effect that) the unrelated election will not have any bearing on the matter actually before the court, and therefore recusal is unwarranted.

Loh, bob and I agree.

Now watch the judge make a monkey of all of us!

(Though I hope not.)

Say, doesn't Indiana have a list of Muslim Judges that they can sent Orly's bullshit to? That would be too funny. Maybe they can get one of the Sharia Judges from Texas to preside as a "Guest Judge"

I agree with you. However, I foresee a major smear campaign against Carson, Shaheed, and the Muslim community if he doesn't. Given Shaheed's sterling reputation, he consistently receives the least number of votes yet still manages to stay on the bench. It has been said this is due to his Muslim-sounding name. Given the current redistricting, Carson's demographic is redder than it once was. Although Kearn is a big joke, Carson and Shaheed may be more politically vulnerable. JMO.

While I wouldn't go so far as to say I disagree, recusals due to apparent conflicts based on family relationships are not all that big a deal. Once it's pointed out that a party or important witness is reasonably closely related to the judge by blood or marriage, most judges in my experience tend to recuse themselves without much fanfare. It's no big insult; it is what it is as a result of the draw. In fact, a conscientious judge (as most judges are) would prefer to have the relationship pointed out as a threshold matter rather than having it raised down the road.

I completely agree with Loh', Stern & bob about the "duty not to recuse" where recusal is not warranted. Appellate courts have underscored this time after time when refusing to mandate recusal or finding no error when a trial court judge has declined to recuse for insubstantial grounds.

However, pointing out a family relationship that may not be apparent from just looking at the caption of a case is not something that's easily used as a basis for abusive judge-shopping. It's not nearly as easy to exploit as, say, arguing that there's some highly attenuated series of links to friends or acquaintances or, worse still, making allegations that suggest underlying ideological, religious or political motivations. Even though I suspect the latter is true of Clownselor Orly's motion here (to paraphrase poorly, Islam itsa locator), the motion does appear to identify a not-too-distant family relationship.

What muddies the water here is the inscrutible nature of the "lawsuit" in the first place. When it's hard to find merit in anything about the action -- much less to figure how this "suit" could plausibly affect whom -- it's difficult to assess a potential conflict.

I dunno. I guess I still rate this one a toss-up and wouldn't be surprised to see it go either way.

No doubt, Birthistan would interpret a routine recusal as a great triumph. But so what? They're always more fun to watch when they think they're winning.

And besides, I'd much prefer it if the court got serious about dealing with Orly's stupid strategy of trying to represent these losers while avoiding PHV admission and evading what is obviously UPL. How much more transparent could her charade be? And if this issue were to be the subject of an order to show cause, I'd rather have it heard before a judge who cannot be said to have a conflict of any kind.

YMMV.

Since the case is not an appeal, but is a pro se complaint against the SOS and Elections Commission, there would be counsel for the defense from the state AG or SOS, correct ?
That counsel could/should raise questions about Orly being on the list of plaintiff (non resident) and to her practising law without a license.

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=34387

I went to the link above and received this message...

put in http://www.civicnet.net and ended up here:

http://www.biz.indygov.org/