Chris Strunk or Chito Papa?

The question is, will they be allowed to "testify?"

Bettina Viviano

Well, let's put it this way. It is a hearing on 4 unopposed motions... (yeah, that's true) so there shouldn't be any testimony, except Taitz trying to explain why she's crapticing law without a license. It is not an evidentiary hearing under any normal circumstances.

Now, whether the judge will listen to her screeching "but I have weeetnises" who, came long way long time, who knows, but the hearing should not get past you can't craptice law without and license here, so go sit in the back of the room. Then the other plaintiffs, if allowed, can "argue". That's kinda sorta how it should go.

Akshully, there really is not reason the motions can't be decided without hearing, but...

IN Tuesday? Really? I'll have to believe that is a tyop, because the use of "on" and "for" to indicate moment in time and time duration respectively were things that were hammered into the minds of Soviet children from day one of English class. (In Russian, the prepositions used normally mean "in" and "on" respectively)

Surely, you cannot forget such a simple rule when you have been living for at least twent years in a country where they speak that language?

Of course, it must be a tyop. Or does she do it more often?

Grammar and spelling are for the little people, Paul.

Are we going to have any boots on the ground here?

Have there been any requests to record this hearing?

I found the missing n's -



That n should be an l

Any news on a potential broadcast -- audio or video -- of the this "explosive" event?

Oh, this should be rich. Who, exactly, will put these "witnesses" on the stand and elicit their testimony? Orly is neither counsel, nor pro se plaintiff. She is just another witness, as she has forgotten but she assured the Indiana Elections Commission. A witness cannot, in any court, even in Moldovia, call another witness to the stand.

And it goes without saying that a witness cannot file an "emergecy ijuction."

FIFY.

Orly knows so little about the law that she cannot even recognize when she is practicing it.

I sooo intend to steal that.

Don't you mean crapticing it?

Ask Amos Brown. (see up thread)

Thanks ... I missed that. Too much going on here today!

She's probably hoping can do a repeat of what she did in front of the Election Commision: Causing such a stink, that they let her play-pretend to be a lawyer, just to get her out of their courtroom faster. Let's not kid ourselves here, the commission saw right through her pathetic excuse of being there as a witness, but they realised that the fastest way to get rid of her, was to give her 10 minutes and then deny whatever she suggested.

Yabut she conned her way into having a Federal Judge give her time to talk about her bullshit attempt to intervene in a case about off-shore drilling. She did that by "oh, but I've come such a long way" whine. Of course in Indiana, the judge has the benefit of the record of the ballot commission hearing (complete with video provided by the birther clowns, if he was so inclined). I'm not betting either way on this one. Except, of course, what the end result will be.

Shrek knows what this means.

The more I think about it -- in what the hell capacity is Orly even showing up for this hearing? Does she have any role other than as a spectator?

If you figure that out, Skeppy, by all means you should let Orly know. I'm quite sure she'd appreciate it.

I'll ask my conslutants.

And let the rest of us know too, also, as well as. Orly's mind is a wondrous thing to behold.
Regards .............Dick