Didn't Orly or one of her FM complain that you didn't print your name when you attended Orly attempt to get in on the oil spill lawsuit in NO?

No, the Butterfly Lady signed in all right. Then Orly got the court to send her the sign-in sheet, which was a little hinky IMHO.

But it worked out perfectly for her. She obtained PROOF that the Butterfly Lady had attended an open-to-the-public court hearing, engaged in treasonous harassment of Orly, and tried to improperly influence the court, by quietly observing the proceedings without interruption.

AND she spoke for several minutes with a government attorney after the hearing ended.

She keeps saying this, and she's desperately trying to get Sheriff Joe to back her up, and she's said a dozen times that what he did was "confirm my findings" ...

... but this has got to be pissing Sheriff Joe off no end. A birther, for doG's sake, is pointing out the best reason not to take Arpaio's "investigation" seriously.

If an anti-birther asks why he doesn't forward his evidence for prosecution, the birthers will dream up some lame excuse or claim that Joe wants to make the arrest himself or something. But when Orly Freakin' Taitz herself starts asking why this isn't being done like a real, actual criminal investigation, it's got to puzzle some of her followers who think Joe's doing everything he can.

Docket Update...



Whatever document 25 is, we do not have.

I have to wonder, will Joe have the county lawyer send orly another FOAD letter in srteponse to the NTA?

What about the used car salesman, Zullu? will he have to hire his own lawyer on his own dime if he wants to send a FOAD?

There are a number of those "MISC" entries.

It looks to me as though an entry only allows a few lines of text, and the MISC means "continued from the preceding item on the docket."

Thus you get:

The "MISC" is the list of lawyers on that motion, perchance?

If so, then #25 isn't a separate docket item, it's a continuation of #24, possibly. Just a guess from looking at Orly's mess of a docket ...

For those who do not venture to Orly's...

2012-03-27 - MS - Notice to Appear (Arpaio)

2012-03-27 - MS - Notice to Appear (Zullo)

I'm curious about her bookkeeping, which I am certain is not in compliance with....anything. She uses one website to promote all her activities and herself, one Paypal account that generates revenue from birthers AND her political campaigns, and whatever else she decides. There is a high probability she hasn't kept adequate records of income, expenditures, or kept her accounts separate. Its all one big mish-mash. A personal slush fund, accessed only by her, with no independent audits.
Who are her donors, how much, when and on what did Orly spend the money.

I hope Coleman grants Begley's motion and lets Sam digs into her like an sadistic, incompetent Moldavan dentist drilling through to reach the other side of the jawbone. Without pain killers.
Let the Screeches become screams.

I'd imagine he was just pointing out you can't be convicted of a crime in a civil proceeding.

Foogie - Your list looks complete as of now. (I anticipate Taitz will soon file new oppositions combined with requests, amended pleadings and possibly fake indictments.)

First, keep in mind that I didn't say or imply that Orly can't be convicted of champerty in Mississippi -- only that she cannot be convicted in these civil proceedings. A criminal conviction can only result from a criminal proceeding brought by the state.

Among other things, a criminal defendant must first be arraigned -- a formal proceeding in which the accused is read the charges being brought against him/her and given the opportunity to enter a plea. The charges, whether in the form of an information or indictment, are presented by an attorney representing the people (i.e., a duly appointed and sworn prosecutor), not a private party. Simply put, even if this Court were sitting as a criminal court (it is not), the hearing scheduled for the 16th in this case is not an arraignment and, absent an arraignment, there can be no conviction.

The notable exception is direct criminal contempt of court for behavior that occurs right before the "eyes of the court". This is a strictly punitive power of the court often said to be "inherent" because it is necessary to ensure the administration of justice. (There is a second type of contempt -- civil contempt -- that is coercive rather than punitive in nature, but that's another topic altogether.) Because the judge is effectively an eye-witness to behavior that occured within the court itself, the contemnor can be thrown in the slammer, right then and there.

[But even in cases of direct summary contempt, the defendant/contemnor has due process rights and the episode may lead to further proceedings separate from the underlying case. Where this occurs, the charges are brought by the court's own notice (as opposed to an information or indictment) and the judge may appoint an attorney to prosecute the matter (usually, but not always, the district's prosecutor).]

So what are the limits of Orly's criminal exposure here? Shooting from the hip...

1. If her courtroom behavior is sufficiently egregious and/or if she explicitly refuses to obey an order, then contempt of court.
2. If the record so warrants, the court could refer the matter to the attention of the appropriate prosecutor (e.g., for champerty or perjury). But referral does not commence an action per se, as the prosecutor still would have prosecutorial discretion to pursue criminal charges or not, as with any other set of facts that comes to his/her attention.

In practical terms, we're back in territory that is familiar to any devoted Orly watcher: monetary sanctions, a good tongue lashing and referral to the CA and/or MS state bar disciplinary authorities. (I have no idea about the extent to which there might be a legal basis in Mississippi for declaring someone a vexatious litigant or restricting future filings without prior leave of court.)

This is likely to become a most uncivil proceeding within the first two minutes, particularly if Orly shows up late with a new batch of Documents of the Utmost Importance or if she takes exception to the Defense being present at the hearing. I think that there is a chance that this event may be the one that stops Orly in her tracks. If she completely explodes, she may earn some jail time for contempt of court and the last of her fans may find a safe haven elsewhere. Of course, she could continue to pursue her Righteous Mission without a single supporter.

It would be very nice for the Deep Red state of which she was surest for a victory to be the state that brings her down.

"Is it safe?"

One can dream.

$%#@ Airfares to Jackson are insane. Looks like I'm going to have to miss this one.

They are on my website. Now one thing I've noticed is sometimes on ipads and iphones, documents I've embedded do not appear as they use flash SO if you see a post of mine on this topic and no documents, its the flash because the documents are there.

Thanks, I got a chance to do some actual work assembling that. But it means we're missing an Orlydoc, #14, the opposition to Sam Begley's Motion to Dismiss and for Sanctions. Orly's opposition also includes a Motion for Sanctions of her own against Begley, and a Motion to Amend the Complaint. Shockingly, she seems to have forgotten a motion to have Begley declared a vexatious litigant.


Oh, wait ... no, she doesn't know how to do one of those, because Ms. Nagamine is still too bizzy to send her a model pleading she can use for a template.

But if our operative in Jackson drifts by the court any time soon, it would be nice to see #14.

As for the matter of civil v. criminal prosecutions, she doesn't answer questions about champerty if a Judge orders her to, then there is the matter of contempt.

Also, notice in all of her filings she doesn't really cite any Mississippi case law and barely any statutes. I don't think she even dealt with the issue of filing her lawsuit past the deadline. Or did I miss something.

The statute under which Taitz brought her challenge (out of time, of course), provides that the court may increase the amount of the statutory bond ($300) as the case progresses. I would suggest that this is an appropriate case in which to do that and that now is an appropriate time to ask. Might as well get her money up front.

As for Taitz directly responding to a motion to dismiss by marshaling the law and facts in opposition (as Kingfish notes), well that wasn't taught at Taft Law Skool. At Taft, she was only taught how to answer questions on the California Bar Exam (the only bar exam a Taft Law Skool graduate is eligible to take). So Taitz does the next best thing. She repeats various lies about the President, drags in irrelevancies, makes new demands and screeches. It's worked for her before, hasn't it?

Its on page 28 of http://www.kingfish1935.blogspot.com/20 ... oming.html

I don't know about this champerty business. I think it opened a can of worms. Now that O'rly is about to learn a new legal word, it's going to be her buzz word for the next six weeks. It will show up in her pleadings. Government officials will be accused. What next?

Starting at page 29 of the embedded documents at the URL above (which appears to be Kingfish's) is Taitz's opposition and motion. However, it is difficult to read and not a separate stand alone document. If someone (Kingfish?) could retrieve that document, isolate it, and post it on a Scribd account that would be greatly appreciated.

Stern, that is on scribd.

Try clicking the view full-screen (see the button?), else maybe kingfish can send you the pdf.

Good stuff, kingfish!

Oh, BTW, if memory serves me correctly, Orly once cited two cases in the same 50-page brief (Madison v Marbury and Minor v Happersett). That may have been her high water mark for case law citations. Let's just say that Bluebooking ain't her thing.

As for statutory law, by her own account, she once went to a law library in Honolulu to check out the statutes after one of her cases was dismissed by a Hawaiian court. Naturally, her findings, as augmented by her peerless skills in statutory construction, constituted "new evidence" (along with Watergate) justifying reopening of the case. On last report, this case was reopened to entertain her opponents' motion for sanctions.

No, you didn't. Orlylaw is not based on statutes and case law, for the most part. It's based on screeching, threats, and absurd assertions.

There never was anyone like her. Sometimes we try to predict the next thing she'll do, but we're just not insane enough by a long stretch.