The 4/3 DCA then reversed Fell. (And SCOCA denied the PFR.)

No news? Are we four days into a jury trial? Hung jury? Jury pleads temporary obly-induced insanity?

Nothing new reflected on the court's website. Trial is still listed as:

The following are the latest on the docket.

New Docket Entries...



At present I am having difficulty downloading Document 50 from the court site. I will post it as soon as possible.

Why am I not surprised at Orly's actions and mis-statementlie to the Court after reading Document 50.

"She told me she was in the bathroom". Poor Mr. Ettinger, the worst is yet to come!

Kinda gives a whole new meaning to "Orly's latest poopies."

Pre-trial motion?....




















I'll get me coat

shrek, FTW

Dang, shrek, you owe me a new monitor!

He obviously misunderstood. She didn't say she and Johnson were "too far apart".

She said she and reality were too far apart.

She's over here.
----------------------------------------->
And reality's over here.

So, good Fogbowsers with CA & OC legal experience and knowledge, is there any chance that this lie to the court will have any negative consequences for Orly?

Or does she continue to be able to waltz along where angels (and all real lawyers) fear to tread?

Yep, all the real lawyers are just jealous of Orly!

My sense is that her failure to comply with any of the court's pre-trial deadlines and requirements is so severe that the court will simply disallow her from proceeding to trial. The court could also dismiss her lawsuit outright as a sanction, for failure to comply compounded by the inaccuracy of her statement of compliance. I'll be surprised, and disappointed, if a court allowed such a poorly prepared and non-compliant attorney to proceed to trial, at great expense to the defendant and to the taxpayers. This is all very entertaining for us, me included, to observe on a daily basis. But it should not be a game for the litigants. The defendant is using his real money to pay an attorney to defend him, and we have no idea what his personal financial circumstances may be. I expect courts to be sensitive to facts like that.

My guess is that it went to trial anyway in Department C22. Dismissing the case would be a last resort sanction. There weren't a lot of complicated issues here. There was no hint that the defendants wanted to postpone trial. If they were agreeable to going forward, it went forward.

She probably gets away with it again.

Makes sense. Unless the defense had a realistic prospect of total dismissal with prejudice, they would just be looking at a postponed trial, more batshit motions, and more attorney fees to reach the same result later.

Wonder if she was re-doing her eye makeup. That is the way she spent a goodly portion of the testimony in the Lakin trial. Those lashes don't come easily.

Yes, but if Orly didn't comply with the local rules on things like pre-marking exhibits, she may have all of her evidence excluded. The defense may have made a very wise choice in not seeking dismissal.

Tru dat.

I'm sure Orly thinks that attaching a copy of the lease to the complaint is the same as having the lease admitted as evidence. If she couldn't get the lease admitted, she's sorta SOL on her lawsuit.

It's Orlylaw. Doubtless the judge bent over backwards (or maybe forward) and allowed her to enter that lease as evidence without a proper foundation etc., the way every other judge has made allowances for her utter incompetence.

Unlike Orly's other current case, the other side had a competent attorney on the scene. There were lots of evidentiary problems with the lease that could have kept it out of evidence even if the judge overlooked Taitz' total noncompliance with pretrial procedures. I would think the defense fought hard on that one.

When has a court ever accepted any of Orly's poopies as evidence? Near as I can tell, never.

I was thinking the same thing. IIRC, the so-called "true and correct copy" she appended to her complaint was mostly comprised of a copy of a fax from some eviction lawyer to Orly. It had at least one page numbering problem, one page that looked like an insertion and may have had redactions (on page 1?). So, it's entirely possible that Orly does not possess an original or clean copy -- not to mention foundational problems with the fax from a third party.

Naturally, a real lawyer would have the skids well greased to introduce the lease. (If it were me, I'd have probably sought an admission from defendant(s) as to the authenticity of the lease, as well as a document production request for defendants to cough up anything they have, etc.) But Orly? Highly doubtful.

I'm not so sure this should-be slam-dunk case will prove that easy for our favorite Girl Trial Lawyer, especially since Johnson appears to be represented by counsel. Guess we'll find out sooner or later, eh?

I've seen her skate too many times. On the other hand, I've never seen her actually win anything.

It will be interesting to see the final outcome here.

Seen her skate away from being sanctioned for rules violations, yes. Seen judges admit her "evidence", no.

I dont' think it's fair to imply that judges have bent over backwards to admit evidence proffered by Taitz.

None of her lawsuits have survived motion work to get to the trial stage in the first place. Have they?