BamaLaw wrote:
Has Mrs. Taitz ever been denied pro hac admission in any of these cases? I read the Rhodes case in which she was sanactioned and scolded.
That's a great question. I believe she was denied PHV in
Rhodes v. Gates (a related "Rhodes" case; see below) but the denial was for mootness. Most often the issue has been skirted or mooted.
If Orly continues to behave as expected, her application for
pro hac vice status in this Alabama state court matter will almost certainly be made without the benefit of local counsel. She’s done this time and time again and has, in fact, usually gotten away with it. In other instances, she’s just ignored the need for PHV admission altogether and proceeded to practice law (“Orlylaw”, that is) under the radar wherever she pleases.
In fact – and others here will no doubt correct me if I am wrong – I do not think that Orly has ever filed a motion for PHV admission in any court that was properly endorsed or sponsored by local counsel.
Current ExamplesAt this very moment, Orly is up to the top of her hip boots (not an Alabama slur – we fish in waders up here in the Great State of Maine too!) in an election challenge in New Hampshire wherein she nakedly purports to represent eight other persons even though she is not licensed in the State of New Hampshire, nor has she applied to any court in that state for PHV admission. (Petition filed w/NH Supreme Court
here.)
Although her appeal was summarily dismissed on December 27th (
Order here ), she persists in practicing law without a license in that state by filing meritless motions, including a motion for reconsideration filed, I believe, only yesterday.
Orly is also embroiled in what can only be characterized as unseemly vexatious litigation in the Circuit Court for the 1st Circuit of Hawaii. Although the case is styled
Taitz v. Fuddy, and includes the disclaimer that Dr. Taitz is proceeding pro se, in her most recent Amended Motion for Reconsideration, she avers:
“Attorney herein Orly Taitz provided the court with evidence, that she is not an idle petitioner, seeking inspection of the original birth certificate of the person of interest Barack Hussein Obama. She is an attorney, who is representing over 200 clients challenging Obama’s legitimacy…”
Prior History Perhaps the classic instance of Dr. Taitz, ESQUIRE “getting away with it” was her 2009 train wreck in
Brockhausen v. Andrade (District Court for the 368th District, Texas, 2009) (
transcript here).
Although
Brockhausen leads the pack chronologically, and is arguably one of Orly’s funniest slap-stick performances, the case with the most bang for the buck was no doubt
Rhodes v. MacDonald, where Judge Clay Land begrudgingly granted Orly’s PHV motion despite the fact she could not come up with local sponsorship. We all know how that one turned out (i.e., a hefty $20k in sanctions) and, given the non-stop bombing campaign directed against him by Orly’s flying monkeys, by I’m sure that Judge Land rues the day he cut Orly any slack.
As noted above, in the short-lived related case of
Rhodes v Gates (M.D. Fla., 2009), Orly’s PHV application was denied as moot by Judge Xavier Rodriguez. However, it represents yet another example of Orly’s consistent habit of moving for PHV admission without local counsel.
And then there was
Cook v Simtech (
sordid synopsis here) in which the Hon. Richard Lazarra (M.D. Fla., 2009) characterized Orly’s complaint as a “shotgun pleading” and subsequently dismissed several of Orly’s motions as “frivolous and without merit.” Here, Orly was unable to find a sponsor and, AFAIK, was never granted PHV admission.
This is an abridged list that could be lengthened considerably with more digging into the past.
So What?Orly’s nationwide unauthorized practice of law is enabled largely because courts have taken the simplest path of summarily dismissing her suits. That is, the judges
think this is the simplest path. But that’s before they are bombarded with attempts to re-amend already amended pleadings, motions for recusal, motions to reconsider, motions to reconsider previous denials of motions to reconsider, motions for stays and, of course, predictable attacks by squadrons of flying monkeys.
Just once, I’d like to see a judge nip things in the bud by closing the unauthorized door to the forum in the first place, preferably with the admonition that Dr. Taitz cease and desist from the unauthorized practice of law in _
fill in the jurisdiction___. Wouldn’t it be nice if, upon consideration of Dr. Taitz’s (presumably unsponsored) PHV application, the Court were aware of Dr. Taitz’s history? And in opposing her admission, I wonder if Mr. Ragsdale is fully aware of the scope of Orly’s “practice.”
It strikes me that this information would best come from a member of the Alabama Bar, rather than one of them “outside agitators”. Just a thought, hint, hint.
Login
Register
FAQ
I mean, can't they just remove the president without a lot of mumbo-jumbo? 
