Actually it is in there (page 30 I think) where she was discussing the foreign relatives (again I think). It is just a line or two. This "masterpiece" includes virtually every stupid Birther theory/notion that I think I have ever read (excluding the insane stuff like Obama the Reptilian shape shifter). I would think if the Judge actually read this entire thing, he might be most disturbed by her treatment of Judge Land.

She copied and pasted a lot of that from her opposition to the other motion to dismiss, from the SoS.

Remember we laughed about "blue color workers" two weeks ago?

I missed that discussion. Did someone already think of my smurfs line?

Yes but she was pushing her magnificent lawyerness in that motion so everyone could admire her legal greatness.

Don't think so. You can use the search engine here to find out. I knew I remembered that mistake from not long ago. Mind like a steel trap.




(Rusty, and clamped shut. )

My favorite part of this one (there is so much to choose from) is how she tries to show how she has suffered damages and injury different from every other citizen and voter because she was labelled the "Queen of the Birthers" by the media and there were threats to her family.

Yes, that and all the attacks on Judge Land. I don't see how those attacks on a judge that sanctioned her are going to escape close scrutiny by the judge in this case.

After seeing Orly screech in person, the court will rule sua sponte that Orly couldn't violate the rules of professional conduct based on the highlighted portion. Orly doesn't know what she is attempting to do.

Oh dear. Someone has a grumpy at Joe Arpaio...

What the hell loopy-doopy connection are they using? Have they not heard of Skype or any other VoIP based communications? With stunning acuity like that, no wonder Orly's filings are about as useful as a chocolate teapot...

[threadjack]

Flash is evil

[/threadjack]

It's pure OrlyConn.

Pitch the sucker for a donation each and every time you converse (especially from out-of-town).

Duh.

"Such definition needs to be drawn from multiple extraneous sources,..."

I don't think "extraneous" means what she thinks it means. A three-syllable word would have been better.

The "blue color" workers are back with us.

Excrement?

It's 3 syllables....

LOL. I know the county attorney for Maricopa County, personally. He's a good man, although very socially conservative, and a Republican. Unfortunately for birthers though, he's also quite intelligent.

2 dollars to phone the USA? Knowing Orly does everything cheapo, that simply cannot be true.

Debbie, that was just Orlyanka's way of telling you that she had no time for your nonsense.

Unless she was using her mobile when on one of these angling or diving excursions in the Red Sea. In which case the call could have been routed via Saudi Arabia.

Sigh. Yes, bob, you are quite right.

How easy it is to forget that, despite the highly polished nature of her legal work in this case in which she represents no less of an important personage than the reigning "Birther Queen", she stands as a mere pro se litigant in the eyes of the law.

Which means the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct really do mean nothing to her.

Pro pers who are lawyers are often held to the standards of others in the profession. The fact that Taitz is (incomprehensibly) a licensed attorney does raise the bar.

From what I can gather, it's a very murky area indeed. For some purposes, an attorney acting pro se is treated as a lawyer. For example, it appears to be rather well-settled that a self-representing attorney is barred from communicating directly with an opposing party who is represented by counsel. That is, the pro se party can be disciplined as a lawyer for unethical communications -- a problem that arises with relative freqency in divorce proceedings.

OTOH, in most but not all jursidictions, a self-represented litigant is not considered to be a lawyer when it comes to collecting legal fees as sanctions.

So what's the legal lay-of-the land when it comes to professional disciplinary action for frivolous and/or vexatious litigation as a whole when an attorney proceeds pro se? My overall take is that for most purposes, the personal First Amendment right to seek redress of grievances tends to trump the bar's ability to enforce attorney-disciplinary rules. That is, attorney discipline cannot impose restrictions that infringe on an individual's right to access the courts.

The starting premise seems to be that a pro se attorney is presumed to have the same unfettered rights to conduct litigation as any self-represented non-attorney. However, these rights do not extend beyond some hypothetical line defining what, exactly, is Constitutionally protected. Past this point, attorney discipline may apply.

IMHO, this Colorado opinion provides a good discussion of the sometimes-blurry tension between an attorney-individual's 1st Amendment rights and the scope of attorney-discipline. It ain't easy reading.

You guys are funny, pretending that rules apply to Lady Liberty.

Seriously, though...what is the point of this hearing? She has a case that was based on delusions and lies, was DOA due to procedural defects, and is now moot anyway since the primary is over. Why is the judge wasting everyone's time on a hearing?

Let's hope that Lady Liberty doesn't give that question too much thought before she gets there.

I suspect that one of the things Sam Begley is doing is reading Judge Malihi's decision in Georgia. That is, after all, the template of what she plans to do everywhere. And she is so proud of her performance there, too. But there will be no empty chair opposing her in Mississippi.

She might play the DVD.

It's too bad that Courts frown on eating popcorn when is session.