That kind of deposition is generally of an expert witness or, in some cases, someone like a terminally ill plaintiff or other witness who will physically be incapable of appearing or, quite often, is expected to be dead by the time of trial.

In the case of an expert witness, that type of witness is generally offering an opinion. Their demeanor and honesty are not generally an issue, but their expertise to offer such an opinion.

In this case, it is a fact witness who is expected to commit perjury. There is no adequate substitute for the appearance of the witness and submission to the jurisdiction of the court before which the perjury will be submitted. If I were the other side, I would insist on her appearance within the jurisdiction of the court as there is no adequate reason for her absence.

(If I were the witness, I would be desperate to get out of this mess my lying mouth got me into, but luckily for her, if she wants to get out of it, Orly has served her, if at all, with worthless garbage.)

Orly was kind enough to post the Globe article, which ends thusly:



So, Viviano doesn't actually have anything, but she feels very passionately about her absence of evidence. That should count for something, right?

Exactly. This is what is known as a perfect witness in Orlylaw.

You're confuzzing them with the Weekly World News. The Globe is for those supermarket shoppers for whom the National Inquirer is too difficult.

You are so bad, Ducktape!

Has anyone found any evidence that this partially-finished movie (Send Money!) has any connection whatsoever to the BBC? The promo makes no such claim. I can find no reference on the BBC Web site to this film.

Tollie -- It's in English. I think that's the connection.

For O rly, that is sufficient. Plus, she probably heard somewhere that the BBC was thinking of airing it.

I love it that the common contraction for "Oh, really?" on message boards is O rly.

I mentioned that the doco seems to have no connection to the BBC in the MS challenge thread; I've been a-searching and can't find anything to substantiate Orly's assertion.

I have a theory on how Orly thought this was connected with the BBC.

Googling for BBC and Bettina Viviano, I was struck by this one find as number 19:
"
Was Bill Clinton originally going to expose Obama's ineligibility ...
article.wn.com/.../Was_Bill_Clinton_originally_g... -
2 Apr 2012 – Hollywood Producer Bettina Viviano: Bill Clinton Directly Told Me Barack ... This BBC commissioned interview with Bill Clinton hears him talk ...
"
Clicking the link does not get me anywhere, neither does googling for the phrase "This BBC commissioned interview with Bill Clinton hears him talk" -that one only helps me to establish the BBC interview was about Northern Ireland.

What Google is telling me is that the article about Bettina's fantasies was once ( April 2?) on the same WND page as an announcement for or a link to a BBC interview with Clinton. Orly, in her infinite wisdom, or helped by a secretary with very bad shorthand, has transferred the BBC logo to the wrong article.

Of course, nothing is stopping Mrs Viviano from changing the name of the firm that filmed the first piece, into the Bettina Bullshitting Corporation.

Vulviano is just another birther failure trying to drum up some birther publicity to prop up her [evidently] not-as-good-when-not-birthing life.

Viviano was on Peter Boyles' show this morning. Among the things she said was that she helped shoot Orly's first video.

"All right, Mr. DeMille Bettina, I'm ready for my close-up."


My computer still not working correctly so I can't hear anything. Still, I can't understand why someone who wants to be taken seriously would dabble in Birfism. And with Orly.