In the second sanction order the Judge indicated that he had allowed her to participate (w/o requiring, first, a pro hac vice admission) due to the emergency nature of the filing (I think the plaintiff was then scheduled to depart Warner-Robbins for Iraq or Afghanistan in a matter of hours from the time of the emergency hearing.) Prior to reading that - I assumed pro hac vice (admission on motion after local sponsorship + payment of $150 fee) was the only way it could be done. Methinks that Judge will think twice before granting the next exception.
If one sincerely thought and believed that the judge was dishonest, shouldn't one report him and turn over whatever evidence one has of that dishonesty?
To do otherwise seems to be an attempt to intimidate the judge and to hedge her bet. "Rule the way I want to show you aren't crooked".
Apparently, Judge Land isn't easily intimidated, though.
It'll be interesting to see what the California Bar does with this, as he ordered that his ruling submitted to them.