Replies

Question to you 3 (and any other lawyers here) I am curious as to why Orly isn’t getting into trouble for filing complaints in states where she is not lawfully licensed to practice law? (In fact, I believe that in most of these states, she wouldn’t even be qualified to take the bar exam, given that she didn’t graduate from an accredited law school.) In the Florida case, she filed a motion for limited admission Pro Hoc Vice and she listed local counsel (who was supposedly “sponsoring” her as associated counsel in that jurisdiction) but her motion was not granted, from what I have been able to tell and the local counsel, while listed in the filings, NEVER SIGNED THEM! So far, I believe that she has filed in Ohio, Florida and Georgia and she’s certainly not licensed in any of those three states. Why do you think that she’s not stepping in deep doo-doo and getting smacked down by the judges on that basis alone?

The Florida Judge accepted the TRO as a "pro se" TRO. In other words, he refused to recognize Taitz as the attorney in the case.

As for the other judges (Texas and Georgia; not Ohio), they've let it go for some reason. Maybe because it was in the context of a TRO and they wanted to address the "emergency nature" of the case? Maybe they've elected to ignore that in order to rule on the "merits" of the TRO. That's the only rational explanation I can come up with.

"As for the other judges (Texas and Georgia; not Ohio), they've let it go for some reason."

I spent 20+ years as a military lawyer, so I'm probably not the right guy to ask. I have had some, but limited experience in Federal court - plus, most states have an special admissions exceptions for military lawyers who meet other administrative requirements (ie admitted to the federal bar as well as admitted the bar in another state).

I think the exigency of a TRO is a probable reason in this case, but I'm at a loss for the other actions. Do you know for sure she wasn't granted Pro Hac Vice in those other cases?