get real! You are spinning the record. I read the document from your link and you are slanting facts, with great support from NonSequitor to suit you and not peripheral aspects of those decisions.
Why do you have such antipathy toward Orly? If you think you can help go volunteer on a pro-bono basis. She is funding he own efforts and if you agree with the Usurper being led out of the people’s hoouse in handcuffs then instead of throwing barbs at her, go help her out.
Otherwise, if you have nothing good to say, silence would be golden.Bad mouthing her does you no good either as your comments are very slanted, almost to the point of crossing the line of the disinformation flormula of 90% truth and then 10% of devastating agenda you build in.
get real! You are spinning the record.
I did not spin the record. I said that the Judge found her actions "improper" and "objectionable."
The Order states:
"In this case, Plaintiffs Robinson and Drake allege that they should be relieved judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) because their counsel acted contrary to their wishes in requesting a voluntary dismissal. Counsel Taitz refused to sign the substitution of attorney form presented to her by Plaintiffs Robinson and Drake. This action was improper because a client has the right to fire a lawyer at any time, with or without cause. Fracasse v. Brent, 6 Cal.3d 784 (Cal. 1972). Counsel’s actions became even more objectionable when Counsel, apparently with full knowledge that Plaintiffs wished to remain in the present litigation with different counsel, chose to take further action on behalf of those clients and have them dismissed from the action. Plaintiffs’ Counsel should not let personal differences with the attorney who Plaintiffs desired to be her substitute further delay or interfere with these proceedings."