At the Fogbow, Piffle has posted the following overview of Orly’s follies and those of her fellow plaintiffs. Remember that the defendants have put Orly on notice that they may be pursuing Section 1927 sanctions which are sanctions that go directly to the attorney, not the parties. In the next few postings I intend to explore the extent of her incompetent filings and arguments in more details, as the court was helpful in pointing out some of them during one of the hearings. Furthermore, given the shoddy nature of the RICO filings, her failures to properly redact SSN numbers, not to mention barratry and the unauthorized practice of law… And given that the attorneys for the defendants are intimately aware with Orly’s follies, the hearing may be quite a spectacle.
PS: The punishment for Champerty and maintenance is one year
§ 97-9-13. Champerty and maintenance; penalty.
Any person violating any of the provisions of Section 97-9-11 shall be guilty of maintenance and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for one year in the state penitentiary.
But back to Piffle
The only high-stakes hand at this table is T88, who’s all-in. The game is five-card Section 1927 sanctions which are attorney sanctions, not party sanctions. The big fish is the one who “multiplies the proceedings …unreasonably and vexatiously.” To the extent that the Leah-Lena spat contributed to expanding the proceedings, it’ll only land on T88. (Lax was looking to bolt out the back door — a mitigating factor, if anything.)
I suppose all of the plaintiffs — at least the ones who actually signed pleadings — might have had some exposure to Rule 11 sanctions for filing and then amending a frivolous lawsuit in the first place. But AFAIK they did not receive contemporaneous “safe-harbor” warnings, so that’s pretty much water over the dam. Ever since the case has been before Judge Wingate, the “multiplication” has been all T88, perhaps with a little bit of help from Fedorka, who actually signed some of the shit and stayed more-or-less joined at the hip with Orly.
– Frivolously adding plaintiffs and recklessly naming alleged co-conspirators ranging from members of the media, private web sites, elected officials, myriad public officials up to and including a Federal judge! (unnecessarily and frivolously adding to the complexity and inscrutability of the action and abusing the litigation privilege by making ungrounded scurrilous allegations)
– Vexatiously engaging in barratry and the unauthorized practice of law (replete with an unethical, unenforceable agreement to hold T88 harmless)
– Trying to block removal to Federal Court by writing legally vacuous demand letters to the judge (requiring defendants to file oppositions even though the demands were improperly brought)
– Submitting papers with unredacted social security numbers (requiring a motion to strike and an order by the magistrate judge)
– Filing at least one frivolous motion for sanctions against opposing counsel (requiring an opposition)
– Filing a frivolous and scurrilous “RICO Statement” in which new allegations not found in the complaint were raised and additional non-party “respondents” were named
– Papering the Court and opposing counsel with reams of repetitive, worthless, incompetent and untimely exhibits and daffydavits.
– Taking a groundless interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit
– Pursuing essentially the same litigation simultaneously in multiple jurisdictions (multiplicative by definition)
– Attempting to derail the Mississippi Federal Court proceedings by filing for “consolidation” of her duplicative litigation with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (a veritable case study in incompetence and frivolousness requiring, at minimum, monitoring by opposing counsel)
This is, of course, an incomplete list, but the point is: The “multiplication” is all T88. Ya think MacLeran’s going to say, “I helped write the amended complaint and reviewed it carefully before I signed it prior to filing?” Ya think Roth is going to say, “T88 never represented herself to be anything other than an equal co-plaintiff?”
To the extent a Section 1927 claim gets fully litigated, it’s all on T88.
But that’s just it: Does this judge have the energy and the time to take on T88’s cumulative, tendentious behavior as a rogue “licensed attorney”? Guess we’ll have to wait and see.