Reply #33: This likely concerns [View All]

[quaker bill]

the motion to reconsider, which if Dr. Rhodes read the original dismissal, had to know would be a really bad idea. The judge more than telegraphed his displeasure in the dismissal and made it as clear as day that he would entertain nothing more on this matter. What is unclear is whether she signed any power of attorney to give Orly a blanket authorization to act on her behalf. If so, then she defacto authorized the filing even if she never saw it.

It is also unclear whether Orly is bright enough to have secured such an authorization. I imagine the California Bar will sort this out. If she filed this junk without client authorization, I can see disbarrment in her future.

It is also pretty clear that Cpt. Dr. Rhodes wants no part of the $10,000 fine and is quite happy to pitch Orly under the bus to avoid it.