no, that motion was last april. The judge disqualified the attorney at the time - reasoning that he would be called to testify in this case, and so couldn't be a representative of the plaintiff. That sip sailed long ago. However, when i last filed a rule 11 on the topic, and a motion to strike, it was 4 months ago. If these motions were out of line, the attorney, who was visibly nervous that I had taken these actions, would have kjsut let it slide, and laughed while the judge spanked my pro se butt out of court. he didnt, he panicked, threatened to file a rule 11, and filed a motioni to strike. When he saw I was unmoved about the rule 11 and ddint care about his threats, he then began to beg me in emails to withdraw it . I then agreed to strike it - AFTER he left the case. He did, and was very appreciative of the mercy.
However, now that the same situation cropped up, that another stall has occurred because of that affidavit, I am going to file this again. BUT, i want to make sure i have standing. Even though it seems I do, cuz that attorney would have mentioned something about my lack thereof, I am now concerned, because this lawyer who is like the MONEYBALL (always good) - and is never wrong - says I dont have standing. But he may not have had as many facts as the first one. ALthough another greta lawyer on here said I do (the quoted material form the first post)
So basically, if you can see ANY reason i might have standing, thats all i need, because i think I do as this case is an anomaly in too many ways to explain (for one thing I have been suing an NSA developer of spyware intercept for a year. Despite the fact that no one has ever gotten a ruling versus a spyware maker, I got one, which shook them to the core that a pro se did that) . SO this should be viewed in a different light than most cases, I think.