山西省政協、民建聯司法及法律事務發言人馬恩國大律師「一罵成名」，其人以英語大呼小叫「bloody Chinese」、「fucking Chinese」，更令不少人對何謂「愛國」，有更「深刻體會」，而馬大律師當日與長毛對罵時，不斷強調自己具有大學學位，又是具專業資格的澳洲大律師，似有意顯示較長毛更「高人一等」。
不過，生果報報道，原來，馬大律師當年在澳洲當大律師，於1999年的「Re Minister of Immigration, ex parte Zhou」案中，曾被主審法官質疑他提案的理據、亦無正確理解案例，更叫馬到法庭前，要先對行政法有更好的理解，結果馬要為此向法官致歉。童工查閱有關法庭記錄，主審法官似乎相當質疑馬大律師是否對相關法例是否充份掌握及理解，而且相當不客氣：
HIS HONOUR: What is the ground of review when you use the phrase “acted without evidence"?
MR MA: When the prosecutor says “acted without evidence" it alleges that the decision-maker has not taken into account consideration or evidence of the position description or the position or the nomination and followed by the recommendation by the visa officer.
HIS HONOUR: You have to frame it in terms of law if you are going to get anywhere at the moment. Now, I understand ground (a), I understand ground (d) though it may not have any substance, but I understand it in terms of a legal formulation. What is (c) saying? There may be a legal ground in there but I just want to know what it is. Does it go to jurisdiction? Are you saying without any evidence? And what does “evidence" mean? This is an administrative decision. Administrators act on material. Courts have evidence.
MR MA: Yes. I refer to the affidavit of the prosecutor, the second affidavit if I can so refer. It is the affidavit, annexure marked MZZ3. That is the petitioner’s proposal which came before the visa officer as well as the decision-maker.
HIS HONOUR: I am afraid if you come here to this Court, I expect better understanding of the principles of administrative law.
MR MA: I apologise for that, your Honour.
「Re Minister of Immigration, ex parte Zhou」一案的記錄：http://www3.commonlii.org/au/other/HCATrans/1999/340.html