The bill is in for Orly Taitz, the California lawyer leading the “Birther” litigation: $20,000 for sanctionable conduct. U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land previously issued a stern warning to attorney Orly Taitz and others in the so-called “birther” campaign: do not file another such “frivolous” lawsuit or you will face sanctions. Land threw out the lawsuit filed on behalf of Capt. Connie Rhodes who is an Army surgeon challenging her deployment orders due to President Barack Obama’s alleged ineligibility to serve as President. Land (a Bush appointee) noted that “[u]nlike in ‘Alice in Wonderland,’ simply saying something is so does not make it so.” In the most recent order, Land said that Taitz’s conduct “borders on delusional.”
Rhodes previously accused Taitz of filing new papers in Rhodes v. MacDonald without her approval and after she agreed to be deployed by the military. Taitz declared in one filing: “This case is now a quasi-criminal prosecution of the undersigned attorney.” She is already facing a California bar complaint and Rhodes is promising to file a new complaint against her for “reprehensible” representation.
When Rhodes learned that Taitz had filed a motion to stay deployment after she had decided to forego further litigation, she proceeded to fire Taitz by sending a remarkable letter from Office Max on the advice of “Tim who works in the District Clerk’s office.” She stated in the fax:
September 18th, 2009
To the Honorable Judge Land:
Currently, I am shipping out to Iraq for my deployment. I became aware on last night’s local news that a Motion to Stay my deployment had been entered on my behalf. I did not authorize this motion to be filed. I thank you for hearing my case and respect the ruling given on September 16th, 2009. It is evident that the original filing for the TRO and such was full of political conjecture which was not my interest. I had no intention of refusing orders nor will I. I simply wanted to verify the lawfulness of my orders. I am honored to serve my country and thank you for doing the same.
With that I said, please withdraw the Motion to Stay that Ms. Taitz filed this past Thursday. I did not authorize it and do not wish to proceed. Ms. Taitz never requested my permission nor did I give it. I would not have been aware of this if I did not see it on the late news on Thursday night before going to board my plane to Iraq on Friday, September 18, 2009.
Furthermore, I do not wish for Ms. Taitz to file any future motion or represent me in any way in this court. It is my plan to file a complaint with the California State Bar to her reprehensible and unprofessional actions.
I am faxing this as was advised by Tim, who works in the District Clerk’s office. I will mail the original copy of this letter once I have arrived in Iraq.
Respectfully,
CPT Connie M. Rhodes, MD
In her Motion for Leave to Withdrawal as Counsel, Taitz suggested that her client is lying to the Court.
She states that she not only has a (rather obvious) conflict with her former client but may present evidence that is embarrassing to her:
The undersigned attorney comes before this Court to respectfully ask for leave to withdraw as counsel for the Plaintiff Captain Connie Rhodes. The immediate need for this withdrawal is the filing of two documents of September 18, 2009, one by the Court, Document 17, and one apparently by Plaintiff Connie Rhodes, which together have the effect of creating a serious conflict of interest between Plaintiff and her counsel. In order to defend herself, the undersigned counsel will have to contest and potentially appeal any sanctions order in her own name alone, separately from the Plaintiff, by offering and divulging what would normally constitute inadmissible and privileged attorney-client communications, and take a position contrary to her client’s most recently stated position in this litigation. The undersigned attorney will also offer evidence and call witnesses whose testimony will be adverse to her (former) client’s most recently stated position in this case. A copy of this Motion was served five days ago on the undersigned’s former client, Captain Connie Rhodes, prior to filing this with the Court and the undersigned acknowledges her client’s ability to object to this motion, despite her previously stated disaffection for the attorney-client
relationship existing between them. This Motion to Withdraw as Counsel will in no way delay the proceedings, in that the Plaintiff has separately indicated that she no longer wishes to continue to contest any issue in this case. In essence, this case is now a quasi-criminal prosecution of the undersigned attorney, for the purpose of punishment, and the Court should recognize and acknowledge the essential ethical importance of releasing this counsel from her obligations of confidentiality and loyalty under these extraordinary circumstances.Respectfully submitted,
By:_________________________
Orly Taitz, DDS, Esq.
California Bar ID No. 223433
FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Captain Connie Rhodes, M.D. F.S.
SATURDAY, September 26, 2009
“Quasi-criminal prosecution”? The judge had ordered Taitz to “show cause” why a sanction should not be imposed in the case. He had previously told Taitz that he would consider sanctions if she filed similar claims in the future. After the denial of the Motion to Stay deployment, Land said that the latest filing was “deja vu all over again” including “her political diatribe.” He noted:
Instead of seriously addressing the substance of the Court’s order, counsel repeats her political diatribe against the President, complains that she did not have time to address dismissal of the action (although she sought expedited consideration), accuses the undersigned of treason, and maintains that “the United States District Courts in the 11th Circuit are subject to political pressure, external control, and . . . subservience to the same illegitimate chain of command which Plaintiff has previously protested.”
Then the kicker:
The Court finds Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay of Deployment (Doc. 15) to be frivolous. Therefore, it is denied. The Court notifies Plaintiff’s counsel, Orly Taitz, that it is contemplating a monetary penalty of $10,000.00 to be imposed upon her, as a sanction for her misconduct. Ms. Taitz shall file her response within fourteen days of today’s order showing why this sanction should not be imposed.
I am frankly not convinced that sanctions would be appropriate for filing for a motion to stay deployment per se. At the time of his order, Land did not presumably know that the filing was made against the wishes of the client. If Rhodes was interested in appealing Land’s decision, which is her right, a stay is a standard request. However, the fact that the filing may have been made after Taitz was terminated as counsel and after she was told that Rhodes was abandoning the case is more cause for possible sanctions. Moreover, the low quality and over-heated rhetoric of the filing can support such sanctions. Her filings appear more visceral than legal. In demanding reconsideration of the Court’s earlier order, she used language that does cross the line:
This Court has threatened the undersigned counsel with sanctions for advocating that a legally conscious, procedurally sophisticated, and constitutionally aware army officers corps is the best protection against the encroachment of anti-democratic, authoritarian, neo-Fascistic or Palaeo-Communistic dictatorship in this country, without pointing to any specific language, facts, or allegations of fact in the Complaint or TRO as frivolous. Rule 11 demands more of the Court than use of its provisions as a means of suppressing the First Amendment Right to Petition regarding questions of truly historical, in fact epic and epochal, importance in the history of this nation.
She also (as noted by Land in his later order) essentially accused Land of treason, as she has in public statements:
Plaintiff submits that to advocate a breach of constitutional oaths to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, is in fact a very practical form of “adhering” to those enemies, foreign and domestic, and thus is tantamount to treason, as Defined in Article III, Section 3, even when pronounced in Court. The People of the United States deserve better service and loyalty from the most powerful, and only life-tenured, officers of their government.
Taitz is also facing a California Bar complaint, here. Ohio lawyer (and inactive California bar member) Subodh Chandra wrote the bar, stating “I respectfully request that you investigate Ms. Taitz’s conduct and impose an appropriate sanction. She is an embarrassment to the profession.” For that complaint, click here.
A complaint by a former client would likely attract more attention by the Bar. These are now serious allegations including misrepresentation, false statements to the Court, and other claims that will have to be addressed by a Bar investigation. This could take years to resolve — perhaps just in time for Obama’s second inauguration.
The court ruled that Taitz violated Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in filing frivolous papers. Declaring the filings as made in “bad faith,” the court concluded that Taitz’s legal conduct was “willful and not merely negligent.” Sanctions were warranted, he held, because “Counsel’s frivolous and sanctionable conduct wasted the Defendants’ time and valuable judicial resources that could have been devoted to legitimate cases pending with the Court.”
“When a lawyer files complaints and motions without a reasonable basis for believing that they are supported by existing law or a modification or extension of existing law, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law,” Land writes. “When a lawyer uses the courts as a platform for a political agenda disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer personally attacks opposing parties and disrespects the integrity of the judiciary, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer recklessly accuses a judge of violating the judicial code of conduct with no supporting evidence beyond her dissatisfaction with the judge’s rulings, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law, that lawyer ceases to advance her cause or the ends of justice. . .
Regrettably, the conduct of counsel Orly Taitz has crossed these lines, and Ms. Taitz must be sanctioned for her misconduct. After a full review of the sanctionable conduct, counsel’s conduct leading up to that conduct, and counsel’s response to the Court’s show cause order, the Court finds that a monetary penalty of $20,000.00 shall be imposed upon counsel Orly Taitz as punishment for her misconduct, as a deterrent to prevent future misconduct, and to protect the integrity of the Court. Payment shall be made to the United States, through the Middle District of Georgia Clerk’s Office, within thirty days of today’s Order. If counsel fails to pay the sanction due, the U.S. Attorney will be authorized to commence collection proceedings.
I expect that Taitz will appeal the decision, given her past statements. The opinion goes into considerable detail on her conduct and interaction with the court, as shown below.
For the decision, click here.
For the story, click here
Although I don’t like the direction Obama has taken,I don’t think he will necessarily be a one term president. Palin will either be the republican nominee or an independent party candidate. There will probably be an underfunded candidate on the left who does not do very well. That scenario produces an Obama victory.
Byron I agree however it’s the lies and deception, not just with this administration, the one before and the one before that one and before that one ect. ect. This one is just the latest in the bulls eye.
It just seems that every which way you turn whether your in one party or the other it’s turned into smiling in your face, all the time trying to take each others place, back stabbers.
The Joe Wilson you lie, turns into no I didn’t you did, lier.
It’s really a shame and climategate just magnifies it all.
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/2703332
Byron,
You’re simply wrong about the health care issue.
Every citizen should have the EXACT same coverage as those thieves and obstructionists in the Senate.
Heath is actually a valid national security interest as a country’s greatest resource is the health of its people. Letting corporations skim money off of that system for idiotic crap like CEO bonuses and private jets is a systemic inefficiency that has brought us to the current crisis today.
Medicine – from development to deployment – is too critical to national survival to be allowed to operate as a free market any longer. To do so puts us at a competitive disadvantage with every country that does provide socialized health care. The reasons – excessive skimming of profit – should be self-evident to even the most money blinded capitalist if they’ve ever had basic economics or an accounting class.
I won’t argue that point. You can take that one up with Winston Churchill and the fact that $X has to go Y far to attain Z and that if W is sucking out the value of X before the equation is run, IT’S BROKEN IN RELATION TO MAXIMIZING Z UNTIL YOU REDUCE W TO ZERO. That’s just a pithy observation by a smart old conservative leader and basic algebra.
AY:
It will be interesting. And Obama could get a second term but he wont have a democratic house or senate and will be virtually powerless which is what I am expecting for his last 2 years of this term.
He went to fast with his plans, he could still become a popular president but he would have to make a 180 about face and give up on the stimulus and government run health care. Most people think health insurance needs to be re-vamped but disagree on how to do it. The stimulus has not really worked (see price of gold at $1,200 vs about $900 in January of 2009) and job creation is non-existent because businesses are worried about government policies and what to expect with taxes and health care regulations.
Obviously these are just my opinions and observations.
Byron,
If you want to see History repeating itself. One needs to first look at the lock Bush had then lost the Majority. Then digress to TR. He had a solid lock and did not run so that Taft could run the country and when he screwed things up he got back into the game after he could not obtain his partys nomination as a third party. He split the Votes do I hear Perot and handed Wilson the election. Then jump back four score and see the debates of two fine politicians, well actually there was a third in the mix. You have to search for that name.
Just remember I am only recalling the latest history that the revisionist have seemed fit to publish. That is why it is called His Story. The last mans word is made known.
I believe that Obama is a sure loser in three years unless Palin is really running. Then I guess we have no alternative to chose from and we have to Not Vote for someone.
bdaman:
The president is pretty much through politically, at this point does it matter if he was born here or not?
My take on the mood of the country is that most are biding their time waiting for Nov 2010 to make a clean start. I think a good many career politicians on both sides of the aisle are going to be in for an unpleasant surprise.
In the end the majority of Americans wanted change just not his brand.
According to her website but don’t go to it you will be redirected everywhere and music starts playing out of the no where.
Well i quess she will ask to be removed from Orly’s friends on Facebook. Looks like some other well knowns have joined in the last couple of weeks. Beck, Hannity, Malkin, Levin, Huckabee.
Question if the original is on file and the President has a tangible interest in it, why not show it? doesn’t pass the smell test what ever the reason is.
Can someone please get in touch with the hackers of climategate. They need to hack the DOH in Hawaii before the dump the original data. They keep avoiding all of the FOIA and UPI request. Sound famil-liar.
Wow. Asked about Obama’s birth certificate, she said “I think it’s a fair question….”
But within hours, she executed a full 18o degree flip-flop:
QUOTE
UPDATE: At 1:16 AM ET, Palin posted the following on her Facebook page: QUOTE
Stupid Conspiracies
Voters have every right to ask candidates for information if they so choose. I’ve pointed out that it was seemingly fair game during the 2008 election for many on the left to badger my doctor and lawyer for proof that Trig is in fact my child. Conspiracy-minded reporters and voters had a right to ask… which they have repeatedly. But at no point – not during the campaign, and not during recent interviews – have I asked the president to produce his birth certificate or suggested that he was not born in the United States. UNQUOTE
“But at no point … have I asked the president to produce his birth certificate or suggested that he was not born in the United States.”
Amazing.
Looks like Orly has company in her “beliefs”.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/03/palin-goes-birther-obama_n_379634.html
Pretty, empty, psychotic company.
Palin/Taitz 2012 – Ignorance You Can Believe In
The latest:
TPMMuckraker
New Orly Taitz Filing (In Dismissed Case): I Get Death Threats Daily
Justin Elliott | December 3, 2009, 4:33PM:
“Birther leader Orly Taitz, who may be the hardest working lawyer in the country, isn’t letting a little issue like the dismissal of her case get in the way of submitting new filings in court.
“The Orange County Register has the rundown of her latest effort, which comes in a Birther case in which she allegedly suborned perjury. A judge in California threw out the case in late October.
“With the new filing, she submitted a putative immigration form showing Barack Obama’s ethnic code listed as “Equatorial Guinea.” And she lashes out against a “well orchestrated effort … to assassinate my character,” saying she receives death threats on a daily basis. … ”
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/new_orly_taitz_filing_in_dismissed_case_i_get_deat.php?ref=fpb
Get well soon, BIL, laughter is the best medicine.
CEJ,
I’m good. Thanks for asking. I am 95% and hope to stay on the up if I can avoid the creeping crud everyone around me seems to have caught in the last week.
Second FFLEO, Thank-you Vince!
Buddha I’m glad your laughing; how are you feeling post hospitalization? I hope your boo boo’s are all better!
BIL, last two posts are a deliberate, intentional effort aimed at stretching the smile on your avatar so wide that it splits your face.
1. Second important ruling in Berg is the fact that judge Sloviter brings forward Robinson v McCain 567 F Supp 2d at 1147. Judge Sloviter agrees with the findings in Robinson in that during the election the case is unripe, meaning there is no injury until the candidate takes office. Logical conclusion will be that the undersigned counsel was correct in bringing the current case on the inauguration day as it would be unripe previously and there was no fault of counsel, no latches.
Additionally, the undersigned brought prior to the election Writ of Mandamus on behalf of the presidential candidate Ambassador Keyes and on behalf of the Vice Presidential Candidate Gail Lightfoot against the secretary of state of California Deborah Bowen.
Wherefore the undersigned prays that the court take the Judicial notice of the Third Circuit court of appeals ruling in Berg v Obama et al in conjunction with the plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration.
UNQUOTE
Notes:
Orly, please note that Judge Dolores Sloviter is not a “he.”
How in heaven is Roe v. Wade relevant?
A “lynching festival for pro Obama media thugs”?
Orly, Orly, Orly, here comes Orly. Fasten your seatbelts. This jabberwocky was filed today, November 13, 2009, believe it or don’t:
QUOTE
Here come all the plaintiffs (aside from plaintiffs Markham Robinson and Willey Drake represented by Gary Kreep) and request a judicial notice of the holding in the Berg v Obama et al. 08-43-40 Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third District judges Sloviter, Fuentes and Hardiner. Opinion written by judge Sloviter. While this case lingered in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for a year or so, by stroke of providence, the opinion came down yesterday, November 12, 2009, only a couple of days after the undersigned has filed a Motion for Reconsideration. While this three judge panel confirmed the dismissal of the underlying case by the district court, noting that a voter does not have standing, as his injuries are generalized, a number of holdings of this case are pertinent and determinative for the current case in front of your Honor and confirm legal reasoning provided by the undersigned counsel in her Motion for Reconsideration.
The plaintiff in Berg was seeking Declaratory and Injunctive Relief under Article 2 Section 1 Natural Born Citizen and under 42 USC §1983, seeking determination of eligibility for presidency of Barack Husein [sic] Obama. In his opinion judge Sloviter finds that though the election is over, the court has jurisdiction to hear it as it “fits squarely” as an issue “capable of repetition yet evading review” Merle v US, 351, 3d 92,94 (3d Cir 2003) Based on this argument there is Article 3 jurisdiction to hear the case as long as the plaintiff can show standing with specialized injury. While Berg’s holding finds that a regular voter does not have standing, Presidential and vice presidential candidates such as plaintiffs Ambassador Alan Keyes and Gail Lightfoot have standing. Judge Sloviter proceeds by arguing that both parties with actual and imminent injuries would have standing in this case. Nearly 40 plaintiffs in this case are members of the military. A number of them are either active military or in active reserves. For example plaintiff Lita Lott is in active drilling reserves. Within only a few days of notice she will be required to leave her family behind and deploy, this can happen any day. This satisfies the imminent injury prong for the purpose of standing. Plaintiff Matthew Michael Edwards is in the National Guard and would be required to deploy on a few days notice, therefore satisfying the imminent injury prong. It is important to note that previously the defendants in current case requested judicial Notice of Rhodes v. MacDonald, which incorporates Cook v Good. Notice of appeal for both cases has been filed in 11th circuit court of Appeals. Both cases were brought by the undersigned counsel in front of Judge Land in Middle district of GA. In the first case Cook v Good the undersigned argued precisely that point, that this is an issue “capable of repetition but evading review”. The only difference being that the undersigned has brought forward Roe v Wade as a controlling authority, and judge Sloviter is understandably using Merle v US out of the third district 351,3d 92,94, (3rd circuit 2003). The undersigned has argued this point to no avail as judge Land dismissed Cook v Good claiming that the case is moot due to the fact that the deployment orders for Major Cook were revoked. In the second case Rhodes v MacDonald judge Land has dismissed the whole case 2 days after the defendant’s motion to dismiss was filed without giving the undersigned as much as 10 days provided by local rules to respond to the motion, and completely disregarding the whole 54 pages of pleading on all the points, while the undersigned precisely argued that there is a need for Declaratory relief and judicial determination as this is an issue capable of repetition, yet evading review. To add insult to injury judge Land has asserted $20,000 of sanctions against the undersigned in order to prevent her from arguing similar cases and in order to endanger her license and livelihood. The assistant US attorneys in this case have submitted Land’s order as some type of ruling authority for this case, and it became a lynching festival for pro Obama media thugs. While your Honor might have reservations regarding the Injunctive relief, at the very minimum based on Judge Sloviter’s ruling this court has at least jurisdiction to render an opinion and provide Declaratory relief and 42 USC §1983 relief. Based on the Declaratory relief from your Honor further action can be taken based on Quo Warranto or by Congress in impeachment proceedings.
Well, I can only assume that mail-order law ‘degrees’ do not afford discussions of primary topics such as ‘Legal Jeopardy.’
Appreciate the updates.
When the court fines you for wasting their time, I’m pretty sure they don’t mean its optional.
I intend to watch as she racks up even greater fines through the appeals process.
I intend to laugh every time something like one of her witnesses coming forward to claim Taitz suborned perjury.
I intend to laugh all the way to watching her get cuffed.
Then I’m going to laugh some more.
Because some train wrecks are funny.