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
Byron,
The rational choice of an insurance executive is to deny expensive care that cuts into profits – the incentives (profit) are totally at odds with the goal of the health care system (the health of the nation’s citizens). Free market pressures in health care are crippling our economy (want to see US businesses boom, take the cost of heath care off of its back with medicare for all – or better yet, the VA for all). This is known to work in every other industrialized nation (better consumer satisfaction and outcomes – cheaper too!), are you saying that the US can’t do what demonstrably works in other countries?
BIL, you are absolutely right about Harlan. I have his omnibus collection, “The Essential Ellison,” an indispensable volume for any collection.
Slarti:
how about making it possible for more competition in the private sector?
And give tax credits to cover health care expenses 100% and then have a public option for people that are just unable to be covered.
There are many creative things that could be done, I just think government involvement should be limited to those who really are suffering and cannot afford health care.
Buddha:
unfortunately or fortunately economic systems are nothing but individuals. There is no “system” per se only individuals making rational and irrational choices about how to spend their money.
The free market you don’t like is made up of individuals doing their own thing for their own selfish wants, needs and desires. Political freedom and economic freedom go hand in hand you cannot have one without the other.
China may be a prosperous country but it is not free and we may be a free country but we are not as prosperous as we could be. Because we have given some of our freedom to the federal government.
I want the best for everyone, I just think free markets can deliver a better product and more efficiently because they take into account the individual and his wants, needs and desires.
I am very stubborn on this point and have seen no evidence that central planning begets abundance. In fact most empirical evidence is to the contrary. or as BobEsq would say a posteriori evidence.
Dr. H,
The point is that the incentives of private health insurance companies are all wrong. They make more money by denying care and eliminating expensive clients (cutting off the heath care for people when they need it most – quite frequently effectively killing them). It has been estimated that if you require significant heath care there is as much as a 50% chance that your insurance company will cancel your policy. As Buddha has pointed out, our current health care system is crippling our national security to enrich insurance company executives (and KILL 44,000 AMERICANS EVERY YEAR). Supporting the status quo is as about as unpatriotic as you can get.
Dr. H,
I suggest you look at the British and Canadian system where doctors earn wages the keep them in a nice home and with nice new top of the line vehicles. Vacations, nice clothes, good food. They make a very comfortable living compared to the plebes, just not the Croesus like greed on display in the U.S. where your GP may have 3 homes if he’s hooked into a good enough billing scam.
And aspire to greatness?
How about you aspire to your oath to first do no harm, “Doctor”, instead of worrying about “paying the talent”. Because somewhere out there is a doctor working a free clinic that can diagnose and treat better than you so pay has nothing to do with talent, sport. That oath you are supposed to uphold means no harm to patients, not your checkbook. Venal much? Or just a stupid oath breaker? If you became a doctor for solely economic reasons, you shouldn’t be a doctor. That’s the thinking of a sociopath, not a healer. I wouldn’t let you treat my pets much less a family member.
You want to bitch about the media? The media doesn’t directly impact people’s health. Health care – DUH – does. So put that in your tee time and smoke it, Dr. Greedy Piggy.
Byron,
You said:
“There are only 5 insurance companies nationwide according to my family doctor. That is what I mean by no competition. Why are there only 5 companies?”
So why can’t we have a government-run public option to compete with them? Everybody wins except for the companies that have been gouging us (or do you really think that doubling the cost of health insurance in the last ten years was necessary?).
Bdaman,
Two points – 1) the “smoking code” link you provided is merely interpolating a data set – it is totally innocuous (unless the data are bad, something we can get no information about from this code snippet. 2) The phrase “hide the decline” (a very poorly chosen phrase, I will admit) refers to hiding recent tree ring data which contradicts ACTUAL MEASURED TEMPERATURE DATA (i.e. the thermometer says the temperature was going up, but the tree ring data doesn’t reflect this). You are essentially arguing that we should trust the tree ring data over actual temperature readings, which is patently silly. 3) (bonus point) Even if everything you’ve said about this is true (which it is not), it doesn’t even start to impeach the scientific consensus on climate change, just these researchers (and any results based on their work).
Governments whether they believe it or not are constrained by the fact they ultimately rule with the consent of the governed. They have a duty at all citizens.
Corporations are only constrained by profit margins and a duty to maximize shareholder profit. They have a duty to no one but their own greed.
Yeah, I expect to you realize you can’t put someone without a stake in doing the right thing – and in fact are actually encouraged to do the wrong thing at the expense of patient lives – in charge of a social support system that affects everyone. That’s just good sense. You want less people to die? Then remove the incentive to kill them for profit.
Dr. H:
The dear leader?
We have nearly four times the number of attorneys as we do physicians, yet we have no one pushing for socialized legal services. Why is that?
Is anybody complaining about the amount of money made by the CEO of Harpo, Inc?
First we take the money from the executives, then from the actors, then from the doctors, then from the lawyers. It will continue. When we are finished, we will look just like North Korea.
No incentive. No drive. No desire to excel. But we will love our leader, and the government will keep reminding us of that until we believe it.
Byron,
That’s not where the excess profit goes – other patient’s aspirin. Drug companies don’t take a loss overseas. They are as a general rule limited on how much profit that they make. And if they do take a loss? That’s their problem as a business, not American patients. That money you are seeing is being wasted. But it sure as Hell isn’t subsidizing other patient care or there wouldn’t be this debate about the under and uninsured because all that money would be taking care of them instead of paying hangar fees for Lil’ Timmy’s Spoiled Jet Service.
That money you see being wasting is indeed going somewhere. It goes to the CEO’s.
This is not a debate you want to enter on ground of pure logic. If (X-W)/Y = Z and the goal is to maximize Z in relation to X your choices are to reduce the value of W or change the nature of Y. That’s where this argument ends. Any X diverted by operation of W is WASTE, not an efficiency.
I’m going to stick with reducing W as the logical solution. You let me know how that changing the nature of time works out for you.
Your capitalism is blinding you to reality.
You said socialism forces maturity. This is an area where your perception needs to mature and realize your cappie ideals are screwing with the common good and ultimately national security.
Maturity is a good thing in people, Byron. It means you’re grown up enough to realize it isn’t all about “you”. The same goes for economic systems.
Doubling down on stupid is a bad idea
The U.S. Post Service was established in 1775. They had 234 years to get it right and it is broke.
Social Security was established in 1935. They had 74 years to get it right and it is broke.
Fannie Mae was established in 1938. They had 71 years to get it right and it is broke.
War on Poverty started in 1964. They had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to “the poor” and they only want more.
Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. They had 44 years to get it right and they are broke.
Freddie Mac was established in 1970. They had 39 years to get it right and it is broke.
The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. They had 32 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.
The government has FAILED in every “government service” they have shoved down our throats while overspending our tax dollars.
and you want me to believe the government is the cure-all for health care.
Buddha:
I have spent the last 20 years heavily involved in the health care industry from a patient perspective. Most of the problem that I see is people with health care subsidizing everyone else. Aspirin cost a bunch of money because it is paying for the free emergency room visits, doctors aren’t getting reimbursed at appropriate rates from medicare and medicaid and private insurance and so on.
Pharmaceutical companies are charging more in America because they are taking a loss over seas. They have to recoup costs somewhere. Once we have public health care we will eventually see a lack of research and development and new innovative life saving products brought to market.
Georgetown University hospital charges $400/hour for physical therapy so they can be reimbursed $150 and they have to charge everyone $400 or the insurance companies and the government wouldn’t reimburse $150.
Health care is drowning in all kinds of BS, the least of which is a corporate jet or a million dollar salary for a CEO.
The entire system is messed up because it is not allowed to be competitive. The answer is not more of the same.
“The Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) is a federation of 39 separate health insurance organizations and companies in the United States. Combined, they directly or indirectly provide health insurance to over 100 million Americans.” There are only 5 insurance companies nationwide according to my family doctor.
That is what I mean by no competition. Why are there only 5 companies?
“Research has ruled out that our costs are out of control because of supply or litigation issues.”
Pardon, I got a little “not” happy.
Vince,
In scanning back, I caught a comment of yours I’d missed about Harlan Ellison. He may be my favorite modern short story writer of any genre. “Jeffty Is Five”, “I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream”, “Lifehutch”, “Flop Sweat”, “Mephesto In Onyx” and the list goes on and on to include possibly one of the most romantic and heartbreaking stories I’ve ever read, “Grail”. And lest we forget, he penned what is widely considered the best episode of the original Star Trek series, “City on the Edge of Forever”.
Thanks for the link. I’m in geek heaven.
Buddha,
You are absolutely right, it’s shameful that we accept the rationing of care and death panels (committees deciding when to cut off your coverage) of the for-profit insurance industry. The only things we get from private insurance care is 44,000 dead Americans a year (according to a Harvard study) and very rich insurance executives… This is what the republicans are fighting for.
Byron,
The stimulus didn’t work? Tell that to the 1.6 million Americans who’s jobs were created or saved by the stimulus (CBO estimate). Also, President Obama has bet his presidency on health care reform (as he said he would). Why do you think that the republicans are wetting themselves to stop it – if significant health care reform is passed and the program succeeds then it doesn’t matter who else is running, he’ll win in a landslide. Social Security and Medicare were both bitterly contested and became beloved programs that republicans couldn’t touch without committing political suicide – this could be the republican’s worst nightmare (or the democrat’s if they fail to get it passed).
Not trying to Hijack the thread.
Byron an engineer, Slart a Math wizz, just some FYI for you both.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-the-smoking-code/#more-13687
Byron,
That’s not how that works.
The reason the French pay less is the tell the Pharma companies you’ll negotiate or your can hit the road – make up your R&D on volume but you’ll charge a price patients can pay and the system will bear and no more.
We aren’t subsidizing shit except systemic inefficiency and greed the way the American system is set up right now. Research has ruled out that our costs are not out of control because of supply or litigation issues.
http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2005/anderson_healthspending.html
Well then that leaves the perks the scumbags skim off the top as the cause, doesn’t it? No health care CEO needs a private jet. Period. It helps not one single patient. No insurance company CFO needs a bonus based on how little they pay out in claims. That KILLS patients. There is a problem with the American health care system. That’d be the insurance companies and the hospital execs who encourage billing practices that maximize profit instead of efficiency in delivery as their prime metric. General health of the community and lives saved should be the only pertinent metrics of a hospitals performance. Not profit. Ever. That’s what got us to the point where we pay more than any other country and get far far less for those dollars. We’re financing the jets and bonuses, not health care. End of story.
I rarely have told you you are outright wrong on things, Byron. This is one of them.
Buddha:
Part of what you say is true because the US consumer is subsidizing the medical costs of other countries. For example a particular drug that in France is free costs $48,000 per year in the US. We are paying for the French to have that drug.
But I know a few people in England and they are telling me that their health care system is bat sh . . . crazy and severely messed up.