Bizarre, Courts, Lawyering, Society

Attorney Orly Taitz Fined $20,000 for Frivolous “Birther” Litigation

orly2The 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.”

s-TAITZ-large

“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

1,636 thoughts on “Attorney Orly Taitz Fined $20,000 for Frivolous “Birther” Litigation”

  2. Yeah, it is over, Mr. Can’t Defend Your Position. THINK OF THE CHILDREN! Nice try at shaming me though. Too bad it won’t work.

    If CEO and Insurance scumbags weren’t stealing all the money, you probably wouldn’t have to watch so many children die because they didn’t get either the preventative or palliative care they needed before hitting your doors.

    Don’t let the door hit you where the good Lord split you.

  3. Buddha Is Laughing,

    I am a pediatrician. If you knew anything about my field, you would know that I am one of the lowest paid physicians.

    I have spent many all-nighters with sick children. I have watched more children die, than you have gotten to know.

    Our conversation is over.

  6. H,

    I work in an industry where lives are not the primary stock and trade. Apparently you think you do too.

  7. Dr. H,

    “It’s important to make a profit.” Says the guy with the vested interest in making a profit.

    The Hippocratic Oath (Modern Version)

    I SWEAR in the presence of the Almighty and before my family, my teachers and my peers that according to my ability and judgment I will keep this Oath and Stipulation.

    TO RECKON all who have taught me this art equally dear to me as my parents and in the same spirit and dedication to impart a knowledge of the art of medicine to others. I will continue with diligence to keep abreast of advances in medicine. I will treat without exception all who seek my ministrations, so long as the treatment of others is not compromised thereby, and I will seek the counsel of particularly skilled physicians where indicated for the benefit of my patient.

    I WILL FOLLOW that method of treatment which according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patient and abstain from whatever is harmful or mischievous. I will neither prescribe nor administer a lethal dose of medicine to any patient even if asked nor counsel any such thing nor perform the utmost respect for every human life from fertilization to natural death and reject abortion that deliberately takes a unique human life.

    WITH PURITY, HOLINESS AND BENEFICENCE I will pass my life and practice my art. Except for the prudent correction of an imminent danger, I will neither treat any patient nor carry out any research on any human being without the valid informed consent of the subject or the appropriate legal protector thereof, understanding that research must have as its purpose the furtherance of the health of that individual. Into whatever patient setting I enter, I will go for the benefit of the sick and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief or corruption and further from the seduction of any patient.

    WHATEVER IN CONNECTION with my professional practice or not in connection with it I may see or hear in the lives of my patients which ought not be spoken abroad, I will not divulge, reckoning that all such should be kept secret.

    WHILE I CONTINUE to keep this Oath unviolated may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art and science of medicine with the blessing of the Almighty and respected by my peers and society, but should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse by my lot.

    No where is your right to unlimited profit in that oath.

    It’s important to save patients, protecting their confidences and protect them from injustice. Even injustice inflicted by your unlimited greed. Again, if your primary concern is your pay, you shouldn’t be a doctor.

    Your priorities show you are in fact likely not a very good doctor.

    You want to justify your greed, you provide a number. That ball belongs to you, ace. I told you I though the British model was acceptable. What’s wrong with this picture?

    http://www.worldsalaries.org/generalphysician.shtml

    Why as off 2005, it’s that American doctor’s get paid almost 45% more than their UK counterparts! It’s at least that big a gap for all other countries too. And for delivering substandard care compared to countries with socialized medicine too. So just like Wall St., you want a bonus for not doing your jobs very well and wasting money. That you endorse wasting it on perks and excessive compensation is no different than if you were stealing the money out of the system to go nuts in Vegas. Pissing away money that could and should be used on patients just to stroke your sense of self worth is egoistic bullshit.

    Now what was that about how important profit is again, Dr. Greenback?

  8. the thermometer says the temperature was going up

    But where are the thermometers located next to ac units, concrete parking lots, brick walls and on roof tops. ALL DOCUMENTED. Not to mention the removal 100’s of said thermometers from some of the coldest places on earth. A very well documented fact.

    Oh and here are some recent developments that I know you won’t like but it is what it is, and it ain’t getting warmer.

    HOUSTON MAY SEE ‘EARLIEST SNOWFALL EVER’

    US breaks or ties 256 November snowfall records
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/records/index.php?ts=daily&elem=snow&month=11&day=0&year=2009&sts%5B%5D=US&submitted=Get+Records

    Whistler sets a record for monthly snowfall

    http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Whistler+sets+record+monthly+snowfall/2292455/story.html

    The average October temperature of 50.8°F was 4.0°F below the 20th Century average and ranked as the 3rd coldest

  10. Slarti:

    maybe I am missing something but the reason you have a healthy middle class is because of capitalism. there wasn’t much of a middle class in the Soviet Union. The middle class needs to sell it’s wares to someone, that someone is the rich and other successful middle class people. Who are the unions going to feed on once industry is gone? They wont be able to unionize a 3 person mom and pop operation.

    As far as being a boon to business I don’t think it will be for the simple fact that fewer people will be employed and/or they will leave to start small mom and pop type businesses, Canada has an abundance of specialty shops which I believe is a direct result of their health care system. Nothing wrong with specialty shops and it does what Marx likes, getting people back in touch with their work. But small specialty shops do not make for a dynamic economy.

    You need Fords, Rockefellers, Vanderbilt’s and Carnegie’s as well. A small specialty shop economy is nothing more than a pre-industrial revolution village with the butcher, the baker, the candle stick maker. You may get some good bread and candles and a little meat but not much else.

    You want a bunch of social programs, I would be careful how you treat the proverbial goose.

  12. One more thing before I go,

    Dr. H,

    The VA doesn’t seem to have a problem attracting doctors to work for them, what reason is there to think that a larger nationalized health care program would be any different? Ditto for England.

  13. Buddha,

    The question “Which do you prefer, uncheck(ed) capitalism or a healthy middle class? You can’t have both.” was directed at Byron, not you – I think that I can guess your answer to this question. 😉 Also, I notice that the close parenthesis snuck into the end of my link. (sigh.) One of those days… I’m going to go and get some work done now…

  14. Buddha Is Laughing,

    It is important to make a profit. Just like the rest of the world, I have to pay my bills. I live in a modest 60 year old house, and drive a 10 year old vehicle. I also spend one month per year on medical missions in foreign countries (for no pay).

    How much do you think a physician should “be permitted” to make every year?

  15. Buddha,

    I like your cancer analogy. As someone who does cancer research (for another month at least) I couldn’t agree more. Capitalism is a tool of society, it is not sacred. While it generates enormous wealth, unchecked it also concentrates that wealth – choking off the middle class (See Elizabeth Warren’s article at HuffPo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-warren/america-without-a-middle_b_377829.html). Which do you prefer, uncheck capitalism or a healthy middle class? You can’t have both.

  17. And before you say anything silly again about centralized control, I ask you what is the goal of the game “Monopoly”? Capitalists of the unrestricted sort seek to dominate, control, a market. Centralized control. Just not beholding to the public.

  18. Byron,

    You said:
    “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.”

    The key to a successful public option is in the size of the pool – if it consists of the people who cannot get private insurance, it is going to lose money (the private insurance companies only refuse coverage when they can’t make money on it). You need a large pool with a reasonable mix of healthy and sick people for the economies of scale to work – if the insurance companies just insure healthy people and let the government take care of sick people what good are they (except to generate huge profits for their CEOs and shareholders). If a government-run (and unsubsidized) public option is available to anyone who wants it at a cheaper cost to the individual don’t you think that this will force insurance companies to lower rates and improve service? If the insurance industry can’t compete on a level playing field with a public option, then what good is it?

    p.s. If I seem somewhat passionate about this, it is because I will be unemployed in a month (didn’t get new funding) and will lose my current health insurance so this is very personal to me. Our current health care system is something that America should truly be ashamed of.

  19. Buddha Is Laughing,

    What part of my comment provided the opening, or was the inspiration for your personal attack?

  20. Byron,

    You need to quit making false attributions.

    I’ve said free markets are fine for most stuff. Health care isn’t one of them.

    And your understanding of economics is flawed. It’s not individuals acting in isolation. It’s a group dynamic and it’s relational. The individual states of the components determines the state of the overall system not just by their intrinsic quality but their relation to other components. The components innate states are modified by data shared with neighbors related to their relative position and innate qualities. The health of the individual component is irrelevant if all the other components die. It becomes a simple system and thus capable of less work. What is left when you allow one component to quash the rest is the King of Nothing. Nothing that is but the fading ego of the components that tore the social fabric. If one component is allowed to unbalance the system (for profit or whatever reason) to the point to collapse that shows the error you make in extrapolating a political idea that applies to a quality of components – individual freedom – into a behavior that’s not always good for the overall health and stability of the system in toto – capitalist economics. Individual freedom to ensure the maximum efficiency of the components is essential, but constraints on that freedom are essential to keep the whole system healthy. It has to be balanced by law. That’s one of the reasons we have law. Economics are like an ecosystem or a body. The parts can’t live without the whole. Your version of capitalism once again shows it’s analogous to cancer. You favor unlimited cell growth even if it means the body dies.

    You’re still wrong.

Comments are closed.