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
Bdaman,
Bush has already done his damage, but you are continuing the falsehoods for what possible reason? Are you well paid for your crimes against the country? What did the Nixon people call it during Watergate? Do you also get your kicks by ordering pizza’s under assumed names? Wouldn’t intentional lies be a mortal sin according to the Church? The good Benedictine Nuns always told me lying was a sin. Maybe the Pope can give you absolution since you are doing the Lord’s work….by Vatican and RNC standards at least.
Rafflaw
Blame Bush
Mike S.,
You have more patience than I do trying to deal with trolls like Bdaman who do not work in the fact based world. This latest defamation of the Schools Czar is just outrageous. And to think Bdaman is getting some of this crap from a Catholic blog site is even more outrageous. Especially since the Catholic Church has such a clean history of dealing with the truth. Just ask all of those kids who were abused by priests who were hidden from law enforcement.
Hong Kong
December 2, 2009
Weather
November coldest since 1981
November was cooler than usual with a mean temperature of 20.5 degrees Celsius, 0.9 degrees below normal, the Hong Kong Observatory says.
November 17 was the first cold day with daily minimum temperature of 12 degrees or below – the earliest winter since 1981.
http://www.news.gov.hk/en/category/environment/091202/txt/091202en04004.htm
The cold storm system dropping from the northeast out of Canada will be unusual since the coldest temperatures will bypass Northern California communities such as Red Bluff and Redding but drop Sacramento Valley temperatures Monday to a record 27 degrees.
That’s the coldest for Dec. 7 since the National Weather Service began tracking temperatures in Sacramento in1849.
http://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/story/2374422.html
Rich S. is the latest incarnation of Jim Byrne, he’s working hard to write differently but it comes through. Bdaman is as he says, just earning some money throwing up shit and hoping some of it stinks. Ib both instances we have moved far beyond the political and into the realm of “Wonderland” where down is up and up is down. We can argue with these fools forever and they will still lie and obfuscate. Hatred is a terrible thing and these two are filled with it.
Elaine M
you, as a retired teacher I was wondering, have you ever reviewed the books promoted by Kevin Jennings, the school Safety Czar appointed by Obama. There is a campaign that started today in quest of his immediate removal. Links to the books are located at the bottom of this open letter.
http://www.catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=34977§ion=Cathcom
Some of the headlines that are burning up the internet are.
Fistgate: Barack Obama’s Safe Schools Czar’s 2000 Conference Promoted “Fisting” to 14 Year-Olds (audio-video)
Breaking: Obama’s Safe Schools Czar’s Question to 14 Year Olds: “Spit vs. Swallow?… Is it Rude?” (audio-video)
Explosive: The not-safe-for-school reading list of the safe schools czar; Plus: GLSEN sponsors gay Santa play
I wonder what was in the back of Obama’s mind when he appointed this child molester.
Question: if the state of Hawaii in fact holds president Obama’s birth certificate in accordance to state policy and procedures and it proves once and for all he was born in Hawaii and further more proves he is a natural born citizen.
WHY NOT SHOW THAT ONE INSTEAD OF THE ONE ON THE INTERNET.
I think thats a fair question, don’t you?
67% “Yes” — 33% “No”
http://www.sphere.com/2009/12/04/the-point-sarah-palin-flirts-with-birthers/?icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl1|link6|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sphere.com%2F2009%2F12%2F04%2Fthe-point-sarah-palin-flirts-with-birthers%2F
During the 2004 election for Senate, the MSM sued to have the divorce records of Jack Ryan unsealed.
http://www.slate.com/id/2102872/
“In keeping with prior rulings nationwide, the court concluded that the public’s right of access outweighed whatever emotional distress the unsealing might cause.”
Did the MSM sue to find out who affirmed Obama’s birth? Would disclosure of the name of the person who affirmed Obama’s birth cause Obama such emotional distress that the public’s right of access should be denied?
“If a sitting President had actually forged his birth certificate to conceal birth overseas”.
In Obama’s case, for him to supply the State of Hawaii with a false birth report, filed on Aug. 8th 1961, would have been an incredible feat for a 4 day-old infant. If a false birth report was filed it would have had to be filed by a parent or adult relative. If the information contained in block 18a and 19a of the certificate of live birth on file with the DOH were to be released, this would answer the question.
http://s477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/stevesharp2918/?action=view¤t=30mwjyx.jpg
Does the public interest outweigh the privacy consideration? Who would be distressed by the release of this information?
As I said, Rich, lot’s of luck. Gotta go.
BTW, to newcomers, JT is an authority on impeachment, and was a leading constitutional expert who testified during the 1990s on the Clinton case. The impeachment authority is powerful. If a sitting President had actually forged his birth certificate to conceal birth overseas, that would trigger an impeachment proceeding. So, there is a remedy. But this has not happened, so there will be no impeachment process.
The other birfernotions, like dual citizenship and two-parent, are just crank constitutional “theories.” They are similar to the folks who say the President must be male because the Constitution says that “he” shall take the oath.
If the birthers do not like it, put in a proposed amendment to require birth in the US to two citizen parents as a qualification for the Presidency.
“Lot’s of luck on the arguments on quo warranto by military officers. They have no interest in occupying the office of President.”
The holding in Newman does not require the to have an interest in occupying the office of President. If it did, the Court would have used the word “and”. But they didn’t. They used the word “or”.
“claim in the office OR interest therein different from that of every other citizen and taxpayer of the United States. [emphasis added]
Slart said “I do think that it is possible that in the run up to the 2012 election that a case will be heard (and lost).”
Slart, it has already been heard and lost on the merits in the Court of Appeals in Indiana, a state appellate court that was not limited by the Article III restrictions on standing and Case or Controversy.
The case was brought in a state court of general jurisdiction. It looked at all the arguments and dismissed them, and the appellate court affirmed. It has already been decided on the merits at least once.
Sorry, I meant to say: “I realize that quoro warranto wouldn’t work…
“I don’t disagree. I think an auto dealer will have trouble meeting the Court’s holding in Newman as an ‘interested person’.”
Bingo!
Lot’s of luck on the arguments on quo warranto by military officers. They have no interest in occupying the office of President.
They are going to lose just like Major Cook, and Captain Barnett, and Colonel Hollister, and Field Marshall Kerchner.
Phil Berg and an associate are trying to file an amicus in the appeal Hollister v. Soetero. Expect a denial by the Court of Appeals any day now.
Rich S,
Ow, that looked like it hurt! I’d put something on it right away before it swells up. Now we get to see if you’re man enough to admit when you are wrong or if you’ll ignore any attempt at reasonable debate like Bdaman or run away with your tail between your legs.
Vince,
I realize that quo warranto, which is why I noted that my comment was merely a hypothetical and would never be more. I most certainly do not doubt your trademarked prediction (thanks for letting me know how you did that – you too, Nal, I’m a MAC person, too). I do think that it is possible that in the run up to the 2012 election that a case will be heard (and lost) on the merits, so I think that pointing out there are bigger hurdles out there than the one that the bithers are tripping over now is relevant.
“If you request a copy of your birth certificate the DOH will send you a COLB. That does not prevent you from viewing and obtaining a certified copy of the original vital records. Many countries do not accept a COLB as sufficient proof.”
This is the same old birhter misinformation regurgitated.
The COLB is the only form now issued. At Dr. Conspiracy, richCares, who is Hawaiian, confirmed it. I posted this on the Sign of the Times thread:
Q
In 2001, Hawai’i’s paper documents were reproduced in electronic format but “any paper data prior to that still exists,” Health Department spokeswoman Okubo said.
Okubo would not say where Obama’s original birth certificate is, but said “we have backups for all of our backups.”
“Our Certificate of Live Birth is the standard form, which was modeled after national standards that are acceptable by federal agencies and organizations,” Okubo said. “With that form, you can get your passport or your soccer registration or your driver’s license.”UQ
Everyone accepts the COLB. I have posted links and proof for this. Let Rich call DOH Monday morning and find out if they still give out the old forms.
I don’t disagree. I think an auto dealer will have trouble meeting the Court’s holding in Newman as an “interested person”.
A military officer who received their commission from Barack Obama, would/should conform to the SCOTUS holding in Newman. (This only applies to our new officers, and only because they receive their commission from the President)
Is the interest in the office personal? Yes. Much like Walpin would be considered to have a personal interest, because only a de jure President can fire him; only a de jure President can commission an officer.
Newman: “While every citizen and every taxpayer is interested in the enforcement of law and in having only qualified officers execute the law, such general interest is not a private but a public interest, which is not sufficient to authorize the institution of quo warranto proceedings.”
The officer commissioned by Barack Obama does indeed have an interest that is personal. If Barack Obama does not meet the qualifications set forth in Article II, he cannot perform the function set forth in Article II. The validity of the officer’s commission is personally and directly related to the legitimacy of Barack Obama.
Newman: “An interested person within the meaning of the provisions of the District Code in regard to quo warranto proceedings is one who has an interest in the office itself peculiar to himself whether the office be elective or appointive.”
The interest of this commissioned officer is an interest in the office itself peculiar to the commissioned officer.
Newman: “Unless the right to maintain quo warranto proceedings under the District Code were limited to persons actually and personally interested, every officer attached to the government at Washington would be subject to attack by persons having no claim in the office or interest therein different from that of every other citizen and taxpayer of the United States”
The statute and the Court’s holding in Newman was intended to be limiting or restrictive, but not prohibitive.