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
Nope Nana falsely reported his birf. Cause she did the DOH reported it to the newspapers. It can be proved by looking at the birf certificate. Viola no doctor or hospital. Nana was gonna tell the truth. That is why she died just before the election.
The CPGH Kenya birf certificate is real. It is not a forgery. Mombasa was a brittish protectorate of kenya. The doctor was living in Mombasa in 1961. The hospital did exist when he was birfed. People saying the mombasa birf is a forgery are lying.
How amusing (and chilling) it was too see yet more copious postings on this zany topic as I return from my foray in the frozen North. I must add some discord though by commenting on the fact that a recent poll shows that a majority of Republicans do believe that our President is not a citizen. So whether or not the horrid Ms. Taitz has lost her following becomes irrelevant, she has succeeded in her cause. Goebbels was right in believing that if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes “fact” to many, despite the ridiculousness of the claim.
Vince, who has done great work in destroying the factual basis for these claims has failed in this one respect. His intelligence, research and reason does nothing to destroy the impervious shell of the ignorant mind. In this case I have longed believed that this ignorance is born from two separate, but equally noxious strains of US political discourse. One is of course a deep set racism, that on its surface is denied by its believers and camouflaged minimally by those realizing that racism may be held but not named.
The other noxious strain is the result of forty years of propaganda backed by the coalition of patricians and corporatists, who have convinced a healthy percentage of the population that “freedom” equates to the control of the elite and the ability to choose between competing products. Literally billions have been spent in this exercise of the “Big Lie” and it has corrupted our political debate by turning relatively neutral words into anathema, thus skewing the debate by controlling its parameters.
FFLEO’s quote:
“The ABA has chosen not to review its ban on approving distance education courses which goes back to the 1950’s. In our opinion, ABA approved schools realize if they allow distance education to expand nationally they will not be able to continue to justify the tuition rates for Juris Doctor programs which average in excess of $80,000 nor the faculty salaries which often exceed $100,000 per year. In addition, most state bar associations are controlled by attorneys who desire to limit the number of attorneys in their state. Attorney admittance to bars outside of California is more of a political issue relating to limiting competition rather than any concern for consumer protection. Don’t expect any change in these rules in the foreseeable future.”
This I believe to be completely accurate in its accusations and yet I must come down on the side of the ABA and “the powers that be.” Were this not true our legal system, which has been bastardized and corrupted, would function even worse. Here down South a traffic ticket brings a minimum of 30 or so brochures from lawyers offering to defend the case for as little as $65. One can easily believe, given the horrid record of drivers from these parts, that the entire enterprise is little more than a con game with all controlling parties in on the action and little regard for the safety of roads and/or citizens.
Make it easier to become a lawyer and we will have a system that acts more as a “bird of prey” picking citizen’s carcasses and less a means of dispensing anything resembling justice.
Slart I’m just giving Vince something to debate. He hasn’t been around for a few months and he has just reemerged the last week and a half. Point taken
Vince,
I know that, I was just making a point to Bdaman. The return of your Dr. Orly updates are most welcome, thanks.
Slart, there is no competent, probative evidence to the contrary, in court or anywhere else.
There is only speculation, innuendo, suspicion, paranoia, and falsehoods.
Bd was very, very excited about the Kenyan birth certificates. They are proven forgeries. Bd has never admitted it.
Pathetic.
Appuzzo lost his case in trial court. He is appealing, and “won” the right to file an overlong brief. He is going to lose on appeal.
HAWAIIAN OFFICIALS HAVE STATED IN OFFICIAL STATEMENTS ISSUED BY THE STATE AND POSTED ON THE THAT THEIR RECORDS SHOW THAT OBAMA WAS BORN IN THAT STATE.
So when Mario says they have “presented no additional evidence” of Obama’s birth in the USA, Mario is telling a barefaced lie.
Sorry to let some reality intrude on this fantasy world.
Go see Avatar for good speculative fiction.
Bdaman quoting Mario Appuzo:
“Under the concept of prima facie evidence, the presumption that the fact exists fails when evidence contradicting that fact is presented”
And where is the contrary evidence that has been presented to (and admissible in) court?
Troll Buster on another thread has called me out. Out of respect for Mr. Treacy and his reemergence as of late,
QUOTE ON
We also maintain that Obama has failed to conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii by publicly presenting a copy of a contemporaneous birth certificate, a long-form birth certificate providing the name of the hospital in which he was born and other corroborating data which was generated when he was born in 1961 and not simply a digital image of computer generated Certification of Live Birth [COLB] allegedly obtained from the Hawaii Department of Health in 2007 which some unknown person posted on the internet in 2008, or other contemporaneous and objective documentation. At the bottom of Obama’s Certification of Live Birth (COLB), it states: “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.” Under the concept of prima facie evidence, the presumption that the fact exists fails when evidence contradicting that fact is presented and in such case the interested party needs to present other competent evidence to prove the existence of that alleged fact. If he fails to do so, the alleged fact is not proven, even if the opposing party produces no further evidence. There exists a considerable amount of evidence which puts serious doubt on Obama’s allegation that he was born in Hawaii. To date, Obama has presented no additional evidence other than the internet image of his Certification of Live Birth (COLB) and two unreliable newspaper announcements regarding where he was born. Hence, the prima facie validity of the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) must fail and Obama should be compelled to produce other objective, credible, and sufficient evidence of where he was born such as a contemporaneous birth certificate from 1961. Having failed to meet his constitutional burden of proof under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, we cannot accept Obama as a “natural born Citizen.”
Mario Apuzzo
QUOTE OFF
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
ec, good one.
Continuing the post, the Certification of Live Birth issued to Obama states that it is prima facie evidence of his birth. That means that it is evidence on its face of his birth, unless and until rebutted by probative, admissible evidence to the contrary.
Under Article IV of the US Constitution, all States must give full faith and credit to the public records of the other States. So the evidence of the COLB binds all the other States.
Article IV goes on to say that Congress may by law prescribe the Manner in which such records shall be proved.
Congress has passed such a law prescribing the requirements of a valid birth certificate or record. It is posted in full above.
The Constitution is on the web.
So the laws and Constitution of the State of Hawaii and of the United States say that Obama’s birth certification is valid.
Enough said.
Hooch,
Really, man. If you have had so much to drink you think that you’re a time traveling auntie-psychic, it’s time to lay off the booze. But while you’re mind reading, how about getting her biscuit recipe?
Unless you’re that dead dog from that crappy Tom Hanks movie.
Which would go a long way to explaining your logic – such as it is.
One usually has to be a dead dog to perform analysis with such concision and clarity. I have it on good authority that one of the reasons Vince has been so effective in dismantling all the ridiculous birther claptrap is because he is in fact a zombie Great Dane channeling the sprit of Justice Learned Hand. Hey, if you’re going to make shit up, go all out!
Hmmm. On second thought, no. It must be the booze, because Vince has quite throughly proven this line of “reasoning” vis a vis Obama’s birth status to be hokum used to cover thinly veiled racism. He did so with logic, law and precision analysis.
Over and over again.
Hell, even the pet troll knows this dog doesn’t hunt anymore.
I think Obama is an unconstitutional war criminal protecting other war criminals out of fear of his corporate masters as he is a fascist and a liar with no interest in protecting the Constitution. At this point he deserves impeachment as much as Bush and Cheney still merit criminal charges. If my daughter brought him home, I’d be PISSED. Not because he’s black though. Not because he’s not a citizen of the United States either. But rather because he has all the good character and ethics of a cheap hooker and a spine made of jello.
But Barry IS a citizen.
A lying paid off K Street whore and an amoral torture endorsing douche bag of a citizen, but he is an American douche all the way. Just like Cheney.
By the way, I have some beach front property in Arizona you might be interested in buying if you still believe the birther nonsense. It comes with a free winning Nigerian lottery ticket and an offer for “male enhancement”.
Dick Cheney has been eating paint chips again. Now he is in the hospital. Nothing that has been presented refutes that.
Hooch, this is a legal site, where the burden of proof is on the proponent.
You asserted that the grandmother falsely reported.
Now prove it.
Otherwise, we will conclude that your assertion is false.
There is no proof of this assertion. It is just an assertion, and nothing more.
Hooch,
Been smokin again? How do you refute the proposition that you presented? Prove to me that you are not from the planet Xenos? I would like proof positive by the end of the evening….
Obamas Nana falsely reported his birth in Hawaii. Nothing that has been presented refutes that.
I’m just messin with ya Vince, if I didn’t post the stuff I do we wouldn’t have your excellent rebuttals.
“…Obama’s alleged birth — in Kenya, in Indonesia, in Queen’s, and finally at Kapi’olani….”
Three lies in 12 words.
Obama’s birth in Kenya is a false allegation.
Obama’s birth in Indonesia is a false allegation.
Obama’s birth at Queen’s is a false allegation.
The truth is that Obama was born in the State of Hawaii, USA, in 1961 at the major maternal hospital named for Queen Kapi’olani.
The truth is the Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States.
The truth is that Obama is the President of the United States of America.
Under federal law, the COLB meets all the requirements of a valid birth certificate.
To the lawyers reading this, there is, in fact, a federal statutory definition of the term “birth certificate.” It is in Section 7211 of Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108-434, 118 Stat. 3825, Dec. 17, 2004.
The definition in section 7211(a) has been codified as a note following Title 5, United States Code, section 301 (5 U.S.C. 301 nt.):
http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title5/5usc301.html
The definition reads:
“(3) Birth certificate.–As used in this subsection, the term
`birth certificate’ means a certificate of birth–
“(A) of–
“(i) an individual born in the United States; or
“(ii) an individual born abroad–
“(I) who is a citizen or national of the United States at
birth; and
“(II) whose birth is registered in the United States; and
“(B) that–
“(i) is a copy, issued by a State or local authorized
custodian of record, of an original certificate of birth
issued by such custodian of record; or
“(ii) was issued by a State or local authorized
custodian of record and was produced from birth records
maintained by such custodian of record.
Under this definition, the COLB is a “birth certificate.” It is a “certificate of birth” issued to “an individual born in the United States” who is a “citizen or national of the United States at birth” and whose “birth is registered in the United States,” and that certificate “was issued by a State or local authorized custodian of record and was produced from birth records maintained by such custodian of record.”
The same definition can be found in Public Law 104-208, sec. 656, 110 Stat. 3009-716 through 110 Stat. 3009-720, Sep. 30, 1996:
http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/legal/statutes/pl104_208.pdf
bd, you have posted this misinformation before. It has been rebutted. You are still wrong. There were two hospitals in Honolulu named for Queens. Obama and his sister have consistently said that he was born at Queen Kapi’olani’s hospital.
His sister NEVER said that he was born at the other Queens hospital. I proved to all here that the source of that factoid was a statement by a high school reporter in a Rainbow newsletter, not a quotation by Obama’s sister.
The stuff in the post is not apparent on the link to C-SPAN’s coverage of the tea-baggers. The tea-baggers would be very ill advised to embrace this birther nonsense.
Hawaii stopped issuing the “Certificates” in 2001 when they converted the system. Any and ALL persons who request a copy of their birth records in that State today are issued a “Certification” or COLB, just like the one issue to Obama.
Fast Forward to the 38 minute mark.
Miki Booth, originally from Hawaii, is running for the U.S. House of Representatives in Oklahoma’s second district.
Booth presented a Certificate of Live Birth from 1949, in which her husband was born at Kapi-olani Hospital, 12 years before Obama’s alleged birth — in Kenya, in Indonesia, in Queen’s, and finally at Kapi’olani — showing that the state of Hawaii issued LONG FORM CERTIFICATE’S OF LIVE BIRTH in 1949.
In 1949, Kapiolani was listed on the Certificate of Live Birth as Kapiolani Mat. & Gyn. Hospital at 1929 Vancouver Drive, which is the previous Kapi-olani address in existence when Barack was allegedly born in 1961, not quite a mile to the East of the current Kapiolani Hospital built in the 1970s. Yet, Obama and his sister Maya conflictingly and at different times, released that Barack was born in Queen’s as well as Kapi’olani, despite Queen’s being 1.6 miles away.
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/291974-1
Right, BIL.
Orly has appealed to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Let us pause and relish this classic example of George Orwell’s concept of “double think.” That, of course, is “The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”
The person must hold positions that are mutually exclusive. She must believe in both concepts passionately and fervently. SHE MUST BE TOTALLY UNAWARE THAT THE BELIEFS ARE INCONSISTENT AND CONTRADICTORY.
Now we have Orly Taitz, the “crusader” who passionately believes that the President is not a natural born citizen, and that he must be exposed and deposed to prevent “foreign” influence in the United States.
What does she do? She appeals to a foreign body, inviting it to attempt to interfere and disrupt a lawful national election. What does she expect the UN Office to do? Will it send “peacekeeping” troops in blue helmets and black helicopters to order the President to step down because he is not American enough? Will it reverse the court decisions that have ruled against her? Will it shove the entire US law enforcement establishment aside to investigate her “harassment” charges and punish the wrongdoers?
The UN will do all of this to ensure that the US President is “natural born” in the twisted minds of the birfers?
Yeah, sure, right.
Taitz and her lawyer, the Right Honorable Doctor Jonathan Hans Levy, are both grads of Taft Law School.
Was there ever a better argument for the ABA to accredit law schools,and for bar associations to prohibit grads of online or correspondence schools from admission?
Mutually contradictory beliefs. Passionate belief in both. Total ignorance of the conflict.
As Kurt Vonnegut might have said, Orwell is up in heaven, smiling this morning.