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
By JONATHAN J. COOPER, Associated Press Writer Jonathan J. Cooper, Associated Press Writer – Tue Feb 23, 9:27 pm ET
PHOENIX – Nearly half of the Arizona Legislature wants to force President Barack Obama to show his birth certificate to state officials if he runs for re-election.
A state House committee on Tuesday approved the measure sponsored by 40 of the state’s 90 legislators. It would require presidential candidates who want to appear on the ballot in Arizona to submit documents proving they meet the requirements to be president.
All 40 co-sponsors are Republicans, comprising 75 percent of the GOP caucus. Two of them have since resigned to run for Congress.
The idea was proposed by Skull Valley Republican Rep. Judy Burges. She says if people have to prove their citizenship to apply for a job or get a passport, they should have to prove it to run for president.
Buddha: “Slarti sidesteps symmetry in re orderly collapse. Bob sidesteps complexity in execution of a CD scenario without security breach but he is able to do this “better” because he is not arguing to conclusion but rather to stalemate.”
Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
does not an argument to stalemate make.
The burden is met or it is not.
Or as Yoda would put it: “Do or do not; there is no try.”
“So if I am not hooch, does that mean that my cousin amon re is still gay homosexual male? It seems that this is redundant don’t you agree?”
It is not redundant if you are calling your beloved cousin a stupid homosexual, at least according to the Urban Dictionary. Hey, isn’t he the gay funeral director? Is that for real, or does he just have a crush on Michael C. Hall?
Personally, i don’t like the term “gay” for “stupid” and from now on will use the term “birf”. At least when it occurs to me. It seems to fit: birfer and birfers = mind numbingly stupid.
Vince: “Accept my congratulations for your superhuman efforts on the 911 “Truthers” over at the 120 Percent site. There is no hope of convincing the true believers. We can only set out the relevant evidence for the vast, reasonable majority.”
Why Vince, whatever do you mean?
It looks like this guy Hayworth is trying to step slowly, slowly back out of the tar pit up onto the shore, but he still seems very weaselly. He is trying to put his reputation as a birther to rest, but will only speak in generalities.
He should prepare for the wrath of Taitz.
Start quote:
February 22, 2010
I believe Obama is a U.S. citizen, Hayworth says
Posted: February 22nd, 2010 08:23 PM ET
From CNN Associate Producer Martina Stewart
(CNN) – Former Rep. J.D. Hayworth is putting to rest any notion that he is a “birther,” a believer in the unsubstantiated theory that President Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen and, therefore, not eligible to be president of the United States.
At a press conference Monday, the former congressman was repeatedly asked about recent comments which appeared to suggest he believes Obama was not a citizen.
“I believe that Barack Obama is an American citizen,” Hayworth said.
After several questions Hayworth added, “Barack Obama is the president of the United States.”
Hayworth is challenging Arizona Sen. John McCain in this year’s Republican primary.. [end]
Source: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/22/i-believe-obama-is-a-u-s-citizen-hayworth-says/?fbid=W-BTzgXBbhF
http://www.youtube.com/user/johnmccaindotcom#p/a/u/0/28qf6QOfpC0
I would point out that this whole thing just shows that the system works –
Slart, the system failed. Had it not been for the stolen or released emails (no determination as of yet) we would not be having this discussion. The fact is the 2007 IPCC report is full of fabrications. So while the IPCC sets the standards, they in turn break the rules.
“you believe what you wanna believe. It isn’t based on evidence.”
Pot meet kettle.
Vince it’s Jonathan Harris Levy, not Hans. Not that it matters to me, but I know how you strive for perfection.
What does a COLB for a hospital birf look like. What does a COLB for a home birf look like. No difference. That’s what I was thinking. Both would be the result of filin with the DOH.
Other than Obamas words nothing presented concludes that Nana didn’t file a false report. No statements from hawaii say anything different. you believe what you wanna believe. It isn’t based on evidence.
Vince,
Thanks. I’m only trying to follow your example in some small way – I haven’t quite gotten your equanimity down yet, though. I have found that the debate can be rewarding – even if I never convince Bob, I’ve learned quite a bit on a variety of interesting topics and as wrong as Bob might be, he is an extremely skilled debater – after I read one of his posts, he usually makes me doubt myself for a second or two…
Hooch,
Excellent, I look forward to seeing your proof that the CPGH BC is real. I’m sure someone of your integrity can provide affidavits from Kenyan officials confirming its validity as well as a statement from the Hawaii DOH confirming your allegations about Madeline Dunham.
Mike S.,
I totally agree with you about the impossibility of cracking the birther’s shells of ignorance. Several months ago I took all of the stuff I’d learned from Vince and went to post on several birther sites. I discovered that arguing the law in a clam and reasonable manner (I did defend Acorn on one of them – boy did that stir up the anthill ;-)) will get you banned on most birther sites – usually with a parting shot from the site owner that you can’t answer. I find it interesting that people who are so vocal about how they’re the only ones that truly respect and understand the Constitution have so little use for fundamental concepts like free speech. I did find one minor birther blog that didn’t ban me, but I got distracted by something shiny (or by my argument with Bob on another thread…).
Bdaman,
I would point out that this whole thing just shows that the system works – the people who did questionable things are being investigated to determine if they acted unethically and the consensus is being re-examined to eliminate any bad data. I predict that a stronger, more accurate consensus will emerge from this whole process.
Vince,
While I will stipulate there are “birthers” and “truthers”, there is an important distinction. There are basically only two kinds of birther – the believers and the non-believers. Your work on this thread adequately established beyond a reasonable doubt that Obama’s BC is sufficient legal evidence.
In re the WTC, there is a third category of participant: skeptic. While both “truther” believers and non-believers are represented on that thread, it should be acknowledged there is at least one skeptic there – namely me. I’ve stipulated that Slarti has made a reasonable case. I have also stated it is incomplete – as is Bob’s case – until three symmetrical outcomes from asymmetric events are adequately explained. A reasonable theorem is still just a theorem unless all relevant data points are addressed. Slarti sidesteps symmetry in re orderly collapse. Bob sidesteps complexity in execution of a CD scenario without security breach but he is able to do this “better” because he is not arguing to conclusion but rather to stalemate. As I’ve contended on that thread – and still do – the WTC argument/analysis is non-conclusory as it will remain incomplete (from both sides) absent further evidence.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled de-bunking.
Slart, I knew that you knew that.
Accept my congratulations for your superhuman efforts on the 911 “Truthers” over at the 120 Percent site.
There is no hope of convincing the true believers. We can only set out the relevant evidence for the vast, reasonable majority.
Empire Cookie, right, the Urban Dictionary is an excellent site.
It is very clear on this distinction: A “birf” is as described above, but it is a lot different from a birfer and the birfers. They are another breed of cat.
This is not going to help NoProof Hooch.
Mark Bennett broke the story:
Rent-A-Brain With Ghostbloggers
Posted on January 28th, 2010 4 comments
Quotation starts
Lawyers: want to juice your stats a little so that clients are more likely to hire you? Have we got a deal for you! GhostWins.com has a stable of excellent but self-effacing lawyers who are willing to let you take public credit for their results. Here’s how it works: you sign up for GhostWins.com, paying $250 per month for syndicated results (which other lawyers might also take credit for) or $500 per month for personalized results. Every week we’ll send you three or four actual successful outcomes in your field of law, which you can then publicize on your website or blog as your own successful outcomes. We all know how potential clients love lawyers who win; with GhostWins.com you create the appearance of being such a lawyer without putting in the many hours of hard work (not to mention good luck) required to win your own cases. Stop quoting.
Source: http://www.ivi3.com/blog/2010/01/rent-a-brain-with-ghostbloggers/
This stuff is great for Taft Law grads like Taits and J. Hans Levy. Taitz seemed to be using a lot of material written for her by her “paralegal” and paramour assistand, Charles Lincoln III. The quality of her filings dropped like a stone when they broke off their fling.
Mike Spindell, I agree with the need for accredited law schools. The distance learning crowd can pad their resumes with distance writing.
Wow, this is amazing! The ABA Journal has to ask “Are Ghostwritten Legal Blogs Unethical?”
Quotations on:
Posted Feb 23, 2010 11:03 AM CST
By Molly McDonough
When we asked late last year whether you thought it was ethical for lawyers to ghostwrite legal documents, the results were mixed. With more than 800 readers weighing in (PDF), 60 percent answered that ghostwriting is ethical and happens all the time. Only 14 percent thought it was akin to cheating.
Then earlier this month, we reported on a stir in the legal blogosphere over ghostwritten law blogs.
Mark Bennett wrote on his Social Media Tyro blog that, “holding someone else’s resumé, face, or results out as your own in marketing your practice is fraudulent. No ethical lawyer could possibly think that any of that would be OK. So how is it OK for a lawyer to hire a ghostwriter to write his blog?”
But others have pointed out that lawyers have long relied, without disclosure, on marketing experts to come up with strategies and content for advertising campaigns.
This made us wonder what you think. Is ghostblogging unethical? Does it matter what kind of blog is being produced? Is it OK if there’s disclosure? Unquote.
Source: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/are_ghostwritten_legal_blogs_unethical
So if I am not hooch, does that mean that my cousin amon re is still gay homosexual male? It seems that this is redundant don’t you agree?
I Know Hooch, I have seen Hooch smoke, Hooch is not as bad when he smokes hooch but damn mean when he drinks ethylene.
Urban Dictionary
Birf:
A word that was invented to replace the new meaning of the word “gay” (stupid, dumb, etc. NOT HOMOSEXUAL).
Example 1: Sheesh, Hooch can be such a birf.
Example 2: A: sometimes Hooch can be so gay.
B: Don’t you mean birf?
“Nope Nana falsely reported his birf.”
Hooch,
Thank you for proving my point so accurately and completely. you have done a great service and exemplify the kind of person who has
had so much sway in our national political debate.
Hey Slart off topic
U.N. Climate Panel to Announce Significant Changes
The panel says it will announce “within the next few days” that it plans to make significant though as yet unexplained changes in how it does business.
In perhaps an indication of what changes the IPCC may unveil, the British government’s official Meteorological Office proposed Monday that the world’s climate scientists start all over again on a “grand challenge” to produce a new, common trove of global temperature data.
So much for peer reviews and global temps.