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
Slarti,
“I wonder how they explain the mirrors on the moon… Very shiny rocks?”
The rocks themselves are not innately shiny. They are polished by a ‘vein’ cousin.
Yawn. Nothing new in the overnights.
I was wondering what was missing here, so I checked the Urban Dictionary.
[quoting without comment or approval or disapproval]
1. hooch
Slang for moonshine or bootleg alcohol, popular term during prohibition era; slang term for marijuana that is rarely used nowadays, popular during late 60’s and early 70’s.
That mob boss got arrested for running hooch.
Let’s roll up some hooch before this concert!
2. hooch
1 – Alcohol
2 – Marijuana
3 – a whore
4 – a dog in the classic movie Turner and Hooch
1 – Pass me the hooch, I’m quite depressed.
2 – Oh my god that hooch last night was great!
3 – What a hooch.
3. hooch
A cast member of Scrubs who “is crazy.” J.D. and Turk often speak his name aloud to incite Hooch’s anger.
Yeah, Hooch is seriously crazy!
[unquote]
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hooch
A naturalized citizen, unlike a natural born citizen, cannot be President under the Constitution. “No person except a natural born Citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President.” US Constitution, Article II, section l.
So the two forms of citizenship, although equal in ALL other respects, are not equal with respect to eligibility for the Presidency.
(The witness replied that he could not answer yes or no to the question whether he had stopped beating his wife because he had never beaten his wife).
Have a nice day, poteen.
[Vince Treacy] “unless it is shown that she was a child of diplomats or of hostile foreign forces”
Where will that appear on the COLB?
[Vince Treacy] “Does Hooch not know that naturalized citizens cannot be President? In that respect, they are not the same as natural born citizens. In all other respects, they are equal.”
Is a naturalized citizen “as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen”?
Are you Vince Treacy saying that a naturalized citizen is less of a citizen than a natural born citizen. I want to make sure before I quote you. Didn’t you just quote SCOTUS about someone being as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen.
I can use it as a sword or a shield too.
Is a naturalized citizen as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen? Are you afraid to answer that question?
“A COLB is not a document prepared to demonstrate natural born citizen status. There is no reason to believe that any state would be required to accept it as proof of something more than it was intended to represent.”
Everyone, take a look at the Full Faith and Credit Clause. If a birth certificate shows birth in the US, then it proves the natural born citizen status of the person [unless it is shown that she was a child of diplomats or of hostile foreign forces] and it is binding on all the other States. That is the law until the Supreme Court rules otherwise. I do not know how Hooch or the AZ Secy of State plans to get around the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
Does Hooch not know that naturalized citizens cannot be President?
Oops, we are into reruns, and there is still no answer on that one.
Time to sign off.
Vince,
Thanks. I know Prof. Turley won’t shut it down, but I can dream, can’t I?
Thanks, raff. Nice site.
JT lives and breaths the First Amendment, and maintains a marketplace of free speech. He does not close threads.
Vince,
Good efforts with the champion troll. This thread should be closed by Prof. Turley because these birthers are just spitting in the wind and making up stuff out of thin air.
[Vince Treacy] “from Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition: “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.””
If a U.S. Citizen has a child abroad while on vacation, that child is a natural born citizen of the United States? Does Black’s cite any authority for this definition?
[Vince Treacy] “Does Hooch not know that naturalized citizens cannot be President? In that respect, they are not the same as natural born citizens. In all other respects, they are equal.”
Is a naturalized citizen “as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen”?
Are you Vince Treacy saying that a naturalized citizen is less of a citizen than a natural born citizen. I want to make sure before I quote you. Didn’t you just quote SCOTUS about someone being as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen.
[Vince Treacy] “The lawyers here know that the natural born citizen issue is a matter for the federal courts under federal question jurisdiction, since it involves the laws and Constitution of the United States. If AZ tried to keep someone off the ballot on these grounds, the candidate would have full constitutional standing under Article III because of the immediate and overwhelming injury and the fully ripe controversy.”
A COLB is not a document prepared to demonstrate natural born citizen status. There is no reason to believe that any state would be required to accept it as proof of something more than it was intended to represent.
To everyone, from Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition: “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” The persons born within the national jurisdiction are citizens by virtue of their birth. How hard is that? The other kind is citizens by virtue of their naturalization ceremony.
Does Hooch not know that naturalized citizens cannot be President? In that respect, they are not the same as natural born citizens. In all other respects, they are equal.
FFLEO, Thanks again for the compliment. I am finally running out of patience, but I am glad to have your perspective.
If Hooch “knows” that the grandmother filed the report, let’s see the evidence for his so-called “knowledge.” Otherwise, he should peddle his novel to Doubleday. I should have called this the Bourne Identity rather than Supremacy.
I would love to see this guy telling his story to a sworn law enforcement officer — Officer, officer, the grandmother filed a false report, and they have no evidence against me, so you have to arrest them.
The lawyers here know that the natural born citizen issue is a matter for the federal courts under federal question jurisdiction, since it involves the laws and Constitution of the United States. If AZ tried to keep someone off the ballot on these grounds, the candidate would have full constitutional standing under Article III because of the immediate and overwhelming injury and the fully ripe controversy.
The state officials would be sued in a New York minute, with immediate injunctive relief in the morning. The State courts are also bound by the Constitution and sworn to uphold it. Like the Court in Indiana, they would also reject the claims.
Counselor-at-Law VT, Ret.
While those who are sane admire your dedication and persistence with legalese regarding this issue, there are overabundances of turnips on the ‘Birfer’ Wagon and a passel of them will–in perpetuity–fall off and roll into this blawg and elsewhere with the same tired, old, reiteratively refuted stuff…
Good luck with that.
Hooch, here Hooch, come on boy, heel.
[Vince Treacy] “My definition was based on the provisions of Title 8 of the US Code.”
Someone can be a natural born citizen by statutory act. That means Congress can establish the qualifications to be POTUS. Farm out.
[Vince Treacy] Hawaii necessarily used the definition used in every legal source – a natural born citizen is a citizen by virtue of birth.
Every legal resource? Name three legal resources where I can look up the term natural born citizen and find that is say a natural born citizen is a citizen by virtue of birth.
[Vince Treacy] “Slarti, the birthers are composing a spy fantasy fiction thriller with absolutely no evidence to support it.”
Obama apologists are claiming Obamas birth report is reliable with aboslutely no evidence to support it. I say his Nana filed the report and the best they can come up with is that it was somebody else. Ask them who that someone else is. I know it was Obamas Nana that filed it.
[Vince Treacy] “Arnold is a naturalized citizen and is not the equal to a natural born citizen because he cannot be President.”
Is Arnold not “as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen”?
Are you Vince Treacy saying that a naturalized citizen is less of a citizen than a natural born citizen. I want to make sure before I quote you.
“Day before he won the election she was offed to keep her from tellin.”
That is beneath contempt.
Slarti, the birthers are composing a spy fantasy fiction thriller with absolutely no evidence to support it. Way up at the top, I said that the guy who claims that the grandmother filed a fake report has the burden of proof, and he has none.
When the issue of natural born citizen came up, the burden was on Obama’s campaign to meet it. They did, producing the COLB.
The birthers responded with fantasy — birth in Kenya, flight to Hawaii, baby smuggled off plane past immigration, false report filed with the State. The Bourne Supremacy.
There is actually more evidence for the alternate birther story — that Obama was born on Krypton and sent to Earth by his father Jor-El to save all mankind. Obama admitted that. On TV. On tape.
All of Hooch’s stuff has been asked and answered. Arnold is a naturalized citizen and is not the equal to a natural born citizen because he cannot be President. Obama’s mother probably did not meet the requirements at the time for foreign birth, but it is irrelevant because he was born in Hawaii. My definition was based on the provisions of Title 8 of the US Code. Hawaii necessarily used the definition used in every legal source – a natural born citizen is a citizen by virtue of birth. Under the 14th Amendment, this includes, at the very least, every person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a citizen. The only other kind of citizen is a naturalized citizen. Since Obama was a citizen by his birth, he is a natural born citizen.
Anyway, that’s enough questions from Hooch. Everything has been answered.
If he has no evidence of his granny story, and he does not, then it is just speculation, fantasy and innuendo, nothing more.
Day before he won the election she was offed to keep her from tellin.
You know she was cremated and her ashes were sprinkled out on the lava rocks. The EPA requires one to get a permit when dumping ashes. They have no record of such.
Speaking of records it bears noting that John O. Brennan, Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser for Homeland Security and Counter-terrorism, was connected with the tampering with Obama’s passport.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — The CEO of a company whose employee is accused of improperly looking at the passport files of presidential candidates is a consultant to the Barack Obama campaign, a source said Saturday.
John O. Brennan, president and CEO of the Analysis Corp., advises the Illinois Democrat on foreign policy and intelligence issues, the source said.
Brennan briefed the media on behalf of the campaign this month.
The executive is a former senior CIA official and former interim director of the National Counter-terrorism Center.
He contributed $2,300 to the Obama campaign in January…
The executive is a former senior CIA official and former interim director of the National Counter-terrorism Center.
Maybe ol Pastor Manning is on to sumpin.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4492773
Awww Vince, do you mean I’m not going to get my bither-geddon? What a bummer. And I’m always willing to lend a hand against the moon landing hoaxers (moonies?) or the cintelligent designists. My fascination with conspiracy theories started when I found out about the people who don’t think we went to the moon. I wonder how they explain the mirrors on the moon… Very shiny rocks?
[bdaman] “Hooch are you trying to say there is more than just one vital record like an amendment.”
No. I am not. I don’t know of any record but the one filed by Obama Nana. She filed the false report. That’s why Obama must keep it hidden. She was probably gonna come clean but it wasn’t that important unless he won the election. Day before he won the election she was offed to keep her from tellin.
[Vince Treacy] “The Supreme Court has held that a person born of aliens in the United States is a natural born citizen, since that child “is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen.” Wong Kim Ark”
No need to be comparative if they are the same thing.
A chevette is as much a car as a corvette, but a chevette is not a corvette.
Arnold S “is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen”, but he aint a natural born citizen. Or do you think we have different levels of citizens.