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
Bob,
You rascally devil.
Let’s stir up the pot in this inane argument.
Fact: Barack Obama is not the 44th natural born citizen to become President of the United States.
http://www.usofearth.com/2011-obamas-coup-fails.php
That is right, Mike.
The birthers keep repeating the Big Lie, just like the Germans in World War II and the Russians in the Cold War. They should remember that we won both wars.
The say Obama has no birth certificate. Lie. He has one and has released it. They just do not like it, even though federal law guarantees its validity and its authenticity is verified by independent observers.
They claim he was born in Kenya. Lie. Those birth certificates are proven forgeries.
They claim he needs two citizen parents. Lie. This is a crank “constitutional” theory that was never heard of before Obama ran in 2008.
Well Bdaman, You Be ‘da man now since the ‘legal’ ball–through refutation and challenge–has bounced back in your court.
The problem with those like bdaman and hooch is that the “Big Lie” just needs constant repetition to be effective with the non-thinking and no amount of refutation will be entertained. These trolls do not discuss, they babble in the service of whatever “cause” they have. There is no alternative to the fact that the President is legitimately in office, yet the lies keep coming despite evidence highly to the contrary. These trolls are propagandists, or dupes of propagandists, whose only talent is falsely raising the positions on this to one’s of equality with the truth, although that equality is non existent.
That clip above by McCain’s campaign strafing the birther follies of his opponent?
Sure has got Orly’s attention:
“Today he released a National re-election campaign add, where he included a clip of my NBC interview and where he is saying that we have more important things to do, then deal with Obama’s illegitimacy to presidency. This is a despicable behavior. Though I respect McCains military record, his latest add is appalling.”
Sources and full story by Eric Kleefeld at Josh Marshall’s TPM:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/orly-taitz-blasts-mccain-for-attacking-her-in-anti-birther-web-vid.php?ref=fpblg
Here is the clip, posted above, February 24, 2010 at 4:38 pm
http://www.youtube.com/user/johnmccaindotcom#p/a/u/0/28qf6QOfpC0
As usual, Orly is completely off base. The add is completely truthful in all respects. It used her own words, verbatim. It raised a legitimate public policy issue. She would like to see all criticism of her bizarre views suppressed.
Sorry, Orly. This is the USA, not the USSR. We are all allowed to point out your falsehoods.
The other troll, hooch, asked for three sources of the definition of natural born citizen.
Well, the good Doctor Conspiracy has already done the work, and deserves full and complete credit:
QUOTEon: Legal dictionary?
NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
Independently of the constitutional provision it has always been the doctrine of this country except as applied to Africans brought here and sold as slaves and their descendants that birth within the limits and Jurisdiction of the United States of itself creates citizenship. In the case of Lynch v Clarke (N. Y.) 1 Sandf. Ch. 583 Assistant Vice Chancellor Sandford said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the limits and allegiance of the United States whatever the situation of his parents was a natural born citizen and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession In re Look Tin Sing (U. S.) 21 Fed. 905, 909.
The term natural born citizen of the United States means all persons born in the allegiance of the United States. United States v Rhodes (U. S.) 27 Fed. Cas. 785, 789. The natural born subjects of a monarch comprise all persons born in the allegiance of the King United States v Rhodes (U. S.) 27 Fed. Cas. 785, 789.
Every person born within the United States its territories or districts whether the parents are citizens or aliens is a natural born citizen within the sense of the Constitution and entitled to all the rights and privileges pertaining to that capacity Town of New Hartford v Town of Canaan 5 Atl, 360, 364, 54 Conn. 39 (citing Rawle Const. U. S. p. 86). See also Lynch v Clarke (N. Y.) 1 Sandf. Ch. 584, 2 Kent, Comm. (9th Ed.); McKay v Campbell (U. S.) 16 Fed. Cas. 157; Field Int. Code 132, Morse Citizenship § 203.
Judicial and statutory definitions of words and phrases By West Publishing Company
I also found this in the same dictionary:
NATURAL BORN
The term “natural born,” as sometimes used, means bastard; born out of wedlock. Bouv. Law Dict. On the other hand, it has been held that “natural,” in a statute providing that adopted children shall have all the rights of natural children, means legitimate. Burns v Allen (Ind.) 9 Am. Law Reg. (O. S. 747). Under Rev. St. § 4425, as amended by Act 1881, giving a right of action for injuries occasioned by negligence and providing that, in case there be no husband or wife, or they fail to sue, the minor child or children of the deceased, whether such minor child be the natural born or adopted child of the deceased, shall have such right, etc., the words are simply used to show that adopted children and the adopting parents are to have the benefit of the act, the same as in case of children by procreation Marshall v. Wabash R. Co., 25 S. W. 179, 180, 120 Mo. 275.
Another way to look at it is that “natural born” citizens (born citizens) contrast to naturalized citizens (adopted citizens). unQUOTE
“Ballantine” added some more: QUOTEON:
If you like dictionaries, here are some more:
“Natural Born Citizenship Clause. The clause of the U.S. Constitution barring persons not born in the United States from the presidency.” Black’s Law Dictionary, eigth edition (1999)
“Native: A natural-born subject or citizen; a citizen by birth; one who owes his domicile or citizenship to the fact of his birth within the country referred to.” Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Addition (1994).
“Natural-born Citizens, those that are born within the jurisdiction of a national government; i.e., in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens, temporarily residing abroad.” William Cox Cochran, The student’s law lexicon: a dictionary of legal words and phrases : with appendices, Pg. 185 (1888)
“Citizenship” ….Citizens are either native born or naturalized. Native citizens may fill any office; naturalized citizens may be elected or appointed to any office under the constitution of the United States, except the office of president and vice-president.” Bouvier Law Dictionary (1843)
“NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN. A person whose citizenship derives from the nation where he or she was born.” Kenneth Robert Redden, Enid Veron, Modern Legal Glossary, pg. 263 (1980) UNQUOTE
Hooch and Badaman can find this all at Dr. Conspiracy’s excellent and recommended site:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/02/kerchners-dont-ask-dont-tell-ad/
I will take a look at bdaman’s list when I get time, but in the meantime it is just a worthless list of titles of statutes.
If the bad man would care to quote the portions of the laws that he thinks are relevant, describe the particular actions to which he thinks they may apply, and explain just how those actions violate those laws, then, and only then, there may be a subject for debate.
Without that, we have to (1) speculate about what provisions he thinks are applicable, and (2) speculate about what particular actions that he thinks violate them, and (3) speculate about the man’s legal theories.
We can’t read his mind.
Life is short.
Besides, the little plagiarist did not even come up with the list himself.
I had not seen any evidence of legal acumen. So I took his list and pasted it into google. (This is a recommended scientific test for all of his postings. It is like the rule that all experiments and observations offered by a scientist must be replicated and proven repeatable).
As usual, the troll cut and pasted a list from the Internet, in this case from the extremist “American Grand Jury” and pasted if up as if he had written it himself.
As they say at the Urban Dictionary, “1. troll One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.”
Here is an example of how ridiculous and stupid these charges are:
False Personation of Citizen of the United States (18 U.S.C. 911).
QUOTE It states: “Whoever falsely and willfully represents himself to be a citizen of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”
The analysis said: “If Mr. Obama is not a natural born citizen, then he must have other proof of United States citizenship. If he has neither of these, then as acting head of state he is holding himself out to be a citizen of the United States, and is therefore liable under this section as well.” UNQUOTE
Documented Source ©™®:
http://americangrandjury.org/lawyer-who-challenged-obama-ineligibility-could-prove-costly
I HAVE POSTED HUNDREDS, IF NOT MORE THAN A THOUSAND, STATEMENTS ON THIS SUBJECT. THE SO-CALLED “CHARGE” IT IS FALSE.
Obama is a US citizen. He is a natural born citizen. He has produced his legal birth certificate issued by Hawaii. It meets the definition of birth certificate under federal law. It has been verified by independent news organizations. There is no credible evidence to the contrary, only forgeries of foreign birth certificates and empty speculation.
So this charge is a barefaced lie, a consciously malicious falsehood made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of its truth or falsity.
It is not the basis for a reasoned discussion.
So much for the troll’s legal capacity. Maybe the troll can learn to write his own stuff.
Do not feed the troll.
Slart….
Since Bdaman has *baited* this thread, I too await with *bated* breath for the counselor’s reply.
FFLEO,
So they’re legal and Vince will tell us if they’re legitimate (I wonder what he’ll say…), but are they professional?
Buddha,
The huge manatee is about as good as my pun game gets (and it obviously wasn’t my creation), so I’ll leave those heights to you and Elaine. A friend and I did fill up the entire blackboard with ‘sin’ puns before Algebra class one day…
Bdaman,
Thanks. I will defer to Vince T. regarding the applicability of those Codes/Statutes to Mr. Obama.
How bout these for starters FFLEO
18 U.S.C. § 912 : US Code – Section 912: Officer or employee of the United States
18 U.S.C. § 371 : US Code – Section 371: Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States
18 U.S.C. § 2388 : US Code – Section 2388: Activities affecting armed forces during war
18 U.S.C. § 1542 : US Code – Section 1542: False statement in application and use of passport
18 U.S.C. § 911 : US Code – Section 911: Citizen of the United States
18 U.S.C. § 1621 : US Code – Section 1621: Perjury generally
Slarti,
You can blame Elaine. She’s forced us all to pick up our pun game to a new level. 😀 She is indeed the master.
Hooch, Bdaman ate all.
I voted for Obama, although I could never do so again. Therefore, please find a legitimate, legal, and professional means of removing him from the presidency or we will just have to wait until the next election in 2012.
There can be only one response to Buddha’s vein comments and Vince’s Byrne-ing punditry: OH, THE HUGE MANATEE!
Right, Mike. Hooch sounds like a Byrne-again birfer. Like Bdaman.
“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.”
Good challenge hooch, but first given the overall mediocrity of your productions thus far, please list 3 reasons why anyone should take you seriously. I also find it interesting that your posts have expanded from their original incoherence which I surmise is a factor of another re-birthed troll. You’ve written nothing that has not already been refuted and added nothing to this debate except for the expression of smugness that your glaring ignorance gives you.
Raff, good call. Time to throw in the towel on this thread. Bdaman, your posts are an example of the sleaziest and most dishonest side of you. VT, Slart, et. al. I credit your wit and persistence which I admit far exceeds my own.
Here is the website for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Pages/WelcomePage.aspx
Check the search window. There are o results for Orly Taitz or Jonathan Levy and the letter. There is a whiff of fraud in the use of the UNHCHR emblem as the letterhead.