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
I needed a break. Just watched a great HBO documentary on Magic and Bird that premiered tonight and will probably repeat all month. It was a lot of fun to relive those years.
Mike S,
Well said, as usual. What really gets me are the people who rail against socialism and in the next breath say something like, ‘and keep your damn hands off my social security or medicare!’ and have absolutely no idea that they’re being total hypocrites. It makes me want to move to Sweden…
EC,
How right you are. When I hear people saying that Nazi’s were left wingers and accusing Obama of being both a socialist and a fascist, it astounds me, because the level of historical knowledge of just the past six decades is lost on many of these birthers and truthers. I find it hard to tolerate deliberate, smug ignorance.
“What I find infuriating is that I know about socialism as an ideology and have actually known committed socialists. To brand the Administration as socialist not only represents blatant lying, but it also represents total ignorance of socialism.”
You are so right. The way the terms socialist, Marxist and communist are being bandied about these days has made them absolutely meaningless. Don’t like something? It must be socialist. Don’t like someone? They must be a marxist. It means nothing, but that doesn’t matter. The goal is to demonize people republicans disagree with by creating a new Red Menace.
The so-called words of Vattel, “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens,” did not appear in an English translation until 10 years after the Convention.
Vattel’s French stated “Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.”
The only translations available to the framers, from 1760 and 1787, translated “indigènes” as “indigenes.”
So much for the fanciful theory that Vattel wrote the Natural Born Citizen Clause into the Constitution.
Source, again, from Dr. Conspiracy:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/05/de-vattel-revisited/
“He very well maybe natural born but nobody can deny this from Broun.”
“I know he is,” a socialist, Broun said. “You look at his own writings. He said when he was in college he leaned to Marxist tendencies and is linked to Marxist professors. He joined Marxists clubs. And look at who he’s put in his administration, they’re devout socialists.”
Our resident bigot and constant troll fools no one with his new “kinder and gentler” style and his false bonhomie. Besides his little jokes and pretend relaxed manner he still weaves into his comments little zingers that make the same propaganda GOP talking points.
Above, in a prior comment, I noted his implication that as a Columbia Student Obama acted like a “spy.” In the quote that leads this comment we have him using the word of a wacko right wing congressman to brand Obama a socialist. Also he continues to constantly post his links to propaganda attacks, usually as reflected by Vince, above urging people to go there and comment on them. He of course posts this crap without opinions of his own attached, the better to keep his head low from returning fire. It is curious that this week Politico published the overview of strategy given out at a GOP fundraisers training meeting. One main point they wanted emphasized was the meme that Obama is a socialist.
Our troll bigot’s quoting of Broun dovetails with this new set of talking points and I believe that is no coincidence. What I find infuriating is that I know about socialism as an ideology and have actually known committed socialists. To brand the Administration as socialist not only represents blatant lying, but it also represents total ignorance of socialism. Never let it be said though that our troll bigot has ever let ignorance stop him. The question on him really is whether he is that gullible, that partisan, or just a propagandist spreading the manure.
As for Pants yet another incarnation on the sight of the Jim Byrne stripe. He is rehashing old stuff, already debunked. One persona gets knocked down and another takes their place. Same ignorance is displayed and the same unwillingness to truly engage in discussion. Kenya story re-emerges and the lies continue. however, in the true tradition of Goebbels, you just keep spreading the lies and some of the gullible and uninformed will believe it.
What is astounding is that there are plenty of areas to legitimately attack this administration and I daresay I could do a better job of it than any of these clowns. They refrain though from legitimate policy attacks because they are smart enough to know that in that direction lies the revelation of truth about their own positions. They have no policies to offer. They have no solutions to the country’s problems. Their politicians are just trying to get/keep a cushy job and reap the financial rewards that go with it. American politics has become a contest over positions, rather than a venue for dealing with our nation’s
huge problems. These two trolls are either in their endeavors displaying their monumental ignorance, or perhaps they are just cogs in the corporate machinery. In any event their lame methodology is quite easy to decipher as is their lack of honesty, morality, or decency.
Here is a fine investment opportunity for those folks at this thread who believe everything they read on the web:
[quoting]
URGENT ATTENTION
From: Abdul-Aziz Hakim
Sent: Sat 3/06/10 3:40 AM
To:
URGENT ATTENTION
….
My name is Barrister Abdul-Aziz Hakim, a Senior Advocate and legal consultant in practice here in Malaysia, I had a client, a contractor based here in Malaysia now deceased.
My client lost his life alongside his wife and only child in a plane crash (Flight OG 269 from the Thailand capital, Bangkok en-route Phuket) on Sunday, 16 September 2007, 21:59 GMT http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6997381.stm
Prior to the Death of my Late Client, He secured a contract of US$ 39,000,000.00 million from the Kingdom of Bahrain, which He successfully executed, but the balance of $ 21,300,000.00 contract payment was in the Process of being transferred into his Account which he submitted to the Bahrain Government before he lost his life in the plane crash.
Three Months after his sudden death, the Government effected the transfer of the balance of his Contract Funds into the account that my deceased Client has on his file with the Government. As his consultant and personal lawyer, I have been officially notified and instructed by the bank where the money is currently deposited that I should provide and forward the particulars of my deceased client’s next of kin so that the funds in his account can be remitted into his Next of Kin’s account.
However, as his personal lawyer and close confidant, I want you to know that my late Client died intestate, i.e. he died without leaving a Will and all my efforts to locate any of his relatives whom I can present to the Bank has proved abortive.
Therefore I am seeking for your consent to present you as the relative/next of kin and subsequently the beneficiary of the fund, so that the proceeds of this account valued at US$ 21,300,000.00 can be paid to you.
I am contacting you for two reasons. As his legal consultant I have been officially notified and instructed by the bank to provide and forward the particulars of the deceased next of kin, so that the funds in his account can be remitted into his Next of Kin’s account in accordance with the Laws here in Malaysia.
….
Regards,
Barr. Abdul-Aziz Hakim M. Esq.
Senior Advocate/Solicitor [stop quoting]
No names changed to protect the innocent. Email addresses deleted to protect the gullible.
Now that’s humor. 😀
I meant to type Bd, not Bs. Sorry about that, chief.
Bd: “Maybe you can review the site and debunk it in whole or part for us.”
Bs, perhaps you could review these sites and analyze them and report back to us on your findings. Thank you.
further evidence of fakiness:
http://secondpagemedia.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/obama-birthday.jpg
I second CEJ and mespo as well.
Vince is a creature of integrity and (from what I can tell) nearly infinite patience.
It’s time for the birther trolls to present proof (as in ACTUAL proof, not inane “Obama’s Nana” garbage) or shut down their sideshow. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Obama – namely he’s pissing on the Constitution just like Bush, but his citizenship is a dog that does NOT hunt and will NEVER hunt.
He’s a citizen. I lying sack of crap and Constitutional violator, but he is a citizen. So come on, bring Obama down. Because you can’t do it without sacrificing Bush and Cheney.
Both parties are traitorous at this point.
Wake up and smell the discontent.
Vince here is a link that was shown in that video you can use for future reference or research. Maybe you can review the site and debunk it in whole or part for us. Thanks for your excellent research.
http://hallshame.webs.com/vision.html
Why on Earth would the president of the United/Divided States want people talking like this. Vince could you break this video down.
Thank you, CEJ and Mespo.
“Vince Treacy is a real man with integrity and great stores of patience; ….”
************
Seconded, though it is a manifest fact – proven conclusively by this thread.
Pants on Fire and related trolls,
IMHO the accusations in your posts are false and very offensive.
The burden of proof is on you.
Spin your opinions all you want, but the facts are the facts, and you ought to try to be more honorable.
Vince Treacy is a real man with integrity and great stores of patience; and I dare you and all the trolls here, to start using your own real name before you again try to start a flame war.
From the Urban Dictionary
Natural Born Citizen
A “natural born citizen” is a person who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to citizenship “at birth” or “by birth.”
The term includes
(1) a person who is born in the United States, including its territories and possessions and the District of Columbia, and who is subject to its jurisdiction, that is, not born to foreign diplomats or to hostile occupying forces;
(2) a person who is born abroad to two U.S. citizens; and
(3) a person who is born abroad to one U.S. citizen, if that citizen parent has met U.S. residency requirements.
Barack Obama is a natural born citizen because he was born in Hawaii, one of the United States, and was subject to its jurisdiction at the time of his birth.
John McCain is a natural born citizen because he was born abroad to two citizens, and was born in the Canal Zone, a United States possession.
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.
Source:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=natural+born+citizen
Pants has made a bad investment in the veracity of Lucas Smith. The market for that commodity has declined drastically. It is like a bluff in poker: it may work if it is not called, and it has been called. Just what part of the phrase “convicted forger” does the poster not understand? The concept of “convicted”? Or the concept of “forger”?
Enough said. Debating someone whose argument depends on the truthfulness of Lucas Smith is too much like shooting fish in a barrel. Not even Pentagon Charlie is backing that horse anymore.
As the definition says, natural born includes both the native born in the United States itself, like Obama, and the persons born outside the United States to a citizen parent or parents, like McCain. Both categories are included as natural born citizens.
There are natural born and naturalized citizens. No case has ever recognized an intermediate 14th Amendment or basic citizen status. Pants would have cited it if there were one. And there will no such case handed down in the 3d Circuit in Mario’s appeal. Pants has cited no cases as authority for that concept.
Slart, thanks. 1796 of 1798, it was still years after the drafting and ratification of the Constitution, which Vattel did NOT draft or ratify. Vattel was valued for his work on the law of nations, now called international law. He was not and authority on municipal law, now called domestic or civil law. Pants admits that Franklin consulted Vattel on the law of nations. Vattel’s phrase “natural born citizen” had not even been translated into English when Jay wrote his letter. “Natural born” as a modifier of the term “subject” had been used in the common law for centuries.
The birthers NEVER discuss the rationale and purpose of the Clause. It was drafted because of the concern expressed in Jay’s letter about the “admission of Foreigners” into our government. The documented historical concern was that the republic would fail, and that a prince, like one of the sons of George III, would have to be invited to be head of state. They wanted to prevent this, so they acted to prevent any foreign leader from being installed in the government after naturalization by Congress. The Electoral College was another safeguard against this possibility. They never expressed concern about infants born in the United States to aliens, and that subject was resolved by the 14th Amendment anyway.
Hamilton was there, and he proposed that the presidency be limited to persons then a citizen or “hereafter born a Citizen of the United States.” Born a citizen. How many times does it have to be repeated. He wanted anyone who would be “born” a citizen after the date of ratification to be eligible. He wanted to exclude naturalized foreign royalty, nobility and generals.
Jay wanted to exclude grown-up foreigners from being naturalized and acclaimed as leaders of the new nation. The phrase “natural born” citizen, based on the common law concept of “natural born” subject, achieved this. That is what happened. So just like the definition above, the Presidency was reserved to those who were “born” a citizen.
So Pants vouches for Lucas Smith. Fine. Word of advice. If Pants is a lawyer, do not, repeat, not, ever, put Smith on the stand, under any circumstances whatsoever, if Pants values his or her law license in any way at all.
So what is your view of Smith’s credibility, Pants?
Pants writes “Did the Court say that Ark was as much a natural-born citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen? No. The Court did not.” Now that sounds like Leo Donofrio. Leo, if that is you, sorry about your loss in bankruptcy court. Sorry about the shuttering of your website. Better luck with poker.
You and your pupil Pants are still wrong. One more time. The Wong court said “The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.” The court said Wong was as much a citizen as a natural born child. Those were its words.
A child of aliens born in the US is as much a citizen as the NATURAL BORN CHILD of a citizen. The Court did NOT say that the child was as much a citizen as a NATURALIZED CHILD. Again, what is so hard about that? Pants asks “Are you saying that a naturalized citizen is less of a citizen than a natural born citizen?” Of course not. I never said that. I said that the court DID NOT SAY that Wong was “as much a citizen as a naturalized child.”
Leo will never get this. Pants, are you Leo? Are you a fan of Leo?
“The family lived in high-class government quarters in Upper Hill. Among their neighbours were Dr Njoroge Mungai, former President Kenyatta’s personal physician, President Kibaki, who was then minister for Finance and the late Barack Obama Sr, father of American President Barack Obama.”
“Dr Ang’awa had worked in Embu, Kiambu, Kilifi, Mombasa, Kakamega and Bungoma and was one of the best known members of the medical profession in the country.”
Nothing to see here. Everyday citizens in Kenya were able to afford to come to school in the U.S. in 1960. It couldn’t possibly be that Obama Sr. was friends with Dr. Ang’awa and trusted him to deliver his child.
http://allafrica.com/stories/printable/201002010485.html
Suzy,
Did you know that Obama’s father and the doctor who delivered Obama Jr. in Kenya use to be neighbors?
What are the chances that the Dr. who delivered Barack Obama (as depicted by the LS CPGH BC) were neighbors? This Lucas Smith fellow must be a pretty sharp cookie. He not only chose the father of a Kenyan High Court Judge but he chose one that was Obama Sr’s neighbor.