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
Les,
I’ll let Vince defend himself from your tired and hypocritical lies about Kenyan birth certificates, but I’d like to take you to task for a specific piece of hypocrisy.
You said: “No official has ever stated that the Obama COLB presented on those websites is authentic.”
While this is true, it is not the ‘whole truth’. As readers of this site know, Hawaiian officials CANNOT state the the COLB posted on the web is authentic and they HAVE stated that Barack Obama is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
Now let’s pull out another stinking turd you’ve left here:
Les posted:
So my question to you is, ‘Were you not trying to unethically imply that Hawaiian officials were not backing up President Obama’s claim that he was born in Hawaii?’
Please look up the word ‘hypocrite’ in the dictionary.
Primary source.
Affidavit of Lucas Daniel Smith.
Orly Taitz asked him to perjure himself by introducing fake Kenyan birth certificate in court.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/21451147/Lucas-Daniel-Smith-10-12-09-new-Declaration-SACV09-00082-DOC-Anx
[comment with three hyperlinks is awaiting moderation. Resubmitted with only two hyperlinks.]
“So, Les, where’s the proof that those Kenyan birth certificates are genuine?”
I never said they have been proven to be genuine. The same can be said about the COLB that was presented on factcheck.org and politifact.org. No official has ever stated that the Obama COLB presented on those websites is authentic.
To make sure the readers don’t get confused, VT stated that the “Kenyan birth certificates were proven forgeries”. When called on that statement VT replied “I said the purported Kenyan birth certificates were forgeries.” Readers please pay attention to the word “proven” having been removed.
Is VT recanting his previous allegation?
While we’re waiting for VT to answer that question we can address some of the “proof” that the huffington post presents to call the Kenyan COLB (not to be confused with the CPGH birth certificate that VT is aware of but failed to address) a forgery:
I’m not sure the Kenyan COLB is not a forgery, but we should look at the strength of the “proof” presented to support the claim of forgery.
1. Kenya was a Dominion the date this certificate was allegedly issued and would not become a republic for 8 months.
The easiest way to substantiate that claim would be to acquire other COLBs from the same period. That has not been done.
2. Mombasa belonged to Zanzibar when Obama was born, not Kenya.
That’s a lie. Mombasa was an East African British Protectorate at the time of Obama’s birth and for many years prior to that event.
PROOF:
http://books.google.com/books?id=dJMoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA51&dq=mombasa+%2Beast+african+protectorate&cd=2#v=onepage&q=mombasa%20%2Beast%20african%20protectorate&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=qEYNAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA184&dq=mombasa+%2Beast+african+protectorate&cd=6#v=onepage&q=mombasa%20%2Beast%20african%20protectorate&f=false
Mombasa was the capital of the East African Protectorate.
3. Obama’s father’s village would be nearer to Nairobi, not Mombasa.
Who cares? The question should be “Did Obama Sr. have ties to Mombasa?” The answer to that question would have been yes. When Obama Sr. was expelled from school, his father sent him to Mombasa to find work. His father worked at two places in Mombasa just prior to going to college in Hawaii. While their he became friends with Tom Mboya. He also met two wealthy women who assisted in his education. Mboya arranged his transportation to Hawaii.
4. The number 47O44– 47 is Obama’s age when he became president, followed by the letter O (not a zero) followed by 44–he is the 44th president.
Strange coincidence is not proof of forgery.
5. EF Lavender is a laundry detergent.
Just because E.F. Lavender is the name of a soap, it is not proof that an E.F. Lavender did not work in Kenya at the time.
If you think the proof presented to support a claim of forgery regarding the Kenyan COLB is weak at best, just wait for the arguments given to support calling the CPGH birth certificate a forgery.
If VT wants to call the CPGH birth certificate a forgery, he should present the reasons why along with any evidence he has to support it.
vlf2112,
While you’re absolutely right that most people should just move on, it is important that people like Vince continue their vigilance. As long as the birthers continue to post their lies and distortions it is necessary to have people who refute them with the facts and the law – otherwise uninformed but reasonable people will be deceived by birther propaganda.
I cannot believe people are still talking about this nonissue.
Just let the birfers scream at each other about it – time for the rest of us to move on.
I have a question for the birthers I’ve been reading in this discussion for a while now. Perhaps you can help me.
I only have my “short form” birth certificate.
It looks just almost identical to the Presidents.
Does that mean I wasn’t born here?
Someone tell me please because if I’m not an American after all these years, then I’d really like to know.
Les posted:
In a homage to Vince, I’d like to make my own written predition™®: “Les will be unable to come up with a single law or precedent which supports his allegations about Vince.”
Just checking on the status of Written predictions™®:,
“Written predictions™®: “Post-judgment motions and an appeal” will fail. The “direct appeal or request for stay of judgment” to the Supreme Court will fail.
“The toast is done. Spread the butter and jelly, slice it, and serve it hot.”
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/10/13/attorney-orly-taitz-fined-20000-for-frivolous-birther-litigation/#comment-85398
So far, the prediction on the appeal is a winner. No stay. The appeal affirmed the fines. We are waiting on (1) denial of petition for rehearing en banc and (2) petition for cert. to the Supreme Court.
One reason that the birthers are so fervent in their beliefs is that they never read or hear any views contrary to their fantasies.
Their favorite sites are not open to alternative views.
Here at Turley, the birthers have free reign to post their views.
They seem to be pretty scarce because, at this site, they are not talking to themselves and each other.
Their views are contested with facts and reason.
When squeezed, these poster at this thread with the three-letter nicknames like to scream “liar.”
As Kurt said, “So it goes.”
bdaman linked to a site called American Thinker and an article by Lakin. I attempted to post an expanded version of my entry above at April 8, 2010 at 9:02 am.
They never posted it and disabled the login information. Predictably. The clowns moderating the site refused to let their readers see any independent views. They hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest.
I was kind of hoping that maybe Lakin could see some of the drawbacks to his position, but I guess he will have to remain in blissful ignorance.
Maybe Less can try posting over there.
So here at the free speech Turley site is the posting the American Thinker did not want you to read:
The good doctor is oblivious to the federal legal definition of “birth certificate,” set forth in Title V of the United States Code that he never mentions.
He seems unaware that the definition has been codified as a note following Title 5, United States Code, section 301 (5 U.S.C. 301 nt.):
http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title5/5usc301.html
The definition reads:
“(3) Birth certificate. – As used in this subsection, the term
`birth certificate’ means a certificate of birth–
“(A) of–
“(i) an individual born in the United States; or
“(ii) an individual born abroad–
“(I) who is a citizen or national of the United States at
birth; and
“(II) whose birth is registered in the United States; and
“(B) that–
“(i) is a copy, issued by a State or local authorized
custodian of record, of an original certificate of birth
issued by such custodian of record; or
“(ii) was issued by a State or local authorized
custodian of record and was produced from birth records
maintained by such custodian of record.
Under this definition, the COLB is a “birth certificate.” It is a “certificate of birth” issued to “an individual born in the United States” who is a “citizen or national of the United States at birth” and whose “birth is registered in the United States,” and that certificate “was issued by a State or local authorized custodian of record and was produced from birth records maintained by such custodian of record.”
He appears to be unaware that the Hawaiian Home Lands office only wanted original birth certificates to verify Hawaiian ancestry, and accepts the COLB for all purposes.
He seems unaware that the computer generated COLB is the only certificate that Hawaii now issues, and IS the official Hawaiian birth certificate, since Hawaii no longer issues the old forms to anyone.
He seems unaware that the Hawaiian official who is legally responsible for the accuracy and security of all birth records has stated that she has seen the original records, that they show Obama was born in Hawaii, and the he is a natural born citizen.
He seems unaware that official Hawaiian public records of birth are entitled to full faith and credit under the Constitution.
He seems unaware that Hawaiian law restricts the release of birth records.
He seems unaware that the supposed Kenyan birth certificates were proven forgeries uttered by convicted forgers.
He seems unaware that Obama’s grandmother never said he was born in Kenya, and that the false reports were based on mistranslation.
He seems unaware that his comparisons of himself to the situations at Nuremberg, My Lai and Abu Ghraib are absurd.
He seems unaware that the lawyer listed on his website, John Hemenway, has been reprimanded by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for bringing a frivolous claim in a birther lawsuit, and that the reprimand was upheld on appeal the U.S. Court of Appeals. Hollister v. Soetero, D.D.C., 2009, D.C. Cir, 2010.
He seems unaware that the media reports giving the names of two hospitals were clearly mistaken, that both hospitals in Honolulu were named for former Queens, that the confusion is common, and that Obama has consistently named Kapiolani Hospital as the place of birth.
He claims that “No one I spoke to was able to offer any evidence that the president is ‘natural born,’ seemingly unaware that there is abundant credible evidence, beginning with the official COLB and the statements of Hawaiian official, for the birth.
The seems not to know that an official COLB expressly provides that it is prima facie evidence of birth in Hawaii.
He seems unaware that to state that there is “no evidence” of Obama’s natural born status is an outright lie, or a statement in reckless disregard of truth or falsity. There is evidence, and the evidence is credible and reasonable. He just chooses to ignore it. He can say that there is no evidence that satisfies him, but he cannot say that there is “no evidence.”
He seems unaware that there is no reasonable doubt about Obama’s natural born citizen status.
He seems unaware that there is only the unreasonable, irrational and invidious doubts of the birthers.
So, Les, where’s the proof that those Kenyan birth certificates are genuine?
From the Pulitzer Prize winning news site, Politifact.com
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/21/orly-taitz/alleged-obama-birth-certificate-kenya-hoax/
Everyone, this is why we have the First Amendment and a free press. They guarantee the right of independent journalists to explode the myths of birthers like Les.
I repeat.
The Kenyan birth certificates are proven forgeries.
US Refuses Visas to all Israeli Nuclear Scientists; the Israeli government was stunned when every nuclear technician at Israel’s Dimona reactor who had submitted visa requests to visit the United States for ongoing university education in Physics, Chemistry and Nuclear Engineering had their visa applications summarily rejected, specifically because of their association with the Dimona reactor.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/04/us_refuses_visas_to_all_israel.html
Audio of this story linked to this comment.
Bdaman 1, April 8, 2010 at 12:01 pm
http://rense.gsradio.net:8080/rense/special/rense_T_Fife_031009.mp3
bdaman was really excited about one of those forgeries when it first surfaced.
Your memory is suppose to get worse with age 🙂
I said the purported Kenyan birth certificates were forgeries.
See, for example:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/03/kenyan-birth-certificate_n_249850.html
Another example:
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/feature/2009/08/03/birthers_kenya
bdaman was really excited about one of those forgeries when it first surfaced. To his credit, te became very quiet on the subject of Kenyan birth certificates after that.
Does “Les” have any proof that they are not foprgeries?
Nope.
Discover Barack Obama’s involvement with the following
organizations
Radical Appointments
Socialist Movement
Controversial and Radical Associates
http://keywiki.org/index.php/Barack_Obama
“What if I told you that you will have a black president very soon and he will be a Communist?”
The out-of-the-blue remark was met by our stares. She continued, “Well, you will; and he will be a Communist.”
It was then that the husband unsuccessfully tried to change the subject; but she was on a roll and would have nothing of it. One of us asked, “It sounds like you know something we don’t know.”
“Yes, it is true. This is not some idle talk. He is already born, and he is educated and being groomed to be president right now. You will be impressed to know that he has gone to the best schools of presidents. He is what you call ‘Ivy League.’ You don’t believe me, but he is real and I even know his name. His name is Barack. His mother is white and American and his father is black from Africa. That’s right, a chocolate baby! And he’s going to be your president.”
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=88439
The former Soviet Union spent huge sums of money over the past few decades to educate tens of thousands of foreign students – mainly from the developing world – in the name of “peoples’ friendship.”
Young people from Asia, Africa, and Latin America studied medicine, agronomy, law and Marxist economics.
Marxist economics HUMMMMM!!!!!
Thursday, February 13, 1992 – Page updated at 12:00 AM
MOSCOW – For nearly a decade, Roman Obama’s life at Patrice Lumumba University was almost paradise. He studied for free and got warm clothes and cheap airline tickets that let him see the world.
“We had so many possibilities. Maybe it was not a luxurious life, but we could travel and do things,” said Obama, 31, a law student from Equatorial Guinea
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19920213&slug=1475488
Who is Roman Obama who was 31 y.o. a law student that this article is written about. This means that Roman Obama was born in 1961.
President Obama has a tangible interest in the vital record of his own birth. He has the ability as the commander and chief to make all this birther/conspiracy/NBC go away by simply ordering the DOH, to release all vital statistics in re to his record, all in the name of openness and transparency in which he campaigned on.
If the record indicates everything that has already been either written about in his books or confirmed threw a state employee, than there is nothing to hide.
Why he continues to let something like this fester is beyond belief.