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
President Obama released his birth certificate.
The same birth certificate any of us are issued upon request.
He didn’t have to do this. And he probably shouldn’t have. But he did.
Please present your evidence that the State of Hawaii is not a duly recognized state of the US and is not authorized to issue a birth certificate.
You will need to present that evidence prior to proving your tin foil hat claims.
The poster keeps saying over and over that “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.”
Release will never make any of the controversy go away. That will never happen. It will not convince Les:
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/10/13/attorney-orly-taitz-fined-20000-for-frivolous-birther-litigation/#comment-124361
It will not convince Donofrio, Apuzzo, Taitz, the PosteMail, or any of the other people putting out the crank theory that birth in the U.S. is not sufficient, and both of the parents the President must be citizens at the time of his birth. Not one of those appeals by Kreep, Taitz, Apuzzo or any other birther will be withdrawn.
It will not convince Les and Pants on Fire that the phony Kenyan birth certificates are any less valid.
The birthers will claim that the original records were forged or faked. They will reject them and demand hundreds of other records, all irrelevant.
Nothing will ever convince the irrational birthers.
So why does he keep harping on this idea that catering to the hate groups and birthers, and releasing would settle things.
IT WON’T SETTLE ANYTHING.
The hate from the Civil War is still with us. Just look at the Governor of Virginia, who conveniently “forgot” to mention that slavery might have been an issue.
The hate will go on.
For the same reason.
Oh, O.K. Den
“Bdaman 1, April 9, 2010 at 2:31 pm
Goon ville you can continue to try to address me if you want. I’m sorry what, what did you say. Oh, O.K. Den, Got it.”
In typical troll fashion when you encounter positions you cannot refute you first attack the individual rather than the position and when that fails you run from them.
So run troll. Run as far and fast as you like.
I’ll still address your words if you choose to place them in a public forum.
Dr. Slarti it is very clear that many of the birthers wouldn’t accept that President Obama is legitimate if they were handed a copy of his long form birth certificate by Hawaiian DOH.
Dr. Slarti this is pure speculation. I have not seen a poll that ask this question. Please tell me where you derived such information. You can not speak for many of the birthers. I have not seen video or news reports of a reporter specifically asking people/birthers this question.
Bdaman,
I certainly hope that the President of the United States pays attention to more important things than birther propaganda. Also, it is very clear that many of the birthers wouldn’t accept that President Obama is legitimate if they were handed a copy of his long form birth certificate by Hawaiian DOH officials and all nine justices on the SCOTUS personally explained the definition of natural born citizen to them. At its core birtherism is not about rationality, it is about racism.
Buddha,
Well said, as usual. One question: can you come up with a Turing-type test to distinguish between Bdaman and a drinking bird?
Goon ville you can continue to try to address me if you want. I’m sorry what, what did you say. Oh, O.K. Den, Got it.
You know as we’ll as I, that if he really really wanted to end this non sense, which it is, he would release the very last little bit of information that is contained in that record. It is a one page record. Not a 3000 page bill.
After seeing how they hid behind closed doors during the health care debate it obvious that he is all about secrecy verses openness and transparency. See where that got him. 12 more states to join in the suit they might as well have a constitutional convention. United We Stand, Divided We Fall. Keep your barrels clean and your powder dry.
To expect perfection from a profession filled with lots of imperfect humans is to live a life of frustrated expectations which is thus a cause of disappointment and therefor anger and/or sorrow result. A self-inflicted wound.
Add to this that it was the courts, the Constitutionally powered trier of fact, that determined Obama’s citizenship was without question American and he eligible for the Office of President as defined in the Constitution. The courts, badtroll. Not the media. One of the co-equal branches of the Federal government. Not the media.
Your clowns got their day in court, presented their evidence such as it were and they lost.
Repetition as in “I posted this before” shows your function as a troll could be done by a robot. Careful now! You may be outsourced to Microsoft. Although placing a few of those drinking bird toys over a keyboard would probably simulate many of your posts quite well and be that much cheaper still.
Be a shame if that income stream were to disappear in tough economic times like these.
Replaced by drinking birds.
Tsk tsk tsk. Such a pity.
President Obama did release his birth certificate Bdaman.
As far as I know the first US president in history compelled to do so. So stop pretending that he didn’t.
Unless you’re claiming that US States do not have the right to issue birth certificates, then you have no argument. So either state your case as to why US States do not have the right to issue birth certificates or admit you’re just mad because you lost the election.
I posted this before
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.
The other information that is recorded in the original vital statistics has already been discussed such as hospital and delivering physician, ooopps scratch that, no one knows who that is. Either way I don’t see it as a national security secret and can’t see it as a presidential privileged to not know that information.
Mr. Treacy said that his birth record was vetted by the free press. That may be so, but we know that the press can make mistakes, scratch that, Rather, as in Dan, make mistakes.
Birthers are factually challenged.
Fact: “Michelle Obama never said in the clip that Obama was born in Kenya or that he was not born in Hawaii.”
Here’s a tip I learned from Hunter, Les.
When entering bat country, let the bats go along for the ride.
If you don’t pay attention to them, they won’t try to eat your face.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RESGwXF5LDE&hl=en_US&fs=1&]
home country: (noun)
“the country in which a person was born and usually raised, regardless of the present country of residence and citizenship.”
http://www.allwords.com/word-home+country.html
Michelle Obama never said in the clip that Obama was born in Kenya or that he was not born in Hawaii.
Birfers must be hard of hearing.
Maybe they are hearing voices now.
“Ofeibea Quist-Arcton, NPR’s Africa-based correspondent, tells why her beat has proved one of the most interesting this year.
She discusses the stories that have been painful and devastating for many nations on the continent such as the violent political fights that have led to power-sharing deals.
She also describes the stories that have been exciting, including the U.S. presidential race of Kenyan-born Sen. Barack Obama.”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95550177
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28HUHyFEuXY&hl=en_US&fs=1&]
Buddha,
No worries, I just wanted to point out what a lying idiot Les is (hypocrisy pisses me off). As you and I both know Vince doesn’t need any help (most of what I know on this topic I learned from sources Vince posted anyway).
Les,
As someone with a PhD in mathematics, the word ‘proof’ has a particular significance to me, so let’s take a look at what Vince said. Obviously the mathematical standard (where ‘proof’ is an absolute whereby something which is proved is unquestionably true) is not in play here – this is a legal issue so when Vince said ‘proved’ he was using it in a legal context. So what, exactly, is the law here? Well, it is clear that if President Obama was born in Hawaii then any Kenyan birth certificate (KBC) must be fraudulent. While an image on the web carries no legal weight, I believe that statements on the record by Hawaii officials do – they have said that they have President Obama’s original birth records on file* and that he is a natural born citizen**. For a court to give any credence to a KBC, there must be some sort of evidence that trumps the statements of Hawaii officials (and no US court COULD find against a verified copy of the COLB without violating the Constitution). Since there are no Kenyan officials whatsoever attesting to the veracity of any KBC, it’s pretty clear that from a legal point of view they are illegitimate. I don’t know if this was Vince’s reasoning for saying that they had been proved forgeries, but I believe that any US court would be unable to consider them anything but forgeries which, at least to me, constitutes ‘proof’ in a legal sense.
*Since Hawaii did not issue certificates for people born outside of Hawaii in 1961, this is logically equivalent to saying that he was born in Hawaii.
**Because Stanley Ann Dunham was not old enough to transmit citizenship when she gave birth to President Obama, this statement is also logically equivalent to saying that he was born in Hawaii.
It is clear that you are just an ignorant racist who is upset that a black man is in the White House. Go ahead, prove me wrong…
The State of Hawaii, one of the United States of America has the sole authority to issue and certify a birth in their state. And they did. You are now challenging states rights to issue and certify birth certificates for its citizens.
So, before you make the claim that every American in the US is here illegally, since we all have birth certificates issued by our state of birth you might first want to explain why the Federal govt needs to “inspect” our birth certificates prior to making them legal.
Then you’ll need to ask the Federal govt to throw everyone out of the country until they can inspect 400 million birth certificates.
“Obama can view and copy his own records. He just refuses to.”
Which is why he did.
He didn’t have to, but he did.
And posted them for all to see.
Something I don’t remember any white President’s ever being asked to do.