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
Bdaman,
Speech is communication – what is important is not what he meant, but what people took him to mean. My comment was about what I took him to mean (and what I thought he clearly meant). It sure looked to me like he was laughing WITH rep. Serrano, not AT him…
Dr. Slarti thats fine, no problem, but until someone specifically ask Justice Thomas what he meant it is all speculation. Was it a joke? I don’t know. What I do know is what he said. Laughter has two sides.
Bdaman,
I’m careful about what I say on this blog, and I don’t think that I did what you are accusing me of. I said that he was ‘pretty clearly’ making a crack at the birther’s expense. This was clear to me from the context and tone of the clip. I didn’t assert to know the man’s thoughts or mind, I just interpreted what he said. If you would like to argue that I am incorrect, please make a transcript of the clip (it’s only a little over a minute, so that shouldn’t be much trouble) and post it so that everyone can decide for themselves what he meant. Incidentally, you are committing the offense that you accuse me of when you imply that Justice Thomas was a birther because you think he voted yea in conference* (results of conference votes are not publicly disclosed – Vince, please correct me if I’m wrong here) and his wife is a Tea Party member (presumably you meant us to infer that this means she is a birther, too).
*If I recall correctly, Justice Thomas was the one who referred one of the early birther cases to conference – all we know about the vote in conference is that at least 6 justices voted against or it would have gotten cert and been heard by the SCOTUS. (Again, please correct me if I’m wrong, Vince.)
He was pretty clearly making a crack at the birther’s expense in a collegial exchange with a member of the US House of Representatives.
He was pretty clearly making a crack at the birther’s expense
Dr. Slarti. Justice Thomas MAY have been as you claim but you certainly have no right to claim to know what he was thinking.
He after all was a yea vote to schedule, I believe, the first conference of all the justices on the eligibility issue. Don’t forget his wife is a Tea Partier.
You don’t think for the man so you can’t speak for the man.
Bdaman,
Nice job taking a quote out of context to smear Justice Thomas as being a birther. Yet another example of your intellectual honesty and integrity.
For those of you who don’t care to watch all of the inane video that Bdaman posts, Justice Thomas (in context) said that they (he and rep. Serrano) were evading the question of representative Jose Serrano’s (D-NY) eligibility to be president. He was pretty clearly making a crack at the birther’s expense in a collegial exchange with a member of the US House of Representatives.
Illinois Mayor Expresses Doubts About Obama’s Citizenship
http://www.breitbart.tv/illinois-mayor-expresses-doubts-about-obamas-citizenship
Dr. Slarti I’m sorry, I really am. When you and Mr. Treacy a few weeks ago were discussing basketball and he described watching those classic basketball games in the garden I was like wow.
I then said to my self, you know what, this guy deserves some respect. I got the calculator out and started doin some addition based on other things that Mr. Treacy has said and from that point forward I addressed him as Mr. Treacy. I will continue to do so but all that wow I was talking about is gone.
In the words of Mr. Tracy BOHICA
Actually, 5:47 pm was my final offer. Take it or leave it. I am dropping this anonymous troll discussion as of now.
Nuts.
Bdaman,
To paraphrase General Anthony McAuliffe, commander of the 101st Airborne at Bastogne:
BUNK!
Tom Satterwhite, a blogger for the Washington Post, was the guy “who was there.”
Is he a blogger for the Washington Post? What other articles has he posted. How long has he blogged for the post. Do a little research for me and show me how you arrived at that he blogs for the post.
The article is posted under the header All Opinions Are Local a forum on hot topics in DC Maryland and Virginia. Please find me more articles Tom Satterwhite wrote as a blogger ANYWHERE.
Address is in the book; send a self-addressed stamped envelope with real name on it, and the question will be answered by return mail.
No, his response was ‘then I can’t use it’. This is a degree of integrity that you should aspire to, not denigrate.
Lets take a look at this for a moment Dr. Slarti,
Mr. Treacy went to snopes dot com. Below is his original comment.
Quote on:
Prima facie. It is right on the document itself, and can be read on the face of the COLB, in the bottom margin, together with cites to the statutes of Hawaii.
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
It was not a nonhospital birth. It was not a home birth. All that stuff is irrelevant.
Mrs. Nordyke said she was in the hospital in labor with Ann Dunham. In Kapiolani Maternal Hospital.
He was delivered by obstetrician Dr. Rodney T.West.
Source:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp
Castles in the air.
Quote off:
Now read this again
Mrs. Nordyke said she was in the hospital in labor with Ann Dunham. In Kapiolani Maternal Hospital.
He was delivered by obstetrician Dr. Rodney T.West.
First off the link given to snopes makes no mention what so ever about the Noryke twins. Then he takes the ” He was delivered by obstetrician Dr. Rodney T.West” and inserts it. The only sentence from the entire article posted at snopes. He went to snopes to copy than one sentence.
EVERYBODY knows what Obama’s COLB presented has on it.
This is what the birthers are saying. The original includes hospital and name of physician. Mr. Treacy knows this. We have had this discussion before. The common response is, it’s none of your business what else is on his birth certificate.
When I asked Mr. Treacy
Quote On:
Mr. Treacy are you to willing to state that yesterday was the first that you had heard of Dr. West by confirming that you “Cant use it, so I won’t”
Quote off:
Instead of just saying yes that was the first time I heard that. He gave a, I just got busted response.
Quote:
If badman sends his name and address, he will be answered by return mail.
Quote off:
He needs my address to answer a simple yes or no question.
Come on Dr. Slarti. Vince Treacy is an active lawyer. It was extremely unethical what he did and he knows it.
Let’s read it again, real slowly, all together, now.
Tom Satterwhite, a blogger for the Washington Post, was the guy “who was there.” In other words, he was an eyewitness giving us first hand information.
Tom SAW “the guy with the black windbreaker, who was now pretty close, [who] looked me in the eye for a second.”
Recognizing Obama, Tom “turned and asked one of the coaches, ‘The president is here because …’?
Coach said “His daughter is on my team.”
We do not have a “story piece of the guy with a black windbreaker that say he was there.”
The guy with the windbreaker was the President, not the reporter. Okay?
We have story by a guy who was there who saw the President watch his daughter.
And what is the stuff that “his secretary failed to notify the Secret Service”?
Tom wrote that one agent allowed him to go on the field and another agent scanned him with a wand. The Secret Service must have got the word somehow.
Sheesh!
Not only is a matter of public interest, it is a matter of national security. Period, end of story. The press always reads.
“The president today…….”
and the ironic
“If it wasn’t for the decline of journalistic standards and integrity over the years.”
but yet we depend on the journalist and the “Free Press” to vet the candidates that may become the future presidents of America.
Much can be said of the journalist that cover other subjects such as Global Warming.
Left at 9:20 returned at 10:17 thats 57 minutes these are the facts. If you subtract 20 minutes for travel and initial surveillance upon arrival at the scene, that leaves 37 minutes.
37 minutes, in 37 minutes, photos had to be taken by phone or otherwise. What do we have? we have two blogs and a story piece of the guy with a black windbreaker that say he was there.
You know what they say, sometimes seeing is believing.
Bdaman,
If it wasn’t for the decline of journalistic standards and integrity over the years, I might feel more sympathy for the White House press corps but as it is, I think that they’re lucky that Gibbs is willing to listen to their bitching and that President Obama doesn’t ditch them for EVERY event he attends in his capacity as father.
Reporters and photographers didn’t have a chance to see him or his vehicle to verify his presence at any location.
The president left the White House at approximately 9:20 to attend one of his daughter’s soccer games at 40th and Chesapeake NW. A pool was hastily called at around 9:35 and drove north at 9:43 to catch the president before the game ended. We didn’t make it. The President returned to the White House at 10:17. The pool returned at 10:30.
Left at 9:20 returned at 10:17 thats 57 minutes. Travel time to and from the new location that is being reported ? 5 -10 minutes one way, equals 10- 20 minutes,round trip. Reportedly there were eight big black sport-utility vehicles. Did they park and get out to make sure the area was secure before the president got out of the vehicle. Who knows. We do know the president said he caused quite a stir because his secretary failed to notify the Secret Service.
Speaking of the press.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs met with a delegation from the White House press corps for 75 minutes on Thursday in an effort to improve frayed relations between the two sides.
Ed Chen, a White House correspondent for Bloomberg News who is president of the White House Correspondents’ Association, said he asked for the meeting “to clear the air because in my 10-plus years at the White House, rarely have I sensed such a level of anger, which is wide and deep, among members over White House practices and attitude toward the press.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35944.html#ixzz0lSpR1TsW
This is what it looks like when Obama watches his daughters play soccer.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/16/obama-soccer-photos-sasha_n_204278.html
Realizing he ditched the press pool on the day in question, I guess not a single person Tweeted or snapped a personal photo of “the guy with the black windbreaker, who was now pretty close”
Of course It’s my understanding that the SS warned patrons that their camera’s and cell phones would be confiscated at a recent event attended by the First lady and her daughters. More recently after his opening remarks at the nuke summit the president dismissed the press before allowing the conference to continue. Maybe they just don’t like their pics being taken or any press reports anymore.
Search: Obama at soccer game Or Tweets Obama at soccer game.