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
Hi, Vince. I see that you’re at your post again. I also see that the latest anonymous birther has adopted the self-important tag “Integrity,” likely in the hopes that it would lend credibility to the same delusional arguments that were destroyed 1,230 posts ago.
But richCares at Dr. Conspiracy does live there and is my source for the statement about the confusion.
Last I heard Richcares lives in Oregon. He used to live in Hawaii, still has connections there and has a brother buried in Punchbowl.
That Richcares?
Another anonymous poster.
I think there is reasonable evidence to support my statement that Obama was born at Kapiolani, including his letter to the hospital in 2009. A newspaper in Hawaii has described how the hospitals furnished the information.
I have linked the Rainbow over and over, including above on this thread. I did find it after a long search, and posted it on another thread, actually in response to bdaman. Scroll up. I posted it here again.
In the article, the reporter, not Maya, described Queens hospital. Maya was not quoted on that topic. Integrity does not appear to live in Honolulu, but richCares at Dr. Conspiracy does live there and he is my source for the statement about the confusion.
I have stated over and over that the federal quo warranto statute, now codified in the DC Code, cannot be constitutionally applied to the President (or the VP, Members of Congress, or federal judges or Justices). I maintain that the Constitution specifies the exclusive procedures for their removal, and that Congress cannot evade those processes by mere statute.
The QW must be construed to be consistent with the powers of Congress. Congress may be able to enact such a law for federal appointed officers (although I don’t think any have ever been removed under it). But it cannot bypass the Impeachment clauses by a mere statute. That is my considered legal opinion, and I stand by it.
Congress never used a quo warranto in 1877, since it was not enacted until 1788, and any discussion in 1877 of the writ seems to have been for purposes of comparison. Integrity has not provided any quotations, so it is hard to judge. Even if the Congress intended to extend the writ to the presidency, it has never had constitutional authority to do so, and it has never been done.
Doubt me?
Scroll up and read the opinion by Chief Judge Lamberth in Taitz v. Obama, reprinted above, Mr./ Mrs. /Ms. Integrity.
Quo warranto claim dismissed.
That is spelled dismissed.
Another anonymous poster. I think there is reasonable evidence to support my statement that Obama was born at Kapiolani, and a newspaper in Hawaii has described how the hospitals furnished the information.
I have linked the Rainbow over and over, including above on this thread. Scroll up. In the article, the reporter, not Maya, described Queens hospital. Integrity does not appear to live in Honolulu, but richCares at Dr. Conspiracy does live there and is my source for the statement about the confusion.
I have stated over and over that the federal quo warranto statute, now codified in the DC Code, cannot be constitutionally applied to the President (or the VP, Members of Congress, or federal judges or Justices) because their removal is specified by the Congress.
The QW must be construed to be consistent with the powers of Congress. Congress may be able to enact such a law for federal appointed officers (although I don’t think any have ever been removed under it). But it cannot bypass the Impeachment clauses by a mere statute. That is my considered legal opinion, and I stand by it.
Congress never used a
I tell you what, if ever one was to face Mr. Treacy in court, I think the judge would hear, I Object Your Honor, a whole lot.
Nice work Integrity and welcome to the blog. Your research is outstanding.
In his comment at Dr. Conspiracy, Vince Treacy calls the birthers “gullible”. He did that just after citing a letter written by Barack Obama as being his “proof” that Obama was born at Kapiolani. Now who’s gullible, Mr. Treacy?
Vince Treacy 1, October 30, 2009 at 5:54 am
4. “At one point I posted an account of a suggestion in Congress in the 1880s to pass a law to allow quo warranto proceedings in contested presidential elections. It was never adopted.”
Vince Treacy must not be very good at performing legal research. In 1878 Congress passed a law that permitted quo warranto.
“The revised statutes of 1878 vested jurisdiction in these courts of proceedings brought by the United States Attorney for the removal of persons holding office contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment. Rev.Stat., Sections 563(14), 626(14), (1786). This Act was repealed in the Judicial Code of 1911, 36 Stat. 1168. In 1901, Congress specifically authorized the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to issue quo warranto in the name of the United States. Act of March 3, 1901, 31 Stat. 1419, Title 16, Section 1601 of the D.C.Code (1940). However, this grant is strictly limited and is confined solely to situations involving franchises and public offices held within the District of Columbia.” -U.S. v First Federal Savings and Loan http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/248/248.F2d.804.12031_1.html
5. Vince Treacy goes on to say “There has never been an action, or even a suggestion of such an action, to remove constitutional officers whose tenure is guaranteed.”
Mr. Treacy must not be familiar with the discussion of the 1877 Electoral Commission.
http://books.google.com/books?id=DBJCAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA192&dq=1877+%2Belectoral+commission+%2Bquo+warranto&cd=1#v=onepage&q=1877%20%2Belectoral%20commission%20%2Bquo%20warranto&f=false
In this thread alone, here are the statements of Vince Treacy (a lawyer practicing in the District of Columbia) that have been presented as fact. If these were facts, Vince Treacy would have supported them with references. Conclusion: Vince Treacy cannot distinguish fact from personal belief.
Vince Treacy 1, October 14, 2009 at 10:21 am
1. “Obama was born at Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu”
Obama says he was born there, but no documentation has been produced to verify that claim. Vince Treacy and his ilk may believe Obama, but it cannot be accepted as fact.
2. “The hospital furnished the information that is now in official Hawaiian birth records.”
Vince Treacy has no information to support this claim. Vince does not know who furnished the birth report information to the State of Hawaii.
Vince Treacy 1, October 29, 2009 at 3:14 pm
3. “WND also reported, Obama’s half-sister, Maya Soetoro, claimed Obama was born in Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii, a testimony reported as fact by several news sources and the myth-busting site Snopes.com.”
Vince Treacy responded “Another lie. I tracked this down when bdaman posted it. I found the original source in and article in “Rainbow Newsletter” by a high school reporter. Maya NEVER stated that Obama was born at Queens in the article. The high school kid said that. All the other sources just parroted that false statement.
BOTH medical centers in Honolulu are named for queens. The Kapi’olani Medical Center in Honolulu was named for Queen Kapi’olani. They are often confused by strangers. The Obamas have consistently stated that he was born in Kapi’olani.”
If Vince Treacy would have really “tracked it down”, he would have discovered that it is called “The Rainbow Edition”. It is a newsletter put out by the Lab School (a charter school in Hawaii). The author of the story was not some “stranger”, as Vince Treacy would have you believe. There is no reason to believe that the author was confused. I live in a city, like many other U.S. cities, where we have a number of hospitals that are named after saints. Most people don’t get them confused because they are named after saints, and there is no reason to believe that hospitals named after queens would be any different. Furthermore, Vince Treacy has no way of knowing what Maya did or did not say during the interview.
Over at Dr. Conspiracy’s site, Vince Treacy said “The so-called Rainbow Newsletter is nowhere to be found.” http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/05/where-obama-was-born/#comment-13203
Vince Treacy must have decided that looking for the document at its source was too hard. Here it is for the readers; http://www.hawaii.edu/labschool/re040523.pdf
H.J.Res.5 – Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.
Introduced by none other,
Representative José Serrano D-NY
Endless terms for Obama?
Y. introduced HJ Res. 5, a bill that would repeal the amendment prohibiting a president from being elected to more than two terms in office, paving the way …
Source: Press & Sun-Bulletin
What is a “Birther”? | The Post & Email
H. J. Res. 5. Sponsor: Rep. Serrano Introduced: January 6, 2009. Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an …
Source: The Post & Email
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-hj5/show
Slarti asked “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).”
Slarti, you are correct. On December 8, 2008, the Supreme Court denied an application for stay in Leo Donofrio’s case. The Court NEVER reveals the votes of the Justices on decisions like this. Thomas had submitted Donofrio’s appeal to the entire Court for consideration of whether to hear it or not. There is no way to know how Thomas voted, only speculation.
http://jonathanturley.org/2008/12/04/eligibility-questions-can-clinton-serve-obama-and-can-obama-serve-the-country/#comment-30528
There is a discussion of birther Tom Tancredo at Dave’s blog at the Washington Post.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/04/tancredo_send_obama_back_to_ke.html
Bdaman,
The best way to refute such a statement is to prove me wrong by your actions. You will find me quite willing to admit that I was wrong or acknowledge you have changed in that case. We can’t effect the past, just the future.
See where you get me going 🙂
I like debate to but when you start the debate off this way,
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.
It typically turns into an argument. 🙂
Bdaman,
There’s nothing wrong with stirring the pot from time to time, but you should contribute to it as well…
Bdaman said:
“Who wants to argue with people you like :)”
I do (although I would replace the word ‘argue’ with the term ‘debate’.
to just want to stir the pot and see what happens
Sorry Dr. Slarti I do it in my personal life too. My neighbors who just moved are from Baton Rouge so he has a big gumbo pot and a paddle. There were times where he got the paddle out and made the stirring motion because of something I said. The words would follow, “There you go again stirrin the pot again” all the while everyone is cracking up over what I said.
Who wants to argue with people you like 🙂
Bdaman,
Thank you for posting the transcript.
You said: “Dr. Slarti I’m not here to argue with you.”
That’s part of your problem. This is a forum for debate and you refuse to engage in it. You seem (notice the qualifier) to just want to stir the pot and see what happens. Try to actually argue rationally for your position based on the facts and you may get your ass kicked, but you will gain respect here (from me at the very least).
Dr. Slarti I’m not here to argue with you. Your impressions are worthy. If that is the way you took it there will probably be many more that will feel the same way you do. Others may not. Again, if and when the day someone ask Justice Thomas what was he thinking during that exchange, specifically, were you making a joke when you spoke with Serrano, we will never know.
Took me a minute but here it is
Transcript begins at the 48 second mark of video.
Serrano: I’m glad to hear that you don’t think that there has to be a judge on the Court because I am not a judge. I have never been a judge.
Justice Thomas: And you don’t have to be born in the United States. So you never have to ask, answer that question.
Serrano: Oh, really?
Justice Thomas: Yeah
Serrano: So, you haven’t answered the one whether I can serve as President but you answered this one.
Justice Thomas: We’re evading that one. We are giving you another option.
Serrano: Thanks alot.
Justice Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Serrano: Mrs. Emerson.