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
Mr Treacy with all due respect sir, after your tax evasion comments and your obvious misinformation on the Dr. West comment and this slam by a fellow Democrat
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1996-10-01/pdf/CREC-1996-10-01-pt1-PgS12095-2.pdf
Page 10
I refuse to put as much stock as I use to in any of your comments.
Oops. I meant:
“… find evidence to that effect THAT is admissible…”
On the other hand, not being a natural born citizen is likely the ONLY thing stopping Arnold from becoming president.
Now I know you smoke cause you be high 🙂
I have deleted a couple of postings on this exchange, which appears to never end and inevitably devolve into personal attacks. I have not cut off the comments on this subject because people obviously want to exchange ideas and comments. However, I cannot monitor this site to keep everyone civil. Please stay away from the personal challenges and stick to the merits — or your view of the lack thereof.
There are only two kinds of citizens, natural born and naturalized.
If he is not naturalized, then he is natural born.
The Fourteenth Amendment is an “amendment.” It amended the Constitution. The Constitution must be read “as amended.”
The Twelfth Amendment changed the process for election of the President. Article II must be read as amended by the 12 Amendment.
Bdaman,
Getting on the state ballot is only the first hurdle to becoming president (as I pointed out). Either John McCain or President Obama could have easily had Cordero bounced from the ballot if they thought it was important (Vince, please correct me if I’m wrong). Though individual parts of the vetting process could be better, there is no evidence that an ineligible candidate could get through all of it. When I said “…an official copy of the COLB posted on the web.” I meant a certified copy of (the document posted on the web) provided by the Hawaii DOH, not that states should be satisfied with a web posting. Such a document is entitled to full faith and credit by any state in the union, meets the federal definition of a birth certificate and is prima facie evidence of Barack Obama’s birth in Hawaii as Vince has pointed out. Repeatedly. With references. Over. And Over. Again. If you think that it is the result of a false report, find evidence to that effect is admissible in a court of law to that effect – that is your only recourse (again, correct me if I’m wrong, Vince).
Bobby JindAl is as much a citizen as the natural born child of citizens and by the operation of the same principle according to the SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark. If he could convince the public to vote for him after his horrendous response to President Obama’s address then he would become the legitimate president. On the other hand, not being a natural born citizen is likely the ONLY thing stopping Arnold from becoming president.
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/05/01/educating-the-confused-black-people-cannot-be-natural-born/
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
Article XIV
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.
and the question is, is Bobby Jindal a NATURAL born citizen and not just a CITIZEN. I do not see where Article XIV has the word NATURAL in it.
Here is an interesting post over at NNBCEW:
QUOTE
Educating the Confused – Black People cannot be natural born
1 05 2010
At Dr C’s we read the following foolish assertion by “DraggingCanoe”
A natural born citizen cannot be created by the 14th amendment..the Founders forever banned Negroes..being President…that is why they used natural born..a natural law…cannot be touched..by man..it is forever fixed…
How could the Founders have banned negroes from being natural born? They of course did not, they banned them from being allowed citizenship. To claim that this is a ‘natural law’ that cannot be touched by man presumes that somehow we were told by God about these ‘laws’. The 14th Amendment did not create natural born citizens, it merely applied the US Constitution in a consistent manner. UNQUOTE
lINK TO SOURCE
Per wiki, “Piyush [“Bobby”] Jindal was born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to Amar and Raj Jindal, who came to the United States as immigrants from India.”
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
Article XIV
1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Do you think that Arnold Schwartzenager could get on the ballot?
No, he was not born here. Nor do I think Bobby Jindel could either.
Dr.Slarti,
Whether or not Calero is this or that makes no difference, he made it on those ballots. How did those secretary’s of those states decide he was constitutionally eligible?
You said the states should “Be satisfied with an official copy of the COLB posted on the web”.
Who would you have post that copy on the web? As we have seen in Hawaii the originating state probably can’t legally do it and the candidate has good reason to provide false information if he or she wants to. I think the proof must be provided to each state for examination.
I don’t like these certifications. If a false report is filed the state is forced to repeat the lie.
Filing a false birth report is not only a possibility it was done by the soviets. I think they did it in New York in the late 50s.
When it comes to matters this important I don’t know why anyone would consider a request to examine the original to be too much of a burden.
Bdaman,
Do you think that Arnold Schwartzenager could get on the ballot? (He recently said that he would definitely run for president if he could.) Roger Calero may have gotten on the ballot in five states, but it is ludicrous to think that had he been a viable candidate that he could have gotten through media vetting, the election, the elector’s vote, congressional certification and the swearing in by the chief justice and assumed the presidency.
How did Roger Calero get on the ballot of five states who is not a natural born citizen.
Bdaman,
I think that doing document analysis of a scan on a website (ala ‘Dr.’ Polarik or Techdude) is highly dubious at best. That being said, near the bottom just to the right of center is something that looks like a date stamp at the bottom of a seal. Scans and pictures are two very different technologies – which do you think yields a higher fidelity image? In fact, some documents are DESIGNED to look different in photocopies and scans (having the word ‘COPY’ appear in the background, for instance) for security reasons. I think the differences you note are unremarkable and that, of the two, the photograph is the much higher fidelity image. And as for the secretaries of state – I believe that what most of them required was the word of Speaker Pelosi (which is consistent with what was required for every other presidential candidate in our country’s history). If states want to enact tougher verification standards, that is their right (so long as they give full faith and credit to the documents of other states), but such laws will only help President Obama by removing any doubt from the minds of reasonable people when he provides a certified copy of the COLB (which exists unless the Hawaii DOH was lying in official statements).
If President Obama cannot produce a certified copy of the COLB posted on FactCheck that necessarily implies that the Hawaii department of health officials have lied.
Thats the whole point. What does a candidate provide to the secretary of a state to prove that they are constitutionally eligible to be elected for that position? The answer may surprise you.
Dr. Slarti, I’d like to ask you to be the first to answer this question.
We have all seen the COLB posted on fightthesmears and factcheck. I have looked at it many times. I cannot see the embossing from the state on that document.
According to factcheck it was a scanned image of the document. “In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen.”
Here is the fightthesmears COLB. http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
After people started talking about that the Obama campaign, via factcheck, released some pictures of the COLB the show the document was embossed.
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg
I have had read where some people think the embossed section didn’t show up on the scan because it was embossed from the back. I think that would mean the depressions would be on the back and the raised section would be on the front. I don’t understand why the light reflection would not have the same effect no matter which way it went. Wouldn’t a distortion have the same effect in either direction?
This bothers me even more when I see that the latter pictures of the COLB show two fold lines. We can see that the upper fold is in one direction and the lower fold is in the opposite direction, but neither of them show up on the scanned image.
What do you think?
Bdaman,
If President Obama cannot produce a certified copy of the COLB posted on FactCheck that necessarily implies that the Hawaii department of health officials have lied (which is unlikely in the extreme, in my opinion). And as for the ‘long form’, neither you nor anyone else has any right or need to see it and, as the video I posted above points out, the birthers have 7 more fallback positions after that one so President Obama should save his 10 bucks just to stick it to the birthers if nothing else.
“Obama has already complied with the proposed law”
He has only provided a copy to Fact Check. Not one official from any state has had it ever been presented to them. The proposed law wants to see it in front of them and NOT posted on the web.
“A candidate born in Hawaii cannot get a “long form” or “vault copy” because the State does do not issue any form by that description”.
Unless they have a tangible interest in the record of their birth. If it’s your record, then you have a tangible interest.
In his letter to the President, Lakin wrote “In 2008, after pressure from the news media, Senator McCain produced an original birth certificate from the Panama Canal Zone; a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing examined and affirmed his “natural born” status and Constitutional eligibility to serve as President.”
Has anyone seen a link or citation to this Senate Judiciary Committee “hearing”? Has anyone here seen a copy of the “original birth certificate” that Lakin says McCain produced at that hearing?
The only lead I have is the Senate floor debate, exactly one year ago on April 30, 2008, when it approved Senate Resolution 511. It was a simple resolution, not a joint resolution or concurrent resolution. It was a nonbinding expression of opinion, not a law. It passed by voice vote. See Congressional Record, page S3645-46, April 30, 2008.
Only Senators Leahy and Brown spoke. No one mentioned a birth certificate. No one mentioned a hearing. Chairman Leahy only said that the Committee met the previous week and voted unanimously to report the resolution to the Senate. The memo by Tribe and Olson was entered into the Record.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r110:4:./temp/~r110zmSbXc::
Here is the entire legislative history from Thomas at the Library of Congress:
[quote] 110th CONGRESS, 2d Session
S . RES . 511
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
April 10, 2008
Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
April 24, 2008
Reported by Mr. LEAHY, without amendment
April 30, 2008
Considered and agreed to [unquote]
Here it is again: [quote] S.RES.511
Title: A resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.
Sponsor: Sen McCaskill, Claire [MO] (introduced 4/10/2008) Cosponsors (5)
Latest Major Action: 4/30/2008 Passed/agreed to in Senate. Status: Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.ALL ACTIONS:
4/10/2008:
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text of measure as introduced: CR S2950)
4/24/2008:
Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
4/24/2008:
Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Leahy without amendment and with a preamble. Without written report.
4/24/2008:
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 715.
4/30/2008:
Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S3645-3646; text of measure as passed Senate: CR S3646) [unquote]
On April 23, 2008, Judiciary held a “business meeting,” not a hearing, to consider the resolution, among other matters: “Judiciary[:] Business meeting to consider … S . Res . 511 , recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen….”
McCain’s Canal Zone birth certificate has never been posted on the web. (The image of a birth certificate showing McCain born in Colon City is a forgery). A Washington Post reporter saw it, but the McCain campaign did not let him copy or post it.
So why is Lakin risking his career in part on his belief that McCain has actually shown his birth certificate?
Can anyone here find a clue to that hearing or the production and examination of McCain’s birth certificate?
Can anyone find an image of McCain’s Canal Zone birth certificate that Lakin so vividly remembers?
I am asking because I have not been able to track it down.
FFLEO,
If we could only get the birthers to swallow that capsule of logic and law…