Bizarre, Courts, Lawyering, Society

Attorney Orly Taitz Fined $20,000 for Frivolous “Birther” Litigation

orly2The 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.”

s-TAITZ-large

“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

1,636 thoughts on “Attorney Orly Taitz Fined $20,000 for Frivolous “Birther” Litigation”

  1. FFLEO: “If I were VT, I would never respond to you again….”

    Thanks, FFLEO. I am no longer responding.

    I will answer postings by you, Slart, and all the other responsible posters to specific questions or issues.

  2. From the Central Law Journal, Volume 46 (1898)

    CITIZENSHIP OF CHINAMAN BORN IN UNITED STATES.

    There has been recently rendered in the Supreme Court of the United States, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 467, a decision upon the old question of the citizenship of persons born within the limits of the United States of alien parents. It appears to be the first time that this question has been directly decided in this court, although it has frequently been incidentally Involved in previous cases; and the rule here laid down Is apparently a ratification of the decisions heretofore reached In the various State and circuit courts. The individual whose citizenship was under discussion was of Chinese extraction, and claimed the rights of a citizen by reason of birth here. The court deals with the question very exhaustively, and laying Its foundation upon the assumption that the common-law rule of England that “every child born In England of alien parents Is a natural born subject, unless the child of a public minister of a foreign State, or an alien enemy,” was in force In the colonies at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and prevailed in the United States thereafter, holds that this rule is hut re-enacted in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and In the fourteenth amendment.

    Although hopelessly In the minority, Chief Justice Fuller, with whom Mr. Justice Harlan agrees, dissents from this opinion, and, upon what appears to be the better view, holds that the common law of England does not control the question under discussion. He very aptly shows that If the English rule governs, then all children born abroad of American citizens, since the enactment of the fourteenth amendment, become by such birth subjects of the country wherein they are born, and In order to become American citizens must be naturalized as any other alien. But the English rule emphatically denies the right to change one’s allegiance; while the United States has always upheld the right of expatriation. Moreover, in this country, the alien must be permanently domiciled, while in Great Britain birth during mere temporary sojourn in sufficient to render the child a British subject.

    But both by our treaty with China and by statute, the right of citizenship Is forbidden to this applicant. To put upon the fourteenth amendment the construction urged by the majority of the court is to “override both treaty and statute.” The exercise of the right of deportation which we also have would under this construction cause the permanent separation of many families.

    The fourteenth amendment was founded on the act of 1866, which contained the words, “and not subject to any foreign power.” But these words were not necessary to shut out the children of public ministers of foreign States nor alien enemies, since by their birth they were not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof;” hence they must have been Inserted to exclude the children born here of resident aliens.— Yale Law Journal.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=3HotAAAAIAAJ&dq=%22fourteenth%20amendment%22%20%2Bpermanently%20domiciled%20here%22&pg=PA519#v=onepage&q&f=false

  3. If there are only two types of citizen naturalized and natural born, why does Obama describe himself as a native citizen. Being a constitutional lawyer and professor you would think that he knows the constitution and it says natural born.

  4. Bdaman,

    If I were calling out a credentialed attorney, you can bet that I would state my full name and credentials as evidence that I had the training and knowledge to contest a legal question. I use my full name on numerous other websites that involve my area of expertise to establish full credibility and experience.

  5. Slarti, there is no authority for the “permanently domiciled” requirement, anywhere. It was just made up. It is a distinction without a difference. Obama’s father was lawfully admitted to the US as a student. While in the US, he was subject to US jurisdiction, like everyone other than persons with diplomatic immunity. His son, when born in Hawaii, was subject to US jurisdiction. 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.” As he was born a citizen, not naturalized as one, and since there are only two kinds of citizens, he was a natural born citizen.

    The troll said “No, he [Arnold] was not born here. Nor do I think Bobby Jindel could either.” When proven to be dead wrong, the troll does not acknowledge a mistake and correct it. The troll invents yet another frivolous distinction with no legal significance.

    Nothing is ever proven. As a mathematician, can you tell us if this is like an infinite regress? Wiki: “An infinite regress in a series of propositions arises if the truth of proposition P1 requires the support of proposition P2, and for any proposition in the series Pn, the truth of Pn requires the support of the truth of Pn+1. There would never be adequate support for P1, because the infinite sequence needed to provide such support could not be completed.”

  7. “I told the truth and got the law right back then.”

    “I’m telling the truth and getting the law right, now.”

    If Mr. Treacy was so good at telling the truth and getting the law right, you would think that he would hold some high position. He didn’t back then and he doesn’t now.

    Can Mr.Treacy provide us with a link to any appeal that he won? Any that he argued?

  8. Bdaman,

    You are a coward. The rules of online anonymity are fine except when an anonymous poster hides behind a veil of secrecy while ‘calling out’ persons who have always used their full names such as VT and Mike Spindell.

    If I were VT, I would never respond to you again until you provided your verifiable I.D./name.

  9. Mr Treacy linked to the article about Dr. West and a comment by a Catherine West Dale in which she claims

    Quote On
    My great uncle was Dr Rodney West, and he delivered me at Kapiolani Hospital on March 26, 1961, the same year Obama was born. That is a fact and it is on my birth certificate.
    Quote Off

    If this is in deed a fact the great niece of Dr. West, it is highly unlikely. Medical ethics would suggest this to be untrue. Regardless it is just a statement and if it’s on her birth certificate it would be on Obama’s as well. She obviously has a more detailed birth certificate than what is posted on line.

    To prove my point, this is Bdaman using Catherine West Dale as my handle.

  10. Dr. Slarti,

    If Bobby Jindal’s father was permanently domiciled here when Bobby was born here I think he would be considered a natural born citizen.

    Was Obama’s father permanently domiciled here when Obama was born?

  11. Bdaman originally posted that link to the Congressional Record remarks of Senator Hollings [up above on May 1, 2010, at 12:57 pm] on another thread:

    http://jonathanturley.org/2010/04/18/george-washington-war-hero-father-of-our-country-book-scofflaw/#comment-129301

    Here is what I said then. Might as well repeat it for the folks who find the link here for the first time:

    That was me, everybody.

    That wrinkled old senile racist redneck Hollings then went on to say that he’d like to wring my neck.

    He should have been careful about his empty threats. He might have found his own skinny little neck wrung right back.

    It was no problem for me then, and it is no problem for me now.

    I was doing my job, and doing it right.

    I told the truth and got the law right back then.

    He did not like it, so he flamed out intemperately (with full speech debate immunity).

    I’m telling the truth and getting the law right, now.

    If a Senator could not scare me, why should I worry about a lot of anonymous trolls and sock puppets?

  12. Dr. Slarti,

    You said “not that states should be satisfied with a web posting”.

    Then why pick on the birthers for not being satisfied with a web posting? A web posting is all that we have.

  14. Correction. It was to send real name and address and SASE and be answered by return mail.

  15. At those secret meetings you attend down by the docks.

    Are you keeping tabs on me again or is it because I’m at the dock everyday that you can say that.

  16. Mr. Treacy, that’s all well in good sir and thank you for your copy/paste of the very long discussion at Dr. C and every where else, but that’s not how you ORIGINALLY presented it, now is it.

    You and I both know how and why you did it. When asked for an explanation you gave a chicken shit response of, send me your name and address and you will be answered.

  17. bdaman,

    An admitted troll and a confirmed bigot is probably not the best person to challenging someone else’s credibility, don’t you think Mr. “Christ Killer”?

    Oh, that’s right! You very often don’t think before you post. Or you’d have realized how an attack on anyone’s credibility, let alone Vince’s, coming from you holds water like a sieve around these parts. Your opine of others virtuosity may hold some sway at those secret meetings you attend down by the docks, but here we’ve simply known you too long and seen too much to take such an assessment from you seriously.

  19. Never put much too much “stock” in any comment by bdaman. I could not care less about his views.

    The following verbatim article from NNBCE is posted without comment or endorsement for the information of readers. Readers, please take up any issues with NNBCE or Doc Conspiracy:

    Source:

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/04/25/educating-the-confused-rodney-t-west-stanley-had-a-baby/

    QUOTES ON

    Educating the Confused – Rodney T West – Stanley had a baby
    25 04 2010

    Some may remember a posting in which I discussed the the recollections of a teacher. She told the story of Rodney T West

    “I may be the only person left who specifically remembers his birth. His parents are gone, his grandmother is gone, the obstetrician who delivered him is gone,” said Nelson, referring to Dr. Rodney T. West, who died in February at the age of 98.

    Here’s the story: Nelson was having dinner at the Outrigger Canoe Club on Waikiki Beach with Dr. West, the father of her college friend, Jo-Anne. Making conversation, Nelson turned to Dr. West and said: “‘So, tell me something interesting that happened this week,’” she recalls. His response: “Well, today, Stanley had a baby.

    Now that’s something to write home about.” The new mother was Stanley (later referred to by her middle name of Ann) Dunham, and the baby was Barack Hussein Obama. “I penned the name on a napkin, and I did write home about it,” said Nelson, knowing that her father, Stanley A. Czurles, director of the Art Education Department at Buffalo State College, would be interested in the “Stanley” connection.

    She also remembers Dr. West mentioning that the baby’s father was the first black student at the University of Hawaii and how taken he was by the baby’s name.

    People objected by pointing out that Rodney T West had retired years earlier or that he never practiced at Kapiolani Hospital

    Now we know… The rest of the story

    Dr Conspiracy got the following email

    Our records show that Dr. Rodney T. West was Chief of Staff at Kapiolani Hospital in 1953. He was certified by the American Board of Obstetrics & Gynecology in 1958 and practiced at The Straub Clinic and Hospital until his retirement in December 1977.
    Thank you for your interest.
    The Queens Medical Center
    Mamiya Medical Heritage Center

    On the same thread a poster confirms that Rodney West was in fact still delivering babies.

    Catherine West Dale says:
    March 24, 2010 at 2:58 pm Catherine West Dale(Quote)

    My great uncle was Dr Rodney West, and he delivered me at Kapiolani Hospital on March 26, 1961, the same year Obama was born. That is a fact and it is on my birth certificate.

    Catherine West Dale says:
    March 25, 2010 at 11:56 am Catherine West Dale(Quote)

    I’ll ask my dad, he knows a lot more about his uncle than I do.

    Also wanted to add that Dr Rodney T. West delivered my sister at Kapiolani Hospital in Mar 1964.

    QUOTES OFF

  20. Double oops! I SHOULD have meant:

    “… find evidence to that effect WHICH is admissible…”

    My thesis advisor would not be happy about that mistake (the appropriate use of ‘which’ and ‘that’ being a pet peeve of his).

    And if you think that Arnold isn’t electable you’re the one who’s high…

Comments are closed.