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
Dig,
There is no conflict – you are misunderstanding what you posted. It says that (before arriving at full age) while in the US Barack Obama was a (natural born) citizen of the US and while in the UK/Kenya he was a (natural born) subject/citizen there. While he was in Indonesia he was a citizen of both countries (which almost certainly was never an important issue – I would assume that everyone considered him a US citizen and his Kenyan citizenship was never an issue). When he returned to the US he became unambiguously a US citizen again and upon reaching full age his Kenyan citizenship expired due to his failure to actively assert it (consistent with Kenyan law) and his US citizenship continued due to his failure to actively renounce it (consistent with US law). Vince and my positions are both consistent with US, British, and Kenyan law while you are trying to obfuscate the clear meaning of the passages you quote (and unfairly smear Vince) by muddying the waters of which country’s law applies in which context. Sorry, but that kind of intellectual dishonesty wont fly here.
Slartibartfast,
Vince Treacy has cited Bouvier’s Law Dictionary. With Bouvier being an accepted source by the opposition, it should be accepted by all.
“The child born of alien parents in the United States is held to be a citizen thereof, and to be subject to duties with regard to this country which do not attach to the father ; and when children of American fathers are born without the jurisdiction of the United States the country within whose jurisdiction they are born may claim them as citizens; U. S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. [You’ll notice that countries claim citizens. Vince Treacy would have you believe that an option is created. An option that is just waiting to be exercised. In the same breath he will also claim that they were a citizen at birth. —That rationale would make me a lottery winner because I had the option of buying a ticket.]
[Bouvier continued] 649, 691, 18 Sup. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890. Such children are said to be born to a double character; the citizenship of the father is that of the child, so far as the laws of the country of which the father is a citizen are concerned, and within the jurisdiction of that country, but the child may owe another fealty besides that which attaches to the father. Opinions of the Executive Departments on Naturalization, Expatriation, and Allegiance (1873) 17, 18; U. S. For. Eel. 1873-74, 1191, 1192. The conclusions in the opinion above cited by Attorney-General Hoar were quoted and adopted by Secretary Bayard in 1886, when a son born of American parents in France made an application for a passport ; U. S. For. Rel. 1886, 303.
It is said that the children of our citizens born abroad, and the children of foreigners born in the United States, have the right, on arriving at full age, to elect one allegiance and repudiate the other; Whart. Confl. L. §| 10, 12. The objection has been taken that as our law provides no right of election by or for a child, as do the continental codes, the resulting dual citizenship is contrary to the theory of citizenship. But the difficulty Is said to be rather apparent than real. When a child is born in America of Chinese parents, China claims him by the jus sanguinis; America by the jus soli. It is not a question whether he is an American or a Chinaman. He is both. The municipal laws being thus in conflict, his citizenship at any time will depend upon whether he is subject to the jurisdiction of the one or of the other country. The duality of citizenship is a fact, only in a third country. In China he is a Chinaman; in America, an American; 12 Harv. L. Rev. 55. See Domicil; Residence; Naturalization ; Alien.
http://books.google.com/books?id=0mo8AAAAIAAJ&dq=Bouvier's%20law%20dictionary&as_brr=1&pg=PA493#v=onepage&q&f=false
As you can plainly see, there is a conflict. Vince Treacy relies on his personal opinion. I am not relying on my personal opinion, but on that of published legal scholars.
“As to your assertion that a law can be binding without having jurisdiction over the parties is ridiculous. If the child was never a citizen until they entered the U.S., there would be no need to exclude from citizenship the foreign-born child of U.S. citizens who have never set foot on U.S. soil. Application of the law eliminates the possibility of your claim having validity.”
Say what?
“What happens when a conflict exists? Who wins?” British law controls in Britain, American law controls in America.
Henry VIII took England out of the Catholic Church because the leader of a foreign nation, the Pope, was interfering with the succession to the English throne.
Dig, I have not contradicted anything. The fact that an infant born in the US may be accorded citizenship by law in another country does not affect its citizenship status.
The fact is that the other country may accord citizenship, but it does not have any jurisdiction unless and until the person enters that country.
Jurisdiction. Citizenship.
I gotta go read Charles Stross, the Merchant Princes.
Only 6 days to Iron2Man! Got my tix already!
“if Castro were to pass a law declaring that an infant born in the US who has a Cuban-born parent or grandparent has Cuban citizenship, will that disqualify her from the Presidency.”
Cuban-born? Does that mean born in Cuba? Has the parent become a naturalized citizen prior to the birth?
I’ll ignore the grandparent part as inapplicable and suggested as to introduce the ridiculous. What’s next? The great-grandparent?
As to your assertion that a law can be binding without having jurisdiction over the parties is ridiculous. If the child was never a citizen until they entered the U.S., there would be no need to exclude from citizenship the foreign-born child of U.S. citizens who have never set foot on U.S. soil. Application of the law eliminates the possibility of your claim having validity.
To the poster who is presumably responsible for addressing the physical, emotional and spiritual needs of Woosty (who remains a male member the family felidae) and who is guaranteed the right of suffrage (assuming she satisfies some additional requirements) by the 19th Amendment to the Constitution,
You said: “I don’t want to run for President tho…”
The important thing is that you have that right (assuming that you meet the other requirements as well). You may change your mind one day 😉
By way of fair warning, I’m going to answer the question you asked in your email – I’ll keep it as simple as possible, but in this case ‘simple’ is very much a relative term…
Dig,
Great Britain can declare anyone a citizen that they wish, it just doesn’t effect anyone’s US citizenship in any way.
Per Wikipedia: “Naturalization is the acquisition of citizenship or nationality by somebody who was not a citizen or national of that country when he or she was born.”
The logical implications of this definition on your argument are not good. Nothing that I or Vince has said contradicts what is posted on factcheck or fightthesmears (at least to the best of my knowledge). You are making an unjustified conflation of the citizenship law of different countries in an attempt to save your conclusion and paint Vince’s statements as inconsistent – they aren’t. Please cite any applicable US law which takes foreign citizenship into account in determining US citizenship.
Dig said: “What applicable law are you referring to? Please cite the law and quote the passage that leads you to that conclusion.”
US Constitution, Amendment 14, Section 1, first sentence. Please read this thread an count the (very large but still finite despite the persistent efforts of people like you) number of times that Vince has answered this question and then tell me if you were being intellectually dishonest or ignorant. For extra credit check out the number of times this question has been answered on other birther threads…
Vince,
These birther arguments differ from regression in another important regard – the arguments remain the same with each iteration despite the fact that they have been shown to be incorrect. What you need is to get some recursion going to send them into an infinite loop until they admit that they are wrong…
Dig, the applicable law is in Article II, Natural Born Citizen clause, and the 14th Amendment,
“If the U.S. can, by law, make the foreign-born children of their citizens, U.S. Citizens are they not exercising extraterritorial jurisdiction over them?”
No.
They are not exercising JURISDICTION over them.
They are just making them citizens.
They are not exercising any legal power over them until they come to the U.S.
Dig, have you posted here under a different name?
Explain the difference between citizenship and jurisdiction. (This is an open book exam so scrolling up is okay).
Does anyone want to adopt dig’s policy?
Consider: if Castro were to pass a law declaring that an infant born in the US who has a Cuban-born parent or grandparent has Cuban citizenship, will that disqualify her from the Presidency.
What if China, Japan, and the European Union were to do likewise?
Do you want a person’s eligibility for the Presidency at the mercy of foreign lawmakers?
Slartibartfast said “the applicable law says that if President Obama was born in Hawaii then he is a natural born citizen.”
What applicable law are you referring to? Please cite the law and quote the passage that leads you to that conclusion.
Slartibartfast said “There is no conflict – Great Britain does not get to determine who citizens of the United States are and the United States does not get to determine who the citizens of Great Britain are.”
Are you disagreeing wtih what has been presented as fact by Factcheck.org and fightthesmears.com?
Slartibartfast,
If the United States can determine that the foreign-born children of U.S. Citizens are U.S. Citizens, why cannot Great Britain do the same with the foreign-born children of British Citizens?
If the U.S. can, by law, make the foreign-born children of their citizens, U.S. Citizens are they not exercising extraterritorial jurisdiction over them?
Your buddy Vince has put himself in a position in which the logic presents a self-defeating conclusion. It is his position that the foreign-born children of British (incorrectly Kenyan) Citizens are not really British Citizens at birth, but only have the option of becoming such, while seeming to imply that the foreign-born child of a U.S. Citizen is a citizen from the time of birth.
I think you need to define “naturalization” before you consider the questions.
Dig,
There is no conflict – Great Britain does not get to determine who citizens of the United States are and the United States does not get to determine who the citizens of Great Britain are. The United State MAY choose to consider citizenship in other countries when it determines who its citizens are, but current US law does not do this (at least in the case we are considering). As Vince has pointed out (a very large but still finite (for now) number of times) the applicable law says that if President Obama was born in Hawaii then he is a natural born citizen. It is currently a legal certainty that he was born in Hawaii. If you have credible evidence to the contrary, please present it.
Oh you guys are so sweet….
Woosty is a male,
I , however, am not.
I don’t want to run for President tho…
Slartibartfast said “The United States determines who is and is not considered a citizen”.
If the United States can determine who is and is not considered to be a citizen, is the same not true of Great Britain? i.e. If I said that Great Britain determines who is and is not considered a citizen (of Great Britain), is that not an equally true statement?
What happens when a conflict exists? Who wins?
Dig,
My bad, I meant the 19th amendment, not the 20th and should have included the 15th in my argument as well. Your point about running for office is valid (at least I think it is) so originally female citizens would have come in two classes (natural born and naturalized) which, under the 14th amendment, would have been indistinguishable from the same two classes of male citizens. Citizens who have lost the right to vote (such as convicted felons) are irrelevant to this argument (they retain the same ability to transmit citizenship). Also, the laws of Great Britain, Kenya and Outer Mongolia are totally irrelevant to any argument about any type of US citizenship – The United States determines who is and is not considered a citizen and by the relevant laws it has been determined that President Barack Obama is a natural born citizen.
Slartibartfast,
I should also point out that under the Constitution of the United States there has never been anything that would prevent a woman from holding the Office of President or any other office. That has always been left to the sound judgment of the voters.
It is a common misconception that someone must be able to vote in order to hold office. It is also a common misconception that someone needs to be a citizen in order to vote, or that just because one would be a citizen they had the right to vote.
Slartibartfast said “The 20th amendment removes the FC class by giving females the right to vote”.
I think you meant the 15th Amendment.
Neither the 15th or 20th Amendment have anything to do with who can run for President or Vice-President. Anybody can run for that office, and the states have many restrictions for who can be placed on the ballot. The 20th provides direction when a situation arises where the person who won the election does not meet the qualifications to hold that office.
Why won’t Vince Treacy answer the question? We know that Kenya was a British Colony at the time of Obama’s birth. If Vince kew that Kenya was a colony operating under British Law, why would he make the statement immediately below?
“So what is the problem of comprehension? Obama was born in the US. Like country A, Kenya accorded him conditional temporary “citizenship” based on birth to his father. It was not based on Kenyan jurisdiction over him at his birth, because Kenya had no such jurisdiction or legal power. It never exercised jurisdiction.”
Is this pure sophism or is Mr. Treacy completely unaware of the status of Kenya at the time of Obama’s birth?
Would Mr. Treacy care to reword his previous statement to conform to Kenya’s status in 1961? i.e. Obama was born in the US. Like country A, Great Britain accorded him conditional temporary “citizenship” based on birth to his father. It was not based on British jurisdiction over him at his birth, because Great Britain had no such jurisdiction or legal power. It never exercised jurisdiction.
Would Mr. Treacy accept the paragraph immediately above to be representative of his legal opinion?
Dig,
First off, I’m a scientist not a lawyer so I’m not giving anything more than my own layman’s opinion. That being said, it seems to me that the constitution originally created 3 classes of citizens: natural born citizens (NBC), naturalized citizens (NZC), and female citizens (FC) – I’m ignoring the grandfathered class of citizens as irrelevant to the discussion. The only distinction between NBC and NZC being the eligibility to run for president – since FCs were unable to become president (or to vote) the distinction between the two classes of female citizens was unimportant. The 14th amendment broadens and defines the scope of citizenship (the above classes are unaffected by it, however). The 20th amendment removes the FC class by giving females the right to vote (and run for president) provided they are citizens under the 14th amendment (or NBCs if they want to run for president). As there are now only 2 classes of citizen and the only difference (in terms of rights and obligations) between the two is the ability to run for president, any laws governing the transmission of citizenship from parents to children at birth cannot distinguish between the sexes.
How did I do, Vince?
From the Obama campaign in 2008:
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British SUBJECT whose CITIZENSHIP status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
“Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. CITIZENSHIP nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan CITIZENSHIP automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”
Source: Factcheck dot org and fightthesmears dot com. [EMPHASIS supplied].
What is the point? The British “subject” became a Kenyan “citizen” upon independence. It does not change the fact that no other country has ever had any “jurisdiction” or legal power over Obama or any other infant born in the U.S. in 1961 or in any other year, other than the narrow exception for diplomatic personnel (and, historically, hostile occupying forces, and, until changed by statute, Indians not taxed).
The topic is “jurisdiction” for all the readers of the blog.
Citizenship. Jurisdiction.