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
FFLEO,
It’s nice to see you regularly poke your head in without contributing anything worthwhile to the discussion.
I read where you considered Vince Treacy to be immune from being called out for sophism, obfuscation, and outright lies because he voluntarily cohse to use his real name? Are you really under the impression that using one’s real name grants them immunity from such acts of retribution?
Were you really so ballsy that you (while posting anonymously) called for bdaman to post his real name, because Vince Treacy chose to do so?
If you really wanted to abide by Professor Turley’s call for civility, may I suggest your snarky commentary to be a good place to start.
Nal,
I appreciate the effort, but nothing you presented would help to define natural born citizen. The definition you provided is for “nationals” and “citizens”.
In toto, birfers is wong about Wong and simply wong-headed…ad nauseam
Vince Treacy,
I didn’t expect you to understand the significance of Rogers v. Bellei. –You have been arguing that Obama did not have dual citizenship from birth. That position is contrary to obamaconspiracy.org, fightthesmears, Factcheck.org, and my opinion. For some unknown reason you seem to think that the laws of the U.S. act upon someone born abroad to an alien parent, but they don’t apply to someone born in the U.S. who had an alien parent.
“It is useless to ask what if Obama had an Indonesian passport, because there seems to be no evidence that he ever had one.”
There seems to be no evidence that Obama had any passport when he traveled before he became a U.S. Senator.
§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
Is this the only US law that codifies what’s in the Constitution? Is that really necessary?
The parents of Wong were subjects of the Emperor of China, but the Court still held that he became a citizen at birth.
It is useless to ask what if Obama had an Indonesian passport, because there seems to be no evidence that he ever had one.
“Claims about travel to Pakistan using a non-U.S. passport
“It has also been claimed that Obama could not be a natural-born citizen because he traveled to Pakistan at a time when there was a ban on United States passport holders entering that country, which means he must have traveled using a non-U.S. passport. The OC Weekly comments that these assertions are not true:
“The Pakistan “travel ban” is a complete fabrication based on zero evidence and completely contradicted by State Department records and a 1981 New York Times article.[47]
“The New York Times article mentioned, along with U.S. State Department travel advisories from 1981, make it clear that travel to Pakistan by U.S. passport holders was possible at that time.[48][49]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#Claims_about_travel_to_Pakistan_using_a_non-U.S._passport
Wong Kim Ark
“he Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that
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,
contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case [p703] of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
What is so hard about the words?
There are only two sources of citizenship, birth and naturalization.
Every person born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction becomes at once a citizen.
A court decision first formulates the rule of law.
Then it applies it to the facts before it.
It found that Wong met the test.
It never said, anywhere, that “only” children of permanently domiciled aliens were citizens at birth.
For crying out loud, Obama’s mother was a natural born United States citizen! Her son, born in the United States, was a natural born citizen.
Where is the law that says he is not a natural born citizen because of his father? There is none.
Anyway, I have been stating the law in the 14th Amendment and in the controlling Supreme Court case.
It’s the law. Buckle up, birthers.
ROGERS v. BELLEI, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)
Syllabus “Appellee challenges the constitutionality of 301 (b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which provides that one who acquires United States citizenship by virtue of having been BORN ABROAD, one of whom is an American citizen, who has met certain residence requirements, shall lose his citizenship unless he resides in this country continuously for five years between the ages of 14 and 28. The three-judge District Court held the section unconstitutional, citing Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 , and Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 . Held: Congress has the power to impose the condition subsequent of residence in this country on appellee, who does not come within the Fourteenth Amendment’s definition of citizens as those “born or naturalized in the United States,” and its imposition is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unlawful. Afroyim v. Rusk, supra, and Schneider v. Rusk, supra, distinguished.” [EMPHASIS supplied]
I do not see how this applies to anything under discussion. Bellei was born abroad. Obama was born in the United States.
Different rule, different result.
Dig will have to provide a little more reasoning and a little less heat.
Slartibartfast,
Does SCOTUS opinion trump Vince Treacy? Maybe not in your world, but in mine it sure does.
Here’s a stipulated fact from ROGERS v. BELLEI, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)
“By Italian law the plaintiff acquired Italian citizenship upon his birth in Italy. He retains that citizenship. He also acquired United States citizenship at his birth under Rev. Stat. 1993, as amended by the Act of May 24, 1934, 1, 48 Stat. 797, then in effect. 2 That version of the statute, as does the present one, contained a residence condition applicable to a child born abroad with one alien parent.”
I think that pretty much destroys the claim made by Vince Treacy.
Slartibartfast,
Since you were kind enough to provide a definition of “naturalization” which acknowledges it to be the process by which an alien becomes a citizen, perhaps you can explain how Congress, using their power to create “uniform rules for naturalization” could make someone who was born an alien, a natural-born citizen? If they weren’t born an alien, where did Congress get the power to make them anything?
To make matters worse, the Fourteenth Amendment would only apply to those who are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
It was the first time that “citizen” was defined in the Constitution. Congress cannot redefine that which is spelled out in the Constitution.
Slartibartfast said; “By the way, the link that I provided is to one of many sites that Vince has pointed me (and everyone else reading this thread) to which discusses Indonesian citizenship with reference to actual US and Indonesian law, so the statement that Vince never provided anything but his own opinion is just another of your lies.”
I’m waiting for you to provide me with the thread, and the day and time that Vince Treacy provided a link to a discussion of the Indonesian Law and how it relates to Obama.
“You don’t seem to understand that President Obama was a natural born citizen of the United States and remains one to this day.”
And you don’t seem to understand that you have not provided any binding legal opinion to support that claim.
If Barack Obama traveled on an Indonesian Passport as an adult, would you consider that to be a positive act of expatriation?
Obama is hiding everything so that the fools who voted for him can sustain their illusion. It works pretty well. He holds the key to all the information. He is so transparent!
Slartibartfast,
If you’re going to remain in this debate, would you at least refrain from inserting that which has not been presented?
Did I suggest that Obama lost his U.S. Citizenship when he was adopted by Soetoro? No I did not. The only prohibition under U.S. law would have been for the minor to have been expatriated.
Can you acquire another citizenship without renouncing an existing allegiance? Maybe you better look into the cases of adopted children. Do they acquire U.S. citizenship upon being adopted? You know that they do. If their country of origin does not permit a minor to expatriate, they must have only acquired another citizenship.
Vince Treacy cited the header of Look Tin Sing for support.
Let’s look at the header of the SCOTUS opinion for Wong Kim Ark:
“That at the time of his said birth his mother and father were domiciled residents of the United States, and had established and enjoyed a permanent domicile and residence therein, at said city and county of San Francisco, state aforesaid.”
Do you know what it is to be a “domiciled resident”, Slartibartfast? Was Obama’s father a “domiciled resident” of the U.S. when Obama was born?
Dig,
You don’t seem to understand that President Obama was a natural born citizen of the United States and remains one to this day. By US law (which Vince has cited), he could not have given up his US citizenship when he was in Indonesia (it is also true, but irrelevant, that he could not have obtained Indonesian citizenship). For a discussion of Indonesian citizenship (with citations) check out links 1, 1a, and 1b on:
http://badfiction.typepad.com/badfiction/birther-mythbusting.html
You (and all of the other birthers) have utterly failed to provide any evidence that any other citizenships from any other countries has any bearing at all on President Obama’s eligibility for the office he holds. Will you admit that Barck Obama is the legitmate president of the United States or are you just going to stay in denial and keep spouting lies and disinformation while wallowing in your intellectual dishonesty and attempting to smear Vince’s good name?
By the way, the link that I provided is to one of many sites that Vince has pointed me (and everyone else reading this thread) to which discusses Indonesian citizenship with reference to actual US and Indonesian law, so the statement that Vince never provided anything but his own opinion is just another of your lies.
Slartibartfast,
By your own admission you are ignorant of the law. You rely on someone who considers obfuscation to be a tool of his trade for support. It’s no wonder you buy into what he tells you. You don’t know any better.
Vince Treacy chooses his words wisely. He makes a statement that would imply one thing, while ensuring that he has a means of escape. Why do you think he used Kenya when he made this statement?
“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.”
And why do you think he refused to accept the corrected statement when it was only changed to reflect Great Britain instead of Kenya?
You’re scared Slartibartfast. You’re scared of the truth. That is why you must continue to insert your conclusion, and cannot (when asked) provide any case law to support your conclusion.
For example: Dig said: “What applicable law are you referring to? Please cite the law and quote the passage that leads you to that conclusion.”
Slartibartfast responded; “US Constitution, Amendment 14, Section 1, first sentence.”
Nothing about “natural-born citizen” in that sentence. Do you have trouble with words? I asked you to cite a source for the determination that someone born on U.S. soil, whose father was not a permanently domiciled resident is to be considered a natural-born citizen. You failed miserably. The fact that you won’t admit your failure only serves to establish how ignorant and susceptible to the sophistry of Vince Treacy you are.
Slartibartfast,
Thank you! Now you, and fightthesmears, and Factcheck.org, and obamaconspiracy.org are all on the same page. You admit that Obama was a of both a citizen of the U.S. and of the UK at birth. Vince Treacy is the only one who cannot understand that Obama was born with double-character.
Did Barack Obama also acquire Indonesian Citizenship at some point? I don’t know. Vince Treacy has stated that he could not, but never provided anything but his own opinion.
Vince,
To paraphrase: All that is required for ignorance to triumph is for knowledgeable people to do nothing.
All Dig requires to win is to frustrate you so badly with his illogic, misunderstanding of the law and repeatedly debunked arguments that you give up. Thank you once again for your continued vigilance.
Dig,
Pppttthhbbb! 😛
[Aside to Vince]: The previous argument was just an attempt to improve the quality of the discussion with Dig.
Dig has not set forth a legal thesis or argument. Dig has posted undigested stuff from a legal treatise. What is did driving at?