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 said:
Quite alright, I allowed me the opportunity to make the ‘evil graduate school’ remark and a laudatory comment about Coach K, so it’s all good. I hope you are entertained by the following remarks.
It seems to me that the 14th Amendments is pretty clear. It states that there are two types of citizens, those born in the United Sates and those that are naturalized. A military base in Panama is not “in the United States”. Hence, John McCain is a naturalized citizen.
Will FFLEO be able to provide something that says “all those who become citizens by birth are natural born citizens” or something even close. If not, is he willing to say that the question has not yet been legally answered by a court of competent jurisdiction?
Maybe he doesn’t want to answer. Maybe he should have asked himself that question before he voted for Obama.
If Obama is not clearly a natural born citizen, how could someone who supports the Constitution vote for him?
These and many questions like them should be answered by all those who ridicule the birthers for daring to ask the questions.
If all it takes to be a natural born citizen is to be born a citizen of the United States, then why didn’t the Framers accept that when Alexander Hamilton suggested that simple wording? Why? Why did the Framers chose “natural born citizen” over “born a citizen” if being born a citizen was all that is required? I dare any of you to answer that question.
Dr. K.
I actually thought about that *after* I posted.
Good luck with Diggin’…
Nal said; “Children of military personnel, born overseas, are by definition naturalized citizens.”
I am not aware of any case in which the foreign-born child (legitimate or not) of a service member has challenged that status. If John McCain had been elected, and his birth certificate indicated that he was not born on the base, I’m sure the argument I suggested would be presented. It would be nice to have an answer. I see no difference between the foreign-born child of a service menber and that of a diplomat.
“They may also be considered “citizens by birth”, but they are still naturalized citizens.”
In the case of regular citizens, I would agree. However, as I presented above, I think a good case for diplomatic ficticious residence can be made in regard to service members.
“Can a naturalized citizen be considered a “natural born” citizen?”
I don’t think so. It would be a pretty silly way of having a strong check on foreign influence. Especially when you consider that they could have spent their most formative years in a foreign country.
FFLEO,
Thanks for your comment – if all of the opposition to President Obama were as honorable and reasoned as yours I would worry much less about the fate of our country. I do have one small bone to pick – it’s Dr. K, not Mr. K. Mr. K is my dad (and Coach K is AWESOME! ;-)). I didn’t spend 10 years in evil graduate school to be called mister… But don’t worry, I prefer Slarti here and, in any case, I could never stay mad at you once you turned on the folksy charm. Now if you’ll excuse me, it seems that Dig has spewed some more crap I need to clean up…
FFLEO,
If you have gained anything by reading what Vince Treasy, Mike A., and Slartibartfast (a mathematician with no knowledge of the law) have stated, then you should be able to provide something that says “all those who become citizens by birth are natural born citizens” or something even close. If not you should be willing to say that the question has not been legally answered by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Slartibartfast,
How old are you? Where do you get off demanding that I do anything? Just how self-important do you think you are?
“The evidence and law suggest that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen.”
Wrong biotch! The law suggests nothing of the sort. When asked to provide any “law” that would declare the Hawaiian-born child of a natural-born citizen woman, and a Kenyan man (who was only here in temporary residence) to be a natural-born citizen, you failed miserably. You consider the foreign-born children of U.S. Citizens to be natural-born citizens; so your understanding of the law in this area is void of support.
Slartibartfast said; “Have you not noticed that I’ve been advocating brither laws here for the last several days?
Have you noticed that you’re the only one on your team doing so? They know that Obama is not a natural-born citizen, and if some state tries to keep him off the ballot it will permit the court to rule on it. That is something they don’t want. They don’t want it because it will; (1) demonstrate that Obama is not a natural-born citizen. (2) Stop permitting the children of illegal aliens to become citizens. That reduces the number of those who are likely to vote for the Democrat.
Slartibartfast said; “It says that he was born a citizen – i.e. that he was not a naturalized citizen (which I gave a definition of). As Vince has repeatedly demonstrated via citations of law there are only two types of citizens and Barack Obama is NOT an naturalized citizen… (I’ll let you figure out the rest). If you think differently, let’s see the citations of law and SCOTUS opinion that say so… Oh, that’s right, you don’t have any.”
There you go genius. You can’t provide law, and I can’t provide law. I can provide common-law. I can provide the Common Law of England of which I can prove the Law of Nations to be part of. And the law of nations states that Obama does not meet the criteria to be a natural born citizen.
Slartibartfast said; “No you idiot, he’s been arguing that only US law is relevant in determining the citizenship of President Obama.”
No. You’re the idiot. It is Obama’s dual character at birth that prevents him from being a natural-born citizen. Inviting persons of dual-character to occupy the position of the Executive is not evidence of a strong check on foreign influence. Then again, who gives a crap about foreign influence? (as long as he’s a Democrat (or not Bush) you’ll be happy)
–Let me guess. By your comments I would say that you have spent more years of your life in school than out, and (except for maybe short periods of time) you have never held a job where your pay was not ultimately provided by the government.
I said; There seems to be no evidence that Obama had any passport when he traveled before he became a U.S. Senator.
Slartibartfast said; The burden of proof lies on you here.
Where do you come from? What part of your world makes you think that something exists until someone can prove that it does not? Are you a religious person? If not, prove to me that God does not exist? Do you really not understand that you can only prove Obama’s travel on a U.S. Passport is to provide that passport?
Dig said “the Fourteenth Amendment would only apply to those who are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”
Got that right.
The problem for Dig is that Obama was subject to US jurisdiction at birth.
Hoist by own petard.
Dig that logic and reasoning et al.
This thread has in its title “frivolous” and Vince Treacy has answered repeatedly every claim and counterclaim by you and others. I do not have the legal background to add anything substantive to this thread, although I would add more general comments if there was anything new to rebut; however, all I can now add is frivolity to frivolity.
We all know that attorneys must often deal with repetitive legal minutia and VT exemplifies that dedication. Regardless, up until about a month ago, I learned something new on almost every visit to this thread. Now when I read something I can think about comments up-thread and recall that VT has repeatedly answered that same question.
If this thread involved the ‘opposition’ presenting new, logical, and credible evidence, then I would welcome those additions. The three most credible contributors to this thread—VT, Mike A. and Mr. K. (aka Slartibartfast) have provided their full names. That certainly does not shield them from criticism; however, they should not become subjected to irrelevant personal probings by Bdaman, which occurred with Mike Spindell’s background.
You should remember that I voted for Mr. Obama, although I will never again. I do not like him and if I can vote against him, I will. Therefore, if you had any credible claims to remove him from office, I would be pleased. However, no persons—not even my foes—should be subjected to the repetitive and baseless nonsense that has occurred within this thread.
I will still read this thread when I see some of the regulars posting—most especially VT and Slartibartfast. They both continue to take the time to write detailed rebuttals and I commend them.
Dig to Slarti “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.”
Hope Dig has read Ankeny by now, since it held that a man born to a lawfully admitted exchange student and a natural born American citizen was a natural born citizen.
If it is wrong, there is still time to take it up to the US Supreme Court and to get it reversed.
Children of military personnel, born overseas, are by definition naturalized citizens. They may also be considered “citizens by birth”, but they are still naturalized citizens. Can a naturalized citizen be considered a “natural born” citizen?
Dig: “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.”
I never argued that Obama did not have dual citizenship.
Dig will not find where I said that and will not post it.
I argued that there was no dual jurisdiction.
I never said “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.”
Dig will not find where I said that and will not post it.
It is hard enough to defend what I do in fact write, without contending with fictitious statements attributed to me.
Once again, slowly. Obama had two citizenships at birth. He was a full natural born citizen of the United States under the Constitution, Article II and Amendment 14. His Kenyan citizenship expired at age 21 because he did not go to Kenya and swear allegiance to Kenya.
Obama was not subject to dual JURISDICTION. He was subject to the sole jurisdiction of the United States at birth.
Persons in the US are subject to US jurisdiction. Persons in Kenya are subject to Kenyan jurisdiction. The US has no jurisdiction over persons in Kenya. Kenya has no jurisdiction over persons in the US. (There are exceptions by treaty for some military personnel, and diplomatic personnel have immunity, but those are immaterial).
But for the nth time, according citizenship to a person born in another country does not confer jurisdiction over that person. How hard is that?
Obama was not subject to the jurisdiction of the British Empire or of the colony of Kenya or of any other state or nation at the time of birth.
Citizenship does not equal jurisdiction, and vice versa.
That is what I have posted, and it is my considered legal judgment. If Dig is a penname for a distinguished law professor or judge, and says so on this blog, well, then, I will do more study.
It is getting painful to beat up on Dig on this elementary issue that Dig refuses to address.
But every one of the other readers here seems to have picked it up.
Dig did not even deny that he or she has posted here before under other names.
Dig: “Some have interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment, as it was interpreted in Wong Kim Ark, to further limit who can be a citizen by birth to only be those who are born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S.”
The Supreme Court held that all persons born in the US are subject to its jurisdiction, except those born to dipomatic personnel.
Yes, indeed. Obama was born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, in the United States and is THEREFORE a citizen by birth and a natural born citizen.
What is the argument that Obama was not subject to US jurisdiction at birth? There is none.
Born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States of America.
Born in the United States of America.
President of the United States of America.
The civility has evaporated into “sophism, obfuscation, and outright lies.” Why does not Dig get it?
In the Ankeny case, the state court plaintiff had standing and the Court of Appeals resolved the question of dual citizenship. It held on the merits that Obama was a natural born citizen despite the different citizenship of the parents. It rejected all the arguments that Dig has thrown up. No case, no case, no case has supported his argument.
Everyone can read it:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22488868/ANKENY-v-GOVERNOR-OF-THE-STATE-OF-INDIANA-APPEALS-COURT-OPINION-11120903
The State Supreme Court declined to review it.
If the birthers really want a US Supreme Court case, they should all get together and seek Supreme Court review. Have they?
Dig should read it and learn from it.
Dig,
In my opinion you are just another anonymous intellectually dishonest cretin, so this will be my last response to your drivel unless you:
(a) Admit that President Obama is a natural born citizen and eligible for his office
(b) Provide evidence (with appropriate legal citations) that (a) is not true
or
(c) I feel like calling you out for the lying crap you spew
The evidence and law suggest that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural born citizen. He was vetted according to the process established in the Constitution and State law. The only legitimate methods for removing him from office are via impeachment or defeating his re-election bid. I fully expect that someone (probably not that twit Orly) will find a way to bring a case (with standing) against President Obama’s eligibility to be on a state’s ballot in the run-up to the 2012 elections and be will crushed (along with the pathetic hopes of you and the rest of the birthers) when his eligibility is confirmed in a court of law.
If you would care to dispute any of this, please provide something beyond your ignorant word or off-point citations to do so.
Dig posted:
Look, everyone reading this knows that your smears on Vince are baseless and that he’s right about the law. I’m not sure what you hope to accomplish here, but whatever your goals are, they are clearly petty and dishonest.
FFLEO,
Amen.
Dig said: “Good news and bad news: Here in the U.S. Obama’s approval rating continues to drop. However, he is still well-liked in the country of his birth.”
Yes, President Obama is still well-liked by the reasonable people in this country – and according to the RealClearPolitics average, his approval rating is 47.7% approve/45.9% disapprove and it doesn’t look like there’s been a statistically significant change since the beginning of the year.
Nal,
I think Congress would only be overstepping their authority if they tried to use a mere Act of Legislature to create natural born citizens. They did once in 1790, but repealed that Act and created a new one that no longer made that sort of declaration in 1795. In fact, the preamble to the Naturalization Act of 1795 seems to hint that that new act was as far as Congress could go.
Some have interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment, as it was interpreted in Wong Kim Ark, to further limit who can be a citizen by birth to only be those who are born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S.
I think it is reasonable to consider foreign-born children of U.S Citizens to be naturalized at birth. In the oral argument of TUAN ANH NGUYEN V. INS 533 U.S. 53 (2001), Justice Stevens seemed to agree with that position.
I also think that the children of military personnel, born abroad, should be considered natural born citizens (the same as diplomats). After all, their foreign residence is only fictional, and they are only abroad while serving as representatives of the United States.
Dig,
Not trying to add to “natural born” definitions. I find it unusual that Congress should write a law that states what is found in the Constitution. Why would they feel that necessary? Especially since Congress only has the power of naturalization. Any citizen that achieves citizenship via Congressional statute is by definition a naturalized citizen. Does this statute mean that all citizens are naturalized? Or did Congress overstep its authority?
Good news and bad news: Here in the U.S. Obama’s approval rating continues to drop. However, he is still well-liked in the country of his birth.
Vince Treacy,
Do you consider the foreign-born child of a U.S. Citizen to be a natural born citizen?
You said; “One reason that McCain was considered a natural born citizen was because of his birth overseas to American citizen parents”. Which would indicate that is your belief.
I just want to make sure of your position.