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
Mario Apuzzo responded to a comment of mine here:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/responses-to-obama-supporters-comments.html
This is my response (which I will also post to the above thread):
[Me]: “I am a supporter of President Obama and believe that a certified copy of his COLB (assuming it confirms the information on the version posted online) is sufficient proof that he is a natural born citizen to any US court.”
[Apuzzo response]: “An authentic and certified Certification of Live Birth (COLB), not to be confused with a Certificate of Live Birth (BC), is only prima facie evidence of a birth event. A certified copy paper version of the alleged COLB has not been presented to any controlling legal authority or even to any reporters in the major media.”
Yes, a certified copy of the COLB is prima facie evidence of a birth event in Hawaii. I stipulated providing such to a controlling legal authority (I am confident that Hawaii DOH officials did not perjure themselves and such a document exists). I am not aware of any evidence that would be admissible in a US court of law that would cast doubt on the validity of the COLB. Also, as I understand it, birth certificates in Kenya are a matter of public record. If this is true then the lack of a certified copy of a Kenyan birth certificate with official affidavits affirming its validity is very curious…
[Apuzzo response]: “It is rather unreasonable to argue that with every word in the Constitution, the Framers defaulted to the English common law for its meaning unless they told us they were relying upon some other law for definition.”
It is also unreasonable to assume that they defaulted to de Vattel and implicitly created a third class of citizen (someone born a citizen, but not a natural born citizen) without in any way mentioning it.
[Apuzzo response]: “At no time did [Justice Gray in US v. Wong Kim Ark] say that such a child born in the United States of “an” alien parent is a “natural born Citizen.” To better understand this point, we know that the Fourteenth Amendment considers born citizens and naturalized citizens “citizens of the United States” and deems both classes of citizens to be equal. But even though they are equal in rights, we know that under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen is not eligible to be President.”
As I read the 14th Amendment, it says in relevant part “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States….”. I don’t see anything asserting that the classes of citizens are equal. On the other hand the Wong Kim Ark decision DOES assert equality: “… as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.” If Wong Kim Ark were not eligible to run for president then he would not be ‘as much a citizen’ as a natural born citizen. Additionally, if both are co-equal citizens by operation of the same principle, by what principle do you claim that there is a difference between the two? Also, I find it interesting that “an” alien parent means just one alien parent, but ‘the natural-born child of “A” citizen’ means two citizen parents. I hope you get the chance to argue this in front of a court.
[Apuzzo response]: “[Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana] basically took Wong Kim Ark’s definition of a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” and used it to also define an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Hence, the court conflated the two terms into the former. In so doing, the court obliterated the presidential eligibility clause “natural born Citizen” from the Constitution. ”
Not true. The 14th amendment specifies two classes of citizen (‘born’ and ‘naturalized’) as does the Constitution (‘natural born’ and ‘naturalized’). To say that these terms have been conflated is a straw man argument. And while conflating distinct terms in the Constitution is “inadmissible” as you put it, I would think that adding distinctions that are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution’s text (such as people who are born citizens but not natural born citizens) is equally improper.
[Me]: “I expect that the effect of any eligibility law or lawsuit will be to demonstrate that President Obama is a natural born citizen in a very high profile way and totally marginalize the eligibility movement.”
[Apuzzo response]: “We welcome the challenge to have a court of competent jurisdiction decide the question of Obama’s Article II eligibility to be President. We believe that if a court will give Commander Kerchner and the other plaintiffs standing, we will prevail. Once such a court decides the merits of the eligibility question (not just the standing question), I do not believe there will continue to be an “eligibility movement” and so there will not be any need to “marginalize” it.”
So if a court of competent jurisdiction issues a finding similar to the Ankeny decision after hearing your arguments you believe that will satisfy the entire eligibility movement that President Obama legitimately holds his office?
[Me]: “So I wish you and Mr. Apuzzo the best of luck in attempting what I expect will greatly benefit the effort to re-elect President Obama.”
[Apuzzo response]: “Commander Kerchner, the other plaintiffs, and I are not interested in hurting or helping anyone’s chances of getting elected or re-elected. What we are interested in is that the Constitution be respected and applied as the law of the land in our Constitutional Republic.”
I’m not interested in your intent – I would just like the eligibility issue to be addressed on it merits in as high-profile a venue as possible so that a ruling in favor of President Obama’s legitimacy (which is what I fully expect will happen) discredits the misinformation that the eligibility movement has espoused as widely as possible.
I think that the implication that only you and those that agree with you are interested in upholding the Constitution is one of the most un-American sentiments I’ve ever heard. One of the basic principles of how America works (or is supposed to work), in my opinion, is the idea that patriotic men and women of good faith exist on both sides of arguments. The demonization of people who disagree with them by the eligibility movement (and the right wing in general) is an un-American tactic which shames the founders and all they stood for and disrespects all of the brave men and women that have fought and died to ensure our freedom.
Dig said:
“Are you expressly denying that it is you who posts under the moniker of “scientist” at obamaconspiracy.org?”
Yes.
Slartibartfast said; “No, I don’t. I post under the name ‘Slartibartfast’ everywhere I post.”
Are you expressly denying that it is you who posts under the moniker of “scientist” at obamaconspiracy.org?
Vince,
You’ve more than earned a break…
Bdaman,
Would you care to reveal all of the names you’ve posted under on this thread?
Neither Dig, nor Integrity, nor Crazy, nor bdaman have ever posted a statement that they have not posted under any of the other names on this thread. They have not denied it. Very evasive.
I am taking a break for a while.
Enjoy your nap Mr. Treacy, I’m off to the pool 🙂
And bdaman can’t resist a taunt, either.
Neither Dig, nor Integrity, nor Crazy, nor bdaman have ever posted a statement that they have not posted under any of the other names on this thread. They have not denied it. Very evasive.
I am taking a break for a while.
I suggest that the posters take up their theories at Doc Conspiracy and Native and Natural Born Citizen Explored, where they will learn a lot.
And Dig cannot seem master the rules of civility at this site.
“Permanent domicile” is not in the 14th Amendment.
All the Amendment requires is (1) birth (2) subject to US jurisdiction.
The Wong Court was simply reciting the facts. Wong’s parents were not even eligible to apply for citizenship under the laws at the time. THEY were subjects of a foreign country, of the Emperor of Japan, and nevertheless the Court held that Wong was a citizen.
Law students, just as you do in an exam, the Court stated the issue, recited the facts, declared the law, applied it to the facts, and reached its holding. The law was that a person born in the US under its jurisdiction was a citizen by his birth, regardless of the fact that his parents were permanent aliens and subjects of another country.
Permanent domicile and the fact that Wong was Chinese were not relevant to the holding.
Dig has not read and responded to the State Department publication linked above.
I can’t believe you guys are still at it.
Vince Treacy won this argument a loooooooooong time ago.
Bdaman said:
“BTW Dr. Kessler (sic) also post (sic) on other blogs under different names.”
No, I don’t. I post under the name ‘Slartibartfast’ everywhere I post. I have revealed my name, so ‘Slartibartfast’ isn’t an anonymous identity. And if you are going to use my name, please spell it correctly.
If there is problem with Rickey, go over to Doc Conspiracy link and take it up there, for crying out loud.
BTW Dr. Kessler also post on other blogs under different names.
Dig said:
““Rickey” doesn’t understand that someone attending school on a foreign scholarship, on a student visa, has done nothing that would indicate his intent to become a U.S. Citizen, or to become a member of our society.”
You apparently don’t understand that the classic way for an alien to attempt to gain US citizenship is to marry an American citizen (and having an anchor baby doesn’t hurt either…).
How do you know it wasn’t my real name Mr. I post under my real name on other blogs.
Next you’ll want to see my birth certificate.
You seem very irritable Mr. Treacy, maybe you should get some rest. I know I feel refreshed after a nap.
VT,
Several days ago in another thread, Slatibartfast caught Bdaman using at least 2 pseudonyms. Bdaman is a dishonest and disreputable person and I will simply not deal with him again.
One of the cardinal rules of any online forum must be; you *do not* post under multiple screen names to use as a device to deceive by supporting your position with many anonymous “votes” for your position. This is a common tactic of Badman and “friends.”
Bdaman, I will ignore all of your posts and I request that you ignore mine so that neither of us is banned because of any personal disputes.
VT, regarding your question about finding any “logic” to the postings by Digs, Bdaman et al., the answer is a resounding negative.
Here’s a perfect example of the idiocy presented by Vince Treacy.
“The court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark was merely stating the facts as they were at the time of Wong Kim Ark’s birth. Did you not know that at the time of the Wong Kim Ark case, his parents had returned to live in China? Did you not know that the reason he had gone to China was to visit his parents? By your definition, they weren’t “domiciled” in the United States any more than Obama’s father was.”
The domicile of Ark’s parents at the time of the trial has nothing to do with their domicile at the time of his birth. The verbosity was injected for the purpose of obfuscation.
“Rickey” doesn’t understand that someone attending school on a foreign scholarship, on a student visa, has done nothing that would indicate his intent to become a U.S. Citizen, or to become a member of our society.
If “Rickey” or Vince Treacy want to claim that Obama Sr. was not here for the “special purpose” of attending classes, the burden will be on him/them to do so.
“This quote is taken directly from Vattel’s book on the Law of Nations…”
So what?
BFD.
It is not in the Constitution. It is not in the laws. It is not in a Supreme Court decision. The United States did not even exist when it was written. It is just the opinion of one guy.
What part of the word “irrelevant” is not understood?
“I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
This quote is taken directly from Vattel’s book on the Law of Nations, which has been a world recognized and time honored reference guide to understanding “natural law,” and the natural birthrights of national citizenship recognized by all civilized nations for more than two-hundred and fifty years.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22782
Last post at 3:20 am first post this morning at 9:15.
Just an observation Mr. Treacy, not a taunt.