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
But I also understand that if I receive an A grade or higher it leaves no room for improvement. 🙂
You said
Are you suggesting that Puerto Rico is a state?
NO
Why the rush on the Puerto Rico statehood bill? (Rep. Luis Gutierrez)
By Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) – 04/29/10 10:04 AM ET
H.R. 2499, the Puerto Rico statehood bill was brought to the House this week after a surprise announcement last Thursday. Debate on this bill has been severely limited by the way Democratic Leaders are managing the process. Democratic Puerto Rican Members of Congress are being shut out of the process and will be severely limited in their ability to debate the bill and offer amendments. Under the current Democratic Leadership, there will be less opportunity for Members and for the people of Puerto Rico to gain a better understanding of the bill.
You Said:
(I believe that the ‘full faith and credit’ clause refers to the treatment that the official acts of a state must be given by other states)
The birth certificates in question were given full faith and credit, how do you think they where able to obtain a U.S. Passport.
I’m in and out Dr. Slarti so I’ll try to check back as soon as I can. Thanks for your response.
P.S. I am really working hard to get an A and feel I deserve better than a B+ 🙂
badtoll knows all of this, Slarti. He’s a confessed troll just like he’s a demonstrated bigot. He can’t keep cashing the checks/serving his masters without continuing to regurgitate nonsense that not only the courts have dismissed, but Vince has done a through job dismantling.
Truth has nothing to do with his posts. He’s here, by his own admission, to be a distraction. Although as a distraction, he’s frequently functions as a simple target for logical and legal destruction.
Some propagandists are simply better at their job than others. That doesn’t not change their nature as propagandists. Paid or merely poisoned by the consumption of his own product like a smack dealer riding the dragon, it makes little difference.
While he’s objectively a failure as a troll in this forum, I will give him a “B+” for consistency.
Bdaman,
Are you suggesting that Puerto Rico is a state? (I believe that the ‘full faith and credit’ clause refers to the treatment that the official acts of a state must be given by other states) Also, as I suggested in my last post, there is a legal argument (that seems sound to me) that President Obama is a natural born citizen regardless of the location of his birth (presuming that Dr. Dunham is his mother and Barack Obama Sr. is his father). Finally, there is no evidence (admissible in a court of law) that would indicate that President Obama’s birth records are fraudulent and in this case the burden of proof lies on the person alleging fraud. Until one of the the vaunted birther legal eagles comes up with some actual evidence instead of faulty reasoning and forged documents you’ve got absolutely no case.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/puerto-rico-birth-certificate-crisis-invalidating-fix/story?id=10422841
“The U.S. State Department and Homeland Security Department estimate that an astonishing 40 percent of all U.S. passport fraud cases in recent years involved Puerto Rican birth certificates, though exact numbers are unknown.”
It makes ya wonder how many fraudulent birth records have come out of Hawaii.
Mr. Treacy
Weren’t all those fake Puerto Rican birth certificates prima facie evidence that were entitled to full faith and credit?
According to Doc Conspiracy the whole birth certificate issue just went down in flames (and took the dual citizenship issue with it):
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/05/barack-obama-was-never-a-british-citizen/
Because Barack Obama Sr. was already married, his marriage to Dr. Dunham was never valid, thus making President Obama an illegitimate child. Under the British Nationality Act of 1948 British citizenship is only transmitted to legitimate offspring. Furthermore, under US law at the time, Dr. Dunham would have transmitted US citizenship to her son REGARDLESS of the location of his birth.
This leaves birthers with only two remaining arguments:
1) The de Vattelite ‘two citizen parents’ argument (no longer including the ‘dual citizenship’ sub-argument) – Vince has completely debunked this argument here.
2) The Indonesian adoption argument – I cannot believe that any attorney would actually try this in court (well, maybe Orly…) and that any judge would fail to dismiss it instantly if someone tried.
I wonder if soon-to-be Mr. Lakin’s lawyer will explain this to him…
And about that impressive Georgetown professional address,1101 Thirtieth Street, N.W., Suite 500.
Google it.
There are an awful lot of concerns with the same address in that one little suite.
Oh. It’s a mail drop.
Lakin’s American Patriot Foundation has the same address.
Can’t fool the locals.
Mespo72^n said:
“Mike Nifong was Phi Beta Kappa at UNC.”
He probably just wanted to prevent Duke from winning the national championship in lacrosse… He’s one lawyer that the North Carolina bar is better off without!
Bdaman:
Credentials notwithstanding*, Jensen comes across as both superficial and reckless. Saying your client might incriminate himself unless you speak for him makes him look disingenuous at best and guilty at worst. Lawyers are trained to understand and implement the law and to represent clients in court and other adjudicatory bodies with set rules of procedure. Public relations and swaying public opinion in favor of your client are not law school classes. Some lawyer do it better than others. Brendan Sullivan and Roy Black come to mind. This guy might be a Houdini in the courtroom, but on Anderson Cooper he looked trifling, combative, and on the losing side of the argument.
* Mike Nifong was Phi Beta Kappa at UNC.
Bdaman,
You had to mention that Jensen was Duke law… 🙁 Are you going to mention that President Nixon was Duke law as well?
Vince,
There’s been some interesting hypothetical speculation on Doc Conspiracy’s site. Since Barack Obama Sr. was already married when he married Ann Dunham, their marriage was void ab initio. Someone (I’m to lazy to find the post, but it didn’t include a link to the law) was claiming that due to this fact Dr. Dunham would have been able to transmit (natural born?) citizenship to President Obama even if he were born outside of the country. Any thoughts? I think it would be hilarious if the magical birth certificate that the birthers were looking for was irrelevant after all…
Second Time this week
Vince Treacy 1, May 8, 2010 at 4:31 am
Vince Treacy 1, May 8, 2010 at 9:56 am
As the old saying goes, Early to bed, Early to rise, fish like hell and make up lies.
Headin out of town, yall take care now, ya hear.
As a criminal defense lawyer, Jensen is truly bizarre.
He told Cooper that he did not want his client to incriminate himself.
If so, he should never have put his clientgo on national television in the first place.
Lakin could well have incriminated himself, or made a damaging admission, if Cooper or the lawyer had ever let him say anything.
The entire appearance came off as a publicity stunt to raise funds for the outfit that is paying Jensen’s fees.
As the old saying goes, in every criminal case there comes a time when someone has go to jail. It is usually the client, not the lawyer.
Jensen was wrong about the Hawaii law:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/05/lakin-lawyer-lies-on-cnn/
Doc Conspiracy said: “It infuriates me no end how a clever lawyer can say something that appears to be one thing, but is actually something else.”
Jensen said: “In the state of Hawaii there’s a statute that allows anyone born outside the state of Hawaii, including in a foreign country, to obtain a Hawaiian birth certificate, at any age, by going back and filling out a form.
Doc said “Jensen then cited HRS § 338-17.8 Certificates for children born out of State.
Doc said, “That law does not allow “anyone” to obtain a Hawaiian birth certificate. It is limited to applicants who can prove to the director that “the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.” So he lied. He said “anyone” but of the billions of people in the world, it only applies to a handful of Hawaii residents who give birth to children out of state.”
The law was not enacted until 1982.
The certificate will show the real place of birth, not birth in Hawaii. According to Hawaii, “A foreign child would have a ‘certification of foreign birth’ not a COLB on the top of the certificate, and the place of birth would be indicated.”
So everything that Jensen is arguing is false.
His misunderstanding of the law has and will hurt his client grievously.
[quote]
[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State.
(a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.
(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.
(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]
[unquote]
The attorney driving the story of the Birther Army doctor facing a court martial for refusing orders is a former Republican Hill staffer and current personal injury lawyer who has dabbled in anti-gay activism and reportedly wrote a letter to the FBI tipping off the feds to New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s use of prostitutes, months before the scandal publicly broke.
Attorney Paul Rolf Jensen runs a California law firm, Jensen & Associates, that focuses on bread and butter personal injury cases involving dog bites, seatbelt failure, and asbestos exposure.
But, says the GOP operative Roger Stone, a friend and sometimes client of Jensen’s, he should not be underestimated when it comes to the case of Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/attorney_paul_rolf_jensen_represents_birther_army.php#more
LTC Lakin’s defense is handled by trial lawyer Paul Rolf Jensen, who has been representing clients for the better part of 20 years.
With an educational background that includes Duke University Law School and the University of California, Berkeley (where he did his undergraduate work) Jensen is an accomplished and successful advocate, having tried dozens of jury cases.
He also has served in government, most notably as Senior Counsel of the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Jensen has also worked in senior positions for United States Senators Jeremiah Denton and Bob Smith. In 1990, Jensen worked in the chambers of the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces as a law clerk to the late Chief Judge Robinson O. Everett.
Mr Treacy looks like the attorney for LTC. Lakin is your neighbor.
Paul Rolf Jensen, Attorney at Law
1101 Thirtieth Street, N.W., Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20007
202-448-5032
Vince Treachy:
Deep trouble is right. Lakin seems like an honorable, though fundamentally mistaken, man who is being used by various right wing groups. He will suffer the consequences. And this attorney, well, I feel like the announcer in the famous clip of the Hindenburg disaster. Oh, the humanity!
Morning Mr. Treacy or is it good 🙂 night.
President Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate
Comments have been closed for this article
Apparently Anderson doesn’t want it opened up for discussion as seen in his interview.
Lakin is in deep trouble with this lawyer.
The lawyer is dealing with birther myths that were exploded two years ago. The lawyer is still making the false claim that Hawaii will issue a COLB to a person born outside the state, but showing that the person was born in Hawaii. It does not do that. The lawyer is unaware of the legal definition of birth certificate. The lawyer therefore has no idea of what will be admissible in court, since the COLB meets the federal legal definition of birth certificate. He wants a document with a doctor’s signature, but there is no law requiring such a signature on a legal birth certificate.
Lakin desperately needs an experienced military lawyer, now.