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
Vince,
Here’s a link to Stross’s blog. Based on that I’m definitely checking out his fiction, at some point in the future.
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/
I love the post “How habitable is the Earth?”
Vince,
Your comment reminded me of a very amusing short story (sort of). Enjoy.
p.s. Did you see the latest about O-bot spying and psyops at the post & email?
Aye, I’ll not quibble it is their right Vince, but I posit the same question I posit to scientists – “Just because you can do something, does it mean that should you?” Capacity does not correlate to desired outcome. Need I say more than Star Trek: Voyager? I may have come off as a doomsayer for derivative work and that is not true. I rather liked it when Larry Niven let other writers play in his universe in the various “Man-Kzin War” titles. And while I have not read any of the new Foundation stories, I do rather like some of the Gardner penned Bond novels. But I say what I said as being specific to comedy and I’ll stick to it – the chances of success are slim as to be approaching zero if they want an “Adams” book. If the book stands, as Gyges says, as an independent tale of its own written with Adams as the target audience? That could work. Well, if you discount the “dead” part of the demographic that could work.
I cannot say I have read all of Reynolds but I can say most. I concur that his Revelations universe tales never disappoint, even the disturbing novella “Diamond Dogs, Turquoise Days”. Right now I’m preparing to dive into the Manifold series by Stephen Baxter. I read one of them out of sequence (Exultant) and was as impressed with him as I was with Reynolds. I think Baxter’s Xeelee may be one of the more compelling alien species in the field.
Buddha,
Have faith and be not afraid – Colfer says he tried to write in the spirit of Adams, not to mimic him, and considering how well that worked in the movie (which was different than all of the other incarnations of Hitchhikers and very my in the spirit of DA, in my opinion), I’m cautiously optimistic. I wholeheartedly agree with you that no one else can credibly pick up Hunter’s gonzo pen, though. Now excuse me, I’ve got to go find some raw ether and quaaludes…
I talked to a friend on the force in the Time Patrol about sending some Agents back to smother these sequels-by-successors in the cradle.
It turns out that they believe in the Free Market, and expect the Invisible Hand to take care of these efforts. It seems that Natural Selection based on the Survival of the Fittest will allow the Gold to settle out permanently, while the Dross is washed away. They are very firm on the First Amendment.
In the meantime, I have found that the best 21stC SFers are now the Brits, led by Charles Stross and Alistair Reynolds. I just finished House of Suns, and half of Transition. This stuff is All-Galactic, great New Space Opera. I have read all of Reynolds, and most of Stross, and they never disappoint.
NY Timester Paul Krugman, is a fan of Asimov, especially FoundationX3, and he has now signed on with a jacket endorsement for Stross’s Merchant Princes series (be sure to start at the start with Family Trade), and I agree.
Buddha,
The author of “And Another thing…” agrees with you, he didn’t write a book trying to be Douglas Adams, he wrote a book he thought Adams might like.
Mike & Slarti,
I have not yet read “And Another Thing . . .”, however, the prospect of it fills me with more dread than a new Robot tale. The reason is simply that as a feat of writing, it’s easier to ape Asimov than Adams because stylistically Douglas’ voice was 1) more flamboyant than Asimov and 2) comedic. To me, comedy is a genre that is so dependent on aesthetic and timing/pacing that it is intrinsically difficult to mimic successfully. Beginning S/F (or any genre specific) writers often start by writing that mimics what they like to read. A really good writer can do so and not sound derivative. But comedy is different because it is so “voice” dependent. Asimov, brilliant as he was, was pretty straight forward in terms of art as a writer. I don’t mean this as an insult and I don’t think Issac would take it this way when I describe him as “utilitarian”. It would be harder, for example, to ape Gene Wolfe than an Asimov or a Clarke if you want to stay in genre. Wolfe has a very distinctive style. Even taking into account that it’s a comedy hybrid, Douglas Adams was a lot of things stylistically, but utilitarian wasn’t one of them. If you try to write like him – because his voice is both distinctive and comic – there is a distinct chance that you’ll come off sounding like a bad Douglas Adams impersonation. This is not unique in comedy. Rarely can one mimic others style so well as to gain notoriety – the two exceptions that come to mind being Hal Holbrooke’s Twain and Gabe Kaplan’s Groucho and those are Broadway examples (because I cannot think of a successful literary example). I am skeptical of a new Robot story. I am afraid of a new Arthur Dent story. Almost as much as I’d be afraid of a “new” tale of Dr. Gonzo and his steadfast yet demented and depraved Samoan attorney. Maybe it’s just me.
Gyges,
My understanding is the same as yours – and Mr. Colfer wrote the book (titled “And Another Thing…” – gotta love a title with an ellipsis…) at the behest of Jane Belson, Douglas Adams’ widow. As someone who reveres Douglas Adams (as witnessed by my name), I’m very excited at the prospect of a final (I would hope) Hitchhikers book and the author has said all the right things. I think there is a big difference between finishing a series that the author intended to finish before he died and adding a new trilogy onto a series which is essentially complete on it own.
Mike, Slart and Buddha
Jordan was milking the story from book four on, I gave up at five. I’m pretty sure he spent more time checking his continuity notes than working on the actual plot at that point.
As for as the Adams sequel goes, my understanding (from an interview with the new author) is that the author was contacted by the Adams estate. He decided that it would be literary suicide to try and write an “Adams” book, so he wrote an ending to the story that he thought Adams would have liked in his (the new author’s) style. He is completely honest with the fact that he’s not a substitute for Adams, but is instead doing a homage at the request of the family of one of his favorite authors. I’m withholding judgment until I read it.
Mike S,
Douglas Adams’ widow picked someone to write a sixth Hitchhiker’s book because Douglas thought (correctly) that the fifth book was bleak and wanted the series to end on a better note. I have no problem with this (although as I mentioned, I haven’t read the book yet). I’m somewhat more nervous about the prospect of a new Robot book, but I’ll give it a chance.
Buddha,
I haven’t read “And Another Thing…” (the new Hitch-hiker’s book) yet, I take it that you don’t like it?
Art Bulla:
and Joseph Smith is a paragon of virtue concerning sexual mores? Are you smoking crack?
Isn’t the Mormon religion the one where any Mormon can become god? Come to think of it, you are smoking more than just crack, you are high on delusions of grandeur.
Buddha,
Thanks for the link I’m bookmarking that site. Good stuff. As for Douglas Adams, are they really thinking about the same? The idea of a new writer picking up from a master is just money driven greed. As the articles author stated Imagine hiring someone to continue Rembrandt’s work.
Now in the case of Jordan’s “Wheel of Time Series” where the author died before completion and “supposedly” left copious notes I can see the sense. However, truthfully, Jordan was just milking the the story by his Seventh book and stringing it out for the money. Authors of course are entitled to increase their bottom line, but when it becomes like “Wheel of Time” it shows the loss of artistic vision. I became bored with it, but would continue reading to get to the denouement. However, now I read that the designated Jordan author and Tor are planning three more books and i’ll do myself the favor of imagining my own ending.
“I correctly discerned through the Spirit of God that the politics of the left, here and elsewhere, is driven by their sexual depravity.”
In my mind and that of most human beings polygamy is the height of sexual depreavity. In your case “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” be the maxim when talking about sexual depravity.
Art Bulla:
as a conservative, I think you are wrong. I think most liberals, at least the ones on this site, just want controlling people out of their lives.
BiL, wow. Interesting discussion at the linked site. I’m mixed. Dr. A did authorize some sequels, but not all of them turned out well. Wait and see.
Buddha,
Are you back full force de jure?
OT:
Vince,
Asimov estate approves “new” Robot story. I hope this grave robbing exercise works out better than what they have planned for Douglas Adams.
http://www.keepingthedoor.com/2009/10/30/asimov-estate-authorises-i-robot-sequels/
“Liberals do not understand punishment, therefore they pray for murderers and hold candlelight vigils etc. But here is what Scripture revealed through the prophet Joseph Smith says about that:
“Mercy cannot rob justice.”
———————————
I am a conservative and I know what kind of punishment I would like to mete A.Bull.
I correctly discerned through the Spirit of God that the politics of the left, here and elsewhere, is driven by their sexual depravity. Jesus said that the “weightier matter of the law” is judgment. We are here to correctly judge between good and evil, and if there is a shiver all the away through our beings because our conscience has been compromised by accommodating evil, by committing crimes against nature, then the light of the eye is darkness, and it would have been better that we had never been born.
20 Wo unto them that call evil good, and good evil, that put darkness for light, and light for darkness, that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
(2 Ne 15:20)
23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great [is] that darkness!
(Matt 6:23)
34 The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when [thine eye] is evil, thy body also [is] full of darkness.
(Luke 11:34)
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
(John 3:19-21)
20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
(Isa 5:20)
If our judgment is suborned by wickedness, then we become literally a devil in human form. These are called “sons of perdition” in the Scriptures. There is no forgiveness for them, for they must, of necessity deny and blaspheme even against the Holy Ghost to maintain a cover for their depravity! But the result upon society of these individuals, especially if they gain political influence, and influence in the schools of our nation, is the destruction of that society or nation. this is why Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed, saith the Lord. Persecution is heaped upon Orly Taitz, and the Lord himself is crucified afresh and put to an open shame. The fate of these individuals so involved, saith the Lord, is the second death. We all know of the first death, but it is the second one that you should be concerned about. You may think that this is just a rhetorical attempt to frighten you, but I assure you that it is not.
As Jesus of Nazareth said,
28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
(Matt 10:28)
We are spirits clothed in flesh and bones. We know where the flesh and bones come from, we have parents. But the spirit has parents also, literally. This parentage and existence was before birth for many millennia, our memory of all was blotted out before coming here except for these intimations spoken of by Wordsworth.
Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:
The Soul that rises with us, our life’s Star,
Hath had elsewhere its setting,
And cometh from afar: Not in entire forgetfulness,
And not in utter nakedness,
But trailing clouds of glory do we come
From God, who is our home: William Wordsworth, Intimations on Immortality
For those who commit the kind of sins that we are speaking of here, which are unpardonable there is a second death which is the total annihilation of the spirit back to its native element, or dissolution. This may take many millennia of indescribable suffering to accomplish. It is literally devoured by devils who are more powerful, in the world to come. This fate is to be avoided at all costs. As Chairman Mao said, all politics comes from the barrel of a gun, but Jesus said to fear not him, then when he kill the body that is all that he (Chairman Mao) and those like him can do. So real power belongs to those who are able to bring these punishments about. Men obey laws because of the fear they have of punishment. How much more should we obey the law of God and live, because the punishment is indescribable.
Liberals do not understand punishment, therefore they pray for murderers and hold candlelight vigils etc. But here is what Scripture revealed through the prophet Joseph Smith says about that:
“Mercy cannot rob justice.”