Bizarre, Courts, Lawyering, Society

Attorney Orly Taitz Fined $20,000 for Frivolous “Birther” Litigation

orly2The 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.”

s-TAITZ-large

“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

1,636 thoughts on “Attorney Orly Taitz Fined $20,000 for Frivolous “Birther” Litigation”

  1. Dr. Conspiracy said “In an order yesterday, Lt. Col. Daniel J. Driscoll investigating officer in the court martial of Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, the birther army officer who refused deployment until Obama proves his eligibility, refused to accept President Obama on Lakin’s witness list. Lakin is not going to be able to argue in his defense that the President is not eligible. Not to say ‘I told you so’, but I told you so. Every military legal expert who has commented on this has said Lakin has no case. Why didn’t Lakin’s attorney, Paul Jensen, tell him that too?”

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/06/obama-will-not-appear-at-lakin-court-martial/

    The investigating officer refused to allow President Obama as a witness, since he did not directly give any order to Lakin.

    “The Defense … fails to assert a legal basis by which its request might be allowable under the law of political questions, whereby courts will refrain from inserting themselves in matters constituti0nally relegated to coequal branches of Government. The Defense quest to use a military justice forum to invalidate all military authority while undermining the authority of a sitting United States President certainly appears at first blush to be a nonjusticiable political question.

    “Daniel J. Driscoll,
    “Investigating Officer”

    The next proceeding seems to be scheduled for June 11th.

  4. Still a cat, Woosty is said:

    “[I’m on the fence, Canada or France?]”

    I think that Vancouver is very nice – and a friend of mine is trying to convince me that Sweden is the way to go…

    On another subject: Do you expect Woosty to stop being a cat at some point? Has he shown any abilities to transform in the past?

  5. I do not know if the accused were birthers, or just malicious curiosity seekers.

    Or secret agents sent in to destroy any and all information pertaining to student loans made to a furaner. Like days did to his passport file. 🙂

  6. Woosty, I agree. It is a privacy violation, if proven, and should be prosecuted. I do not know if the accused were birthers, or just malicious curiosity seekers.

  7. @Vince Treacy,

    usaid;
    “Ok. Contractor employees. Student loan records. 2008-2009. Iowa. Who knows why.

    So what?

    Relevance to issues of Obama birth and frivolous Taitz lawsuits: Less than zero.”

    Isn’t that illegal? Doesn’t that make privacy a really big part of this argument?

    privacy and free speech are very much related in a civil society. If there is any giving in to these creepy ‘birthers’…even after the necessary proof has been presented…(which it has, no?) then you can kiss any decent tolerable society good bye…
    [I’m on the fence, Canada or France?]

  9. “9 indicted on charges of accessing Obama records”

    Who, what, when, where, why?

    QUOTE DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Nine people were indicted Wednesday on federal charges of accessing President Barack Obama’s student loan records while they were employed for a Department of Education contractor in Iowa.

    The U.S. attorney’s office said a grand jury returned the indictments in U.S. District Court in Davenport.

    All nine are charged with exceeding authorized computer access. They are accused of gaining access to a computer at a Coralville office where they worked between July 2007 and March 2009, and accessing Obama’s student loan records while he was either a candidate for president, president-elect or president. UNQUOTE

    Ok. Contractor employees. Student loan records. 2008-2009. Iowa. Who knows why.

    So what?

    Relevance to issues of Obama birth and frivolous Taitz lawsuits: Less than zero.

  10. Another ‘Great Moment in Bitherism’:

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLdEmgmSbso&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1]

  12. You are now about to enter the Twilight Zone

    Bdaman 1, April 20, 2010 at 8:36 pm

    richCares at Dr. Conspiracy

    He complains about anonymous posters but accepts what an anonymous poster says.

    is my source for the statement about the confusion.

    Sorry Mr. Treacy your gonna have to do a little better than that.

    I can tell you one thing for sure about your source.

    Richcares lives in Oregon. He used to live in Hawaii, still has connections there and has a brother buried in Punchbowl.

    ****************************************************************

    richCares says:
    May 12, 2010 at 3:17 pm richCares(Quote)

    I am from Hawaii, and the comments scott makes are repulsive. Though I now live in Oregon, I go back often, to visit relatives and to visit my brothers grave in Punchbowl, a place all Americans revere.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/05/out-of-state-births/#comment-44811

  15. QUOTE ON
    Obama’s Social Security number
    Posted on Monday, February 15, 2010

    Crusading birther litigant Orly Taitz, DDS, Esq. has adopted the President’s Social Security number(s) as one of her major themes. This was repeated just last week in a filing with the DC federal court, as reported here at Obama Conspiracy Theories. So what’s her beef?
    Taitz claims fraud on the part of Obama for (1) using multiple Social Security numbers, and (2) using the Social Security number of someone else.
    39 Social Security numbers
    In her most recent filing Taitz wrote:
    [Q] I submitted an affidavit from a licensed investigator Neil Sankey, showing that according to most reputable National databases Lexis Nexis and Choice Point Barack Obama used as many as 39 different social security numbers, none of which were issued in the state of Hawaii, where he resided. (Submitted as an exhibit with the complaint)[UQ]
    I have looked at various filings available from the courts, and I have not personally seen the list of 39 Social Security numbers. What I have seen is various lists of names similar to Obama, mostly living at Obama’s former Chicago address and all having the same Social Security number. From where I sit, I have no documentation available to me that Taitz’s claim is true, and if it is, I would question the accuracy of these databases, which are essentially credit reporting databases aggregated from various sources usually without any verification. We do not know what matching criteria were used to say that these were our president Barack Obama. It all seems rather far fetched.
    Born in 1890
    Taitz continues:
    [Q]The same affidavit contained information, showing that the social security number [Social Security Number redacted, Doc C.], that he used most often, was issued in the state of Connecticut to an individual born in 1890. Since Obama never resided in the state of Connecticut and was not born in 1890, it was a sign of clear violation of Title 42 US Code, section 408(a)(7)(B), misuse of a social security number, which is a federal felony punishable under Title 18 USC by fine or imprisonment of up to five years or both and an evidence of foreign birth and lack of proper citizenship status.[UQ]
    and
    [Q] I submitted an affidavit from a licensed investigator Susan Daniels, showing that according to her research Obama used a stolen social security number [Social Security Number redacted, Doc C.], which was issued to another individual born in 1890 in the state of CT.[UQ]
    While it is not certain that the Social Security number “that he used most often” according to Taitz is really the President’s, I suspect that it probably is. Taitz is correct that the “042″ series of numbers was indeed assigned to Connecticut, and Connecticut is not Hawaii. As far as I know, President Obama never resided in Connecticut.
    If there is any clear evidence of fraud, it is the 1890 date that Taitz flouts. First, if the SSN was really for a person born in 1890, that person would be dead. The Social Security death index doesn’t list this number, so we can presume that the 1890 date is bogus. However, there is more direct evidence that it’s wrong and Taitz knows it. In her own court filing in Barnett v. Obama (page 5) she shows where the 1890 date comes from. The document says:
    Dates of Birth Associated with SSN:
    1890
    08/04/1961
    04/08/1961
    Obviously the third is a typographical error on the correct date (the second) and 1890 is just database garbage. Which is the more likely date of birth from the preceding list? If you are convinced that everything Obama does is a fraud, then the first entry is the one to pick. If you’re looking for the real answer, you pick the one that makes sense, the President’s actual date of birth.
    While Taitz claims that the SSN Obama uses “was issued to another individual”, she never says who that individual is, and this is because the record for that SSN belongs to none other than Barack Obama himself, as we see from Orly’s own filing.
    What about the Connecticut number series? It’s an interesting question, but there’s no law that says you have to get your SSN from a Social Security office in the state where you reside. Nowadays, they are all processed centrally and the assignment is based on the zip code of the return address. My guess (and that’s all it is) is that Obama got his SSN as a child living in Indonesia and the application was just processed in Connecticut. What it most certainly does not mean is Taitz’s surprising conclusion: “foreign birth and lack of proper citizenship status.” (Connecticut is not a foreign country either.)
    Link to source:
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/02/obamas-social-security-number/

  16. Daniels and Sampson each used a different database showing Obama is using a Social Security number beginning with 042.

    WND has further confirmed that the Social Security number in question links to Obama in the online records maintained by the Selective Service System. Inserting the Social Security number, his birth date and his last name produces a valid Selective Service number.
    Obama calls Britain’s new Prime Minister David Cameron from the White House in Washington

    To verify the number was issued by the Social Security Administration for applicants in Connecticut, Daniels used a Social Security number verification database. She found that the numbers immediately before and immediately after Obama’s were issued to Connecticut applicants between the years 1977 and 1979.

    “There is obviously a case of fraud going on here,” Daniels maintained. “In 15 years of having a private investigator’s license in Ohio, I’ve never seen the Social Security Administration make a mistake of issuing a Connecticut Social Security number to a person who lived in Hawaii. There is no family connection that would appear to explain the anomaly.”

  17. Robert Siciliano, president and CEO of IDTheftSecurity.com and a nationally recognized expert on identity theft, agrees the Social Security number should be questioned.

    “I know Social Security numbers have been issued to people in states where they don’t live, but there’s usually a good reason the person applied for a Social Security number in a different state,” Siciliano told WND.

    WND asked Siciliano whether he thought the question was one the White House should answer.

    “Yes,” he replied. “In the case of President Obama, I really don’t know what the good reason would be that he has a Social Security number issued in Connecticut when we know he was a resident of Hawaii.”

    Siciliano is a frequent expert guest on identify theft on cable television networks, including CNN, CNBC and the Fox News Channel.

  18. NEW YORK – Two private investigators working independently are asking why President Obama is using a Social Security number set aside for applicants in Connecticut while there is no record he ever had a mailing address in the state.

    In addition, the records indicate the number was issued between 1977 and 1979, yet Obama’s earliest employment reportedly was in 1975 at a Baskin-Robbins ice-cream shop in Oahu, Hawaii.

    WND has copies of affidavits filed separately in a presidential eligibility lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia by Ohio licensed private investigator Susan Daniels and Colorado private investigator John N. Sampson.

    The investigators believe Obama needs to explain why he is using a Social Security number reserved for Connecticut applicants that was issued at a date later than he is known to have held employment.

  19. If you’re so proud of being wrong all the time, bdapuppet?

    That never gets an A. Your grade was the highest allowed for consistency.

  20. Bdaman,

    I don’t care about grades – the only important thing is what you’ve learned (In my experience the two aren’t nearly as well correlated as one would hope).

    You said:

    “The birth certificates in question were given full faith and credit, how do you think they where (sic) able to obtain a U.S. Passport.”

    Assuming that the birth certificates in question were Puerto Rican BCs, I would just point out that the FF&C clause only says that states have to give FF&C to the official documents of other states, it doesn’t say anything (pro or con) about documents from other sources.

Comments are closed.