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
“Orly Taitz has paid her fine”?
Not so fast.
Did she really?
Is there another conspiracy, another cover-up?
http://www.opednews.com/Diary/Checkers-Doubt-Birther-T-by-J-Edward-Tremlett-100831-903.html
There is a timely update to the story of the $20,000 fine imposed by Judge Land, and Doctor Conspiracy has the info.
The check is in the mail.
Orly Taitz has paid her fine. The check was dated August 18, 2010, made out to “US Dep of Justice.” Doc has posted a photo of the check.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/08/taitz-pays-up/
I would like to say that this is finis to the saga, but, no. She has a “60 B MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION” before Chief Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. This is her second motion for reconsideration, after the Judge dismissed her action for quo warranto. I have no idea how a District Judge in D.C. can have any power to modify a fine imposed in the federal court in Georgia.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/36483117/Taitz-v-Obama-08-22-10-Templ-Final-60-B
She has also filed twice for an emergency stay from the U.S. Supreme Court, and was denied both times. She has a motion for reconsideration pending there, too.
State Dept. confirms Obama dual citizen
‘Counter-misinformation’ website aims to debunk birth controversy.
The State Department is maintaining a “counter-misinformation” page on an America.gov blog that attempts to “debunk a conspiracy theory” that President Obama was not born in the United States, as if the topic were equivalent to believing space aliens visit Earth in flying saucers.
However, in the attempt to debunk the Obama birth-certificate controversy, the State Department author confirmed Obama was a dual citizen of the U.K. and the U.S. from 1961 to 1963 and a dual citizen of Kenya and the U.S. from 1963 to 1982, because his father was a Kenyan citizen when Obama was born in 1961.
In a number of court cases challenging Obama’s eligibility, dual citizenship has been raised as a factor that could compromise his “natural born” status under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. The cases argue dual citizenship would make Obama ineligible even if documentary evidence were shown the public, such as the hospital-issued long-form birth certificate that indicates the place of his birth and the name of the attending physician.
The entry “The Obama Birth Controversy” was written by Todd Leventhal, identified as the chief of the Counter-Misinformation Team for the U.S. Department of State. The office appears to have been established “to provide information about false and misleading stories in the Middle East,” as described in a biography of Leventhal published on the U.S. Public Diplomacy website.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=195441
Vince,
Orly is truly a gift . . . to comedy.
Just one little point, Buddha.
The document that Taitz filed with the Court was a “MOTION FOR RECONSIFERATION.”
Huh?
This is a new frontier in federal civil procedure and Supreme Court practice. Law schools must now revise their courses, and legal publishers must scrap all casebooks and treatises.
Brilliant. No one in 220 years ever dreamed of this bold end run around the Rules. Fabulous.
She also managed to garble the names of Justices Sotomayor and Breyer.
Josh’s reporter Rachel Slajda has it at TPM:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/orly_taitz_claims_that_obama_is_undermining_her_bi.php?ref=fpblg
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/orly_taitz_claims_that_obama_is_undermining_her_bi.php
Orly has filed a Motion for Reconsideration and claims she has “new evidence” Obama is not a citizen.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Kh7nLplWo&fs=1&hl=en_US]
Thanks, Slarti.
This was posted over at Doc Conspiracy’s:
As was this:
Buddha,
What I’d like to know is what Orly’s net on this whole business is – just submitting a case to the SCOTUS probably helps generate action on the paypal button and being denied by the traitorous judges probably doesn’t hurt either…
Slarti,
I have not read the decision proper (just the AP release) so I can’t say if it was cert denied proper or a simple refusal and remanded, but the bottom line either way is she’s going to have to pay eventually.
That it reached SCOTUS makes me wonder how much she’s pissed away on litigation over $20,000?
Buddha,
I thought that Alito sent the case to be reviewed by the court (as is customary with a second request after the first was refused) – do you mean that the court denied cert?
SCOTUS refuses to grant a second request from Taitz to block the $20,000 sanction. This refusal was from Ailito and Thomas issued the previous refusal.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/16/birther-queen-orly-taitz_n_683188.html
Pay up, buttercup.
There was a Fourth of July firecracker for Mario Apuzzo and the birthers in Philly today.
He lost.
Big.
The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of his case, and directed him to show cause why damages and costs should not be imposed for filing a frivolous appealo.
QUOTING THE OPINION OF THE COURT
SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.
Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell J. LeNormand, and Donald H. Nelsen, Jr. (hereafter “Appellants”) filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that President Barack Obama is ineligible to hold his Office as President. They rely on Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution which provides that “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President. . . .” U.S. Const., art. II, § 1, cl. 4.1 Appellants challenge the District Court’s order dismissing their complaint. We will affirm the order of dismissal and direct Appellants’ counsel to show cause why just damages and costs should not be imposed on him for having filed a frivolous appeal.
UNQUOTE
The case was Kerchner v. Obama. Here is the Opinion at the Court’s site:
http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/094209p.pdf
No reaction at Mario’s site as of yet. http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
Have a safe and sane Fourth, Mario.
Gibbs asked about affidavits that Obama’s SS number was assigned to Connecticut address.
Les Kinsolving, WND’s correspondent at the White House, asked for an explanation from press secretary Robert Gibbs at today’s news briefing:
“WorldNetDaily’s correspondent Dr. Jerome Corsi reports … [a question has been raised] by investigators in Ohio and Colorado concerning the president’s Social Security number. Second sentence …” Kinsolving began.
“Birth certificates,” interrupted another reporter.
“He reports – no, I did not bring up the birth certificate – He reports that investigators Susan Daniels and John Sampson are asking, why the president is using a Social Security number reserved for Connecticut applicants. And my question, did you know …” Kinsolving continued.
“Hold on, that’s two sentences, Lester. That … I …” Gibbs said.
“That’s two sentences, and my question – do you know of any record that the president ever had a mailing address in Connecticut?” Kinsolving asked.
Gibbs never answered, instead choosing to turn the conversation – and questions – to others instead of the president.
“I know there are faithful readers of your publication that despite … ” Gibbs said.
“Including you,” Kinsolving pointed out.
“Oh, well, I don’t know that I would necessarily mark myself down at an avid reader or a faithful reader. I continue to be amazed, Lester, that two years after putting the president’s birth certificate on the Internet …” Gibbs said.
“Without a hospital and without a doctor,” Kinsolving noted.
“Do you think the president was born here, Lester?” Kinsolving asked the correspondent.
“Beg pardon?” Kinsolving said.
“Do you think the president was born in the United States?” Gibbs asked.
“I don’t know. I’d love to get the real birth certificate, wouldn’t you?” Kinsolving asked.
“I’ve seen the real birth certificate. I put it on the Internet and I appreciate your…” Gibbs said.
Kinsolving cut to the chase of the exchange.
“But you’re not answering this question,” Kinsolving said.
“I appreciate your forthrightness on the birth answer,” Gibbs said, ending the briefing.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=165225
According to a press release from LTC Lakin and others he has waived his right to be present at an Article 32, UCMJ, hearing. The command could proceed with the hearing anyway. There have been times when an accused waives the hearing but the command goes ahead with it anyway. Apparently in this case the command has decided to accept the waiver and forward the case to Commander Military District of Washington for the next steps in the process. Note, IMHO, LTC Lakin has waived, forfeited, given up, any complaints he had about the Article 32, UCMJ, process so far by his waiver of the hearing. Having waived his right to a hearing he cannot be heard to complain.
http://court-martial-ucmj.com/ltc-lakin/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/32347910/Col-Hollister-v-Soetoro-Obama-Appeal-Motion-to-Recuse-Case-09-5080-5-31-2010
—– Original Message —– From: Office of the Ombudsman To: Nellie (redacted) Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 3:40 PM Subject: RE: Request for Assistance – Copies of Original VR-1 Pages
Dear Ms. (redacted):
We have received your email below.
I have assigned your case to Alfred Itamura, a staff member of my office. Mr. Itamura will be contacting you to obtain further information, if necessary, or to inform you of the findings of our investigation.
Thank you for writing to us.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ ROBIN K. MATSUNAGA
Ombudsman, State of Hawaii
http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/05/
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 10:15 AM
Subject: Fw: Request for Assistance – Copies of Original VR-1 Pages
Dear Ms. Joesting & Ombudsman’s Office,
The HDOH has now twice said that they cannot disclose the records I requested because the original birth index pages don’t exist. These are documents (separate from the birth certificates themselves) which were submitted to the comptroller in 1980 with instructions to be retained permanently as originals and/or microfilm copies. The comptroller signed the request form. It has now been well over 10 business days since I asked the HDOH to provide the record of their having destroyed these records, since there was no request to dispose of these records as of the beginning of the year, which was when I received the copy of the DOH retention schedule. They have also said there is no index of foreign births – a document submitted to the comptroller and specified for permanent retention in 1982.
Either the HDOH is lying about these records not existing, or they have illegally destroyed them, or they have legally destroyed them within the past 5 months but refuse to release the documentation for that destruction.
The complete exchange with the HDOH can be found at my blog at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/hdoh-has-destroyed-original-permanent-records/ . That article also links to the retention schedule and to a post containing my complete exchanges with archivist Susan Shaner, who agrees that the HDOH should have these records.
The HDOH’s answers strongly suggest that they have illegally destroyed permanent records – a serious offense that should result in disciplinary action including termination of employment for those involved. When will this investigation begin and by whom, and will the people involved be put on administrative leave until the investigation is complete?
I look forward to your prompt attention to this serious matter.
Nellie
—– Original Message —–
From:
Nellie (redacted)
To:
oip@hawaii.gov
Cc:
complaints@ombudsman.hawaii.gov ; governor.lingle@hawaii.gov ; LtGov@hawaii.gov ; hawaiiag@hawaii.gov
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 10:15 AM
Subject: Fw: Request for Assistance – Copies of Original VR-1 Pages
Dear Ms. Joesting & Ombudsman’s Office,
The HDOH has now twice said that they cannot disclose the records I requested because the original birth index pages don’t exist. These are documents (separate from the birth certificates themselves) which were submitted to the comptroller in 1980 with instructions to be retained permanently as originals and/or microfilm copies. The comptroller signed the request form. It has now been well over 10 business days since I asked the HDOH to provide the record of their having destroyed these records, since there was no request to dispose of these records as of the beginning of the year, which was when I received the copy of the DOH retention schedule. They have also said there is no index of foreign births – a document submitted to the comptroller and specified for permanent retention in 1982.
Either the HDOH is lying about these records not existing, or they have illegally destroyed them, or they have legally destroyed them within the past 5 months but refuse to release the documentation for that destruction.
The complete exchange with the HDOH can be found at my blog at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/hdoh-has-destroyed-original-permanent-records/ . That article also links to the retention schedule and to a post containing my complete exchanges with archivist Susan Shaner, who agrees that the HDOH should have these records.
The HDOH’s answers strongly suggest that they have illegally destroyed permanent records – a serious offense that should result in disciplinary action including termination of employment for those involved. When will this investigation begin and by whom, and will the people involved be put on administrative leave until the investigation is complete?
I look forward to your prompt attention to this serious matter.
Nellie
cc: complaints@ombudsman.hawaii.gov
governor.lingle@hawaii.gov
ltgov@hawaii.gov
hawaiiag@hawaii.gov
A Home Office spokesman said Samson Obama was denied a visa after immigration officers noticed one of his documents was false. That led them to further inquiries.
Too funny, must be a family thing.
Barack Obama’s half-brother was denied entry to the UK after being accused of a serious crime on an earlier visit, the Home Office has confirmed.
Samson Obama, who lives in Kenya, was on his way to the US presidential inauguration in January when he was stopped at East Midlands Airport.
According to the News of the World, fingerprint tests linked him to an alleged sex attack on a British girl.
He was questioned but not charged over the incident in Berkshire, it added.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7995544.stm