Order In The Court: Gnarly Orly Sanctions
Oh, this is beautiful. I know I have been on a discipline roll today, but this is too good to pass up. There has been a bit of discipline meted out down south in Georgia. From the Columbus (Georgia) Ledger Enquirer:
In an order today, California attorney Orly Taitz has been sanctioned $20,000 by U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land — double the amount he said he was considering.
“While the Court derives no pleasure from its imposition of sanctions upon counsel Orly Taitz, it likewise has no reservations about the necessity of doing so,” Land states. “A clearer case could not exist; a weaker message would not suffice.”
Land gave Taitz two weeks from Sept. 18 to show cause why he should not sanction her for filing a motion for emergency stay in a lawsuit he called “frivolous.” On the deadline, Taitz filed a motion for an extension of time.
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.
Regrettablly, the conduct of counsel Orly Taitz has crossed these lines, and Ms. Taitz must be sanctioned for her misconduct.
Let’s hope Orly has to show her birth certificate to pay off her sanction (or get into the clink if she refuses to pay). If you want to read the full 43 page Order by Judge Land, here it is; it is a thing of beauty.
The conduct of Orly Taitz was horrendous and unquestionably deserved the stiff sanction handed down by Judge Land. What I am really waiting for, however, is an order like this lodged against the Department of Justice. Of course, the DOJ was headed to exactly such a thing in Horn v. Huddle, but the DOJ suddenly decided to settle the matter.
UPDATE: Oh my, lookee here; from Justin Elliott at TPM:
Reached on her cell phone by TPMmuckraker and informed of the $20,000 fine imposed on her by a federal judge this morning, Birther attorney Orly Taitz responded, first, with laughter.
“So he didn’t recuse himself?” Taitz asked, after letting out an extended, nervous-sounding chuckle.
Still defiant after months of legal wrangling and, by our count, three written denunciations by federal district court Judge Clay Land, Taitz said she had absolutely no plans to pay the $20,000 fine.
“Are you kidding? Of course not,” she said, asked whether she planned to send a check. “This is a form of intimidation.”
Instead, she plans to file yet another written response (though it’s unclear whether the court will even accept one).
This could turn out to be a lot of fun. I don’t see the 11th Circuit disturbing Land’s order here since it is only financial.
What I really liked was the judge’s use, a couple times, of the phrase “lawyer who should have known better” to describe Taitz, and as an a fortiori reason for not only sanctioning her, but for coming in at a huge $20k sanction.
That kind of description fits some of the
lawyersclownspeople holding law licenses formerly employed by OLC and OVP to a T.EXACTLY!
Don’t you mean
“Let’s hope Orly has to show her birth certificate to get out of the clink”
She reminds me so much of that reporter in the movie Chicago. What was her name? Suzie Sunshine?
To me she looks like a hooker.
I just love EW’s idea that she should have to show a birth certificate! Let’s all see it, please!
(Maybe the fine will increase in tandem with her arrogance level ascends…)
You likely won’t be able to read it, as she’s Russian/Israeli.
UPDATE: Oh my, lookee here; from Justin Elliott at TPM:
This could turn out to be a lot of fun. I don’t see the 11th Circuit disturbing Land’s order here since it is only financial.
What will it take for her to get disbarred? Can the judge make a complaint to her bar association? What would the process be?
Oh, she is headed in that direction; I fully suspect the court will notify the bar,
I’m really looking forward to that. Thanks bmaz : )
If you’d have read all the way to the end, you would see that the Court ordered the Clerk to send a copy of the order/opinion to the State Bar of California for them to use as they see fit.
Thanks scribe. My apologies for not doing my homework. I’m pressed for time today and as it is, I’ve been popping in and out of the SFC liveblog all day. I really don’t know why I bother. The Dems never ever rise to the occasion. Still my natural optism compels me to hope that they will someday surprise me.
She does look really cheap. Guess she’s dressed for her law office/dental practice.
While the Court derives no pleasure from its imposition of sanctions
Well, I certainly derive pleasure from it!
A lot!
Also.
Wow. Now the NRCC is going Hitler on Obama.
Wonder what the instant response team will have to say.
Politico updated:
And who was keening and whining when Jane put up that Lieberman-in-blackface thingy back in 2006?
IIRC, NRCC, RNC, NRSC and/or Rove and his media lackeys were all among the loudest.
Haven’t had a chance to read the link yet, but it was the mention of dentistry in her connection that made me truly afraid.
She does indeed look like, er, she’s portraying a stock character. The fine might or might not increase with her arrogance, but the karmic burden is sure to.
I think she’s also a dentist. Though, to be fair, I have a thing against allowing dentists trained in the former Eastern Bloc anywhere near my teeth. They didn’t have things like high-speed drills; they had foot-powered slow-speed drills. Think nightmares of Olivier in Marathon Man.
bmaz has pointed out the fact that Judge Land’s opinion has many obvious merits, and points to some; but one, IMO, has particular value, in that it holds the potential to work to re-direct the birther movement away from the courts.
First Judge Land goes to some lengths to show how counsel Taitz clearly sought to undermine the court by pushing in this case & elsewhere towards something the courts are not to do, generally & certainly not lightly, which is issues advisory opinions. Then Judge Land refers back to that effort, at first in passing, as essentially subversive. Thereafter he keeps returning to it, each time with increasing clarity & emphasis — to the effect that the birther contention is something beyond the jurisdiction of the federal court system [I think he means that to extend to any U.S. court], and under the the Constitution [the document that, after all, makes up both the centerpiece of the birther flag & the foundation material for all birth conceptions & misconceptions], & if it’s to be raised at all, it must be raised in Congress, in impeachment, or [failing success there presumably] at the ballot box, in the next election.
I think this opinion is going to get raised again & again in preliminary motions & opinions to dismiss. Point being: in a bizarre way, befitting a Bizarro World B-cause-of-action, Ms Taitz has succeeded in obtaining the advisory opinion she sought.
She won! Woooooo! U-S-A, U-S-A! Woooo!
So perhaps Ms Taitz now can proceed to apply to Judge Land for a free-standing award in her favor of court expenses, to offset the fine in the conduct matter.
Boy, I hope the Calif bar disbars her, and quickly. She’s giving the profession an even worse reputation than it already has.
What a waste of judicial time for the judge to have to write 43 pages pointing out the ludicrousness and waste of this woman’s pseudo-legal actions.
And now she says she won’t pay – sanctions are “intimidation.” Well, yeah, in a way — they are a way to say, legally, you’re full of s—-, cut it out NOW! Perhaps she could be disbarred on grounds of mental incapacity.
I understand that a complaint was on its way to the state bar last week. Given that Ahnold is keeping the bar association from collecting dues, because he claims they’re ‘overly political, unresponsive … and inefficient,’ it may take a while to get anything done. (That description sounds more like Ahnold himself than like the state bar.)
I don’t see how Ahnuld has any power to do diddly shit with respect to the bar. Unless it is different in California, most places, the bar is actually separate from the government and, if attached to anything, attached to the Supreme Court of the state.
The question of what dues could be used for went all the way to the Supreme Court in 1990.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/496/1/case.html
For much of the last 11 years, the California Bar has been in disarray.
Meanwhile, Judges are still letting their habeas order be ignored by Obama.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091013/pl_nm/us_guantanamo_kuwait
al Rabiah’s lawyers are in front of Kollar-Kotelly, asking if she’ll consider contempt like she would with anyone else flouting such an order to release.
Votes that nothing will happen? Again.
OT – but Andy Worthington’s site has a piece up that is an email that was sent to him by a relief worker in Afghanistan.
http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2009/10/12/a-letter-from-afghanistan-bagram-afghan-suffering-and-the-futility-of-war/
I think it is really worth the read. She has a Polish background and her reaction to the boxes up, where people can anonymously turn in their neighbors for US military retaliation, is pretty chilling.
There’s also a piece up about a joint interview Worthington and Jason Leopold (with a nod also to Jeff Kaye) gave to Peter Collins, who is exploring a different media model for the more in depth interviews.
All fwiw, on a day that is pretty gray here in the midwest.
BTW – the only down side I can see on the Taitz order is that it is likely the Redstaters and Co. will raise the money for her to make the payment and she may even end up more flush because of it. OTOH, I don’t know what has happened with her client’s complaint against here – are they going to “support the troop” or “support the Taitz”
?
Orly joins the clown parade led by Joe The Plumber, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Suzie Creamcheese…
Also interesting is the lengths Judge Land went to in order to ensnare the US DOJ in this — presumably, among other things, to spread the load of Ms Taitz’ tendency to release issues like neutered hounds from over-populated pounds on each filing. If I’m following this properly, Judge Land has given a direction of intent that the amount of the fine, when paid [hah!] go to what looks very like an eleemosynary cause, & to boot one that to oppose would risk exposing the opposer to accusations of anti-patriotic sentiments; but, on the premise of not being certain as to the court’s power to enforce such a direction, he’s enlisted something on which there is a separate foundation: the ability of the court to call upon the state to assist in enforcement matters. There seems to be an implication here of converting the court’s powers to impose misconduct fines into something closer to another line of court power, to enforce its own jurisdiction through sanctions including imprisonment; not so much a Dickensian debtors’ prison as something more akin to imprisonment in aid of an accepted social good, like forcing deadbeat dads to pay child support in accordance with court orders.
Shorter version: This is what it looks like when a judge makes quicksand.
Longer version: The TPM follow-up shows Ms Taitz intending to respond by another filing, but thereafter showing she’d yet to actually read Judge Land’s opinion before deciding on that response. At this point, were Ms Taitz to seek from me for example a professional opinion on her most prudent course, I would advise in the strongest possible terms that she ought to seek out immediately & commission a professional opinion on her most prudent course, including a comprehensive analysis of the enforcement laws on such orders, and that I would be most happy to provide such to her, for an appropriate and only-superficially- staggeringly exorbitant fee, payable in full & in advance please, except that I have to attend to booking an urgent appointment for the prophylactic filing-down of a potential suspected rogue cuticle on the extreme outer edge of my left-hand pinky finger [right there; can you see it? here, perhaps this magnifying glass will help] & having not the slightest idea whether attending to that will take a few minutes or several months, out of an abundance of caution I have reserved the latter.
On reflection, I’m amending my guess on Judge Land’s ambitions for assistance of the federal government on the issue of directing the funds from payment of the fine: His primary goal appears to be to put Ms Taitz in a box, from where if she doesn’t pay she’s exposes for hating the troops, ie. America, & if she does pay, it’s functioned exactly like a charity lottery, only with the payout come from rather than going to the winning ticket holder. And if it this turns out like Mary suggests, where the redstaters fund raise to pay it off, & Ms Taitz keeps it up long enough, then eventually Judge Land’s system can result in retiring the foreign war debt, moving on to the deficit, from there to funding universal health care, and ending with a perpetual-refreshment machine for funding an endowment to address global warming & hunger.
[I wonder if the Oslo committee will work in a reference to Ms Taitz in its rationalization for Judge Land’s Nobel? Or perhaps this one should stay in Stockholm, for economics.]
This isn’t just about over-zealous representation of an extreme client. It isn’t about fair-minded differences with a court, or an argument with a court that had displayed open bias. Taitz is demonstrating a Cheneyian level of disdain for the court and the legal system itself. Having been given more than one chance to resolve this in a less draconian manner, Taitz stuck her pencil in the judge’s eye.
Her behavior is a clear, open, notorious contempt of court. About thirty seconds after this California lawyer ignores the deadline for paying her $20,000. fine, she should be en route to her jail cell.
My apologies, bmaz. I belatedly saw this was YOUR post. Thus, I amend my comment above (@6). I love YOUR suggestion that she show her birth certificate. She should also be forced to pay for its translation.
Also ordered:
OT –
Fred FrankGreg Craig gives intereview to National Law JournalAt least they’re giving Taitz a run for her money on the “influential” front. I guess if I was behind the continuing detention in depravity of a whole cadre of men at GITMO, “influential” is the word I’d want NLJ to use.
Whatever.
Jeebus. Don’t they have that backwards? Shouldn’t the AG be the most influential lawyer?
Under a rule of law, sure, but under a rule of Executive power, the guy who gets the Executive’s ear the most is the most influential lawyer. Even if he’s as much a lawyer as Dick Cheney was.
And I thought Obama was a lawyer…at least at one point in his past.
So, I guess this means that Rahmbo is 0 for a zillion:
Health care (AHIP) talking points.
The California State Bar has been a mess for a long time.
http://ca.rand.org/statebulls/bulletins/statebull116g.html
That was then and this is now:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/10/accusing-the-state-bar-of-california-of-being-overly-political-unresponsiveand-inefficient-gov-arnold.html
A Bar association cannot operate without dues.
So, don’t expect action on Orly’s case anytime soon. The backlog on this kind of discipline is mind-boggling. Orly is probably aware of this and is not worried about getting disbarred for the immediate future. She’ll just keep filing motions and getting in front of cameras and keep those red state donations rolling in for her well-deserved fines.
And the gift that is Orly just keeps on giving. I feel confident predicting this is just not going to end at all well for her.