Spread the love


by John Charlton

(Oct. 13, 2009) — In a clear sign of a personal vendetta, Federal Judge Clay D. Land has sanctioned Dr. Orly Taitz, esq., $20,000 for her spirited defense of Captain Connie Rhodes, M.D., U.S. Army, in the case Rhodes vs. Mac Donald et al.

The 43 page court order was issued today.  Its languague is recognizeable by all to be excessive and not-impartial.

The order, which glaringly ignores the maxim “First take the speck out of your own eye…”, reads in part:

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. 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.

And continues, thus:

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.1

In the remaining 40 pages Judge Land is at pains to justify his action.  On page 20, Judge Land explains why he did not show bias:

The Court makes no apology for the tone of its previous orders. They were direct and strong but apparently not strong enough. They certainly do not demonstrate personal bias. They do demonstrate a lack of tolerance for frivolous legal claims asserted by lawyers who should know better. A Court’s insistence that lawyers comply with their duty to follow the rules and their obligations as officers of the Court is not a legitimate basis for recusal.

Counsel’s contention that the expedited nature of the Court’s rulings demonstrates that the Court had prejudged the case is laughable. First, as the Court has noted previously, counsel sought expedited consideration. She sought an injunction enjoining the U.S. Army from deploying her client, which was to occur within days of the filing of her Complaint. Yes, the Court ruled quickly. Had the Court not done so, counsel undoubtedly would have accused the Court of some conspiracy to delay ruling until after the deployment had occurred.  . . .

Land then, on p. 22 says there is no reason for the Court to interfere in the Military in a case of usurpation of the Presidency:

Counsel here has an affidavit from someone who allegedly paid off a government official to rummage through the files at a Kenyan hospital to obtain what counsel contends is the President’s “authentic” birth certificate. Counsel here makes no coherent argument connecting the Constitution’s presidential citizenship requirement to a violation of her client’s individual constitutional rights. Counsel here points to no legal authority—in the Constitution or elsewhere—that could be extended or expanded to create an exception to the well-established doctrine of abstention, which disfavors judicial interference in the internal affairs of the military.

And then proceeds to belittle Captain Connie Rhodes:

To suggest that an Army officer, who has received a medical education at the expense of the government and then seeks to avoid deployment based upon speculation that the President is not a natural born citizen, is equivalent to a young child, who is forced to attend an inferior segregated school based solely on the color of her skin, demonstrates an appalling lack of knowledge of the history of this Country and the importance of the civil rights movement. Counsel’s attempt to align herself with Justice Marshall appears to be an act of desperation rather than one of admiration. For if counsel truly admired Justice Marshall’s achievements, she would not seek to cheapen them with such inapt comparisons.

The Post & Email has published an editorial in response to Land’s Sanction Order: Judge Clay D. Land’s Delirium.

If you would like to make your opinions known to the Honorable Judge Clay D. Land, you can write him at this address, athe U.S. District Court, Middle Division of Georgia:

Hon. Clay D. Land
U.S. District Judge
Post Office Box 2017
Columbus, Georgia 31902

Mr. Charles E. Lincoln, III, Dr. Taitz’s assistant, has given his own personal comments in regard to this sanction order.

And Dr. Orly Taitz has just appeared on CNN, with Joy Behar.

Join the Conversation

No comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. Jacqlyn,

    Orly can appeal Judge Land’s ruling, but she can’t take discovery-she’ll have to take herappeal based on the record she hs already made.

  2. Matt,

    The problem is that by basing his decision on the abstention principle, it no longer matters what he thinks in regards to whether or not Obama is legitimately the President. What he’s saying is that the suit should never have been brought to a civilian court in the first place because it’s a military matter, and as such, should be handled through the military’s justice system.

    Even if he believes that Obama is illegitimate as President, the principle of abstention would require him to kick it back to the military to handle – so Obama’s status wouldn’t have had an effect on his decision. As a result, there’s no reason for Orly to be given discovery of Obama’s private papers, since they wouldn’t have any relevance as to whether the Judge properly applied the principle of abstention or not, and for her to prevail in an appeal, she’s going to have to show that his application of the abstention principle was improper.

  3. To suggest that an Army officer, who has received a medical education at the expense of the government and then seeks to avoid deployment based upon speculation that the President is not a natural born citizen,

    I doubt if Captain Rhodes would think that her medical education through the government had the strings attached that would deny her her Constitutional rights!

    Just by using the leftist progressive label of “birther” against both the attorney and her client this judge demonstrated his own pre-hearing prejudice that pre-determined that this client could not get a fair hearing and was singled out through such prejudice for “special” treatment. If anyone should be dis-barred it ought to be this “judge” for a certain abuse of power.

  4. Exactly, Land should be in a cage, where all criminals belong!!! land explain how the son of a foreigner can be the United States Commander in Chief?? A native or natural born are those born in country to citizen parents. There will be a war inside of America soon, due to the treason coming from within…

  5. I remember the case of Attorney John Hemenway. He fought the sanctions by telling Judge Robertson that if they were imposed, he would use Rule 11 to procure full discovery. The judge backed down and reduced it to a reprimand which Hemenway is also fighting.

    These judges are so crooked and criminal it’s unbelievable. Just reading the excerpts of Judge Land’s opinion is unreal. I have never seen a judge say or do such outrageous things, especially claiming that a lawyer or plaintiff is guilty of filing a “frivolous” suit when there is a terribly important constitutional issue at stake. How can he say this is frivolous? His statements are conjecture, not based in fact, and highly prejudiced.

    Saying that Connie Rhodes’s education had been paid for by the U.S. Government was like sneering at her. What business is it of his who paid for it? What about who paid for Obama’s expensive education?

    The corruption runs so deep that it is astounding. If Orly can use this to her advantage, then she might just get discovery. Land’s judicial conduct is way out of bounds.

  6. Capricorn,

    But when judge Land makes the following statement of councels ‘wild accusations’, show that the judge had an underlying disbelief of Orlys claims of Obamas ineligability, and this is the nature of the sanctions?

    “Court noted in an earlier order, counsel’s wild accusations may be
    protected by the First Amendment when she makes them on her blog or
    in her press conferences, but the federal courts are reserved for
    hearing genuine legal disputes”


  7. No, Orly won’t have standing to proceed toward discovery. The case was dismissed on the basis of abstention on the part of the Court, as the Court is expected to abstain from the functioning of the military. To prevail in an appeal, Orly will have to prove that the court erred in dismissing on the basis of abstention. There is nothing she could discover in Obama’s files that would be relevant to that. Even if she could prove he’s ineligible to be President, it wouldn’t have any bearing on whether or not the Judge should have dismissed the case on the abstention principle.

    IF Judge Land had dismissed the case based on his belief that Obama is legitimate, she *might* (though I still rather doubt it) have had been able to try and prove her case was dismissed inappropriately, but nothing in any of his rulings has relied on whether or not Obama is the legitimate President, so discovery in regards to Obama’s personal papers is moot.

  8. In Phillip Berg’s action in Hollister v. Soetoro, Berg’s co-counsel, John Heminway was threatened with sanctions by the judge after the case was dismissed but was just reprimanded. Heminway called the judges’s bluff by appealing the reprimand and stated he was entitled, because of the threat of sanctions/reprimand, due process to appeal and defend his (Heminway’s) actions in bringing this judicial action before the court along with discovery and a jury trial.

    Heminway has that judiciary “between a rock and hard place” now so they, the judiciary, are contemplating how to proceed.

    I believe, Taitz is entitled to the same due process as Heminway and could subsequently blow the lid off this fraud by appealing her sanctions and taking it to a jury trial with discovery!

    The goal here is to have a judge order discovery!

  9. It is plain to see that Judge Land has personally attacked Orly Taitz and he is completely bias in his attacks against her. Without being able to dicover the proof he makes a complete assumption that her case is frivolous which is not the job of a judge. With that being said Judge Land is out of line in making the decision that Orly Taitz has had her due process. This is absolutely outrageous in behavior of a judge. This paper alone proves his bias against Mrs. Taitz and this case should be given the opportunity to defend itself and if not then we have no law.

  10. Interesting (and relevant) that Judge Land is a Bush 43 appointee (and I don’t think the GOP would want its complicity, and/or conspiricy with the Pelosi-Dems to enable the Usurper’s Presidency known), whereas Judge Carter is a Bill Clinton appointee (and by Hillary’s TV comments over the weekend is planning on assuming the Congressionally-selected Presidency on Obama’s ejectment. And by McCain’s TV comments over the weekend, it looks like ’12 now to be Palin/Pawlenty v. Clinton/yet to be determined).

  11. It is Judge Land who is guilty of misconduct here. It is he who treats a grave matter of national import in a frivolous manner, and it is he who should be punished. Since the authority under which he holds power–or reigns, in his case–specifies that he can wear his robe only in good conduct, he should be disrobed forthwith. Then he will be seen as the naked pea-brain he is.

  12. John…does Orly now have standing to proceed toward discovery and to prove the FRAUD is not a legal POTUS??? What is your take on this?? Looks like this judge has drawn a line in the sand……I think all of us Patriots need to take to his court house and demand that he prove what Orly says is frivolous by allowing discovery!!!