PERSONAL VENDETTA AGAINST TAITZ RATCHETS UP
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.