The Explosion of the Judge Clay D. Land Mine

"I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made."
Franklin D. Roosevelt

"Judge a man by his questions rather than his answers. "
Voltaire

"If you would judge, understand. "
"If you judge, investigate. "
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

On Wednesday, September 16th, Judge Clay D. Land presiding in the United States District Court of Georgia, for the Middle District of Georgia, Columbus Division handed down an order in Connie Rhodes v. Col. Thomas D. McDonald, et al. I'm not an attorney, but I have been told by members of that profession that reading court documents is usually not what would be considered entertaining reading.

Not so when Judge Land writes an order. Land was nominated to the District Court back in September 2001 by President George W. Bush, shortly after the events of 9/11. Judge Land shows a remarkable wit, and grace in the face of provocation, which makes his orders different from the usual - at least, these orders. I'm perhaps slightly prejudiced in favor of his writing, because of his use of widely ranging quotations to punctuate his meaning and set tone; so far, from Lewis Carroll and Yogi Berra. Judge Clay has gained national attention for his decisions due to the controversy brought before his bench by the notorious Orly Taitz, Esq. on behalf of anyone she can convince to let themselves be used to promote her birther movement. Don't take my word for it; Judge Clay makes the point particularly sharply, in the Order of September 16th, he not only makes it excruciatingly clear, he makes it repeatedly, including a warning to Taitz not to file similar frivolous suits in his court again on pain of sanctions. Taitz wanted a restraining order to prevent the army from shipping Captain Rhodes, MD off to Iraq on the premise that President Obama maybe isn't really the Commander in Chief. Apparently, Taitz has confused Judge Land's use of wit with joking. Because Taitz did exactly what she was warned not to do; she filed another suit, and she did a lot of trash talking about the judge before whom she was appearing as well, something that is generally unethical conduct for lawyers despite First Amendment rights.

On Friday, September 18, 2009 Judge Clay D. Land handed down a new order in Rhodes v. McDonald et al., which includes a show cause order for Taitz to persuade the Judge why he should not fine her $10,000 for defying his warning. http://static.mgnetwork.com/rbl/pdf/rhodes_mcdonald_order.pdf
In an interesting wrinkle to the story, it appears that Captain Rhodes shipped out to Iraq on Friday. But before she left, Rhodes wrote a letter to Judge Clay in which she states that she did not authorize Taitz to file the second frivolous action on her behalf, that she only found out about it from the news coverage, that she did not want Taitz to represent her in that or any further action, and (because in anything involving Taitz, there always seems to be more) that the action Taitz had brought before Judge Clay's bench in the first place was not the action that she had authorized, and finally, that she intended to file a complaint against Taitz with the California Bar, which would make the third such complaint. http://static.mgnetwork.com/rbl/pdf/birther_letter.pdf

A local television station provided excellent coverage of the event, or...non-event. http://www2.wrbl.com/rbl/news/local/article/10000_sanction_proposal_against_birther_lawyer/93364 It will be interesting to see how the newest complaint reads, if Captain Rhodes follows through; I think it fair to qualify Captain Rhodes as an unhappy, and possibly very embarrassed client. Which brings me back to my continuing curiosity, who is paying Taitz for all of these actions, and the cost of traveling to different states, judge shopping for new locations to submit her cases before the court? Clients, some sort of slush fund, donations? This is just a guess, but I think after this recent round, and the show cause order is resolved one way or the other in front of the cameras, Taitz will be judge shopping in some new jurisdiction, with more travel expenses.

Unless the California bar acts expeditiously; I don't know if these things work on a first come first serve basis. I wonder if they have an equivalent to the express checkout lanes in grocery stores, with an item limit, for attorneys with 'x' number of complaints.... and wonder what the limit would be - 3 complaints, 5 complaints, more? If they don't, perhaps they will take this as a suggestion. As I understand it, and I'm hoping ToE will correct me if I get this a bit wrong, the way complaints to the bar which can result in sanctions and even disbarment, can come from any officer of the court - the defense lawyer, the judge, other lawyers NOT involved in an actual case. What prompts this flight of whimsy is that it would be my expectation that Ms. Taitz by now must not be below the radar of the California Bar, and the embarrassment she is bringing to it might very well be something they opt to address before it gets too much greater. We may not be there yet, but I can't help but speculate if the resolution of the $10,000 fine show cause order might produce enough fire works from Taitz to just be the 'tipping point'.