Posts Tagged ‘Captain Connie Rhodes’


by Sharon Rondeau

(Oct. 22, 2009) — Here follows the transcript of The Post & Email’s interview with Dr. Orly Taitz, esq., lead counsel in the case Captain Pamela Barnett et al. vs. Barack Hussein Obama et al., in Santa Ana Federal CourtThe Post & Email has already published an interview with the lead plantiff.


Mrs. Rondeau:  First let me say that I am honored and delighted to have the opportunity to interview you, Attorney Taitz, because of your outstanding work to Defend the freedoms of all U.S. citizens.  Since you have become a media celebrity, no introduction is necessary; however, your fame has sparked great interest.  So I ask if we could begin with some background questions.  I have heard, for example, you were born in Russia .  Can you tell the readers of The Post & Email about that?

Dr. Orly Taitz, esq.

Dr. Orly Taitz, esq.

Dr. Taitz:  Well, I was born in Kishinëv, which was part of the former Soviet Union, and this is the reason why I am so concerned about this issue, because I can see very clearly that where Obama is leading us is towards a communist regime, which of course I wouldn’t support in a million years, and I wouldn’t want my children to be anywhere near such a regime.  It’s a regime with a total lack of freedom.  So that is my concern.

Mrs. Rondeau:  Most of us Americans have never known tyranny or communist dictatorship. We have a very naive view of them. Can you tell me something about what the Russian people suffered under the Soviet system?

Dr. Taitz: For example, now, with Obama’s supporters, particularly all of the attack dogs in the media, are saying “Well, you haven’t won a lawsuit yet and so many people have filed lawsuits and couldn’t get his birth certificate,” I’m telling them, what is wrong with these people, are you completely brain-dead?  When you live in a regime, in a dictatorship, you never win, and that’s what it was like in the Soviet Union.  There was never any lawsuit that was launched by the citizens or their attorneys against Stalin or Breshnev or any other dictator, and we are on the road to dictatorship, where the U.S. attorney’s office is supposed to be there to safeguard our rights as citizens and yet they are involved in hiding and obfuscating all of the records.  We have the politicians involved in this fraud, so this is something that makes it very difficult.  Hopefully people will oppose this regime, and hopefully each and every citizen of this country will become a plaintiff to obtain the records from Obama.

Mrs. Rondeau:  What did your family and relatives suffer?

Dr. Taitz: Well, I had an uncle who actually was sent to the gulag, a great-uncle, so I am intimately familiar with this system, and I don’t want the United States to fall to that.

Mrs. Rondeau:  Did your family and relatives also suffer during the Holocaust, or did they flee deeper into Russia when Germany overran the Ukraine in 1941-3?

Dr. Taitz: You know, when I was in Georgia on behalf of Major Cook, I stated to Judge Clay Land that my client, Major Cook, and later on, Captain Rhodes, MD, was questioning the legitimacy of the president and the legitimacy of orders coming from above.  They needed to know whether those were lawful orders, but the indications were that this can’t be done, and it’s horrific.  To read the transcript from the Rhodes case in Columbus, GA, you would see.

I’ve mentioned that my three sons are named after relatives; actually, three younger brothers of my father-in-law who were killed.  About three officers told those three kids to dig their own graves, and later on they were shot and thrown in those graves, and those officers never questioned the legitimacy of their commander-in-chief, they never questioned whether their orders down the line from him were lawful.  That is why there is such a concern for me; I want to make sure that in this country, the military does not blindly follow the orders coming from above.  It was horrific that with all the information that was provided in Georgia, Judge Land decided not only to dismiss the case but also to retaliate against me so viciously with $20,000 sanctions.  He tried to scare and intimidate me after all the information that I provided, not only on behalf of Capt. Rhodes, but also the evidence that I brought into court, only shows how corrupt the system is.

Mrs. Rondeau:  Can you tell me something about how you came to America, and what America means to you?

Dr. Taitz: Well, I came here because actually my husband brought me here, and he proposed marriage.  I came here and he actually proposed marriage on the second date.  He came out with it very quickly.  I came here on April 29 and the next day we drove to Las Vegas and we got married there, and it was a chapel on the streets in Las Vegas and it doesn’t exist anymore.  There is a big hotel on that spot where the chapel was over 20 years ago.  That’s how I got married…and later on we had a bigger ceremony and reception for the whole family.  That is how I ended up being an American citizen, and that was 23 years ago.  I have three sons who were born in this country, and I have to tell you, I was so happy for so many years to live in this country, and hear the difference between what I had seen in the Soviet Union and what I was seeing here.  It’s hard to imagine the difference; there are so many different aspects.

For example, the Soviet Union was decisively a communist atheistic country with no freedom of religion, and the fact that the U.S. provides so many opportunities of freedom of religion; the technology, the fact that the free market economy has given the citizens such power.   I remember a joke:  somebody who came from Russia mentioned that he stopped at a store here in the States, and for some reason he didn’t see a tomato.  He was a new immigrant, and he said, “Well, when are you getting tomatoes?”  In Russia, there are tomatoes only in the summer; you couldn’t find fruits and vegetables in the winter.  He thought that the clerk was going to tell him in a few months, but he said, “Oh, probably in an hour,” so that’s the difference.

I think a lot of American citizens, particularly journalists from the mainstream media, should visit Cuba and North Korea and go to Siberia where people still live as they did in the communist Soviet Union, go to villages in China, and see the way people live, see the difference, see how this socialist/communist system didn’t work, see how their stores are empty, see how their leaders are worshipped, and then they will come back and they will appreciate what they have.

Typically, people don’t appreciate what they have; they start appreciating it when they lose it.  I guess it’s a common trait of human nature.  When do you miss you loved ones?  when they’re not with you.  I think all of these reporters should spend some time, that should be a must, before they ever become political reporters, and talk about the differences of a free market economy and socialism, communism.   They need to go there and spend a year or just half a year in those societies; then they would be able to provide an opinion of value on the issue.

Mrs. Rondeau:   What was your personal reaction to the rise of Obama and his election “victory” last year?

Dr. Taitz: I was absolutely horrified, absolutely, truly horrified.  When I started hearing about this whole issue of Obama not being legitimate for the presidency, I at first brushed it off like many others, thinking, “Oh, it’s impossible…somebody in the government should do something to check the records.”  But I decided to check for myself, so I wrote to the Secretary of State of California, Deborah Bowen, and I emailed her and asked what information, what documents, what records did she use to verify Obama’s legitimacy for the presidency?  Well, sure, she responded and I thought she would say a birth certificate and other documents.  But to my horror, the response was that they used nothing, they didn’t check anything, that it’s an honor system, and they just used the declaration of the candidate as valid on its face.  I started blogging and I asked my followers, my supporters, to provide information what was done in other states.  Did any secretaries of state check any documents, and I was even more horrified to find out that nobody did; nobody checked anything.

I have observed such a lack of integrity in our top echelons of power, and that includes politicians, elected and appointed officials that are too scared to stand up and be counted and demand that the Constitution be upheld and that Obama produce all of his vital records, including a real birth certificate.  As you know, what he posted on the internet is a joke.  It’s not an original birth certificate issued in 1961; it is something that was issued only in 2007 that does not provide any vital information:  not the name of the hospital, not the name of the attending physician, no signatures.  This is garbage that he posted on the internet; and even then, according to experts, could be forged, and it cannot be considered a genuine document until compared with the original from Hawaii, and the fact that Obama refuses to  let the public see his original documents —that some employee from Hawaii said that she saw it, what does she mean, she saw it?   What did she see?  To me, this behavior, this arrogance, is inexcusable.  Obama’s arrogance, in my opinion, equates to his just spitting in the face of each and every American citizen, each and every member of the American military, the way he was talking about transparency in government and then sealed all of his vital records, and issued an executive order on January 21 to hide all his vital records was just unbelievable.  The way he spends over $1,000,000 on legal fees to keep the documents sealed   that would cost only $10.00 to produce, his whole behavior is just a travesty of justice.

It’s great to read information on the blogs, but we cannot become warriors on our computers.  I would like to see every citizen become a plaintiff and demand impeachment and removal from the bench of all the judges who are corrupt, who are refusing to respect the Constitution of this nation, who are refusing to respect the Constitution of this nation and refusing to handle cases on the merits, whereby they are simply aiding and abetting this massive fraud and treason.  I hope that each and every American citizen joins Oathkeepers; I hope that each and every member of the military, police, and sheriffs’ unions join Oathkeepers and Citizens’ grand juries and, as we know, there were already indictments of Barack Hussein Obama all over the nation by citizens’ grand juries, indictments for massive fraud and treason, and I hope that those citizens’ grand juries continue working and indicting not only Obama but each and every judge, each and every member of Congress who are aiding and abetting this massive fraud.  I am convinced that good trumps evil, that we will overcome this evil, that we will see justice prevail, that this massive fraud will end and all of the people who are part and parcel of this massive fraud will be brought to justice.

Mrs. Rondeau:   When did you become part of what is now called the patriotic movement or the Article II patriot movement?

Dr. Taitz: From the moment I found out that Barack Obama was committing fraud, that’s when I decided that I had to fight it.

By the way, if I can mention to your readers that they can find out about my legal action on the internet at my website at www.orlytaitzesq.com.  I would greatly appreciate it if you click on the link to my website and read all of the latest information and documents.


Sharon Rondeau is an average citizen who wants Obama brought to justice for his fraud and a return to constitutional principles and free enterprise, she graciously acted as citizen journalist in conducting this interview for The Post & Email.

Read Full Post »


by John Charlton

(Oct. 20, 2009) — Attorney Orly Taitz, esq., filed a Notice of Appeal today in Federal Court, Middle District, Columbus Division, Georgia, regarding Judge Clay D. Land’s notorious sanction order of Oct. 13.  Judge Land had sanctioned Taitz $20,000 for her just defense of Captain Connie Rhodes in the case Rhodes vs. MacDonald.

In her notice, Dr. Taitz details the injustice of Land’s order:

Ordinarily, counsel admits that it would have been prudent if not required to seek relief from these sanctions by the filing of a motion under Rule 59 to preserve or perfect error in the trial court regarding the manifest errors of law and fact which the court made in its last entered order contained in Document #28.  However, the undersigned counsel submits to the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit that this Court’s (Judge Clay D. Land’s) refusal to grant either of her last motions, while doubling its unreasonable assessment of sanctions against her from $10,000 to $20,000 rendered such a “normal” course of litigation conduct both futile and potentially self-destructive.  Judge Land’s actions that amounted to misstating or misrepresenting ninety percent of what was presented in the pleadings and argument, completely ignoring ninety percent of the argument and facts, making extremely rude and demeaning remarks, showing bias; taken together,  appear to be designed to silence her and, intimidate her and above all, punish her for what the Court perceived as political rather than “core” constitutional questions. It appears to be a thinly veiled threat to other attorneys not to pursue similar Constitutional issues, which will have a chilling effect on the ability of the public to use Federal Court system to uphold their constitutional rights.   Judge Land’s remarks amounted to nothing short of  political lynching, which turned into feast and celebration by the media mob.   Accordingly, the undersigned counsel submits that she reasonably feared that filing any further motions might lead to the imposition of further sanctions by this particular Judge and Court. Judge Land might well have increased the sanctions amount from $20K to $40K or even $100K, all without specifying any real violations of Rule 11, even if such further filings were merely to show the undersigned counsel’s status as an attorney working pro bono without compensation, or to point out how the U.S. District Court had misconstrued some of the key precedents it cited in this case, including but not limited to Mindes, 453 F.2d 197 (5th Cir. 1971). — (Formating in the original).

Then Attorney Taitz describes what she will aim to prove when she files her appeal shortly:

On Appeal, the undersigned counsel will also seek to show how this Court’s orders determining the questions of “standing”, “injury in fact”, “political disputes”, and “abstention” were not only manifestly incorrect, but showed a failure to review the Plaintiff’s initial filings in this case, so that the filings in this case were in NO sense frivolous. Aside from a general constitutional issue of members of the military being forced to violate their oath to uphold the Constitution, the undersigned has provided evidence that the members of the military are forced to violate their oath while following orders of Mr. Obama, as the Commander in Chief, who never provided any legal documents proving his eligibility for office as a Natural Born Citizen, while coming from HI, which allows one to get a birth certificate based on a statement of one relative only, without any corroborative evidence. The undersigned has provided an affidavit from a forensic document expert Sandra Ramsey Lines, stating that  Obama’s 2007 Certification of Life Birth cannot be considered genuine without seeing the original on file in HI. Moreover, the undersigned has provided an affidavit from a licensed private investigator, showing 39 different social security numbers used by Mr. Obama, including at least one social security number of a deceased individual. Among those were several numbers connected to addresses in GA: Alpharetta, Atlanta and in Judge Land’s own district, his own backyard 505 Farr C, Columbus GA (ss#420-67-2965, ss# 423-29-2961). This evidence was not only sufficient not to subject the undersigned to sanctions and to grant further discovery, if the court thought that the evidence is not sufficient for trial, but it also should’ve been a sufficient concern for the National Security of this Nation for Judge Land to forward the complaint, exhibits and transcripts to FBI, police, DA, Atty.  Gen of GA and US Atty. for criminal investigation and prosecution of Mr.  Obama for massive fraud, social security fraud, public corruption and other charges that might be warranted at the end of the investigation.

In closing, Taitz addresses the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and asks them to intervene:

The undersigned is hopeful that this honorable court, 11 Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, Ga will show concern for the National Security of this Nation, as well as adherence to the Constitution and not only will reverse the order of sanctions, but will sua sponte forward this matter for further investigation to proper authorities or will remand the case to the District court to allow the undersigned to conduct necessary discovery to prove that the case was not frivolous and Rule 11 sanctions were not warranted.

In this appeal, the undersigned counsel will address the critical questions omitted by the court, to show that the Court appears never even to have considered, much less addressed or ruled upon, the original Plaintiff’s key question of whether an officer’s obedience to her constitutional oath is NOT nothing more than a political claim which does not give rise to a case or controversy to be heard in federal court.

Readers should note, that A Notice of Appeal is filed in the court against which the appeal is to be made, so that that court (Land’s) might know that an appeal is to be filed with the Circuit Court of Appeals which has jurisdiction over it.

Attorney Taitz is actively fundraising the $20,000 necessary to pay Land’s sanction, through her website.

Read Full Post »


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.

Read Full Post »


by John Charlton

(October 3, 2009) — Dr. Orly Taitz, esq., former counsel for Captain Connie Rhodes in the case Rhodes vs. Mac Donald et al., in the Federal District Court, Middle Division of Georgia, has filed a Motion for Recusal of the federal judge, the Honorable Clay D. Land, on grounds of numerous conflicts of interest.

Attorney Taitz makes the following assertions:

First, there is some circumstantial evidence that Judge Clay D. Land may have had extrajudicial an ex-parte contacts with the Obama administration, in particular from Attorney General Eric Holder (See Affidavit, Exhibit A). Second, a preliminary review of the results of the Honorable Judge Clay D. Land’s public disclosures concerning his investments, it appears that the undersigned Judge Land may be disqualified because he has equity ownership of certain securities (e.g. Microsoft and Comcast) which are aligned both politically and economically with a key Defendant in this case, namely the de facto President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, in such a direct and personal way that it could be said that this Judge has a financial stake in the outcome of the former Plaintiff Captain Connie Rhodes’ original case-in-chief.

Attorney Taitz then cites the filings mentioned in The Post & Email’s Spotlight report on Judge Land.

Then Dr. Taitz makes her principal charge:

The primary reason for the undersigned counsel to file this Motion to Recuse, however, is that Judge CLAY D. LAND has by his own actions created a constitutionally intolerable situation in which he is both complaining party, prosecuting attorney, judge and jury regarding the charges of frivolous filing and sanctionalbe conduct which he has leveled sua sponte and filed pursuant to Rule 11(c)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Proceedure.

Taitz then cites the inconsistencies in Judge Land’s Sanction notice, which undermine the lawfulness of the same:

The Court’s Order to Show Cause, rendered September 18, 2009, expressly identifies the origin or authority of the court’s intention to sanction the undersigned as Rule II of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but also states in conclusion: “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”. Page 7 of 9-18-09 Order (Document 19 in the Clerk’s Docket Report for this case on PACER). The text of the order is generally ambiguous and quite confusing as to exactly what Judge Land intends by his order, other that the use of the Court’s inherent “contempt” power in and for the purpose of suppressing the undersigned counsel’s First Amendment Rights.

To begin with, this Court has ordered the undersigned counsel to show cause why a “monetary penalty of $10,000.00” should not be imposed on her.  The word “penalty” suggests that the Court considers th is to be a CONTEMPT proceeding, as does the fact that, on pages 1-2 of the same September 18, 2009, order, the Court writes “This filing CONEMPTUOUSLY ignores the Court’s previous admonition that the Plaintiff’s counsel discontinue her illegitimate use of the federal judiciary to further her political agenda.” (all caps and bold italic highlighting added for emphasis). If the words “penalty” and “contemptuously” be taken at face value, then indeed, the undersigned counsel is entitled to certain protections, including a trial-by-jury.  The United States Supreme Court has held that an accused contemnor is entitled to a full “trial-by-jury.” Frank v. United States, 395 U.S. 147; S. Ct. 1503; L. Ed. 2d 162 (1969). The Court’s purpose seems plainly punitive, the Court was not prompted by any party’s motion for the sanctions in this case, and in essence, because (as will be seen below) the strictures of Rule 11 do not readily appear to apply to this case, it is probably that the Court is relying here on its own inherent power to punish contempts, and that Plaintiff must be afforded BOTH an impartial and dispassionate magistrate (which could NOT POSSIBLY include the complainant, Judge Clay D. Land) and a trial-by-jury because of the “penalty” amount of $10,000.00.

Attorney Taitz then faults Land’s reading of Rule 11, and claims he is giving it a novel interpretation, namely to sanction political speech.  She then cites case law to establish a right to a trial-by-jury when a penalty that large is threatened.  She also further asks how the Court knows of the “birther agenda”, to mention it in both rulings and sanction orders, and concludes:

The undersigned counsel submits that this Judge has, among other things, radically PREJUDGED the case which the former Plaintiff Captain Connie Rhodes brought, when he finds that there is “no legal or factual basis” for her contentions, as when he states that “she supports her claims with subjective belief, speculation, and conjecture . . .”

What exactly does the Court find so very speculative or subjective about private investigator’s reports, expert opinions, colored and/or certified copies of Kenyan birth records admissible under the “ancient documents” doctrine of the Federal Rules of Evidence?

She then rebuts the charge that the Plaintiff’s claims were frivolous, which was the repetitious claim of Land in his ruling against Rhodes:

Could these questions potentially render the results of the 2008 election void on constitutional grounds? Yes. Could such a result have dramatic political consequences? Yes. Is it a frivolous case, merely because it has such potential political consequences? Not when compared with Bush v. Gore (2000), Jones v. Clinton (1996), or United States v. Nixon (1974), which were all based on substantially less obvious constitutional questions or violations, which were also much more difficult both to detect, determine with certainty, and ultimately to prove, than the Constitutional issues brought in this case.

Attorney Taitz then gives a historical summary of the school-desegregation proceedings in the 40’s and 50’s, and cites their complexity, and the Court’s approval in hearing cases on this question. And she argues that rejection of pleadings merely on the basis of political consequence would result in a great number of regularly-heard-cases being rejected in contradiction to established jurisprudence of the Federal Courts.

Then, she cites the tenor and swiftness of Land’s decisions as evidence that he was impartial in issuing them. And concludes that the “birther” charge must be derived from extrajudicial communications, since she never claimed such a status.

Next, she cites numerous reasons in Judge Land’s rulings that establish her charge of impartiality:  lack of citation of Plaintiff’s arguments as showing that the Judge did not give them their due hearing; his ignoring of the broader claims of the Plaintiff,  and summarizes the reason for the request for recusal:

Whether Judge LAND acted prejudicially upon orders or coercion from other branches of government of if Judge LAND is acting solely and exclusively out of blind personal prejudice against the questions presented by Plaintiff’s Application and Complaint, Judge LAND is disqualified to serve as judge and must either recuse himself or be recused.

In the rest of her filing, Dr. Taitz addresses the details of the law and case precedents to bolster her argument on the basis of her 5th and 9th Amendment rights.  In her summary conclusion, she remarks:

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §144, no further action in this case may be taken without further decision by the Chief Judge of the Middle District of Georgia with regard to the appointment of an independent judicial review of Judge CLAY D. LAND’s management and the character of his disposition of issues in this case.

In Exhibit A the Visit of Eric Holder to Columbus Georgia is cited, as circumstantial evidence that he spoke with Land.

Dr. Taitz has accordingly filed a second Motion requesting an extension til Oct 16th to respond to Judge Land’s request to show cause why he should not sanction her.

Read Full Post »


by John Charlton

(Sept. 28, 2009) — The citizen journalist, Larry Sinclair, has been vindicated; the Rhodes letter will not be considered by the Court; so says Judge Clay D. Land of the Federal Court, Middle Division, Georgia; whose assistant clerk appears to have not observed proper procedures about the admission of documents to the docket.

The Post & Email has covered the letter in a separate article, last week.

Judge Land makes his statements in his ruling, granting Attorney Taitz’s motion to be dismissed as Rhodes’ counsel, in the case Rhodes vs. Mac Donald, to wit:

Moreover, the Court notifies counsel that in issuing its show cause sanctions order, the Court did not rely upon the letter sent by Plaintiff purporting to discharge counsel (Doc. 18), nor does the Court intend to rely upon that document in future proceedings regarding sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel.


The Post & Email wishes to remind its readers of its policy concerning comments.  See our About page.

Read Full Post »


by John Charlton

(Sept. 28, 2009) — Judge Clay D. Land is the Federal Judge before whose bench Dr. Orly Taitz pleaded for a stay of deployment for Captain Connie Rhodes, in the case Rhodes vs. Mac Donald. Rhodes is now in Iraq, following Judge Land’s rejection of her stay.

The Post & Email will from time to time publish Spotlight reports on public officials in the news, to highlight their background and personal history, available from public sources and those who have known them in life.

A ‘Southern Boy’ turns Scholar

Clay D. Land was born in Shreveport, LA in 1960.

He attended the University of Georgia and graduated in 1982 with a Bachelor’s of Business Administration, graduating magna cum laude.

He then went on to the University of Georgia Law School, where he earned a Juris Doctor in 1985, graduating cum laude.  He was a member of the staff of the Georgia Law Review and was inducted into the Order of the Coif, a honorary scholastic society for law students.

From the Bar to the Legislature

He was in private practice from 1985-2001.

In 1992, he formed the law firm Buchanan & Land LPP, with Jerry A. Buchanan; they specialized in civil litigation.  Both attorneys had been partners in the Columbus law firm of Hatcher, Stubbs, Land, Hollis & Rothschild. (This Rothschild seems to have no relation to the Banking family).

Land then entered politics; starting first as a member of the Columbus City Council from 1993-1994, and then serving three terms in the Georgia General Assembly, as a state senator, from 1995-2000.

In 1996 he donated approx. $1,600 to Republican causes.

From the Legislature to the Bench

He was recommended for a seat on the Federal Judiciary by U.S. Congressman Saxyby Chambliss, a Republican.

He was nominated to the Federal Bench by George W. Bush on September 21, 2001, to a seat vacated by J. Robert Elliot; he was confirmed by a voice vote in the U.S. Senate on December 13, 2001, and received his commission on December 21, 2001.

According to the court docket there have been over 1,500 Cases filed before Judge Land.

As a Judge, Land has engaged in various charitable and civic activities with his alma mater.  For example, he was enrolled in the Joseph Henry Lumpkin Society, in 2003-4 after making a charitable donation of $1,000 to $2,500 in conjunction with Shannon F. Land, and was a Board of Visitors member for the Univ. of Georgia Law School in 2004-5.

Financial Disclosures have been problematic

Judicial Watch publishes the public financial disclosures of Judge Land.  A number of them have had to be amended due to an apparent failure of Judge Land to keep track of his numerous investments.

In 2003, Judge Land had to follow a follow up report for failure to report various investments in Mirant Common Stock and Worldcom Common Stock.

His reports filed for the years 2003-7 list investments in many of the largest companies backing Barack Obama, such as Microsoft and Comcast.

In his 2004 report he also lists and investment with Time Warner, Inc..

In this 2005 report he lists salary from Buchanan & Land, LLP.

In his 2006 report he adds a follow up report, once again, for failure to disclose some 25 investments in Banks and Mutual Funds; in addition to his 62 other investments in a slew of companies. He also reported income once again from his law firm.

In this 2007 report he claims income as a self-employed lawyer, and that from his law firm Buchanan & Land LLP, along with 56 other investments in Mutual Funds, Banks and other industries and services.

It is difficult to understand how, with so many varied investments, Judge Land has managed to avoid conflicts of interest in the numerous cases he has heard.  Moreover, seeing that many of these companies would be impacted if  the laws signed by Barack Hussein Obama’s were declared null and void, on account of his lack of eligibility for office, it also seems reasonable to ask why Judge Land did not recuse himself in the case Rhodes vs. Mac Donald.

Read Full Post »


by John Charlton

(Sept. 26, 2009) — In a stunning display of integrity as an attorney-at-law, Dr. Orly Taitz counsel for Captain Connie Rhodes, M.D., in the case Rhodes vs. MacDonald, has petitioned Judge Clay D. Land, to be dismissed from her duties in the case.

In her Motion to Withdraw as Counsel, Dr. Taitz explains her reasons:

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.

And states her willingness to defend herself against the threat of sanctions:

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.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.