Oh, For Goodness Sake

Orly Taitz Defends Disbarred Assistant Charles Lincoln III

I listened to Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. last night on Andrea Shea King’s blog talk radio show. Any Birthers who have had concerns about this association would be wise to listen, too. She mumbled quite a lot throughout the show and I am not certain I got it all, but she gave a strong defense of her felonious legal assistant and partner in a dubious “mortgage redemption” litigation scheme. Unfortunately, but as is usual, she was less than honest.

She claimed Lincoln had retired voluntary from practicing law, because he didn’t want to do it anymore, which is greatly misleading:

According to the State Bar of Texas, on Aug. 22, 2001, the Supreme Court of Texas accepted the resignation, in lieu of discipline, of Charles Edward Lincoln [#00791116], 40, of New Orleans, La. The court found that on March 17, 2000, Lincoln entered into a plea agreement in Cause No. A-99-CR-275-WS, The United States of America v. Charles Edward Lincoln, wherein he pleaded guilty to falsely representing his social security number (42 USC ?408(a)(7)(B)).

As a condition of the plea agreement, Lincoln agreed to resign from the practice of law in Texas in lieu of disciplinary proceedings by the State Bar of Texas.

Lincoln was, in fact, disbarred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas:

On March 25, U.S. District Judge Walter S. Smith Jr. for the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas dismissed a suit filed by plaintiff Daniel Simon against officials from Williamson County. Simon was represented by disbarred attorney Charles Edward Lincoln.

Smith then went a step further and fined Simon and Lincoln $150,000 and banned Lincoln from filing any more federal lawsuits.

The court found that Simon and what Judge Smith called his “de facto” attorney have engaged in “harassment of public officials by filing numerous frivolous lawsuits and removals to federal courts.” …

Smith went on to order sanctions against Simon and Lincoln in the amount of $150,000 “because of their pattern of harassing litigation.” In addition, Smith ordered that any lawsuits either filed or removed to any federal court in the Western District of Texas were “hereby dismissed with prejudice,” and that Simon and Lincoln were prohibited from filing any further suits or pleadings in any federal court in Texas until the sanctions had been paid or get special permission from a federal judge.

He was subsequently disbarred in Florida and California.

The situation in Texas does appear, superficially, to have formed the basis of the California disbarment, as Taitz claimed, but that is because the misconduct in Texas violated California law, as well:

CHARLES EDWARD LINCOLN [#171793], 44, of Cedar Park, Texas was disbarred Jan. 11, 2004, and was ordered to comply with rule 955.

In 2000, Lincoln was convicted in Texas on a federal charge of falsely representing his Social Security number, a felony. As a result, he gave up his license to practice in the state.

Originally charged with five felonies, the case resulted from Lincoln applying for a checking account using a false Social Security number.

In a second matter, he was disbarred from U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas after a federal judge requested an investigation of Lincoln because two of his clients had a falsified receipt. The receipt purported to be from the federal court clerk and represented funds the clients had given Lincoln. The clients believed Lincoln was depositing their money in an escrow account related to their case.

Two days before a hearing by the federal court’s admissions committee, Lincoln went to his clients’ home, instructed them not to tell the judge that he gave them the receipt, which he asked them not to produce, and he gave the clients a cashier’s check for $6,000. He did not appear at the hearing.

In a previous lawsuit, the same judge determined that Lincoln was involved in discovery abuse and filed duplicative motions. The judge issued sanctions and dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice.

The State Bar Court determined that Lincoln’s misconduct in Texas amounted to violations of California law as well.

From the California Disbarment Recommendation:

Section 6106 makes it a cause for disbarment or suspension to commit any act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption, whether the act is committed in the course of his or her relations as an attorney or otherwise, and whether the act is a felony or misdemeanor or not. By making a misrepresentation to his clients, taking his clients’ money without authority and giving his clients a falsified document purporting to be a receipt for funds deposited in the registry of the United States Clerk’s Office with the intent of obtaining monies for his own personal use, misappropriated his client’s money, and by instructing his client not to tell the “judge” that he gave her the receipt in question and instructing his client that he had not given her the receipt in question, when he knew that such was not true, Respondent engaged in acts of moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption in wilful violation of section 6106

But in the course of being prosecuted in the US District Court, Southern District of Texas for criminal contempt, Lincoln fled the country to Canada and then Mexico, where he was held by Mexican authorities until US Marshals flew him from there to Los Angeles, where he was taken in for an outstanding warrant, before finally being returned to face the Texas charges, of which he was convicted, a month and a half later. He had already, by this time, been disbarred in California, where he had been a member of the Bar since 1994.

Perhaps the most startling admission was her statement, which was clearly audible, that Taitz has not informed the California Bar or her clients that Lincoln is a paid employee working on her cases. She insisted she was under no such obligation, which is a lie.

California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1-311(D):

Prior to or at the time of employing a person the member knows or reasonably should know is a disbarred, suspended, resigned, or involuntarily inactive member, the member shall serve upon the State Bar written notice of the employment, including a full description of such person’s current bar status. The written notice shall also list the activities prohibited in paragraph (B) and state that the disbarred, suspended, resigned, or involuntarily inactive member will not perform such activities. The member shall serve similar written notice upon each client on whose specific matter such person will work, prior to or at the time of employing such person to work on the client’s specific matter. The member shall obtain proof of service of the client’s written notice and shall retain such proof and a true and correct copy of the client’s written notice for two years following termination of the member’s employment with the client.

All that said, Charles Edward Lincoln III has a few saving graces, his education being one of them, while Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. has none. He is who he is and he is already disbarred. She is solely responsible for putting her profession, her clients, and her movement at risk.