Non, have you ever heard of a judge sanctioning an attorney sua sponte and ordering the fine to be directed to his favorite charity?
Excerpt: (hand typed, so any typos are my own)
Counsel Orly Taitz is hereby ordered to pay $20,000.00 to the United States, through the Middle District of Georgia Clerk's Office, within thirty days of the date of this Order as a sanction for her misconduct in violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1111The Court wishes to explore the possibility of directing the financial penalty to the National Infantry Foundation at Ft. Benning, Georgia, which has as part of its mission the recognition of our brave soldiers who do their duty regardless of the personal sacrifice required and their own personal political beliefs. The Assistant U.S. Attorney shall file within thirty days of today's Order a short brief outlining the position of the United States as to whether such a monetary sanction can be used for this prupose. The Court emphasizes that the Court is ordering the penalty be paid to the United States as required under Rule 11 and not to a third party, but the Court seeks to determine whether the Court is authorized to subesquently order that the proceeds be paid by the United States to the Foundation.
I can't speak to the first part, though the judge made it clear in his order that he feels Taitz provoked the response and the higher sanction. As for the second, I would think that would be illegal. In any case Taitz must pay the fine to the U.S. and not a charity. Per the judges order Link
Rule 11 specifically allows a judge to sanction sua sponte. (It's not done often, but the law is clear that the judge can do it.) The idea of giving it to charity (even though it's a military charity) is something I've never heard of and is probably not allowed. I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. Attorney says he can't do that.