Orly Taitz, the lawyer and de facto leader of the “Birther” litigation, has filed a motion to withdraw from further representation of Dr. Connie Rhodes after Rhodes accused her of filing new papers in Rhodes v. MacDonald without her approval and after she agreed to be deployed by the military. Taitz is also facing a possible $10,000 fine from United States District Court Judge Clay D. Land, who previously dismissed the action. Taitz declared in one filing: “This case is now a quasi-criminal prosecution of the undersigned attorney.” She is already facing a California bar complaint and Rhodes is promising to file a new complaint against her for her “reprehensible” representation.
The latest development in this unraveling case began when Rhodes learned that Taitz had filed a motion to stay deployment after she had decided to forego further litigation. She then proceeded to fire Taitz by sending a remarkable letter from Office Max on the advice of “Tim who works in the District Clerk’s office.” She stated in the fax:
September 18th, 2009
To the Honorable Judge Land:
Currently, I am shipping out to Iraq for my deployment. I became aware on last night’s local news that a Motion to Stay my deployment had been entered on my behalf. I did not authorize this motion to be filed. I thank you for hearing my case and respect the ruling given on September 16th, 2009. It is evident that the original filing for the TRO and such was full of political conjecture which was not my interest. I had no intention of refusing orders nor will I. I simply wanted to verify the lawfulness of my orders. I am honored to serve my country and thank you for doing the same.
With that I said, please withdraw the Motion to Stay that Ms. Taitz filed this past Thursday. I did not authorize it and do not wish to proceed. Ms. Taitz never requested my permission nor did I give it. I would not have been aware of this if I did not see it on the late news on Thursday night before going to board my plane to Iraq on Friday, September 18, 2009.
Furthermore, I do not wish for Ms. Taitz to file any future motion or represent me in any way in this court. It is my plan to file a complaint with the California State Bar to her reprehensible and unprofessional actions.
I am faxing this as was advised by Tim, who works in the District Clerk’s office. I will mail the original copy of this letter once I have arrived in Iraq.
Respectfully,
CPT Connie M. Rhodes, MD
I am a bit curious that all of this case appears to have been a surprise to Rhodes despite endless coverage in the papers and cable shows. It is curious that she never acted to sever representation before this time.
In her Motion for Leave to Withdrawal as Counsel, Taitz suggests that her client is lying to the Court.
She states that she not only has a (rather obvious) conflict with her former client but may present evidence that is embarrassing to her:
The undersigned attorney comes before this Court to respectfully ask for leave to withdraw as counsel for the Plaintiff Captain Connie Rhodes. 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. This Motion to Withdraw as Counsel will in no way delay the proceedings, in that the Plaintiff has separately indicated that she no longer wishes to continue to contest any issue in this case. 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.Respectfully submitted,
By:_________________________
Orly Taitz, DDS, Esq.
California Bar ID No. 223433
FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Captain Connie Rhodes, M.D. F.S.
SATURDAY, September 26, 2009
“Quasi-criminal prosecution”? The judge had ordered Taitz to “show cause” why a sanction should not be imposed in the case. He had previously told Taitz that he would consider sanctions if she filed similar claims in the future. After the denial of the Motion to Stay deployment, Land said that the latest filing was “deja vu all over again” including “her political diatribe.” He notes:
Instead of seriously addressing the substance of the Court’s order, counsel repeats her political diatribe against the President, complains that she did not have time to address dismissal of the action (although she sought expedited consideration), accuses the undersigned of treason, and maintains that “the United States District Courts in the 11th Circuit are subject to political pressure, external control, and . . . subservience to the same illegitimate chain of command which Plaintiff has previously protested.”
Then the kicker:
The Court finds Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay of Deployment (Doc. 15) to be frivolous. Therefore, it is denied. 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. Ms. Taitz shall file her response within fourteen days of today’s order showing why this sanction should not be imposed.
I am frankly not convinced that sanctions would be appropriate for filing for a motion to stay deployment per se. At the time of his order, Land did not presumably know that the filing was made against the wishes of the client. If Rhodes was interested in appealing Land’s decision, which is her right, a stay is a standard request. However, the fact that the filing may have been made after Taitz was terminated as counsel and after she was told that Rhodes was abandoning the case is more cause for possible sanctions. Moreover, the low quality and over-heated rhetoric of the filing can support such sanctions. Her filings appear more visceral than legal. In demanding reconsideration of the Court’s earlier order, she used language that does cross the line:
This Court has threatened the undersigned counsel with sanctions for advocating that a legally conscious, procedurally sophisticated, and constitutionally aware army officers corps is the best protection against the encroachment of anti-democratic, authoritarian, neo-Fascistic or Palaeo-Communistic dictatorship in this country, without pointing to any specific language, facts, or allegations of fact in the Complaint or TRO as frivolous. Rule 11 demands more of the Court than use of its provisions as a means of suppressing the First Amendment Right to Petition regarding questions of truly historical, in fact epic and epochal, importance in the history of this nation.
She also (as noted by Land in his later order) essentially accused Land of treason, as she has in public statements:
Plaintiff submits that to advocate a breach of constitutional oaths to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, is in fact a very practical form of “adhering” to those enemies, foreign and domestic, and thus is tantamount to treason, as Defined in Article III, Section 3, even when pronounced in Court. The People of the United States deserve better service and loyalty from the most powerful, and only life-tenured, officers of their government.
Taitz is also facing a California Bar complaint, here. Ohio lawyer (and inactive California bar member) Subodh Chandra wrote the bar, stating “I respectfully request that you investigate Ms. Taitz’s conduct and impose an appropriate sanction. She is an embarrassment to the profession.” For that complaint, click here.
A complaint by a former client would likely attract more attention by the Bar. These are now serious allegations including misrepresentation, false statements to the Court, and other claims that will have to be addressed by a Bar investigation. This could take years to resolve — perhaps just in time for Obama’s second inauguration.
“Do we really want to permit unsupported name calling on this blog? Is that a door you would like to se opened?”
Jimmy,
I’ve been open about attacking you on an ad hominem basis. My reason is that one cannot argue with someone who will not admit when they have been beaten. I attack you thus, to ridicule you and expose the falsity of your posting.
However, Buddha did it more succinctly then I with:
“Truly a tale told by idiots.”
Why should we lend credence to your arguments when they have been so thoroughly debunked? You write with the same frenetic activity of a headless chicken scampering through a barnyard, but the chicken at least deserves sympathy. True also is Buddha’s observation that bdaman, your doppelganger, has again risen. Coincidence? I doubt it.
“Who farted?”
Why that’s one of the oldest tricks in the book. And the maxim has ever been “He who smelt it, dealt it.”
Coincidence?
Who questioned Obama’s status as a citizen? Who claimed that he is not a natural born citizen of the United States?
Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy.
Given the repeated beatings you’ve taken in your various incarnations, maybe YOU should ask if YOU want to keep opening any doors here, slick.
1) There is no rational basis for the argument Obama is not a citizen. N-O-N-E.
2) No legal basis either.
3) It’s curious that you, Indentured Servant -er- InspectorSmith and bdatroll all show up at the same time again.
What’s the matter? Didn’t get a bad enough beating the first two dozen times you birther clowns tried to float this dead dog argument? Your masters really breaking out the whip just in time for the holidays?
Your ruses are painfully transparent, Mr. Illogical Racist. And that is what you are, Birther. Your stances fail on logic and law, ergo, simple racism must be your motive for butting heads with the reality of Obama’s citizenship in light of overwhelming evidence that – duh – you guys don’t know what the Hell you are talking about. Birthers are sound and fury signifying nothing. Truly a tale told by idiots.
ffleo, Until some reliable source can provide the documentation that dictates the usage of Date Filed vs. Fate Accepted, that question will remain unanswered. Obfuscation is not resolution.
Vince Treacy relies on speculation from Dr. Conspiracy.
As important as what dictates the difference is the reason(s) the Director of the Department of Health has refused to comply with the laws of Hawaii. Remember the rule of law? Are you complicit in this violation of Hawaiian Law?
Mike Spindell’s determination that I am a racist, because I ask a reasonable question, is unsupported.
Do we really want to permit unsupported name calling on this blog? Is that a door you would like to se opened?
Paully=Jim Byrne=birther=troll=racist.
Vince Treacy says “So what does the fact that some say “filed” and others “accepted” mean?
Nothing. There is no evidence that one phrase differs from another. There is no reasonable implication to be drawn from the usage.
There is nothing here.”
Thanks for the good laugh Vince Treacy.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSjK2Oqrgic&hl=en_US&fs=1&]
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIQuBvtDGbQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&]
Mike S,
I don’t think that any of your posts here were out of line and I’m certainly aware that the birther movement has some really dark and unsavory motivations at its root, I just think that it’s more important to focus on the fact that the birthers are wrong on the facts and wrong on the law instead of the racism inherent in the movement. It is very understandable that you would be more sensitive to racism and bigotry than me (especially since I have seen such directed at you personally on this blog) so I have no problem with agreeing to disagree (respectfully) with you on this topic.
Paully,
The character of the people standing with you (figuratively) reflects on your cause – it’s naive to think otherwise. I would suggest that any birthers concerned about this should drop the issue and spend their time on any of the real, serious issues facing our country and our planet. If you don’t want people to think you’re a part of the KKK, then don’t march down the street wearing a white robe…
Slartibartfast,
You’re correct. I know of birthers that are racists. I also know of Democrats that are racists. I don’t label the group based on the statements of the few.
To answer your question “why they are so comfortable with fellow travelers who are so obviously racists and bigots”?
Who said they are? I avoid those who are racist. They don’t care about the facts anymore than those who avoid the facts to support any other agenda. How do you propose the birthers get rid of the racists who support them?
“I think that instead of accusing birthers of racism and bigotry (which not all of them are guilty of), a better tactic is to ask them why they are so comfortable with fellow travelers who are so obviously racists and bigots.”
Slart,
Although you and I agree on many, many things, we disagree on this. To me the “birther” movement is a racist one and if you’re a “fellow traveler” to bigotry you are one.
“Inspector Smith exposed you yesterday. You play your race card to cover for your ignorance.”
Paully/Jim Byrne,
As yogi Berra said it’s deja vu all over again. You write exactly like Jim Byrne and “birther” and that is because you probably are. As for Smith “exposing” me, how does a proven forger and con man get to expose anyone. Finally, you are a racist. “Play the race card” where have I heard that before? How about the KKK and other “white power” groups. You guys are too stupid to even realize how easily you expose yourselves and too cowardly to ever admit the truth of your bigotry.
“Vattel’s Law of Nations was adopted as part of the Common Law of England in 1764. The Case was Triquet and Others v. Bath.”
Paully,
Thanks for proving my point about your being a troll and probably Jim Byrne. Only a true troll would bring an 18th Century, Swiss natural philosopher into this discussion. Also may I remind you that Blackstone, an English Jurist died in 1780 and while his book is still used in law schools it is a stretch to use his take on what was in essence a world of total monarchy to define 21st Century American jurisprudence. As far as your citing the use of Vattel in a 1963 citizenship case (the best you could do is 46 years ago?) SCOTUS has through the years made many peculiar decisions for instance “Plessy v. Ferguson,” or “Bush v. Gore.” I use both of them as examples because I think they exemplify your personal bias and true lack of belief in constitutional law.
You have to go back to the likes of Vattel though and to also bring in silly birth certificate questions, because you simply have no case other than your bigotry. You are a rather gutless bigot though, because those I’ve met at least have the balls to admit their prejudice. You hide yours behind obfuscation and behind the “Big Lie.”
You are in fact just another Goebbels wannabe, goose stepping to the beat of your own anger and hatred. I bet your prime sexual fantasy is to have some women dressed in black leather, swastica prominent, dominate you. I am by the way attacking you on an ad hominem basis, simply because your arguments are a rehash of the “same old, same old” and because a bigot like you doesn’t deserve any better. Incidentally,
you don’t anger me, you amuse me in your total lack of self awareness.
Unlike you though I don’t claim to know it all and so I’ll offer an alternative theory on why you write as you do: You get paid for it and like the old joke about the whore, the question is not what you are, but how much is your price? A third theory that you are merely a patritoic American seeking justice is made absurd by your own written statements.
Paully,
Mike Spindell does not siphon libelous comments via his mouth from the sewer as InspectorSmith (IS) did and nothing Mike S. has stated herein requires rebuking.
Buddha mentioned to you and other birthers that there are real legitimate problems with Mr. Obama and his Administration with which you should focus your energies. Bdaman mentioned the FOIA issue that is a major concern to me.
If you gave financial and other support to the ACLU and/or other organizations contesting Mr. Obama’s broken pledges, then you could help ensure that he is a one-term president—unless he redeems himself soon. As I mentioned regarding IS, every human deserves a chance at redemption.
The birther movement that was initially worthwhile to investigate has since been illegitimatized, you need to accept that outcome as we all must do when our claims become refuted , and move on to change the real reasons why Mr. Obama is a poor, exceptionally dishonest president.
‘
Posted by Dr. Conspiracy on Saturday, February 28, 2009
QUOTE
This came in the mail:
I ran across a birther argument [on Free Republic] I could not answer. Obama’s COLB has a “Date Filed,” whereas other COLB’s posted on the internet have a “Date Accepted.”
The birthers seem to be attaching a lot of significance to this discrepancy. I briefly searched the Hawaii DOH websites to see if I could find any information on what it might mean, but was unsuccessful.
If you have time, you may want to explore this further. I’d be curious to know what you find.
Look at the “Alan” birth certificate (long form from 1963)
When a Vital Records agency prints an abstract form like Obama’s COLB they put old data in the current format. That is, the data is old, but the labels are new. Without a definitive policy from the Health Department, we can’t tell which of the two blocks from the birth registration, 20 or 22 went on Obama’s form. I would think it’s block 22, the date the State accepted the record from the local registrar.
Even today, birth registration is sometimes done by local agencies (for example a county health department in Indiana). Note that the signature next to the Date Accepted (block 20) is that of a military officer (COL, MSC, USA), which would indicate that the signer was most likely someone over the U. S. Army Tripler General Hospital.
The Alan document would have been forwarded to the State from the Army hospital and it would be stamped with a state-wide certificate number (or File Number in this case). You see the state acceptance date 4 days later (block 22).
Look at this Hawaiian Death Certificate from 1992 (page 5).
It also has two blocks and they are labeled “Date received by local registrar” and “Date Filed by State Registrar”. Page 6 of that document shows a 1991 version of the COLB which looks to be hand typed on some decent security paper and shows only “Date Received by Local Registrar”.
Some modern COLB’s say “Date Accepted by State Registrar” and some say “Date Filed by Registrar”. Below is another example with the same wording as Obama’s.
UNQUOTE
SOURCE: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/date-filed-v-date-accepted/#comments
Ok, Paully did show links to 2 COLBs on November 23, 2009 at 6:19 pm “Too many links for wordpress.”
To repeat.
And once again: So what?
What difference does it make?
So what does the fact that some say “filed” and others “accepted” mean?
Nothing. There is no evidence that one phrase differs from another. There is no reasonable implication to be drawn from the usage.
There is nothing here.
There has been no answer to why this trivial difference in words makes any significant difference.
Take the discussion over to Dr. Conspiracy. Maybe they can figure it out.
Mike S,
I think that instead of accusing birthers of racism and bigotry (which not all of them are guilty of), a better tactic is to ask them why they are so comfortable with fellow travelers who are so obviously racists and bigots. That said, they shouldn’t be surprised that after rolling around with the dogs they’ve got fleas…
Elaine M,
Thanks for the laugh.
Paully,
There is a difference between using “Law of Nations” to refer to de Vattel’s book and using the term law of nations to refer to, you know, international law…
lilove11: “As many people who have asked for his COLB, why has Pres. Obama not produced it.”
You lie!
The truth is that Obama has produced his Certification of Live Birth (COLB).
Zero tolerance for liars at the Turley blog.
I think a few posters in this thread should be required to produce a COFB–Certificate Of Functioning Brain.
Awwww.
“Do you think your ignorance is an excuse that should permit you to make wild unsupported accusations?”
Now that’s just funny, Pa Kettle.
And as for ignorance? Eh, I’m thinking Mike is more credible in his sleep than you are on full tilt, Junior. The proof is in the eating of the pudding and, oops!, Mike can really chow down on some troll pudding.
Please, Paully! Entertain us with your poo flinging monkey dance! Because your arguments are junk. The package is kinda funny though. Wishful thinking hokum and distraction propaganda.
But please do rattle on.
I bet there is a used calliope you can come by quite cheap on eBay.
That kind of dancing needs the proper accompaniment.