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.
“Please provide us with a link, Vince. We don’t put up with liars at the Turley Blawg.”
Paully,
Au Contraire. you’ve been allowed to post many times.
Paully,
Well, I’d call that a medium length comment from Vince (followed by a small clarification) (followed by another email with a link to more discussion about this topic – damn Vince you’re the frickin energizer bunny…). Unfortunately for you, he answered your challenge. What was this supposed to tell me about Vince? That he has integrity and knows this stuff forward, backward, and sideways? What about my question to you? What does “prima facia evidence of the fact of birth” mean to you? Do you have the integrity to admit it when you’re wrong?
Here is what I posted above:
“More Internet reference information for the regulars, just to put a little common sense into the debate. First, there is also a thread on accepted/filed, where anyone can log in and post questions, at politjab.com:
http://www.politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=2752&p=82364&hilit=filed+accepted#p82364
Now here the problem is that the site, as I mentioned, requires people to register with them before they can log in and view all the threads. Since I registered, it seems that I can go right to the thread by clicking the url, but that may not work if someone has not registered.
They cover a lot of issues, and have numerous birther threads with a lot of resources, so anyone interested should register. I went there and put “filed and accepted” in the search window and found the thread.
I see now .that this link goes right to the first page of comments.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/date-filed-v-date-accepted/comment-page-1/#comments
I am sorry about the confusion.
To the regulars:
Here is the link, again, to Dr. C’s thread on filed/accepted:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/date-filed-v-date-accepted/
Scroll down to the bottom left, and click on “Older Comments.” Be patient, since the site is sometimes a little slow. Then scroll down and click again. This gets the viewer to the first page of comments.
RichCares is the first up, followed by this exchange: QUOTE.
Dr. Conspiracy says:
February 28, 2009 at 4:28 pm (Quote)
It could be that the label for filed/accepted could be a variable in the print routine. They could use different labels for data from different eras to reflect different definitions of their data fields at different times.
I’ve never worked on Hawaii’s system, so I can’t say for sure what they’re doing.
TRUTH [apparently a birther, VT] says:
March 1, 2009 at 12:30 pm (Quote)
Excuse me DOC?! “…. so I can’t say for sure what they’re doing….”
And the HI health dept has no Definitive policy?
But we’re 100% sure that what we have seen is legitimate. Okie Doke.
Dr. Conspiracy says:
March 1, 2009 at 3:44 pm (Quote)
Well Truth, there are some things which are rather simple: “Location of Birth: Honolulu”. That doesn’t take much explanation. “Date filed by Registrar” could be interpreted differently within a narrow range of possibilities since we don’t know whether it refers to a local registrar or a state registrar.
I’m sure the Health Department has a definitive policy; I just don’t know what it is.
The obvious reason that this field is on the form is to meet the requirements of the Passport Office on timely registration for acceptable birth certificates for passport purposes. Late registrations (which Obama’s isn’t) are a primary source of certificate registration fraud. If the date were a year out (or even maybe a month) then I would be telling you that this is a “caution flag”.
What I have seen on other sample birth certificates from Hawaii is a lag of 2-4 days between event and registration, which is exactly what we have in Obama’s case.
UNQUOTE
At this point, Paully or anyone else can post a reply or question to expand the discussion. It does not seem to me to be a big deal. Maybe someone ordered a new batch of printed forms with the heading “filed” instead of “accepted.” It does not seem to rise to the level of a conspiracy.
At any rate, that is how to find the quotation and the link.
Paully,
Since you seem to want to focus on the specific wording on President Obama’s COLB, what do you make of the words “This copy serves as prima facia evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding”? What do you think they mean? What do you think they would mean to a judge? Just asking…
And this supposed quote
QUOTE Post by Epectitus » Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:23 pm Re: “Accepted” vs. “Filed”
Even Polarik/Polland debunked that one. His image of another “filed” COLB was included on Dr Conspiracy’s blog back in February.
That said, the State Department’s regulations for proof of citizenship at birth only require that it be “filed” within a year of birth, not “accepted.” So, if any of these COLBs are suspect, it’s not the ones that say “filed.” UNQUOTE
Please provide us with a link, Vince. We don’t put up with liars at the Turley Blawg.
AY–
It’s difficult to produce a birth certificate when you’ve burst–fully formed as an adult–from a pod. In my view, the birthers may be proof of a science-fiction-becomes-reality case of the “body snatchers.”
Whaddya think?
ffleo, Are you an honest man? Can you find that quote?
Slartibartfast, If you think Vince’s last post does anything more than show his true colors, you’re an idiot. Pay attention, and I’ll show you a little bit about the Vince Treacy that you trust.
Vince Treacy, Why don’t you provide us with a hyperlink to this quote of yours? I dare you.
“Second, over at Dr. C, richCares, who is Hawaiian, said on February 28, 2009 at 12:51 pm (Quote)
Hawaii Health Dept has acknowledged that these wording changes were made without also changing the Form number. Form numbers are only for an internal office matter. They said in typical Hawaiian fashion “Ain’t no big thing” (Unquote).”
Anybody here find a result for that quote from Dr. C? If you do, post a link.
Just watch! Vince will post numerous long comments to hide this.
Slartibartfast,
I think you have named it. Why does it matter? They are asking for something that they themselves are not willing or incapable of doing.
You know, I just realized something about why the birthers annoy me so much – they are demanding that they have the right to see the original copy of President Obama’s original birth certificate (and hear sworn testimony from the doctor who delivered him, plus have a lie detector test given to his late mother via seance and HD video of the birth complete with DNA samples…) while I have no legal right to see my own original birth certificate*. Screw them.
*I was adopted as an infant and my birth certificate lists my adoptive parents.
Paully,
Vince’s latest post leaves you with no leg to stand on – you’re in a field with both of your arms and legs on the ground next to you, the question is, will you man up and say you were wrong, or will you say, “tis but a scratch”? I know which way I’d bet. This is the point where you and the other birthers go from asking a relevant question to crazy conspiracy theorist – it’s been shown to a reasonable degree of certainty that there is nothing significant about the accepted/filed issue therefore you can either admit you are wrong or admit that this isn’t about a rational concern for the constitution, but about removing President Obama from office because you don’t like him. There isn’t really any other explanation. You should pay especially close attention to the last two sentences of Vince’s post:
“This just does not seem to rise to the level of one of the greatest injustices of the Third Millennium.
Finally, I think that Hawaii’s agencies have been inundated with floods of birther letters, many spurred on by Leo Donofrio, and often barely coherent, so it is unsurprising that replies are lagging.”
as these are good examples of how reasonable people think (you could use some help in that regard).
I would like to see all of the doubters of Obamas Certificate of Live Birth if one exists. Post it here on this site at this very instance. If you don’t how do we know that you were born? Do you see how moronic your inaneness has become.
Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA), also a 2010 Republican Georgia gubernatorial candidate, is seeking Mr. Obama’s birth certificate. Today, SavannahNow.com posted a story concerning Rep. Deal’s foray into eligibility.
My office, and I’m sure many other offices,” the Gainesville lawmaker said, “continue to get inquiries. … The president has the ability to put this to rest completely, and I think he should do that. …
“It takes up my staff’s time. We are constantly required to answer these kinds of inquiries. … I’m willing to take his word for it, but I think he needs to convince those who still have doubts.”
Under the U.S. Constitution, only native-born citizens may serve as president. Hawaii became a state in 1959.
Yet another Republican congressman has joined forces with the birthers.
The most recent example: Rep. Scott Garrett of New Jersey said President Obama should produce his birth certificate after being pressed on the issue by constituents who believe President Obama is actually a Kenyan citizen. Dave Weigel chronicled the encounter, which took place last week. After being pushed for nearly five minutes to to weigh in on the birther conspiracy theory, Garrett tried to deflect the question, saying there was “no political solution to it.” Weigel continues:
He’s cut off by another constituent. “Have him show his birth certificate! It’s as simple as that! None of this ‘talk about it, talk about it’ — just let’s see the birth certificate!”
“I agree,” says Garrett — who’s not one of the 12 sponsors of the “birther bill.”
So what are you trying to say Vince?
If a COLB says Date Accepted by State Registrar, is the State Department not going to accept it?
Be careful. You’ll dig yourself a whole. You’re already relying on WND and Polarik for support.
I’m still waiting for you to support your claim that Dr. Conspiracy is an “expert on vital statistics”.
More Internet reference information for the regulars, just to put a little common sense into the debate. First, there is also a thread on accepted/filed, where anyone can log in and post questions, at politjab.com:
http://www.politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=2752&p=82364&hilit=filed+accepted#p82364
QUOTE Post by Epectitus » Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:23 pm Re: “Accepted” vs. “Filed”
Even Polarik/Polland debunked that one. His image of another “filed” COLB was included on Dr Conspiracy’s blog back in February.
That said, the State Department’s regulations for proof of citizenship at birth only require that it be “filed” within a year of birth, not “accepted.” So, if any of these COLBs are suspect, it’s not the ones that say “filed.” UNQUOTE
So maybe the pre-printed COLB changed the heading to date filed from date accepted to make it easier for the State Department to accept.
Second, over at Dr. C, richCares, who is Hawaiian, said on February 28, 2009 at 12:51 pm (Quote)
Hawaii Health Dept has acknowledged that these wording changes were made without also changing the Form number. Form numbers are only for an internal office matter. They said in typical Hawaiian fashion “Ain’t no big thing” (Unquote).
This just does not seem to rise to the level of one of the greatest injustices of the Third Millennium.
Finally, I think that Hawaii’s agencies have been inundated with floods of birther letters, many spurred on by Leo Donofrio, and often barely coherent, so it is unsurprising that replies are lagging.
Mike Spindell said “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.”
Mike, Thank you! With you as my adversary, I don’t need any additional help to support my position. LOL
I’m interested. Do Vince Treacy or Mike Appleton support the quoted statement from your earlier post?
Vince Treacy sais “Maybe he anticipated that he would not like the answers he would get over there.”
You’re sharper than you were yesterday!
There is only one agency charged with printing Hawaiian COLBs. That is the only agency that can provide the answer to the discrepancy.
As to your claim that Dr. Conspiracy is an “expert in vital statistics”. -Prove it! The Turley blog will not permit you to lie.