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.
Has anyone ever seen a requirement that someone must be born in a hospital? Or that a Doctor must attend the birth?
To me it seems that no one has questioned where Ronald Reagan was born or Gerald Ford or George Washington or Abraham Lincoln. Am I missing something, like maybe its because he Black? Bdaman where is your state issued ID’how do we know you are black?
Slartifartpast, Are we going to play a game of hypothetical sisuations?
If so, other than one day becoming POTUS, are there any other benefits to U.S. citizenship?
Is it even possible for his grandparent to file a false birth report.
What would a COLB produced from a false birth report look like? Can you provide an example? I’m sure many would like to know how to tell the difference.
If someone was born on a plantation in Maui, what would their COLB look like?
Ok, say that it is proven that Obama was in fact not born in the US or was not even born, he just appeared one day. Are you with me so far?
With what Bush and Cheney did to the Constitution, you think its going to be fixed in this term? Yeah right. Obama is still dealing with it. He stepped into it and now is at least trying to be man enough to do something.
Here’s a secret. And don’t tell anyone else. I did not vote for Bush. I did not vote for Obama. I voted for Nader. Shhh. FYI the election was stolen twice for Bush. Once in Florida where the Sct set precedent claiming it was a state rights issue. Hmm, with me? It appears if he was certified to be on the ballot then what’s your beef. The second time the election was stolen was in Ohio. Damn, no one saw that coming but the ones in on the theft. Hmmm. Not much you can do about that? Is their now? What can you really do about Obama right here, right now?
By the way, where is your COLB?
Paully,
You said:
“I agree with most of what you said. A COLB is a presumptive means of legitimacy, but it is not conclusive. Conclusive evidence leaves no room for rebuttal. If it did, it would not be considered conclusive.”
What do you think would be sufficient evidence to rebut the COLB? (Vince, I’m curious as to your answer to this question as well)
I said:
“Finally, just for the record, what possible interpretation of the accepted vs. filed could be of any significance at all to the president’s eligibility?”
You responded:
“I can’t answer that until Hawaii provides the requested documentation. If their own documentation states that, IAW U.S. and Hawaiian Law, all reports of birth must be filed by the local registrar, but are not to be considered as legal proof of the event, and shall not be accepted by the State Registrar without supporting documentation from a licensed medical practitioner, I think that would make us think twice about the validity of a filed, but not accepted, COLB.”
So you think that the Hawaii DOH would issue a document claiming to be prima facie proof of birth and publicly attest to the veracity of that document even though it was unacceptable to them?
I said:
“Given the certainty that the Hawaii DOH has been deluged with requests for information, do you think that the lack of reply to your query is due to sinister motives?”
You responded:
“I don’t know why the AG and Lt. Gov responded IAW Hawaii’s UIPA, and the Director of the DOH did not. I can only report that a request was submitted, and am still waiting for a response. The day after a Request for Assistance was filed with the Office of Information Practices, the head of that department resigned.”
Are you implying that your request was the cause of the head of the department resigning? (by the way, getting promoted would be a better term for what happened than resigning – just sayin) You don’t think that a change in the head of the department (especially if a new head hasn’t been determined yet) might slow down the handling of things? (Like, say, a request from a birther for trivial information.)
(aside) Neat disguise, eh? 😉
Slartibartfast,
In response to your questions:
“The judge isn’t going to ask “What’s the deal with this filed/accepted thing?”, he’s going to say “Thank you Mr. President, case dismissed.” Do you really believe that it will go down any differently?”
No, deep in my heart I understand that this is exactly how things will play out, but I can’t admit it because it would totally undermine my position.
“Do you really believe that it SHOULD go down any differently?”
Of course, I want Obama gone and I don’t care how much of the Constitution needs to be shredded to do it.
“Finally, just for the record, what possible interpretation of the (sic) accepted vs. filed could be of any significance at all to the president’s eligibility?”
Well, filed may indicate that the information on his birth was provided by his grandmother who found out about the birth when her daughter called her from Kenya and then concocted a plan to ensure that the child would have natural born citizenship (even though he doesn’t really because his dad was a scary African/Kenyan/Brit VATTEL RULES!) instead of naturalized citizenship so that one day he could run for president and fraudulently get elected to enact a socialist/communist/muslim/nazi agenda and destroy the United States of America thus fulfilling his evil destiny.
“A bonus question: Given the certainty that the Hawaii DOH has been deluged with requests for information, do you think that the lack of reply to your query is due to sinister motives?”
Oh yes, everyone in the Hawaii government as well as the democrats, the republicans, the SCOTUS, the taliban, the entire nation of Kenya, every muslim on the planet,the federal reserve, the North Koreans, the ghost of Stalin, the Bilderbergs, the Trilateral Commission, the Illuminati, and my cat are all in on the conspiracy.
p.s. I think Vince Treacy is really smart!
Slartibartfast, Thanks for the Wikipedia definition.
I agree with most of what you said. A COLB is a presumptive means of legitimacy, but it is not conclusive. Conclusive evidence leaves no room for rebuttal. If it did, it would not be considered conclusive.
“Finally, just for the record, what possible interpretation of the accepted vs. filed could be of any significance at all to the president’s eligibility?”
I can’t answer that until Hawaii provides the requested documentation. If their own documentation states that, IAW U.S. and Hawaiian Law, all reports of birth must be filed by the local registrar, but are not to be considered as legal proof of the event, and shall not be accepted by the State Registrar without supporting documentation from a licensed medical practitioner, I think that would make us think twice about the validity of a filed, but not accepted, COLB.
“Given the certainty that the Hawaii DOH has been deluged with requests for information, do you think that the lack of reply to your query is due to sinister motives?” I don’t know why the AG and Lt. Gov responded IAW Hawaii’s UIPA, and the Director of the DOH did not. I can only report that a request was submitted, and am still waiting for a response. The day after a Request for Assistance was filed with the Office of Information Practices, the head of that department resigned.
Buddha,
Awww, that was my troll… 🙁
Paully,
Wikipedia define the term “prima facie” (and I apologize for misspelling it earlier) as follows:
Prima facie (pronounced /ˈpraɪmə ˈfeɪʃiː/, from Latin prīmā faciē) is a Latin expression meaning on its first appearance, or by first instance; at first sight. The literal translation would be “at first face”, prima first, facie face, both in the ablative case. It is used in modern legal English to signify that on first examination, a matter appears to be self-evident from the facts. In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence which — unless rebutted — would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact.
What this means (and Vince or one of the other lawyers here please correct me if I’m wrong) is that in a court of law, President Obama’s lawyers merely need to present the document of which images are shown on the web to the judge and the court MUST recognize (in light of the full faith and credit cause of the constitution) that he was born in Hawaii, unless there is sufficient evidence to rebut this document (which as I have pointed out before is a nearly impossible hurdle to surmount). The judge isn’t going to ask “What’s the deal with this filed/accepted thing?”, he’s going to say “Thank you Mr. President, case dismissed.” Do you really believe that it will go down any differently? Do you really believe that it SHOULD go down any differently? Finally, just for the record, what possible interpretation of the accepted vs. filed could be of any significance at all to the president’s eligibility?
A bonus question: Given the certainty that the Hawaii DOH has been deluged with requests for information, do you think that the lack of reply to your query is due to sinister motives?
I’ve also seen your posts. That’s prime facie evidence you’re a birther troll racist, Paully.
If you want to talk about the quality of evidence that is.
“Prima Facie evidence is not conclusive evidence.”
Prima Facie evidence is evidence which is self-evident from the facts. For example, as proof that this is an apple I offer that it looks, tastes and behaves EXACTLY LIKE AN APPLE.
Prima Facie evidence better than conclusive evidence because it is conclusory by its very basic nature and requires no supplemental argument.
English. You should really learn some, Paully.
Slartibartfast,
Prima Facie evidence is not conclusive evidence. If it was, Mickey Mouse was born in Hawaii. I’ve seen Mickey’s COLB. It says that it is prima facie evidence.
“Adults shouldn’t play hide and seek, it’s a kids game.”
Children shouldn’t play at propaganda. Especially when you’re not very good at it.
Vince–
The truth? Folks like Bdaman and Paully can’t handle the truth. They prefer to exist in a delusional state believing in ginned-up conspiracies about Obama being born in Kenya and death panels and pulling the plug on grandma and John Boehner not being invited to the President’s first state dinner, etc.
And the MSM does its best to keep these fake conspiracies in the news in hopes of getting good ratings.
Sscroll up, all the links are up there and were furnished at the time. Next time, instead of calling someone a liar, try saying that there was a problem with the links, can it be fixed. When it is fixed, try refraining from gratuitous insults. They do not bother me because I always consider the source. I let the readers decide.
Questions for rich? Go ask him.
Major story — in your own mind. Ha!
Here is a good description of bdaman’s work: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
Good one Vince doing a google search Dr. Neil Krawitz Obama Birth certifcate brings up numerous links.
What kind of Dr. exactlty is he.
Dr. Fukino said she saw it? how come she’s the only one allowed.
Adults shouldn’t play hide and seek, it’s a kids game.
HMMMM I know I’ve seen the ORIGINAL somewhere, now where could it be? AHHH HA I know but you can’t see it. Dr. Fukino only. Nobody in, Nobody out.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Vince Treacy, Thanks for the links. That wasn’t so hard was it?
Aren’t links or citation customary when used to support an argument?
You’ll have to forgive me if I don’t find “richCares” (die-hard Obama supporter) to be a trustworthy source. I didn’t see richCares support his argument with any relevant authority.
You stated that richCares is Hawaiian. Do you mean that he was born in Hawaii, or that he lives in Hawaii, or that he is of Hawaiian decent? Not that being Hawaiian gives any credibility to his statements about forms issued by the Hawaiian DOH. I’m Italian. I guess that would make me an expert on Italian governmental procedures.
Until the Hawaii DOH provides the requested information, this is a MAJOR STORY!!!
Comment at Dr. C:
QUOTE
Black Lion says:
November 25, 2009 at 10:53 am (Quote)
Vince, I can’t believe that Lucas Smith is over there trying to defend is so called Kenyan BC that he got in the Dominican Republic… UNQUOTE
For all the readers here at Turley, Dr.C. is not a lawyer but has a superior grasp of all of the legal arguments on the natural born issue and has uncovered a trove of relevant historical materials.
Link: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/date-filed-v-date-accepted/comment-page-1/#comment-28789
bdaman’s post is obsolete. Factcheck made the first evaluation last year. Since then expert Dr. Neil Krawitz has shown that it was valid. Politifact.com saw the document and verified it. The so-called anonymous experts who claimed it was a forgery have been discredited. need proof. JFGI.
The stuff at TRSOL is a bogus effort to camouflage a competed and utter rout and retreat.
But this is all irrelevant. Dr. Fukino, the custodial official, has stated that she examined the documents and they show that Obama was born in Hawaii.
The COLB is valid, and the official in charge has said that their files corroborate what is in the COLB.
It is time for the troll to move under a new bridge.
I trust them don’t you?
FactCheck.org identifies their anal-ists as Jess Henig and Joe Miller. OK, that’s fine, but who and what are Jess Henig and Joe Miller? Are they qualified to perform an analysis of ANY document, or are they just a couple of guys hanging around FactCheck.org’s office, or are they political operators? What are their bona fides? FactCheck.org doesn’t say. Wonder why?
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=7600
“Mike, Thank you! With you as my adversary, I don’t need any additional help to support my position. LOL”
Jimmy B,
I’m not your adversary. You’re simply not worth taking seriously. Your viewpoint has already been shown to be bankrupt, you a racist and a liar. I’m merely ridiculing you for not only your poor showing but the fact that you lack the courage to be honest about your real agenda. Vince has demolished you with able assistance from Slart and Mike A., why add to the rouite, when clearly you have nothing to recommend yourself as either an American or a human being? If you side with traitors and terrorists, you are one for all intents and purposes. The birther movement and its alligned “teabaggers”(how apt a name given its real slang meaning)are not loyal Americans and some of them have expressed terrorist opinios. If you lie with pigs you get dirty and you have.
You and your sidekicks, the bigoted bdaman and the con man Smith goose step together in spreading “Big Lies,” just as did Goebbels. The truth is you actually take that comparison as a compliment, but can’t admit it openly. Your regurgitate the same vomit not out of concern for this Nation, but as people who want to overthrow this Nation. That is where traitor comes in. The terrorism comes in by your use of fear as a tactic. If God forbid any violence comes of this nonsense, you would be abetters to it. However, in no way are you an adversary of mine simply because you lack the sincerity to be taken seriously.
Incidentally, the fun in all this is that my ridicule has hit its mark.
The one thing frauds like you most hate is ridicule, or not being taken seriously. That’s why you attempt to answer me with feeble insults and why on another thread bdaman resorted to bigoted slurs. Your production never rises to the point of serious discourse and what you have produced has been ably refuted. You all are exercizes in bad parody, but unfortunately the more unhinged among you are psychotically dangerous and it is to those that you really direct your propaganda.