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.
Bdaman 1, November 25, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Don’t change the subject. What is the meaning of the post at Bdaman 1, November 25, 2009 at 2:34 pm on “Sign of the Times”?
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/11/24/a-sign-of-the-times-colorado-billboard-proclaims-the-lunacy-taking-hold-in-america/#comment-93006
Byron,
When some questionable climate researchers that have results unfavorable to them they just don’t publish the research. Additionally, I’m sure there is internal pressure to get the desired results. The peer-review system and government funding agencies are imperfect, sure, but they are far, far better than the results of putting science in the marketplace especially when the government wants to become the market place, you know Cap and Trade. I could go on, but suffice it to say that, as a Troll and Right Wing Extremist, not to mention birther, I can assure you that having corporations responsible for funding research would be an unmitigated disaster – but the research would ‘prove’ that climate change is a myth and pollution is good for you. Just look at the behavior of the Hadley CRU research center to see that what I’m saying is true. Oh and don’t forget the e-mails. Hide the decline
bda told Leo D. that one site had banned him and had deleted all his posts
Could you provide a link to that comment cause I surely don’t remember saying that or that ever happening.
I know after the dispicable remark I made to Mike S and JT threaten to ban me, I think I mentioned that I looked for some comments I posted here and couldn’t find them and said that JT possibly deleted them. In fact JT said he had deleted some of my comments at that time but I believe it was in that thread.
But it doesn’t matter I’m here whether you want me or not, so thanks for the comment.
Byron,
When companies commission research that has results unfavorable to them they just don’t publish the research. Additionally, I’m sure there is internal pressure to get the desired results. The peer-review system and government funding agencies are imperfect, sure, but they are far, far better than the results of putting science in the marketplace. I could go on, but suffice it to say that, as a scientist, I can assure you that having corporations responsible for funding research would be an unmitigated disaster – but the research would ‘prove’ that climate change is a myth and pollution is good for you. Just look at the behavior of the tobacco industry to see that what I’m saying is true.
Slarti:
not being a scientist I can only assume that when a company does science to bring a product to market it better make sure the product works and doesn’t have much downside. Otherwise the company is out of business either from loss of consumer support or because it hurt someone and they are litigated into oblivion.
Most people I know put their own welfare paramount and that would include producing a viable product that has market value. Do some companies produce lousy products, of course they do but then market forces tend to cull them out. Maybe a very large company can assume losses from a bad product but most cannot.
Seems pretty obvious to me, but then when I design structures I want them to fail and kill people so I can go to jail and have everything I own given to the person(s) I have injured or killed.
Do some companies engage in junk science, sure they do. But then it is their money and they can do what they want with it.
Vince,
I was out in the yard playing with the troll today and we had this exchange that I thought that I would bring to your attention in case you missed it:
Paully:
“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.”
Me:
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)
Paully said that he had formulated an answer, but was waiting for you to go first.
Now I need to go shopping for ingredients for my un-american key lime pie. Have a great Thanksgiving! (That goes for everyone – even the trolls.)
Reposted from Sign of the Times;
For those who just tuned in bdaman once addressed Mike S. as “Jesus killer” in a posting. He later said he was sorry for that despicable insult, which recalled centuries of anti-Semitic blood libel, but now he his republishing the libel.
This is just to reopen an old wound.
bda does not belong in this conversation.
His target has not even posted on this thread (A Sign of the Times: Colorado Billboard Proclaims the Lunacy Taking Hold in America), so may not even have a chance to rebut the defamation.
bda told Leo D. that one site had banned him and had deleted all his posts.
Wonder why.
I was out running errands.
Paully never denied that he was BIRTHER/TROLL/ or Byrne. He or she does not have to. (The poster known as BIRTHER was banned from the site for 30 days by JT. BIRTHER never denied he was Byrne.
So who knows.
Jam Burns,
HA! You didn’t respond to my communist allegation, so clearly you are a commie propagandist trying to discredit loyal Americans on the eve of Thanksgiving. As a loyal American I will do the proper thing and pray for your evil plans to be stopped by a rabid bunch of pilgrim pirate ghosts. Or some meddling kids…
All in due time, Watergate took 13 months.
Piltdown man 40 years plus or minus. More proof that scientist will fudge the data to MAKE thier theory work.
I got rhythm, naturally of course. Comes from the African drum beats of days gone by. I’ll just keep markin time until I’m vindicated. Then the truth shall set me free.
No warming in last ten years
Ice caps not melting
Polar Bear population tripled in 50 years
Scientist fudging data on Climate Change 3 days ago.
Don’t think they have released the best e-mails first. The best is yet to come. Just look how the Acorn fell to the ground, it hasn’t hit it yet.
Slart,
Why aren’t you forcing the state of your birth to break it’s own laws and supply you with the information I want? What do you have to hide? I demand you stop playing hide and seek, I demand that you prove that you’re following the rule of law by breaking a law!
Gyges,
Well said. In addition, even these so-called damming e-mails aren’t very damming. It’s all another tale told by idiots full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Byron,
So should science be funded by companies? I’m sure it’s just coincidence that all of the studies funded by industry support their employer’s interests… (Besides, what’s good for big business has got to be good for the country, right?)
Buddha,
I was thinking of Triple Chocolate Terrine, but I don’t have the freezer space.
Jam Burns,
As I said earlier on this thread, I have no legal access to my original BC (the one I have lists my adoptive parents), so I can’t disprove your theories. However, I do now have in my possession a document stating that you are a lying liar and the the crayon drawing you refer to is you and your mother on the day of your birth, so there! Pptthhpt! And besides, key limes come from the Florida keys which are part of America, so I say that key lime pie is as American as apple pie and therefore appropriate for Thanksgiving! (Unless you have the freezer space to do the Triple Chocolate Terrine which is always appropriate) So get out of here you apple pie hating commie!
Here’s a quickie clerihew. Sorry I don’t have more time to polish this verse…or write a double dactyl.
Orly Taitz,
Your transportation awaits.
Now just slip into this straitjacket
And stop makin’ a racket.
Byron,
You mean the out of context snippets of a huge mass of e-mail between a very small percentage of climate scientists appears damning to the community as a whole?
Lottakatz,
I can’t answer for “The Birthers”, but I can tell you that I was not aware that he stole the election. I, like most of mainstream America, was not paying close enough attention. Nobody came knocking on my door to say “We have a problem”.
I was probably just like most of you are today. My guy had won, so why would I care. I know that’s not the right way to think, but that’s exactly the way it was.
Now you can proceed to beat me up for relying on the MSM.
I’m done for the holiday weekend. I won’t be back unitl Monday.
Again, I hope you all have a happy Thanksgiving.
Slart,
Key Lime? On Thanksgiving? That’s just unamerican. I’m going to have to see proof of where and when you were born, preferably in some sort of “certificate” issued by the state. Maybe one that would be considered some fancy legal term for evidence that (unless a large amount of proof to the contrary surfaced) would be considered proof by the very nature of it’s existence.
Of course that could be faked, so I’m going to need you to prove that this hand written note saying you were born in Kenya isn’t real. Oh and disprove this crayon drawing of a stick figure woman holding a baby in front of a Hospital with the word “Africa” written on top of the picture isn’t an artists rendering of the day of your birth.
(and that my friend is how you do Satire).
Key Lime Pie.
I must confess like your way of thinking, Slarti.
Bdaman,
Irrational troll.
Let’s look at that.
ir·ra·tio·nal \i-ˈra-sh(ə-)nəl, adj., Etymology: Middle English, from Latin irrationalis, from in- + rationalis rational
: not rational: as a (1) : not endowed with reason or understanding (2) : lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence b : not governed by or according to reason (irrational fears)
That sounds like every argument ever made by birthers.
troll \ˈtrōl\, v., (idiomatic usage: Internet Troll)
One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. ‘you’re nothing but a fanboy’ is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevance [sic] to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.
A behavior to you which you, bdatroll, have proudly admitted in the past and engage in on a perpetual basis.
So you keep spouting idiocy and we’ll keep pointing out you’re an idiot propagandist. Or why not try this on? Why not avoid EVERY argument you can’t win like you just did with the climate change argument. Like say . . . the birther argument that keeps getting you your head served to you on a plate? Hm? Or the argument that you’re not a plant? Or the fact that you encouraged soldiers to not report for duty because you’re a racist, thus endangering the lives of other soldiers? Can’t quit because you’re cashing the pay check? Or won’t quit because you’re a fascist? Or would you like to allude to your military sanction again, you lying bigoted hack?
Irrational troll.
That’s called “projection”, childrens. And accusing the enemy of your very weakness is pure Rove.
One must always consider a source, and in these parts, you being the source means something. It means every word coming out of your keyboard is propaganda crap.
Bdaman:
those emails appear to be very damning. Interesting stuff. But then there was a good deal of grant money riding on this stuff so what do you expect?
Science should not be funded by governments, it then becomes political. Once the conservatives take over in 2010 we will have science showing the earth is 6,000 years old and abortion leads to breast cancer. I suppose turnaround is fair play but it would be better to leave politics out of science.