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.
I’m a one man show and being a one man show I get to play by MY own set of rules.
I live to be of service
I’d rather die tryin then die lying.
Hide the decline.
Mike S,
The sad thing is not that Bdaman merely repeats Republican talking points, it’s that having done that he is either unwilling or unable to discuss them on their merits, but rather just spams us with the crap generated by those talking points in the right wing echo chamber.
Vince,
Wow. Once again, you exceed all expectations… Thank you for this through discussion (and never fear, you’ve given me more than enough to rebut Paully, if necessary). The part of Judge Carter’s ruling that you mentioned was what led me to raise this topic in the first place, so I’m glad you highlighted it (and linked the reference).
Bdaman,
I’m happy to see that you admit that President Obama was born in Hawaii and is eligible for his office (since you clearly have no legitimate argument to the contrary). I’m not going to respond to your AGW trolling since you clearly have no understanding of science and are blind to anything which doesn’t support your own preconceived biases. Enjoy drowning in your own filth.
“Uh, oh – raw data in New Zealand tells a different story than the “official” one.”
In truth we really don’t have to read any of bdaman’s posts. Just find out what the Republican line is on any topic and you know his opinion.
Bdaman simply follows the herd.
The strength of the scientific method is that scientists repeat each other’s work and if they don’t get the same results that casts doubt on the research.
Or they just repeat each others work
Uh, oh – raw data in New Zealand tells a different story than the “official” one.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/
Slartibartfast , November 25, 2009 at 7:36 pm:
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. END
Well, I am really tired of Paully playing hide the bean under the shells. If he has an answer, then post it or go away.
But, Slart, out of my respect for you, I have written up a few notes on how the issue would play out. This is not a legal treatise.
Slart, this can take up a lot of discussion, but here is an abstract. Take an employment discrimination case for example. An employee who wants to prove that her employer discriminated illegally on the basis of sex by firing her must meet a burden of proof.
Under a case named McDonnell-Douglass, from the 1970s, the employee has the initial burden of making a prima facie case of discrimination. She can do this, for example, by producing evidence that she was fired, and that males with less experience and ability were retained. If she does this with her testimony, she has met her burden of production.
If the employer does not answer, then she prevails on her claim. If the employer does answer, the burden of moving forward with evidence then shifts to the employer to articulate a non-discriminatory reason for the discharge.
The burden then shifts back to the employee to show that the employer’s reason for the discharge was a pretext for discrimination. The overall burden for proving discrimination is on the employee.
A case contesting someone’s birth might proceed the same way. If a party with standing who has stated a valid claim might challenge a person’s birth status, then the person can produce a COLB like the one issued in Hawaii. This could arise in an inheritance case. A witness would be sworn and produce a cert. It would be introduced into evidence. Since it is prima facie evidence, that satisfies the person’s burden of proof. If there is no answer, the person prevails.
The burden would shift to the other party to articulate some reason why the COLB was not valid. The burden would be on that party, for example, to produce something like an expert witness to testify that the cert was a forgery.
The expert would have to qualify as a scientific authority, stating education, experience, publications, and would have to provide methodology and rationale. All of the expert’s qualifications have to be stated to the court before it will qualify an expert.
Counter experts could be called in rebuttal. Slart, as a scientist, you could advise an attorney of how to query the qualifications of such an opposition expert. Is he a Ph.D. or B.S.? Is he an active researcher or a lab tech? What has he published? Professional memberships, etc.
So if the issue of presidential birth ever did make it to trial, a representative would be sworn in and would produce the COLB. It would be entered into evidence.
The burden then would be on the birthers.
The prospects of the birthers would be bleak.
Even if the court asked for a custodial official from Hawaii to testify, we know that the testimony will be that the COLB accurately reflects the fact that the state records show birth in Hawaii.
The birthers’ big web “expert” “Polarik” was an anonymous pseudonym, for cripes sake! Get out of here! A bona fide expert Dr. Neil Krawitz [sp?] attested to the authenticity of the COLB. Birthers do not have a prayer on this one.
The other tack would be to produce the Kenyan cert. Lucas would have to go on the stand and explain that he, a convicted forger, committed the crime of bribery in a Kenyan hospital to get the cert. The cross exam would be a hoot, since it would have him repeat all his crimes in detail. Legitimate experts would render the Kenyan cert into confetti.
The ultimate issue is for the trier of fact, judge or jury as the case may be. How will that turn out? Here is a clue from Judge Carter:
QUOTE
\D. Discovery and Freedom of Information Act Claims
Plaintiffs argue that they have been ignored by several government agencies in their quest to receive Obama’s long-form Hawaiian birth certificate and other information such as his passport records. See Compl. 86 – 109. Plaintiffs have indicated that they plan to seek extensive discovery in this case, including the deposition and appearance in court of President Obama and the request through a letter rogatory to the government of Kenya for the birth certificate that they allege proves he was born in Kenya. See Mot. for Issuance of Letters Rogatory for Authentication of Kenyan Birth Certificate (Aug. 1, 2009); Special Mot. For Leave to Conduct Pre-R. 26(f) Discovery (Aug. 1, 2009) (“Plaintiffs . . . intend on taking the following depositions: a. Barack Hussein Obama; b. Cheryl Fukino; c. Speaker of the House of Representatives, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi; d. Commissioner of Social Security; e. All other Defendants . . .”). Plaintiffs appear to assume that should the Court receive a document from Kenya, the Court would give credence to this document over the American birth records of the President and the case would be resolved. Even should the Court permit the issuance of a letter rogatory to Kenya, the Court would still engage in a comparative exercise in which the records of America, which has historically maintained some of the most credible recordkeeping practices in the world, would be contrasted with the credibility of the records obtained from Kenya. Such an analysis would seemingly favor the records of the United States.
As support for their right to these documents, Plaintiffs purport to state a claim under the Freedom of Information Act. The Complaint states, “The Plaintiffs as a group may not have adhered closely or precisely to the letter of FOIA in all of their approaches to the current administration for information, but this court has assured them that the present case will be decided on its legal merits and factual substance, and not on procedural irregularities.” Compl. 59. In Plaintiffs’ briefing, they state, “Plaintiffs can and do allege exhaustion of FOIA requirements as a practical and substantive matter.” Pl. P.B.’s Opp’n 8:27-28.
UNQUOTE, SOURCE AND LINK:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10/30/keyesbarnett-v-obama-doc-89-motion-to-dismiss-granted-2/
Emphasis on “Even should the Court permit the issuance of a letter rogatory to Kenya, the Court would still engage in a comparative exercise in which the records of America, which has historically maintained some of the most credible recordkeeping practices in the world, would be contrasted with the credibility of the records obtained from Kenya. Such an analysis would seemingly favor the records of the United States.”
Have not got much time right now to continue this with Paully, so he can have the last word.
Bdaman,
I think that your question shows some of the ignorance of the general public as to scientists (this is not in any way meant to be a personal attack on you, just the start of a rant that is a pet peeve of mine). There seems to be a view of scientists (reinforced by TV shows and movies) as experts on all things scientific or technological and frequently master engineers to boot. This may have been true 500 years ago, but in the modern age the vast size of the sum of human knowledge requires scientists to be specialists. Carl Gauss (who died in 1855) is considered to be the last complete mathematician (the last person who knew everything there was to know about mathematics). Since his time the sum total of all mathematical knowledge has become to large for a person to learn it all in a lifetime. And that’s just math – the basic toolbox of the scientist. You have to focus your learning very narrowly in order to get to the edge of human knowledge (where scientists operate). While my knowledge of Mathematics is broader (and therefore less deep) that most PhDs, my knowledge of science not. If you ask me about evolution, I have an informed opinion, if you ask me about the cell cycle I have a fairly high level of knowledge, if you ask me about the DNA damage G2 checkpoint in the cell cycle I can confidently discuss it with experts, and if you ask me about mathematical models of the G2 checkpoint you’d be hard pressed to find someone more knowledgeable (I am an expert). But ask me about global warming data and I likely don’t have much more specific knowledge than you (albeit I likely have a better understanding of how to interpret and present data). The difference between us in this case is that I have a better understanding of and more faith in the scientific method. Let’s assume that these emails are iron-clad evidence of the outright falsification of data by these scientist (which they are not even close to). That would be damming to those particular scientists, would require any papers based on their results to be scrutinized carefully and possibly discarded, and would effect the consensus view of climate change… not at all. The strength of the scientific method is that scientists repeat each other’s work and if they don’t get the same results that casts doubt on the research. When a general consensus builds, it is thus based on a large number of researcher’s work and is very robust – details might not be totally correct, but the general conclusions are pretty solid. When I look at the climate change argument, I see a large number of scientists across multiple disciplines having a consensus and a relatively small number of scientists, a disturbingly large proportion of which are funded by industries with a large stake in polluting, who are dissenting. This leads me to believe that that climate change advocates are probably correct. I also believe that if they are not correct, the consensus view will eventually change – a scientific consensus cannot survive in the face of mounting contradictory data (and while I say that COULD happen, I’d like to stress that that isn’t what’s happening here). Considering the question from a political point of view for a moment, if climate change advocates are correct, the risk of inaction is catastrophic (we can’t afford, as a species, to take your position and be wrong). On the other hand, you would argue (please correct me if I’m wrong) that there are serious economic costs to reducing carbon emissions that aren’t worthwhile if the climate change consensus is wrong, which I don’t disagree with. However, in light of the demonstrable fact that industrial emissions (not just talking about carbon here) have had a negative impact on our biosphere, I would argue that the positive benefits of reducing pollution are more than worth this economic cost. Furthermore, I think that the additional benefits of going down this road are incalculable: clean air, clean water, reducing the undue importance of the Middle East that comes from their oil reserves, saving petroleum for making plastics, ultimately a green industrial base for our society and hopefully the US emerging as the world leader in sustainable technologies. Especially when compared to what I fear the alternative is: extinction. If you would like to die by drowning in your own waste, fine, but please get out of the way of those of us who would rather avoid that fate.
Finally, as Orly is a serious threat due to the amount of hot air she emits, I commend Judge Land for fighting against global warming by fining her. That, in my opinion, is just about all of the connection the topic of this thread has to climate change. If you’re going to be a troll, at least try to be an on-topic troll.
All the talk about climate change, fraudulent science, the politicization of science, has reminded me of one of my favorite stories of all time. In the Nazi period, 100 “Aryan” scientists signed a statement against Einstein — saying that the theory of relativity was a Jewish hoax.
Asked to comment on this, Einstein said, “If what they are saying were true, one signature would have been enough.”
Slart could you please give us your opinion. They are starting to breakdown the raw data. Can you confirm or deny.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/26/mcintyre-data-from-the-hide-the-decline/
Good morning, geeze.
Good Morning to you too, Charlie McCarthy.
I also think you fail to make the distinction, bdaflailing.
There is a difference in being of service to your fellow humans and servicing your fellow humans.
Being a confessed troll, you fall into the later category.
Careful how you use words, bucko. A double entendre is a two-edged blade. It’s also self-evident you are no swordsman.
Good morning to you to Sunshine.
You live to be of service to whom is the question, troll-boy.
Banging a drum louder won’t get people to dance if you play a nonsense beat.
Disrupt, Discredit and Destroy. I live to be of service.
This “scandal” is leading exactly where the birther “scandal” went, bdarube. No where. It’s called “tempest in a teapot”. There was no falsified data. They are a couple of guys bitching about the opposition.
Imagine that.
I also suggest that if you have a problem with that I suggest taking a big ol’ spoonful of Milk of Hypocrite and stow it.
But there is no “scandal” here. No lie. No big cover up. No crime. Unlike Cheney’s Secret Energy Task Force.
But noting untoward happened in this instance. Unless you count the Big Oil’s interest in conflating the ridiculous in an attempt to make themselves look better, which while not necessarily scandalous per se is skeevy fascism and manipulation at its cynical corporatist best.
So tow that line, bdapuppet.
As long as you comfortable with that hand up your backside that operates your mouth, I’m good with that. It’s entertaining in that train wreck sort of way.
As Slart says,
When some questionable climate researchers that have results unfavorable to them they just don’t publish the research.
One of the most damaging emails was sent by the head of the climatic research unit, Phil Jones. He wrote “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!
Another reason why peer reviews are so important from the IPCC
And today the flies are dropping out of mid air. This scandal is going to lead to revolt.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018003/climategate-five-aussie-mps-lead-the-way-by-resigning-in-disgust-over-carbon-tax/
Ahem, forgot to change my pen name.
Byron,
How many actual people were involved in the e-mail exchanges? How many actual climate scientists are there? The key thing to remember here is that the scientific community doesn’t say “well one scientist says this so it must be true,” instead it says “let me check this guys work.” Meaning, even if these people are lying jerks (and I dare you to try and find a set as large as “climate scientists” that doesn’t include at least a few lying jerks), their work has to be vigorously reviewed, and the duplicated by people with a vested interest in proving it wrong in order to be accepted as accurate.
Here’s why science is such a great way of determining what’s actually going on, it takes into account that people are biased, and occasionally liars or jerks and corrects for it.
Gyges:
“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?”
I just read a bunch of those emails, what I got out of it is that they are being challenged on a number of fronts and don’t like it. I did not see anything yet that said they were fabricating data. One guy was bitching about observational data not matching predictions.
They did not appear to be out of context as they were discussing various aspects of the science. I started reading around 1996 when they were discussing data from the Yamal Peninsula and ended up in 2009 when they were discussing the cold weather in Denver.
They referred to Yamal a good deal. So I am going to assume that a good deal of weight is placed on that study within the Global Warming community.
My little ad hoc study leads me to believe that they do not like being challenged and are a bit sensitive about it. My guess is that they have had free reign with little challenge for a number of years and have their backs up a bit. As I said above I did not see anywhere that data was fabricated. Although a couple of places you might be able to read that into what was written. Kind of like the humor in Shakespeare, you know it should be funny but you don’t know why because of a lack of knowledge of the 15th century.