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 think that Mrs. Taitz Esq. has finally reached Lands’ End…
Buddha,
Casting is obvious – all you need is a Gabor sister and a time machine…
Wow!
She’s gone nuclear. “The President is out to get me!”
rofl
Perhaps there is a new designer jacket in Orly’s future? One with sleeves that tie in the back. Her days practicing law? Yeah. That joke just writes itself.
I can’t wait for the HBO mini-series.
Any suggestions on Taitz casting?
Above on Oct. 2, 2009 at 7:01 pm, Taitz did not show cause why sanctions should not be imposed, but instead asked for recusal of the judge and a delay for her response.
As if that was not enough, she then claimed that the administration tried to influence the case, based on a joint sighting of bigfoot, Elvis and Eric Holder in Georgia.
Sorry, Orly, bigfoot and Holder were out west that day, and Elvis has left the building along with your case and your reputation.
QUOTE ON
Posted on Tue, Oct. 06, 2009
Orly Taitz claims Judge Clay Land influenced by Obama administration
BY ALAN RIQUELMY
Attorney Orly Taitz, under threat of $10,000 in sanctions from U.S. District Judge Clay Land, submitted an affidavit Sunday in support of the argument that the judge may have been influenced by President Barack Obama’s administration.
The affidavit, filed Sunday in support of Taitz’s Friday motion for Land to recuse himself, is signed Robert D. Douglas, of Alma, Ga. It states that Douglas was in a coffee shop waiting for the 12th Street federal courthouse to open for a hearing on Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook in July when U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder entered.
“Red flags went up immediately in my mind and the questions remain, as yet,” the affidavit states. “Why does the attorney general of the United States need to be present in an obscure hearing well off his beaten path? Could it possibly be, since Holder did not present himself in open court, he may have had a little ‘whisper in the ear’ to a federal judge in order to bias his judicial vision and adhere to the president’s agenda of obstruction?”
Holder was giving a speech in Los Angeles the day Douglas claims to have seen him in Columbus, according to news releases on the Justice Department’s Web site. When told Holder was in California that day, Douglas said he didn’t realize that was the case.
“If he was scheduled somewhere else, obviously I’m mistaken, if that’s indeed true,” Douglas said. “I have no way to verify if that is true.”
….
UNQUOTE
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/story/864399.html
In California, there was a three-hour hearing on a Motion to Dismiss in Barnett v. Obama and Alan Keyes v. Obama on Monday, and it ended with the Judge taking it under consideration.
Outlook for Orly, bleak.
A guy with the handle “wavey davey” in the audience took notes and had them typed up and posted on the web last night:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20658448/Barnett-v-Obama-Report-on-105-Hearing
Expect a written decision on the Motion from the Judge in the near future, most likely dismissing the complaint.
To update the Orly Taitz thread at the Turley blog, here is today’s profile in the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/05/AR2009100503819.html
Dr. Conspiracy suggested the need for a definition of “natural born citizen” for the Urban Dictionary, an online edited dictionary written by users, with a place for viewers to vote thumbs up or down. It already had multiple definitions posted by a birther. So with the help of a scholarly friend, I posted a new one:
1. Natural Born Citizen 70 thumbs up
A “natural born citizen” is a person who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to citizenship “at birth” or “by birth.”
The term includes
(1) a person who is born in the United States, including its territories and possessions and the District of Columbia, and who is subject to its jurisdiction, that is, not born to foreign diplomats or to hostile occupying forces;
(2) a person who is born abroad to two U.S. citizens; and
(3) a person who is born abroad to one U.S. citizen, if that citizen parent has met U.S. residency requirements.
Examples:
Barack Obama is a natural born citizen because he was born in Hawaii, one of the United States, and was subject to its jurisdiction at the time of his birth.
John McCain is a natural born citizen because he was born abroad to two citizens, and was born in the Canal Zone, a United States possession.
The Supreme Court has held that a person born of aliens in the United States is a natural born citizen, since that child “is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen.” Wong Kim Ark
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=natural+born+citizen
It got 60 votes in less than a week, and the editors moved to the No 1 spot.
That was funny. At least we now know where those pesky vegetables are in the political spectrum. lol
Big Bird chimes in on the birfers:
http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/?id=3544631
Nice catch at Native and Natural Born Citizen site. Taitz is using the same brief she used try get the judge in the Major Stefan Frederick Cook case recused.
“While Plaintiff and undersigned counsel are both quite aware that a Judge’s rulings on legal questions, without more, will ALMOST never constitute grounds for recusal, Plaintiff submits that Judge LAllARA’s manner of precipitous, hasting, unreflective rulings within mere hours of filing, and his rulings on one particular issue, that of the Plaintiff’s lack of STANDING (without addressing any of the actual text of the Plaintiff’s complaint, and in fact, obviously misunderstanding it) produces a result so bizarre as to flunk the “reasonable jurist” standard, and therefore constitutes grounds for recusal under 28 U.S.C.§455(a) on the grounds of appearance of impropriety, unwillingness to decide a case fairly in regard to this particular issue, litigant, or perhaps even Plaintiff’s attorney.”
That motion was denied by District Judge Richard A. Lazzara
“frivolous and wholly without merit.”
The site has parallel columns with the two motions side by side, and has now red-lettered the verbatim borrowings:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10/02/recycling-arguments/
Just amazing. Did not even run it through the spell checker. “Hasting” rulings? This looks more and more like professional suicide.
The hearing on the Government’s motion to dismiss the Alan Keyes lawsuit in California is up for Monday, October 5th.
Asking the judge to recuse himself at the same time you are asking him for more time (on the due day) doesn’t seem like a particularly smart tactic to me… I guess I just don’t understand the sophisticated legal strategies that you learn in on-line law school.
This is better than anything on television.
Thanks for the follow-up, Vince.
Today, October 2d, was the deadline for Orly Taitz to show cause why Judge Land should not sanction her.
Did you expect contrition?
Remorse?
An apology?
As Steve Martin would say, “Naaaaaaahhhh…”
She filed a motion for recusal against the Judge.
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10/02/rhodes-v-mcdonald-doc-24-motion-for-recusal/
On the Show Cause order, she asked for a delay until October 16th.
http://ia311029.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605.25.0.pdf
In the motion for recusal, she argues that “While Plaintiff and undersigned counsel are both quite aware that a Judge’s rulings on legal questions, without more, will ALMOST never constitute grounds for recusal, Plaintiff submits that Judge LAND’s manner of precipitous, hasting, unreflective rulings within mere hours of filing, and his rulings on one particular issue, that of the Plaintiff’s lack of STANDING (without addressing any of the actual text of the Plaintiff’s complaint, and in fact, obviously misunderstanding it) produces a result so bizarre as to flunk the “reasonable jurist” standard, and therefore constitutes grounds for recusal under 28 U.S.C.§455(a) on the grounds of appearance of impropriety, unwillingness to decide a case fairly in regard to this particular issue, litigant, or perhaps even Plaintiff’s attorney.”
Judge Land, it will be recalled, decided that case within hours of filing BECAUSE HE WAS ASKED TO. The lawyer filed for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) because she said her client would be irreparably harmed by shipping out to Iraq. SHE ASKED FOR A QUICK RULING. Now she complains that he issued his rulings within hours.
I am quite sure this is not the end of the story.
Also here:
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10/01/keyesbarnett-v-obama-doc-78-finally/#more-5147
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20508475/KEYES-v-OBAMA-78-opposition-surreply-opposition-to-motion-to-dismiss-re-MOTION-to-Dismiss-Case-AND-MEMORANDUM-OF-POINTS-AND-AUTHORITIES-IN-SUP
The sur-reply was filed today, October 1st.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20508475/KEYES-v-OBAMA-78-opposition-surreply-opposition-to-motion-to-dismiss-re-MOTION-to-Dismiss-Case-AND-MEMORANDUM-OF-POINTS-AND-AUTHORITIES-IN-SUP
Dr.Conspiracy say it looks like the same malware is back on the Orly Taitz Esq . com web site.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/09/orly-taitz-quarantined/
“Of the 269 pages we [Google] tested on the site over the past 90 days, 33 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2009-09-30, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2009-09-30.”
So do not go to Orly’s site until this clears up.
The good news for Taitz: she gets to file her surreply.
The bad news: not to exceed 10 pages.
[quote]
PROCEEDING (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER: GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE SUR-REPLY
….
The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion and will give Plaintiffs leave of court to file a sur-reply not to exceed ten (10) pages to be filed by 5 p.m. on October 1, 2009.
Plaintiffs’ courtesy copy of the sur-reply shall be delivered to the Court’s dropbox on the ninth floor of the Santa Ana courthouse by no later than noon on October 2, 2009.
The Clerk shall serve this minute order on all parties to the action.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20339157/KEYES-v-OBAMA-76-MINUTES-IN-CHAMBERS-ORDER-by-Judge-David-O-Carter-REQUEST-FOR-LEAVE-OF-COURT-TO-FILE-SURREPLY-75-Govuscourtscacd435591
Suzie’s post moved to Menace of Millegeville
“Mother Mindy Rose insisted that she is a “friend.” Really Mindy? Or are you just one more enabling parent who is encouraging these types of opportunistic, predatorial acts of kindness. Do you think that block parties and other scourges of society just happen, Mindy? No, it starts with parents like you and Snyder, the child watcher.”
Are you kidding me!!!!!! They are only dropping kids off at a designated bus stop per Middleville school distric who happens to also be a friend and not caring for the child. Like millions of other parents do in this world. IT IS A BUS STOP LIKE EVERY OTHER BUS STOP IN THE US!!!!!!!! GET OVER IT!