Client Fires Orly Taitz and Threatens Bar Complaint Against Her As Judge Explores Sanctions

orly2 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.


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,

Orly Taitz, DDS, Esq.
California Bar ID No. 223433
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.

434 thoughts on “Client Fires Orly Taitz and Threatens Bar Complaint Against Her As Judge Explores Sanctions”

  1. Byron,

    I sound like a rational humanist who understands complex systems. I still think capitalism appeals to sociopaths and the simply evil because at it’s core it’s materialist drivel. He who dies with the most toys is still dead and a narcissistic ass on top of it. I still think socialism is the only rational form of economics as a pragmatic manner. I’ve said it before: free markets are fine for 90% of the crap we sell, but unrestrained greed leads to fascism. You’ll note I did not mention that these reactors should be built by private firms. In fact, aside from the Toshiba manufactured components, this should be a government run and owned project. Corporations have proven they are incompetent to manage critical infrastructure from prisons to hospitals to oil companies. Because at the end of the day, they only care about who gets to steal the most, not making things actually work.

  2. AY,

    A professor of mine one told me about a conversation he had with an EPA official – he asked the official to tell him something that he couldn’t tell the general public and he said “Don’t eat fish out of the Great Lakes”. As a Michigan native, I find that depressing…

  3. The reason Lake Superiors Fish is safe to eat is Canada has very restrictive discharge laws regarding water pollution. They made the Corporations clean up the stuff.

  4. Has anyone figured out why they make ALL of the Consumer Electronics Over Seas? Cheap labor is a factor. The major factor is Water and Soil Pollution. Why do you think that EXXON has not rebuilt the refinery in LA? No duty to dig and inspect. But once you do, guess what, you have to clean up the mess you created.

    Anyone read about General Motors/Delco Love Canal? How about when GM filed Bankruptcy, when they were closing plants environmental issues were raised. Seems like more things discharged too.

    Has anyone questioned why it is ok and safe to eat fish out of the Great Lakes, unless you are under 13 and or pregnant? I am male and 50 something and hell it ain’t sage enough for me. Lake Superior’s fish is edible. Since the 60’s they have concentrated on clean water.

  5. “if corporate profits saved a 1,000 lives and one died then where would you stand?”

    Unfortunately that is not a likely scenario. Corporations exist simply to make profits, that is their sole rationale. I think where you tend to get confused is that you see things in an either/or perspective. do you think I’m a socialist for instance? I’m not and unlike many on the right I actually know what socialism means and I knew actual socialists and communists. I like capitalism as a system because it works better than anythng yet devised. however, unbridled capitalism is a horror show and is as bad as anything socialists or communists can offer.

    As an example let’s take labor unions. Just as corporations have the right to negotiate so then should labor. The inequality of size makes most individual negotiations fruitless, so workers band together to negotiate through strength. This would be a free market concept, but corporations have worked through government to limit labor’s ability to use the free market to negotiate better wages/benefits. Where you and I disagree most is that you believe in a “free market” and I believe that corporations don’t want a free market, except in the meaning of having no social control. We do not live in a capitalist system today, we live in a system of Corporate Socialism and individuals feudalism.

  6. AY,

    I think you’ve pointed out exactly how many of us feel about capitalism. It’s been an engine that has generated enormous wealth, but it has gone from being our servant to being our master. Capitalism is like a puppy that made a mess on the floor – we need to rub it’s nose in it and give it a whack in the nose. The problem with capitalism today is that there are no restraints on it – no negative feedback (or not enough). Byron, do you think we would be better or worse off if corporations could be held responsible for actions like injuring or killing people, devaluing our shared property (air and water) by polluting it, and, say, nearly collapsing the world-wide economy and causing a massive recession? I think that corporations should have to pay for offenses in stock – how many Ford Pintos would be on the road if the shareholders were risking having their investment diluted to a fraction of its value?

  7. Bryon,

    So then its ok to build a Pinto, Corsair, Sell Tobacco to People and build a Nuclear Power Plants that leak?

  8. AY:

    I think most would pick the individual life, I know I would.

    The problem with that statement is this, at least in my mind, if corporate profits saved a 1,000 lives and one died then where would you stand?

    It is not an either or proposition. And similar to a life boat scenario, you know the one that is always used to determine morals. Who do you throw overboard? That is not a good way to teach morals as those types of situations do not exist in everyday life.

  9. Byron,

    Buddha is a capitalist. Don’t you know? But he also has a compassion for his fellow man. Sometimes the two do not mix. And I state that if it was between Corporate Profits and a Human life, which do you suspect Buddha would pick?

  10. Wondering,

    That is part of it. France has proven long term nuclear power plants can be run in a reasonably safe manner.

    But some of us are against the way the U.S. is proposing to use older reactors that are past their prime ( instead of using this as an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone and spur local economies by building newer, more efficient plants like the Toshiba 4S. Combine this with decentralizing production (which means more plants), introducing infrastructure of safe waste management and upgrading the power grids and you’ll have done a HELL of a lot more to help the economy than giving those tools on Wall St. a damn dime. Electricity is a real product. It can make our factories hum, our homes warm-safe-entertaining, and power our transportation needs. Credit Default Swaps are a made up horseshit shell game. Hmmm. Actual production capacity or a Ponzi scheme? Seems like an easy call if you’re not in someone’s pocket.

  11. Why are so many people against nuclear power? Are they just afraid of what they don’t know?

  12. I think that Observant and Bdaman are one in the same. This smells like a troll posting. Well look at the thread and comments.

  13. And the hits just keep right on comin with the best still to come.

    Harry tries to fight off despair. “OH [EXPLETIVE] THIS!” he writes after struggling to reconcile readings from weather stations around the world. “It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I’m hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity. …”

  14. Byron,

    It’s that whole strip from Baton Rouge to N.O. that’s the issue. It’s covered in fractionating plants. You can see them from the highways. But you can smell them way before that if the wind is right. I just singled out BR over NO because at least NO has good restaurants. BR? It’s a pit. Always has been, always will be. From the pols to the tank farms to the phallic state house, Baton Rouge simply sucks worst of the two.

Comments are closed.