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.
“Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., Attorney-at-Law”
1. Don’t use the Esq tag on yourself. It’s a sign of respect others give you, not yourself.
2. If you disagree with 1., then at least don’t use Esq. and Atty-at-Law together; insecurity complex?
and finally
3. If you’re going to include “Attorney for the Plaintiffs” as you properly should, then omit 1 & 2 entirely.
Ms Taitz is a maze ing.
Vince,
Great work as usual. When will these Birthers understand that they lost?
Disbarred felon Charles Edward Lincoln counterattacks:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20772227/KEYES-BARNETT-v-OBAMA-82-0-07-2009-82-EX-PARTE-APPLICATION-to-Accelerate-motion-for-relief-from-stay-of-discovery-Order-on-Motion-to-Dismiss-Case
“EMERGENCY EXPARTE MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY OF DISCOVERY ….”
Exhibits A and B are “Nuts” and explanation.
Didn’t the Marx Brothers do all of this in a movie in an alternate time line?
As they say, Lincoln is surrounded; he has them where they want him.
Turley blog, World War II History Category.
“Nuts,” said the General.
Said the German, Was ist “nuts”?
QUOTE
From: Charles Lincoln [mailto:charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 12:11 PM
To: West, Roger (USACAC)
Cc: Dr. Orly Taitz
Subject: AW: Dr. Taitz seeks stipulation re: Discovery.
Dear Mr. West:
Unless you can provide us with a more thoughtful answer and analysis of the situation, or can you ask Mr. DeJute to do so, We will report your Laconic response below to Judge Carter as the full and final statement of the United States’ well-considered position in this case.
UNQUOTE
QUOTE
Von: West, Roger (USACAC) (Roger.West4@usdoj.gov)
An: Charles Lincoln
Datum: Mittwoch, den 7. Oktober 2009, 12:17:38 Uhr
Betreff: RE: Dr. Taitz seeks stipulation re: Discovery.
You are obviously not a student of military history. Because you appear confused, let me be clear. Per Judge Carter’s order, discovery is stayed in this case. We will not agree to any discovery in this case at this time.
UNQUOTE
Jahwohl, Herr West
Wiki: The official reply: “To the German Commander, NUTS!, The American Commander” was typed and delivered by Colonel Joseph Harper, commanding the 327th Glider Infantry, and his S-3 Major Jones to the German delegation. Harper had to explain the meaning of the word to the Germans, telling them that in “plain English” it meant “Go to hell.”
ditto
Bob,
Read and responded.
Um, no.
The other (recent) email
Yes, I did, Bob. I only got about half way through the article though and I’ve been fighting alligators ever since. I’ll let you know what I thought of it as soon as I get a chance to finish.
Buddha,
Did you ever get that email I sent?
I may physically hurt myself laughing. Not intentionally mind you. But these things happen.
This is really funny, from
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10/07/nuts/#comments
Orly thought that the minute of the Oct. 5th hearing meant there would be a trial. She asked her paralegal assistant, disbarred lawyer and convicted felon Charles Lincoln, to ask the U.S. Attorney to begin discovery.
QUOTE ON
From: Charles Lincoln [mailto:charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 11:11 AM
To: Dejute, David (USACAC); West, Roger (USACAC)
Subject: Dr. Taitz seeks stipulation re: Discovery.
Dear Messers DeJute & West:
Dr. Taitz has asked me to ask you whether you are willing to stipulate that, now that the Scheduling Order has been made final, rather than moot, that it is now time for us to begin discovery. We need to start sending out notices of deposition duces tecum to parties and subpoenas duces tecum to non-parties. The Judge specifically said that the Scheduling order would only be important if the case were going to go forward, and he seems to have spoken on this point.
Charles E. Lincoln, Research Associate & Law Clerk for Dr. Taitz, Esq., Attorney for the Plaintiffs.
UNQUOTE
Roger West had a succinct reply:
QUOTE
Von: “West, Roger (USACAC)” Karte anzeigen
An: Charles Lincoln
——————————————————————————–
Nuts.
UNQUOTE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_McAuliffe
Mike, they are on an unbroken legal losing streak.
Any “victory” will do.
The Supreme court recently denied cert. on Craig v. United States, a case from last Spring.
http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09/04/craig-v-us-ruling-us-court-of-appeals-10th-circuit/
Alleging a distinction between the rights of citizenship of naturalized citizens and of natural-born citizens, Craig asserted that he, as a “Legacy,” or natural-born citizen, suffered from discrimination due to “exclusion of distinctions” and “omission of acknowledgment” due to Congress’s failure to enact laws recognizing this distinction, whereas it has enacted laws defining the requirements to become a naturalized citizen.
He sought redress in the form of a declaratory judgment defining “natural born Citizen,” as it appears in the Constitution, and “providing a means for citizens bearing that moniker to obtain certification of that fact from the federal government, as well as punitive damages.”
The big “victory” for Craig earlier in the Court of Appeals was that they changed the District Court’s Dismissal with Prejudice to a simple Dismissal.
Guy probably took a victory lap on that one.
Vince, I find it amusing that the birthers get excited by case management orders. They ought to at least have a bona fide lawyer around to tell them what some of this stuff means. It would save a lot of unwarranted elation.
From Politijab.com:
Postby Sterngard Friegen » Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:54 pm
They forgot to read the part about the court taking the motion to dismiss under submission. And they apparently missed the part where the minute order is dated October 5, 2009. But these morons know how to read a birth certificate? Please. I suspect they need pictographic instructions on how to use toilet paper. And I bet they still screw that up 50% of the time.
Postby combatengineer » Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:55 pm
It’s hit over in the Hannity Forums mega BC thread. The local birther monkey started posting about it. I gave them a one time common sense post about it, I’m sure they will ignore and go with all the general birther world excitement….. Oh well….
http://www.politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1899&hilit=dr+orly+taitz&start=3300
Troll posting misinformation.
There has been no decision by the judge.
Tentative dates have been made final, but every “final” date is contingent on the resolution of the motion to dismiss.
It has not been resolved yet.
From http://www.politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1899&hilit=dr+orly+taitz&start=3250
QUOTE
Postby keokuk » Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:38 pm
She’s looking at the same thing I just described above then. It says nothing about the motion to dismiss. She’s taking the move from “tentative” to “final” in the schedule as a hint of how he is going to rule.
Postby cbreitel » Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:45 pm
I speculate: this is simply confirmation of the judge’s comments that the scheduling conference will not be discussed since all deadlines will stay put, pending his ruling.
I’m not worried.
UQ
Wednesday, October 7, 2009 12:03 PM From: This sender is DomainKeys verified “Charles Lincoln” View contact details To: “Dr. Orly Taitz” RE: Dr. Taitz seeks stipulation re: Discovery. Mittwoch, den 7. Oktober 2009, 11:31:18 Uhr
Von: “West, Roger (USACAC)” Karte anzeigen
An: Charles Lincoln
——————————————————————————–
Nuts.
From: Charles Lincoln [mailto:charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 11:11 AM
To: Dejute, David (USACAC); West, Roger (USACAC)
Subject: Dr. Taitz seeks stipulation re: Discovery.
Dear Messers DeJute & West:
Dr. Taitz has asked me to ask you whether you are willing to stipulate that, now that the Scheduling Order has been made final, rather than moot, that it is now time for us to begin discovery. We need to start sending out notices of deposition duces tecum to parties and subpoenas duces tecum to non-parties. The Judge specifically said that the Scheduling order would only be important if the case were going to go forward, and he seems to have spoken on this point.
Charles E. Lincoln, Research Associate & Law Clerk for Dr. Taitz, Esq., Attorney for the Plaintiffs.
Deo Vindice
“May the Lord God be with you,
and with thy spirit!”
My assistant, Mr. Lincoln has contacted Roger West, assistant US attorney, lead attorney representing the defendants, asking to stipulate to discovery in light of today’s order by Judge Carter. You can see his polite and constructive response “Nuts”. I wonder, if I wasn’t a woman, if I was a part of good old boys club, would there be a more appropriate response.
Sorry, bdaman, this information is bogus, again.
There was no denial of the motion to dismiss.
There was just a modification of the docket.
This is a paste=up from Birfer John Charlton, who is leaping to conclusions.
This is all over the bither web already. Take a look at
http://www.politijab.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1899&start=3275
Today was published the Court order resulting from the Oct. 5th hearing in Barnett vs. Obama, issued by federal judge, David O. Carter, in the Southern Division of California.
The order, reads as follows:
On September 8, 2009, the Court previously set tentative case management dates. The Court now orders those dates be made final.
Case Management dates are as follows:
Motion for Summary Judgment Hearing — December 7, 2009, at 8:30 a.m.
File Motion for Summary Judgment — November 16, 2009
Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment — November 26, 2009
Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment — November 30, 2009
Final Pretrial Conference — January 11, 2010, at 8:30 a.m.
Jury Trial — January 26, 2010, at 8:30 a.m.
The implication of the Court’s order finalizing the dates is obvious: you do not finalize dates unless there will be a trial. And there would not be a trial, unless the Motion to Dismiss requested by the Defense was in whole or in part DENIED!
FFLEO: Good one!