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.
Good question Paully. Maybe an answer from the DOH will help resolve why I have in my posession a birth certificate from CPGH.
A little FYI to the regular visitors, the CPGH bc has never been debunked, and I have plenty of information to support its authenticity.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
“I know that the COLB also says that it is Prima Facie evidence of the birth. There must be some law that says that both Filed and Accepted birth reports should be considered as sufficient proof to issue a COLB. All I want to know is what law or rule is the authority to support it.”
What is the point of this question?
“Most Hawaiian COLBs say that they were Accepted by the State Registrar on a specific date.” What is the basis, legal citation, or link supporting this statement?
The Hawaii Revised Statutes on Vital Statistics are online. These are all the Hawaiian laws. Here is the first page. On the lower right is a button for next, and a button for previous is on the left.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-.htm
338-12 Evidentiary character of certificates
§338-12 Evidentiary character of certificates. Certificates filed within thirty days after the time prescribed therefor shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
338-13 Certified copies
§338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.
(b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.
(c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health. [L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]
338-18 Disclosure of records
§338-18 Disclosure of records. (a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.
(b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:
(1) The registrant;
(2) The spouse of the registrant;
(3) A parent of the registrant;
(4) A descendant of the registrant;
(5) A person having a common ancestor with the registrant;
(6) A legal guardian of the registrant;
(7) A person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant;
(8) A personal representative of the registrant’s estate;
(9) A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;
(10) Adoptive parents who have filed a petition for adoption and who need to determine the death of one or more of the prospective adopted child’s natural or legal parents;
(11) A person who needs to determine the marital status of a former spouse in order to determine the payment of alimony;
(12) A person who needs to determine the death of a nonrelated co-owner of property purchased under a joint tenancy agreement; and
(13) A person who needs a death certificate for the determination of payments under a credit insurance policy.
(c) The department may permit the use [of] the data contained in public health statistical records for research purposes only, but no identifying use thereof shall be made.
(d) Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.
(e) The department may permit persons working on genealogy projects access to microfilm or other copies of vital records of events that occurred more than seventy-five years prior to the current year.
(f) Subject to this section, the department may direct its local agents to make a return upon filing of birth, death, and fetal death certificates with them, of certain data shown to federal, state, territorial, county, or municipal agencies. Payment by these agencies for these services may be made as the department shall direct.
(g) The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is:
(1) A person who has a direct and tangible interest in the record but requests a verification in lieu of a certified copy;
(2) A governmental agency or organization who for a legitimate government purpose maintains and needs to update official lists of persons in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities;
(3) A governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks confirmation of a certified copy of any such record submitted in support of or information provided about a vital event relating to any such record and contained in an official application made in the ordinary course of the agency’s or organization’s activities by an individual seeking employment with, entrance to, or the services or products of the agency or organization;
(4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings; or
(5) An individual employed, endorsed, or sponsored by a governmental, private, social, or educational agency or organization who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record in preparation of reports or publications by the agency or organization for research or educational purposes. [L 1949, c 327, §22; RL 1955, §57-21; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; am L 1967, c 30, §2; HRS §338-18; am L 1977, c 118, §1; am L 1991, c 190, §1; am L 1997, c 305, §5; am L 2001, c 246, §2]
Paully,
Thank you for posting over here. My guess is that Vince Treacy et al. have subscribed to these ‘birther’ threads and you are more likely to get a response here from those like VT who understand the legal implications of your questions.
I follow these threads out of interest and it is good to have an archive of all the correspondences to which we can refer.
Oh, the reverse paint. But there’s a flag on the field!
Nice move, Jimmy. Seriously, your tactics are improving. Not much, but some. Too bad Orly is such a liability that the GOP will ever be stuck with their girl. To answer your inane question, Hawaii is telling you that Obama – despite his many other flaws – is an American citizen. What they are not telling you is what you want to hear.
Can someone on this thread please tell me what Hawaii has refused to tell me?
What Hawaii statute, administrative rule, or court opinion dictates Date Filed by Registrar vs. Date Accepted by State Registrar as it appears on COLBs issued by the State of Hawaii?
I have asked the AG, Lt. Gov., and the Director of the Department of Health, but have only received a reply from the AG and Lt. Gov.
When the DOH did not reply within the 10 days specified by law, I submitted a formal request for assistance to the Office of Information Practices. I submitted the request for assistance on 11/5. The next day, the Director of the OIP resigned.
Obama’s COLB says that his birth report was filed by the registrar on 8/8/1961. Most Hawaiian COLBs say that they were Accepted by the State Registrar on a specific date.
I know that the COLB also says that it is Prima Facie evidence of the birth. There must be some law that says that both Filed and Accepted birth reports should be considered as sufficient proof to issue a COLB. All I want to know is what law or rule is the authority to support it.
For those who care, I think Orly Taitz is an incompetent boob. She is so overtly incompetent that I question which side she is really on. If I was Obama, I’d be glad she is doing what she has been doing.
Orly will open her first branch office in Roswell, N.M.
Vince,
Do we know if it was Robot or Alien not human? I’m pulling for Robot, but that’s only because I love Asimov’s short stories.
“asserted that the President is not human.”
Help I’m a prisoner in Wonderland and I can’t get out!
Great job Vince, as usual.
Footnote 7 of Judge Land’s decision, quoted without comment:
“7. The Court does not make this observation simply as a rhetorical device for emphasis; the Court has actually received correspondence assailing its previous order in which the sender, who, incidentally, challenged the undersigned to a ’round of fisticuffs on the Courthouse Square,’ asserted that the President is not human.”
I can agree in substance in regards to the procedure to remove a sitting president but in regards to the fine being paid I think that she may have a valid point. Other than Susan B. Anthony being politically connected she is the only woman that has never been forced to pay a 100 dollar fine for violating the constitution for voting, when she clearly did not have the right to vote.
Now play that against the 13, 14 and 15th Amendment when all other minorities had the right to vote but white women did not. I am not saying they had the ability to vote, just the right to.
Vince Treacy, thank you sir.
When the U.S. Attorney commences collection proceedings, will those backing Ms. Taitz continue shilling the court? They couldn’t have foreseen the 20K fine coming. Atta boy Judge Land.
Mike, there is a lot of valuable discussion in the decision. I noted that Judge Land correctly stated that the proper route to challenge a President is through the impeachment process under the Constitution, not by frivolous and duplicative lawsuits. The birthers will pick up on this eventually, and will begin to target Congressional offices with repetitive and unfounded charges.
Vince, I have just finished reading the order. Judge Land has very carefully put together an order which will withstand the scrutiny of any appellate court called upon to review it. It was masterfully done. I particularly liked his observation that Ms. Taitz’ comparison of her efforts to those of Thurgood Marshall in Brown v. Board of Education would, if believed, “disgrace Justice Marshall’s achievements.” (p. 33). Whatever she may have to say at this point is simply whistling past the grave yard. There is delicious irony in the fact that she is getting her comeuppance from a Georgia judge. I predict that within the next twelve months, her license will be suspended by the California Bar.
Justin Elliott, at Josh Marshall’s TPM, Oct. 13, 2009, at 11:33AM, had Orly’s cell phone number and called her up to get her take on her latest smackdown:
QUOTE ON
Reached on her cell phone by TPMmuckraker and informed of the $20,000 fine imposed on her by a federal judge this morning, Birther attorney Orly Taitz responded, first, with laughter.
“So he didn’t recuse himself?” Taitz asked, after letting out an extended, nervous-sounding chuckle.
Still defiant after months of legal wrangling and, by our count, three written denunciations by federal district court Judge Clay Land, Taitz said she had absolutely no plans to pay the $20,000 fine.
“Are you kidding? Of course not,” she said, asked whether she planned to send a check. “This is a form of intimidation ”
Instead, she plans to file yet another written response (though it’s unclear whether the court will even accept one).
“I’ll go to the circuit court of appeals. I’ll take this as high as I have to go,” Taitz said. UNQUOTE http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/birther_orly_taitz_responds_to_judges_20k_fine_sho.php
Sure. Take it to the Galactic Council. Ask the Starfleet Federation Senate to intervene. Appeal to Jor-El and the Krypton Parliament. She will fight them on the beaches and the landing places. She will fight them in the streets. She will never surrender.
The gavel falls.
There is a 43-page order by Judge Land on Orly Taitz. Judge Land fined her $20,000.00, not just $10,000.00. The Judge reported her to the California Bar.
http://ia311028.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605/gov.uscourts.gamd.77605.28.0.pdf
From the Order.
Delusional:
“The Court finds that counsel’s conduct was willful and not merely negligent. It demonstrates bad faith on her part. As an attorney, she is deemed to have known better. She owed a duty to follow the rules and to respect the Court. Counsel’s pattern of conduct conclusively establishes that she did not mistakenly violate a provision of law. She knowingly violated Rule 11. Her response to the Court’s show cause order is breathtaking in its arrogance and borders on delusional. She expresses no contrition or regret regarding her misconduct. To the contrary, she continues her baseless attacks on the Court.”
Frivolous and sanctionable:
“Counsel’s frivolous and sanctionable conduct wasted the Defendants’ time and valuable judicial resources that could have been devoted to legitimate cases pending with the Court.”
Failure to follow simple rules:
“The Clerk’s Office was burdened by Ms. Taitz’s inability to follow the Court’s rules regarding pro hac vice admission and the Court’s rules for electronic filing. On five separate occasions in a short period, the Clerk’s Office personnel error-noticed counsel for her failure to follow simple rules.”
Failure to make coherent legal arguments:
“At the hearing, counsel failed to make coherent legal arguments but instead wasted the Court’s time with press conference sound bites and speeches.”
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_Z7ubUPYes&hl=en&fs=1&]
Judge Carter to Taitz and Lincoln on their Ex-Parte Motion for relief from the Stay of Discovery:
Nuts.
“The ex-parte Motion is hereby DENIED.”
October 8, 2009.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20818334/KEYES-BARNETT-v-OBAMA-83-MINUTES-IN-CHAMBERS-ORDER-by-Judge-David-O-Carter-DENYING-EX-PARTE-MOTION-FOR-RELIEF-FROM-STAY-OF-DISCOVERY-82-Gov
Read it and weep, Orly and Charly.
Come on Patrick, every profession has its fools. Politicians have Bush or just about any “god-fearin'” Republican you can say; the clergy have Ernest Angley; the physicians have Dr. Sanjay Gupta; and we, well, we have Orly–but we do have to share her with the dentists. More is the pity.