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.
Pauly: “Here’s one that is like Obama’s. It says Date Filed by Registrar, but it does not list an island of birth.
http://s477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/stevesharp2918/?action=view¤t=DanaeCOLB-DateFiledbyRegistrar-crop.jpg”
That one says “DATE FILE BY REGISTRAR” just like Obama’s. Where is on that says “Date Accepted by State Registrar.” You have not produced a COLB accepted by the state registrar.
It doesn’t list island of birth? Huh? All of the islands are in the State of Hawaii, which is one of the 50 United States. All you need to qualify for President is to show birth in a State, not in a specific island.
You asked “Does the State of Hawaii issue COLBs, declaring them to be prima facie evidence, for birth reports filed by a parent, relative, owner of the house or plantation, even when no supporting evidence is submitted?” You said, “The question was presented to Dr. Fukino, Director of the DOH, on 10/16. The law requires her to make the information available within 10 working days. She has not yet responded to the request.”
Which law? How about posting the language of your letter so that we can read the question presented for ourselves?
“If a birth report was filed by a parent or relative, what format does it appear and what dictates that format?” Any report sent in by relatives to the newspapers was in the form of an advertisement, run in addition to, and separate from, the official birth announcements. Parents could not call in the information for the official announcement in the long lists that were printed, since only official information was printed. This has been reported in the press. I have posted links to support all my other statements many times on this blog, and will do so again. A lot of regulars here have read them all.
“I know of a birth that took place on 8/5/1961 at Kapiolani Hospital that is not announced in the newspaper with Obama’s.”
And what is to be inferred from that information?
As BIL says, “Oooooooo.”
Pauly says “I have no doubt that Hawaii maintains a birth record for Barack Obama.” So what is the point of all these inquiries? Are you a poker player like Leo, hiding your hole card? There is a birth record, but what? Do you think the record shows him born in a taxicab, with the hacker doing the delivery? Is this Birther Boyle looking to see if the witness is the grandmother or someone.
Here is a question. Would you agree that “I have no doubt that Hawaii maintains a birth record for Barack Obama showing that he was born in Hawaii”?
Because the responsible state official have stated that their records show Obama born in Hawaii. Are they lying?
I said Obama was born at the Queen Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu, Hawaii, named for Queen Kapi’olani. Obama sent them a letter this year congratulating them because he had been born there. The hospital put in their newsletter and website. I posted this all for bdaman. I put up the link here at the Turley blog. Obama and his family have consistently stated that it was his place of birth. This is all evidence.
I had to personally explode the birther myth that his sister said he was born at a different hospital. She never said that. The high school student reporter for Rainbow Newsletter wrote it it, and he was wrong, but World Nut still flogs this. So I have evidence of the hospital of birth. What have you got that shows birth elsewhere?
And, you do not need a hospital of birth to qualify for President, since a natural born citizen need only be born in the US, subject to its jurisdiction, not in a hospital in the US.
What are you driving at? We can’t read your mind.
Repeat question.
“I know about databases and reports because that is what I do.” Once again, do you do it for Hawaii?
Inspector Smith,
Whatever links you may have are insufficient to the evidentiary hurdle that is in front of you – if you want to prove that your birth certificate is the valid one then, for starters, you need an affidavit from a Kenyan official testifying to its veracity. Even then, if you were paying attention to Judge Carter’s ruling in Barnett v. Obama, you would realize that even having the affidavit of a Kenyan official to prove the validity of your BC on hand is not sufficient to trump the Hawaii DOH. Judge Carter seems to think that US records are more reliable than those of other countries, and I would wager that pretty much every judge in the country would agree with him. So even if you got the name of the administrator correct on your Kenyan BC, you haven’t provided and of the support necessary for anyone (especially a court) to give you any credence. It is said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, yet you make an extraordinary claim in the face of nearly insurmountable contrary evidence (I can’t imagine what you could have that would trump the Hawaii DOH’s statements on the matter) and offer little to no evidence to support it. Credibility, sir, is what you lack.
Christmas is coming and people need money for their holiday gifts. Hence the return of Jim Byrne and company to earn more coin trolling us. Wasn’t there a book and movied called the Neverending Story? For these birthers, ashamed to admit the racism and bigotry motivating them, no answer will ever be good enough.
“I know of a birth that took place on 8/5/1961 at Kapiolani Hospital that is not announced in the newspaper with Obama’s.”
Oooooooo
Spooky special knowledge.
ROFLMAO
Here’s one that is like Obama’s. It says Date Filed by Registrar, but it does not list an island of birth.
http://s477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/stevesharp2918/?action=view¤t=DanaeCOLB-DateFiledbyRegistrar-crop.jpg
“What did Hawaii say when you asked them?” The AG and Lt. Governor’s Office said that they don’t maintain those records. That makes sense. Hawaiian law leaves that up to the DOH. The question was presented to Dr. Fukino, Director of the DOH, on 10/16. The law requires her to make the information available within 10 working days. She has not yet responded to the request.
I have no doubt that Hawaii maintains a birth record for Barack Obama.
“Obama was born at the Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu, Hawaii.” I have no statement from the hospital or the State of Hawaii to support that claim. If you have prima facie evidence to support, will you please provide a link?
“His birth was announced in the Honolulu Advertiser and Honolulu Star-Bulletin, in identical notices, at a time when the information for these birth notices was furnished by the state agency. When parents or others sent in information, the papers ran it in different format.” What different format? Please provide the source for this information. I am of the understanding that all births are filed with the DOH and the DOH then sends the information to the newspaper. If a birth report was filed by a parent or relative, what format does it appear and what dictates that format?
I know of a birth that took place on 8/5/1961 at Kapiolani Hospital that is not announced in the newspaper with Obama’s. The newspaper lists births that took place from Aug 2 thru Aug 7.
Too many links for wordpress.
“Do you do it for Hawaii?” If I did it for Hawaii, I probably wouldn’t need to ask Hawaii the question.
“Can you show the readers here at the Turley blog some examples?”
Here are a few.
http://s477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/stevesharp2918/?action=view¤t=UnknownCOLB-DateAcceptedbyStateRegi.jpg
http://s477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/stevesharp2918/?action=view¤t=DecostaCOLB-DateAcceptedbyStateRegi.jpg
“Do you do it for Hawaii?” If I did it for Hawaii, I probably wouldn’t need to ask Hawaii the question.
“Can you show the readers here at the Turley blog some examples?”
Here are a few.
http://s477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/stevesharp2918/?action=view¤t=UnknownCOLB-DateAcceptedbyStateRegi.jpg
http://s477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/stevesharp2918/?action=view¤t=DecostaCOLB-DateAcceptedbyStateRegi.jpg
Here’s one that is like Obama’s. It says Date Filed by Registrar, but it does not list an island of birth.
http://s477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/stevesharp2918/?action=view¤t=DanaeCOLB-DateFiledbyRegistrar-crop.jpg
“What did Hawaii say when you asked them?” The AG and Lt. Governor’s Office said that they don’t maintain those records. That makes sense. Hawaiian law leaves that up to the DOH. The question was presented to Dr. Fukino, Director of the DOH, on 10/16. The law requires her to make the information available within 10 working days. She has not yet responded to the request.
I have no doubt that Hawaii maintains a birth record for Barack Obama.
“Obama was born at the Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu, Hawaii.” I have no statement from the hospital or the State of Hawaii to support that claim. If you have prima facie evidence to support, will you please provide a link?
“His birth was announced in the Honolulu Advertiser and Honolulu Star-Bulletin, in identical notices, at a time when the information for these birth notices was furnished by the state agency. When parents or others sent in information, the papers ran it in different format.” What different format? Please provide the source for this information. I am of the understanding that all births are filed with the DOH and the DOH then sends the information to the newspaper. If a birth report was filed by a parent or relative, what format does it appear and what dictates that format?
I know of a birth that took place on 8/5/1961 at Kapiolani Hospital that is not announced in the newspaper with Obama’s. The newspaper lists births that took place from Aug 2 thru Aug 7.
Slartibartfast,
The subject of Dr. Othigo has been fully addressed. Dr. Othigo is the DEPUTY Chief Administrator. Dr. Othigo was also the DEPUTY Chief Administrator when Dr. Shikely was the Chief Administrator.
I have provided plenty of links, including Dr. Othigo’s ZoomInfo page, to support this point.
Vince Treacy,
Strange that you would rely on WND when they put out a BS article that serves your needs!
You present yourself as a man of facts, yet you call the hospital “Cape Province General Hospital”.
WND attempts to claim that the Hospital did not exist in 1961. I have proof to the contrary.
WND attempts to claim that Dr. Ang’awa was not in Mombasa in 1961. I have proof to the contrary.
Shall I continue?
Are you interested in the facts, or are you just interested in selling your version of fiction?
“(3) Birth certificate.–As used in this subsection, the term `birth certificate’ means a certificate of birth–
“(A) of–
“(i) an individual born in the United States; or
“(ii) an individual born abroad–
“(I) who is a citizen or national of the United States at birth; and
“(II) whose birth is registered in the United States; and
“(B) that–
“(i) is a copy, issued by a State or local authorized custodian of record, of an original certificate of birth issued by such custodian of record; or
“(ii) was issued by a State or local authorized custodian of record and was produced from birth records maintained by such custodian of record.
“I know about databases and reports because that is what I do.” Do you do it for Hawaii?
“Do you not believe that some COLBs say Date Accepted by State Registrar, and that others say Date Filed by Registrar?” I know that Obama’s Certification of Live birth says “DATE FILED BY REGISTRAR August 8, 1961” because I have seen it online. How do you know that others say “Date Accepted by State Registrar “? Can you show the readers here at the Turley blog some examples?
“Does the State of Hawaii issue COLBs, declaring them to be prima facie evidence, for birth reports filed by a parent, relative, owner of the house or plantation, even when no supporting evidence is submitted?”
What did Hawaii say when you asked them? I know that Hawaiian officials have said that in recent years they only issue COLBs for all that apply for birth certificates. They no longer issue long forms. If any Presidential candidate in 2012 is asked for a birth certificate, and was born in Hawaii, then he or she will have to ask for and get a COLB, and nothing but a COLB. The Hawaiian officials have told us that their records say that Obama was born in Hawaii. The COLB is an official certified state record of the information in their files. It is binding on all other States under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of Article IV of the US Constitution.
I know the COLB meets the definition of a birth certificate that has been enacted into federal law. The definition in section 7211(a) has been codified as a note following Title 5, United States Code, section 301 (5 U.S.C. 301 nt.):
http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title5/5usc301.html
Have you got a problem with that definition?
Why are you asking this? Obama was born at the Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu, Hawaii. It was named for Queen Kapi’olani. The hospital furnished the birth information for all of its births to the responsible state officials.
His birth was announced in the Honolulu Advertiser and Honolulu Star-Bulletin, in identical notices, at a time when the information for these birth notices was furnished by the state agency. When parents or others sent in information, the papers ran it in different format.
So what is the relevance of this question about birth reports by parents or others? Is this part of the theory that Obama was born in Kenya, that friends or relatives or his mother flew him to Hawaii, that they got him off the plane and through immigration, and then phoned in information for a birth certificate to the state agency? That did not happen, because he was born in Hawaii.
Here’s an example of the coding
=IIf([Date Accepted] Is Null Or [Date Accepted]=””,”Date Filed by Registrar”)
This would tell the report to print Date Accepted by State Registrar, unless a [Date Accepted] did not exist, which would cause Date Filed by Registrar to be printed in its place.
Vince Treacy, I’m not sure if you understand the question that I am presenting. Do you not believe that some COLBs say Date Accepted by State Registrar, and that others say Date Filed by Registrar?
I know about databases and reports because that is what I do. I write databases. I tell the reports how to fill in the data.
Does the State of Hawaii issue COLBs, declaring them to be prima facie evidence, for birth reports filed by a parent, relative, owner of the house or plantation, even when no supporting evidence is submitted?
Ҥ338-6 Local agent to prepare birth certificate. (a) If neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as provided in section 338-5 is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local agent of the department of health shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.
(b) The department shall prescribe the time within which a supplementary report furnishing information omitted on the original certificate may be returned for the purpose of completing the certificate. Certificates of birth completed by a supplementary report shall not be considered as “delayed” or “altered.”
I can see where the local agent prepares and files the birth report, but I can’t find what controls acceptance by the state registrar.
A glimmer of good news that I noted on another thread: The Reverend Birther Drake has stopped praying for the death of the President:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/11/eligibility-lawsuit-plaintiff-drake-stops-praying-for-obama-to-die/
Hallelujah!
Thanks, Slart. Those were good posts over at Dr. Conspiracy.
Pauly, the Certification of Live birth says “DATE FILED BY REGISTRAR August 8, 1961.” It says date of birth August 4, 1961, and place of birth Honolulu.
What is your problem? Again, what is the point of this?
It is in accordance with Hawaii law. The Hawaiian official has issued an official statement that the records show Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.
So they do things differently in Ohio. So what? Filed by whom? Accepted by whom?
It is prima facie evidence. The custodial officials have attested to it. If an investigator goes to the bureau of vital statistics, she will find the same evidence.
“It is a noted inconsistency, so it is a relevant question.” What inconsistency? Where was it noted? Where is the form taht says date accepted? How do you know about the computer generated forms and the fields.
There is NO credible evidence to the contrary. The Kenyan birth certificates are forgeries. The grandmother never said he was born in Kenya; the birthers believed this only because they never played the part of the tape where she said he was born in Hawaii.
And you say you have asked Hawaiian officials. I can’t say much unless you post your letters of inquiry and their letters of response.
Leo got off on this issue a while back, filing all kinds of request with Hawaii. The response: the index data shows Obama born on August 4, 1961!
Oops, too late. Vince is too quick on the draw for me…
Inspector Smith,
Let me take the few moments before Vince jumps in and destroys your arguments to ask – is that the birth certificate allegedly signed by the hospital administrator months before they took over the office?
http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=4946
off-topic p.s. I picked up a copy of “And Another Thing…” (the sixth Hitchhiker’s book), but I haven’t had a chance to read it yet due to some complications in my life (“life, don’t talk to me about life…”), but I’ll let you guys know what I think when I finish it.
For the regulars, the Cape Province General Hospital (CPGH) supposed birth certificate (“bc”) alluded to cryptically by “Inspector Smith,” is known and proven forgery, put up by a known forgery.
QUOTE
Another Day, Another ‘Birther’ Forgery
By David Weigel 9/8/09 11:00 AM
Josh Gerstein is all over the Justice Department’s filing in Orly Taitz’s latest “birther” lawsuit. Taitz’s suit includes — not as evidence, but as something she wants the court to verify — a ridiculously obvious forgery of a 1961 Kenyan birth certificate, obtained by a man who identifies himself as “Lucas Smith, an American,” who debuted the certificate via a shaky, “Blair Witch Project”-style video before submitting it to Taitz.
How do we know it’s a forgery? Because in a lengthy article on the case, WorldNetDaily notes that it “has reported on an authentic 1961-era Kenyan birth certificate, which looks distinctly different from the document Smith released in the video.” Not that this prevented them from headlining the new story “Panic in D.C.?”
http://washingtonindependent.com/58010/another-day-another-birther-forgery
Even World Nut Daily could not swallow this one.
Sorry, Inspector, but brazen forgeries have a very short shelf life here at the Turley blog. Go back to the birferblogs where they eat this stuff up for breakfast.
Vince Treacy, Thanks for providing the links to the Statutes of Hawaii. I have searched the statutes, but was unable to come up with anything for Date Filed vs. Date Accepted. I think that would indicate that the determination is controlled by some administrative rule or court opinion.
All birth reports are FILED, but it appears that not all of them are ACCEPTED. Why is that? I can tell you that the State of Ohio will file a birth report, but will not accept it unless supporting evidence, like a doctor’s exam, is subsequently submitted. I’m not making any claims of legitimacy, I’d just like to know what controls the different variables.
COLBs are generated by computers. They do so by responding to a query, and the appropriate fields are filled in according to if/then statements. The Date File or Date Accepted is not preprinted on the COLB. The database makes that decision based on the available fields.
It may be that all COLBs issued during a specific period say Date Filed, while during other times they say Date Accepted. Either way, somebody had to write the program, and somebody had to make the decision about the different fields.
It is a noted inconsistency, so it is a relevant question. The significance of the deviation can only be surmised by knowing the answer.