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.
As I said, JFGI.
READER SERVICES
Submit a birth announcement
Aloha and congratulations on your new arrival!
The Honolulu Advertiser invites you to announce the birth of your new baby in the Island Life section of the Sunday newspaper and on our Web site.
You can mail your announcement to The Advertiser via one of the addresses below or fax it to 535-8170. Feel free to attach additional pages or a copy of an invitation. No street addresses or telephone numbers will be published or given out; they are requested for verification purposes only.
IMPORTANT: You must attach a photocopy of your baby’s official state-issued birth certificate; we cannot print your announcement without it.
You can also submit your celebration announcement using our online form.
The Advertiser publishes announcements up to six months after the baby’s birth. Only parents named on the birth certificate can be mentioned. At least one parent must be a current or former Hawai’i resident or Hawai’i-stationed military member.
Here’s the legal stuff: All submissions may be edited for length, accuracy and clarity. By submitting a photograph and/or announcement information, you grant The Honolulu Advertiser the right to publish, distribute, archive and otherwise use the photograph and information, in whole or in part, in print, electronic or any other media and for promotional purposes related to The Advertiser’s products and services. In addition, you represent that you have the right to authorize The Advertiser to use the photograph and information submitted.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/current/oh/births
From the link to Dr. Conspiracy in the above post:
QUOTE When we spoke to a spokeswoman for the Hawaii Department of Health, she said too much was being made of the difference between the so-called “long” and “short” forms.
“They’re just words,” said spokeswoman Janice Okubo. “That (what was posted on the Internet) is considered a birth certificate from the State of Hawaii.”
“There’s only one form of birth certificate,” she said, and it’s been the same since the 1980s. Birth certificates evolve over the decades, she said, and there are no doubt differences between the way birth certificates looked when Obama was born and now.
“When you request a birth certificate, the one you get looks exactly like the one posted on his site,” she said. “That’s the birth certificate.”
As for the theory that Obama’s original birth certificate might show he was foreign born, Okubo said the “Certification of Live Birth” would say so. Obama’s does not. Again, it says he was born in Honolulu.UNQUOTE
Been here. Done that.
Vince Treacy 1, July 11, 2009 at 11:28 am
bdaman: “By the way FYI all news articles that quoted Obama being born at Queens Hospital have been switched to say Kapi’Olani. Then Kapi’olani has now taken down the letter the president sent after it was posted on there website for six months.
Fightthesmears website no longer available all this in the last 48 hours.”
Every statement in that paragraph is wrong or totally irrelevant. Show us a link to a news article that has been “switched.”
At Dr. Conspiracy’s site, richCares has noted, for those unfamiliar with Hawaii, that Honolulu has two hospitals, both founded by Queens: a Maternity Hospital started by Queen Kapiolani, and a Medical Center started by Queen Emma; both hospitals are often called “Queen’s Hospital.” “If it’s Maternity, it’s probably Queen Kapiolani Maternity Home, the name it went by in the 60’s (now Queen Kapiolani Medical Center).” Rich said “these two Hospitals are often confused. If looking for Queens Hospital either may come up, so some made a mistake.
“However Obama and his family never varied in stating where he was born, Queen Kapiolani.
“Birthers trying to use a simple mistake to bolster their ignorant story, that’s normal for idiots grasping at straws. Yes, the birth certificate issue is over.”
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/07/hawaii-homelands-declares-short-form-good-enough/comment-page-9/#comment-13285
PS, The facility was originally opened by Queen Kapi’olani as the Kapi’olani Maternity Home in 1890[wiki]. Concerned about the welfare of Hawaii’s mothers and their babies, Queen Kapi’olani opened the Kapi’olani Maternity Home in 1890. From its inception, the hospital has played a vital role in the health of Hawaii’s women and children [official website].
There is a upi.com story out there that made this mistake.
The hospital still displays the letter on its site, and has it framed in its lobby.
Bdaman was certain that Maya Soetoro told reporters that Obama was born at Queens Medical Center, but I posted the original newsletter which showed that she was never quoted to that effect. The reporter, a high school student said it, and he made a mistake. No response yet.
Fight the Smears was a campaign website. The campaign is over. The birth certificate issue is over. Get over it.
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/07/10/reports-shows-additional-undisclosed-surveillance-programs-and-likely-unlawful-conduct-by-bush-administration/
“Those two little words seem to indicate that a birth was reported, but the information was not supported or reliable enough for the state registrar to accept it. I don’t like to speculate, but the DOH has failed to answer the question, leaving me no other choice.”
So that’s it. That is pointless. No reasonable person can draw an inference that the “information was not supported or reliable enough for the state registrar to accept it.” To pin all of that on two words that mean the same thing in this context is stupid.
The state official have repeatedly stated that their records show Obama was born in Hawaii.
If it was filed, it was accepted. Get over it.
“You know exactly what I am driving at.” I do not.
What are you driving at?
“I said Obama AND HIS FAMILY. They are a reliable source.”
And what family? What member of his family, that could have witnessed his birth, has corroborated his claim of being born at Kapiolani?
“When parents or others sent in information, the papers ran it in different format.” What different format? If a birth report was filed by a parent or relative, what format does it appear and what dictates that format?
“Do you have a problem? It does not matter under the Constitution whether one is born in a hospital or not, so the name of the hospital is irrelevant.” I didn’t bring up the name of the hospital. You did. It must have been relevant to you.
“So what does it mean? Why are you so obsessed with two little words?” Those two little words seem to indicate that a birth was reported, but the information was not supported or reliable enough for the state registrar to accept it. I don’t like to speculate, but the DOH has failed to answer the question, leaving me no other choice.
“Your letter to Dr. Fukino is very confusing and should have been a lot clearer about what you were asking about. You should have laid a foundation, giving examples, so that a reader would know what you were driving at.” That’s a load of crap. The AG and the Lt. Gov didn’t have any problem understanding the question. I doubt the DOH did either. She didn’t respond with “I don’t understand the question”. She just didn’t respond.
You know exactly what I am driving at. I want to know why some COLBs say Date Filed and others say Date Accepted.
Repost
Vince Treacy 1, July 8, 2009 at 11:03 am
Anatomy of a false rumor.
Funny thing. Dr. Jerome Corsi wrote: “In a November 2004 interview with the Rainbow Newsletter, Maya told reporters her half-brother Sen. Barack Obama was born on Aug. 4, 1961, at Queens Medical Center in Honolulu; then in February 2008, Maya told reporters for the Honolulu Star-Bulletin that Obama was at the Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children.”
Well, the newsletter is not the Rainbow. It is “The Rainbow Edition,” published by he students at Education Laboratory School in Hawaii. Attorney Phil Berg posted it online as part of his frivolous lawsuit. Please read pages 2 and 15: http://www.radiodujour.com/people/berg_philip/pdf/057_2%20Exhibit%20Charter%20Schools%20Rainbow%20Edition%20Newsletter.pdf
The article did not say that Maya Soetoro said that Obama was born at Queens. It is the writer of the article who began by saying that Obama was born at Queens Medical Center. The quotations by Maya Soetoro say nothing of the sort in the article. So there is no first hand evidence of the persistent internet rumor.
The hospital of birth issue is not heating up. It is getting colder by the minute.
Source: http://jonathanturley.org/2009/07/03/the-new-math-louisiana-governor-bobby-jindal-solves-low-school-passage-rates-by-lowering-school-standards/
Pauly, “I am of the understanding that all births are filed with the DOH and the DOH then sends the information to the newspaper.”
I am of the same opinion. Obama’s birth was filed with the state agency, and the agency sent the information to the papers. The parents and relatives could not do that.
Obama was born in Hawaii, United States of America, in 1961, and is a natural born citizen. He is the President of the United States.
Pauly, those types of Certificates are no longer issued in Hawaii. Everything changed when they computerize. They only issue Certifications to everyone now. RichCares at Dr. Conspiracy lives in Hawaii and has confirmed this. Whatever is on them is irrelevant.
On the hospital, I een through this with bdaman. The letter was still on the website after WND said it had been removed.
Reread. WND is not reliable. But if even they won’t take a Kenyan certificate, then it is really phony.
“Obama and his family have consistently stated that it was his place of birth. This is all evidence.” Please re-read. I said Obama AND HIS FAMILY. They are a reliable source. You have nothing to contradict them.
Do you have a problem? It does not matter under the Constitution whether one is born in a hospital or not, so the name of the hospital is irrelevant.
“What does it mean? Why sometimes filed, and sometimes accepted?”
So what does it mean? Why are you so obsessed with two little words?
Maybe the words are synonyms, that is, two different words that mean the same thing. For example, certificate and certification are synonyms, since they mean the same thing.
Unless you tell us what you are driving at, we cannot help you.
Maybe they do things differently in Hawaii.
Your letter to Dr. Fukino is very confusing and should have been a lot clearer about what you were asking about. You should have laid a foundation, giving examples, so that a reader would know what you were driving at.
The law provides for “Rules of procedure, substantive rules of general applicability, statements of general policy, and interpretations of general applicability.”
It does not apply to “statutory laws … or legal opinions from a court of competent jurisdiction.”
As of now, your question is too trivial for more attention.
Repeat question: What are you driving at? We can’t read your mind
On your repeat question, just google it.
repeating the question directed to Vince Treacy
“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 should have provided you a link to the birth certificate for the 8/5/1961 birth.
http://s477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/stevesharp2918/?action=view¤t=30mwjyx.jpg
If you look in the lower right you can see where there is a place for the Reg. General to accept it. The link I provided two comments prior is from a 1969 birth. That one clearly demonstrates a place where the birth report is to be accpeted by the state.
Was Obama’s birth report accepted by the state? If not, then why not?
“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.”
A claim made by someone who could not have been aware of their surroundings, because they had just been born, is not evidence.
Are you channeling Orly?
Your respected authority says it’s not true.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103294
Editor’s note: Following WND’s questioning, the letter was removed from the Kapi’olani Medical Center’s website.
Who is Lucas Smith? Get some answers at this site:
QUOTE ON
Monday, September 7, 2009
Lucas Smith is Back
Back in July, I helped expose Lucas Smith, the BS artist who was auctioning on eBay a supposed Kenyan birth certificate for Obama. Smith disappeared for a while, but reemerged in mid-August in a series of WorldNetDaily articles. Amusingly, WND has simultaneously run headlining articles publicizing Smith’s claims alongside separate articles declaring that his claims are bogus. Thus, they position themselves to help spread lies and falsehoods while positioning themselves to be able to deny any responsibility for spreading those same lies and falsehoods.
…
http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/2009/09/lucas-smith-is-back.html
There’s an old Polish proverb my mother would say when she felt there was no point in arguing over something with folks…especially those who chose not to believe the truth of a matter. She’d say it in Polish and then repeat it in English for me. It goes something like this: You talk to a hill–but a hill is a hill.
“Pauly, I have seen the new links. So what does the fact that some say filed and others accepted mean?”
Exactly! What does it mean? Why sometimes filed, and sometimes accepted?
Here’s a birth report that shows a place where it is filed with the registrar, and a place for the satate registrar to accept it.
http://s477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/stevesharp2918/?action=view¤t=DanaeCOLB-OriginalCertificateofLive.jpg
“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.”
That COLB does not reflect a piece of information normally listed on a COLB. That COLB, like Obama’s was Filed, but not accepted.
“Which law? How about posting the language of your letter so that we can read the question presented for ourselves?”
§92F-12 Disclosure required. (a) Any other provision in this chapter to the contrary notwithstanding, each agency shall make available for public inspection and duplication during regular business hours:
(1) Rules of procedure, substantive rules of general applicability, statements of general policy, and interpretations of general applicability adopted by the agency;
The question as presented
Dr. Fukino,
This is a request for any statutory laws, procedural instructions, or legal opinions from a court of competent jurisdiction, that are maintained or in the possession of the Hawaii DOH that dictate the application of “Date Filed by Registrar” and/or “Date Accepted by State Registrar” as it appears Hawaii Certifications of Birth.
I would prefer to receive the requested information electronically, but can have someone available to view them at the DOH Office if needed.
This request is pursuant to Chapter 92(f) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Smith, I noted the Nut site since a certificate that even the leading birthers can debunk can have no credibility. If even a birther site can’t swallow it, why should anyone?
Also, please consider the source of that “certificate.”
Pauly, I have seen the new links. So what does the fact that some say filed and others accepted mean?
Smith, you are dodging the fact that the Kenyan birth certificate is a forgery.
It is a forgery, proferred by a known forger. You have not posted any information to support its authenticity other than a bald assertion.
Slart has posted a link to the site exploding it. That jumpy tape has been circulated for months and proves nothing.
Vince Treacy, My previous comment provided links that demonstrate Date Accepted by State Registrar.
Mike Spindell,
FYI, my wife is not white, so your claim of racism in not supported. You have played your race card too often. It is a crutch, used by you to prolong your ignorance of the facts presented.
I should pity the man such as you who lives in fear, and deamonizes others for asking questions. Are you really that afraid of the truth?
Your comments do nothing to support the facts or the law. Are you not capable of understanding either? You don’t bring much to the table.