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.
Smit.
“I am Lucas Daniel Smith.”
You should not boast about that, given your record.
Please do not do us the “courtesy” of flogging forgeries at this site. We do not aid and abet.
Pauly, you are linking to a form from 1969. They have changed the forms since then.
Slartibartfast,
1. Name and signature of attending doctor (1961).
2. Name and signature of supervisor of obstetrics (1961).
3. Embossed seal of CPGH Mombasa Kenya (2009).
4. Stamp and signature of current CPGH chief admin (2009).
Slartibartfast, what can you offer us of the validity of Hawaiian COLB and statements by the Hawaii department of health?
“You don’t know the difference between acceptance and filing. Too bad.
You are not adding much to the discussion.”
Neither are you, because you don’t know the difference either. At least I have the guts to ask the question. I won’t ask you any further questions. I think InspectorSmith is right. You’re afraid of the answer, so you avoid the question.
I’ll let you know if and when Hawaii decides be an open records government.
Mr. Smith,
I have a question for you. What evidence can you offer us of the validity of your Kenyan birth certificate that we should consider more credible than statements by the Hawaii department of health?
No Vince Treacy, it is you that is confused.
We’re talking about 1961 reports in the Hawaiian Newspapers, not 2009. Don’t provide me with how they do it today, and claim that is how it was almost 50 years ago. Go sell that story to your friends. They will undoubtedly believe you.
I came here as a courtesy. I thought y’all might have wanted me to answer some questions. It turns out that comments are in abundance, but the answers to questions are strategically avoided.
Are you really that unaware?
“They could not file it if they had not accepted it.”
No Vince, that is wrong. A birth report is filed with the local registrar, then it is accepted by the state registrar.
Look here:
http://s477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/stevesharp2918/?action=view¤t=DanaeCOLB-OriginalCertificateofLive.jpg
In the lower right. It gets filed by the local registrar, and subsequently accepted by the state registrar. If it all was the same thing, they wouldn’t have two different boxes.
Vince Treacy,
How have I been “taken in” by Smith.
I am Lucas Daniel Smith.
Vince, are you light of brain?
Pauly, you are totally confused about the official lists of births and the personal ads.
“I’m satisfied with knowing that you consider any birth report filed with Hawaii to be accepted, even when the State Registrar doesn’t agree.”
That’s a lie, Pauly. I did not say that. Where did I say that “…the State Registrar doesn’t agree.” Nowhere.
This is like arguing with a child. The registrar filed it. How could he file it if he had not accepted it. If he had not accepted it, then he would not have it in his possession to file, would he?
So maybe the act of acceptance is implicit in the act of filing, since he cannot file without accepting. Maybe they changed the form to reflect this.
There is no inference that may be reasonably be drawn from the terminology that “the information was not supported or reliable enough for the state registrar to accept it.”
They could not file it if they had not accepted it.
You don’t know the difference between acceptance and filing. Too bad.
You are not adding much to the discussion.
Vince, Let me make it clear. Obama’s birth, as indicated by his COLB, was never accepted by the State Registrar.
I want to know why? I don’t care if you want to know why, or if you find the question to be relevant. I came here, as ffleo suggested, to see if you had the answer. Instead, you chose to be an advocate for keeping the answer hidden.
“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.”
Vince Treacy, You can’t be that naiive. Does the Obama birth announcement contain a published the street address? That information you quoted is not from the period when Obama was born.
I didn’t know we could just make things up. That sure does make it easy.
Inspector Smith.
Neither you nor Pauly scare me at all.
The regulars at this site know better.
Smith, you have been taken in by forger Smith, so you have no credibility at all.
Pauly has yet to say what his point is.
I’m waiting.
Wow. My need to earn a living has been interfering lately with keeping up with what’s happening on this site. I am amazed that the birther discussion has started once again. A word of advice to Paully and Inspector Smith. You ought to educate yourself by reading all of the entries by Vince Treacy on this issue. If you do not find them convincing, you are either simply bullheaded or are a devoted follower of Orly Taitz, who will in due course be an ex-member of the bar for some pretty obvious reasons. You also ought not to rely on worldnetdaily for anything remotely resembling the truth. Finally, why is it that I never see a question about the president’s citizenship raised on this site by anyone with a real name?
Vince Treacy, Make all the fun of the question presented that you want. You don’t need to want to know the answer. I was hoping you knew the answer. I’m pretty satisfied in knowing that you don’t know what dictates Date Filed vs. Date Accepted. I’m satisfied with knowing that you consider any birth report filed with Hawaii to be accepted, even when the State Registrar doesn’t agree.
At least this blog serves as a record.
Paully,
I think you scared Vince Treacy. I was just thinking about how irrelevant to the discussion many of his comments are. I don’t think he understands English. Maybe I could teach him Swahili.
BTW, the link to the Honolulu paper at 8:40 PM was in direct response to: “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?”
That is hardly irrelevant.
Just tell us what is on your mind, Pauly.
Vince Treacy, Do you think you have posted enough irrelevant information yet? I’ll wait if you feel the need to publish more.