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.
Vince Treacy,
I provided you with certificates of live birth from 1961 and 1969. The COLB is derived from information on the original. The COLBs may have changed in 2000s, but the fact still remains that Obama’s just says it was filed, and most of the others say that the state registrar accepted them.
Vince Treacy,
If you can’t think of answer, or any rebuttal, that’s fine.
Just say so. Cease with euphemisms for “I can’t think of anything to post that makes sense.”
Bravo Vince Treacy!!! No one would ever accuse you of saying “The guy made some mistakes, but he has done his time.” I hope you don’t do criminal defense.
That’s right. You just defend the unions.
Mr. Smith,
I wont ignore your questions, but you need to give me a little time to answer them 😉 If my answer above isn’t sufficient, let me know and I’ll elaborate.
Mr. Smith,
I said that I don’t put much weight in a statement on a blog vs. a public statement by Hawaiian government officials. I cited that blog so that you (and others) could see what I was referring to and did not dispute your rebuttal (having no solid evidence to determine which is correct). As I said before, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. “Barack Obama was born in Honolulu” is not an extraordinary claim, which “Barack Obama was born in Kenya” is. You cannot expect rational, intelligent people to be swayed to your side without some pretty compelling evidence. And as for your comment about legalese, I am not a lawyer and have never studied law (I’m a mathematical biologist), so I’ll take it as a compliment that you can’t tell the difference between me and the many lawyers that post here 😉
Pauly, “I have provided a 1961 and a 1969 certificate of live birth for you to review.”
That was the sixties.
They changed over to the COLB in the 2000s.
To the regulars.
I am not going to dignify “Lucas Daniel Smith” with any response, given his record.
Mike Appleton,
I have a real problem with Orly Taitz, and I announced it to the world.
She wanted me to claim that I was the one who obtained the first report of Kenyan birth. The one she claims to have gotten from a foreign agency. I was not about to do that.
If you can suggest a way to authenticate the CPGH bc, while Obama and Odinga keep the doors closed, I am listening.
Mike Appleton and Slartibartfast,
If my grandmother filed a false birth report, and I it looked like I was going to be elected POTUS, I’d be pretty worried that she might spill the beans. I would make sure she got sick and died before she could tell anybody the truth. I’d probably use poison. The best way to avoid the detection of poison would be to have her cremated.
I wonder. Was Grandma Dunham cremated? Were her husband and daughter cremated? The answer to the first question is Yes. The second is no. But I’m not suggesting anything.
Slartibartfast,
Thank you for completely ignoring the question.
Do you care to answer now?
Again:
Well, if you don’t put much “weight” in a “statement on a blog”,
then why do you cite statements on a blog:
http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=4946
Sort of a double standard, wouldn’t you agree. Please, an actual answer would be great. Not more legalese.
Mike Appleton and Slartibartfast,
I know I have a checkered past. I have done my time, and have learned plenty from my mistakes. I submitted my information under penalty of perjury. I have no desire to sit in prison for playing some stupid game.
As to the Hawaiian Officials, they are only reporting what they have on record (although, according to Paully, they are not very forthcoming with everything). I don’t have the power to make either government open their records for inspection. If I did, I would want to see the Hawaiian records and the Kenyan records.
I know it is possible to file a birth report for someone born at home, so why not for someone claimed to be born at home? If someone reported that Obama was born at home, and he really wasn’t, what would identify that?
Nothing that has come from any Hawaiian Official rules out a false birth reported by Obama’s relative. Nothing at all. Hawaii has only stated that they have a birth report on file. Nothing more and nothing less.
Mr. Smith,
You don’t seem to understand what your burden of proof is. In order for a court to accept your document, you need someone attesting to its validity (e.g. an affidavit from a Kenyan official stating that the BC was legit, or from one of the people who signed the BC saying the same thing). No court is going to recognize you as an expert in Kenyan records. Even if you had these affidavits, you would still find them insufficient in the face of the Hawaii DOH’s statements. If all that you are trying to do is win in the court of public opinion, I would suggest that this is a bad forum to try as the people here are too well-informed for you to convince them without solid evidence and you’ve presented none (and likely have none).
Slartibartfast,
Well, if you don’t put much “weight” in a “statement on a blog”,
then why do you cite statements on a blog:
http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=4946
Sort of a double standard, wouldn’t you agree. Please, an actual answer would be great. Not more legalese.
Inspector Smith, I don’t pretend to understand your seeming obsession with pederasty, but gratuitous accusations of sexual perversion against a total stranger are juvenile at best. I doubt both your sincerity and your investigative skills because you have attempted to pass off something as authentic without objective evidence. You and Ms. Taitz suffer from the same misunderstanding of the fundamental rules of evidence. No one has the responsibility to attempt to prove that the document which you procured through bribery is a forgery. To the contrary, it is the burden of the proponent to prove its authenticity. You have been unable to do that, but attempted to cash in anyway, recognizing the always strong market among the gullible and the conspiracy theorists. You are simply an adventurer and opportunist. There’s nothing particularly wrong with that, but you shouldn’t expect serious people to listen to what you have to say.
Mike Appleton,
“The authorities” are already aware of the existence of the CPGH bc. They know how I got it, and where I got it from. If US President Obama and the Prime Minister of Kenya would remove the gag order, and allow the Kenyan Government to authenticate the bc, I would have them do that.
Please forgive me for my most recent comment and the perversion insinuation that it entails. My reckless comment was totally out of line.
Forgive me sir.
Respectfully,
Lucas Daniel Smith
Mr. Smith,
Hawaiian officials have made statements on the record about the veracity of President Obama’s birth in Hawaii (which have been linked many times in this thread and others) and, forgive me for saying so (and please correct me if I am wrong), but you have been convicted of both fraud and forgery, so can you see why I might put more weight in a public statement by Hawaiian government officials than your statement on a blog? Do you think that any judge in the country would take your word over theirs? Furthermore, even assuming that your claims about the provenance of the Kenyan birth certificate are true, all that you have demonstrated (and again, correct me if I am wrong) is that you bribed someone claiming to be a Kenyan official to give you a document. Neither they nor any other Kenyan official is standing behind the document (I assume that if you had such an affidavit you would have publicized it). I’m sorry, but that’s not going to convince anyone here to change their minds.
Mike Appleton,
Spoken with such elegance. I wonder if you speak in person with such tremendous articulation.
Do you not keep up with current events? Where were you in August, on sabtical with a young boy?
As for me I debuted the CPGH Obama birth certificate in August.
I’ve also a witness in federal court for a civil action filed againat Obama.
Really, where have you been? How many young boys have you escorted of to the Bahamas to play house with?
Vince Treacy,
You should run for US Congress. You know just how to answer a question without answering the question. Brilliant.
I can tell you that I have probably questioned the authenticity of the CPGH doc more than you have. I have been working hard to verify anything I can about the hospital and the associated doctors.
All I can tell you is that the claims that it is a forgery are unsubstantiated.
“Pauly, you are linking to a form from 1969. They have changed the forms since then.”
I have provided a 1961 and a 1969 certificate of live birth for you to review. The 1961 has a place for the Registrar General to accept the filing, and the 1969 certificate has a place for the state registrar to accept the filing.
I just checked his site. The Inspector is indeed Lucas Smith, part of the Orly Taitz con. Sorry, I don’t have any questions about nutrient analysis. Any decent eBay bids on the birth certificate yet? BTW, where is that explosive story you were supposed to unveil last August? And if you have such detailed insider information, why haven’t you approached the appropriate authorities rather than simply engaging in self-promotion? Just thought I’d ask.