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.
Mike Spindell, You are in over your head!
1. The birth certificate issue has not been decided by the courts. Only the issue of standing and jurisdiction has been decided by the courts. Those courts, contrary to the claims of Orly Taitz, Mario Apuzzo and their faithful flock, made the correct rulings.
2. Vattel’s Law of Nations was adopted as part of the Common Law of England in 1764. The Case was Triquet and Others v. Bath.
“Triquet v. Bath? was a case which turned on the question whether the defendant was a domestic servant of a foreign minister, and whether he was entitled to the diplomatic privilege. In the course of the argument ” Mr. Blackstone observed that the Act of Parliament of 7 Anne c. 12 was not any alteration of the law of nations from what it was before: for that ambassadors and their attendants were, by the general law of nations, entitled to the same privilege,” and Lord Mansfield, C.J., remarked: ” This privilege of foreign ministers and their domestic servants depends upon the law of nations.”
Your suggestion the the law of nations is some archaic rambling that is no longer consulted by the U.S. courts is also not supported. In Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963), a citizenship case, the U.S. Supreme Court looked to the law of nations.
Mike Spindell,
InspectorSmith exposed you yesterday. You play your race card to cover for your ignorance. This is a discussion of law and facts. You bring neither to the table. You play your race card to castigate others. It is your attempt at censorship.
Yesterday, ffleo went after InspectorSmith for making unsupported comments about Mike Appleton. I don’t know Mike Appleton but I suspect that ffleo was correct to jump all over InsepectorSmith for making the comment. Will ffleo jump all over you for doing the same? Do you think your ignorance is an excuse that should permit you to make wild unsupported accusations?
If you don’t possess the intellect required to engange in honest debate, you should remain silent.
“As many people who have asked for his COLB, why has Pres. Obama not produced it.”
Lilove,
The answer is that by responding to mean spirited foolishness the President would only be lending credibility to his attackers, who have none and would continue the attack anyway. Birther writers have already stated that there is no proof they would accept that the President is a citizen. They have also stated the lie that to be a “natural born” American, both ones parents have to be US citizens. They have further gone back to a Swiss Philosopher, who died in 1753 (23 years before the Revolution) as an authority on what “natural born” citizen means. In short their real agenda is to de-legitimize the President by any means possible and to stir up enough hatred to invite violence against him. Some have called for the military to take over the government in a coup. I believe that this is because of his skin color.
The birth certificate issue has already been decided by the courts and by the legal processes of the United States. The birther movement is using a technique developed by the NAZI Joseph Goebbels called “The Big Lie.” This technique holds that if you repeat something as often as possible, even if it is false, the public comes to believe it to be true. This was how the NAZI’s were able to get their people into believing they had to kill millions of innocent people. The people behind the birthers are using this same “big lie” technique and for the same reasons bigotry and greed. This is not a question of whether or not you like the President and his policies, this is really about whether you love our American system, or want to replace it with one led by hatred and violence.
Yesterday, at 6:14 PM Paully posted links to demonstrate Date Filed vs Date Accepted
At 7:16 PM Vince Treacy responded with “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.”
At 7:21 PM Paully said “Vince Treacy, My previous comment provided links that demonstrate Date Accepted by State Registrar.”
At 7:25 PM Vince Treacy acknowledged this “Pauly, I have seen the new links. So what does the fact that some say filed and others accepted mean?”
At 12:33 AM (5 hours later) Vince Treacy says “So show a COLB Certification that says “Accepted.” Haven’t seen one yet. The COLB posted said “FILED.”
For the record: Vince Treacy was not only provided with examples, he acknowledged viewing those examples at 7:25 PM on Nov. 23rd. Then 5 hours later, he claims to have never seen them.
Paully,
Fess up. you don’t like black people and you are paid to write comments and act the troll part. Don’t confuse yourself with a patriot, which you clearly are not.
“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?”
As a forger, liar and con man what part of credible do you evince? Lou Dobbs has a latina wife and yet hates latino’s. If it’s true that your wife is non-white, which given the history of your vercity is unknown,
that doesn’t mean she is African-american per se. Perhaps though you are not a racist per se, but simply another scammer trying to make a buck.
What the con man needs is a gullible population, that has an axe to grind be it greed, or in this case racism. You as a scammer will surely use whatever tools you can find to reap your rewards, be they financial, egotistical or both. Like most con men you view those you con with contempt, making you fill the emptiness in your own mind which is really a suspicion of your own worthlessness. It is nice for you that you have hooked up with such willing sheep, but please don’t flatter yourself into believing that people with at least average intelligence and without an agenda of bigotry find you the least bit credible.
I have read all the posts re: Pres. Obama’s COLB. Lets uncomplicate all the discussion and answer my simple question:
As many people who have asked for his COLB, why has Pres. Obama not produced it. It is a very simple thing to do. (After all these years I have mine and could produce it for anyone who asks in just a matter of minutes.) It is such a simple request and could so easily settle peoples’ minds, as the ramifications of a birth certificate can mean so much. Just produce it and be done with it.
As it is, it tends to make me wonder what the reason for not doing so could possibly be?
Peoples’ imaginations are many times worse than the reality generally.
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.
To the regulars, Dr. Conspiracy has a complete rundown on Date Filed v. Date Accepted, posted on Saturday, February 28, 2009
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/date-filed-v-date-accepted/
Maybe Paully can take his problems to the experts at that site and stop bothering us for a while (this is meant sincerely).
Meanwhile, JT has opened a new birther thread today, Nov. 24th, so all further discussion will be continued up there.
What a birther thinks they say:
“Well Orly is right! It’s not logical because it’s not what I want!”
What people actually hear when birther’s speak:
“Blah blah blah blah blah nigger blah blah blah blah.”
It’s profoundly logical that a certain segment of our society is so stupid that they won’t accept a documentary standard of evidence that’s accepted in county, state and Federal courts for identifying one as being born an American citizen.
It’s a phenomena called “You’re a racist moron.”
It’s profoundly logical because that segment of society is either insane, totally brainwashed and or just not man enough to admit they’re racists but aren’t smart enough to piece together any sane and logical reason Obama is part of the problem – the same problem that their fascist redneck white boys brought to a nice head with their war for Exxon’s profits.
Once again:
1) There are plenty of issues with Obama and some of them are indeed unconstitutional.
2) His not being a citizen? Not one of them. Get over it.
3) None of this negates Bush and Cheney are war criminals who stole at least one election and started a war for their family profits and need to be hanging from a tree as appropriate punishment.
So next time you want to rail on the birth certificate? Take a big ol’ spoonful of STFU, you simpleton racist half-wits. Just because you think it doesn’t make it true and just because you have the right to say something repetitively stupid doesn’t give you the right to be free from ridicule for your stupidity.
It’s profoundly logical. Because you birther clowns are the tools of not just evil, but pawns to your own intellectual inadequacies. You have the right to be stupid. Also to be wrong and marginalized for your stupidity too. How about getting mad about something with substance? Hmm?
Be mad about signing statements.
Be mad about the continues bailout of Wall St. criminals.
Be mad about the Patriot Act.
Be mad about torture being done in your name that exposes all of our soldiers to greater danger.
Because being mad about the birth certificate is about as logical as being mad at the tooth fairy.
So just like children who won’t behave, it’s simply time for your lot to shut up and go to bed without any satisfaction. Or be prepared for the perpetual drubbing your stupidity invites. Your choice. You want to be angry at the government? Fine. There’s plenty of reasons.
JUST USE A REAL ONE.
Yes, it’s tremendously logical, no, it’s profoundly logical that President Obama will not release a copy of his original birth certificate.
Oh yeah, I know, I know, Hawaii doesn’t give out copies of that those of anymore. And Obama has no power to request a copy from the Hawaiian Dept of Health microfilm records.
Yeah, it’s crazy, why should President Obama have to do that? It’s just so racist. It is, yes, so racists. Terribly racist.
I know what we should do now! We should form online blogs and talk about how the “Birther’ are just so terribly ignorant. We’ll tell them all about the official from the Hawaiian Dept of Health that has vouched for having seen Obama’s birth certificate original birth certificate on microfilm. We’ll have to mention that the “Republican” Governor of Hawaii also has seen the proof in the pudding!
(Yes, we have to mention that she is “Republican”! That will prove that “Birther” are wrong! After all, if we have a Republican that doesn’t believe this Birther rubbish, then it’s got to be true that Birther’s are wrong. Oh, by the way, whatever else that Republican says is strictly boloney. That Republican is only correct about Birthers being nutcases.)
So, yes, yes, yes. We’ll get together and we’ll blog about the crazy Birthers, we eat meat and drink fine wine and we’ll joke about Birthers. We devote our time and money into proving that the Birthers are mad! I tell you we will! Get behind me! We’re all attorneys and wise men /women here. We are sophisticated! We can do this I tell you! It’s about time a black man was elected President I say! Us whites deserve some pay back I tell you! We need to be whipped and bound in chains! It’s great that Obama doesn’t like whites! I tell you that he has a social responsibility not to like us whites! We’ve been bad for so long now, our medicine, our right-lobe thought process! We are evil, us whites are evil I tell you!
Get behind me now I say! Rally the troops! No man, woman or child shall be permitted to look upon the birth certificate of our great Savior and Comrade Barack Hussein Obama II.!
Respectfully submitted,
Group of liberal attorneys (and other wise men) that are fat with meat and full of wine.
So Paully finally showed a couple of COLBs, requested for hours, that said “accepted.”
Where were these all along?
And once again: So what?
What difference does it make?
So what does the fact that some say filed and others accepted mean?
Nothing. There is no evidence that one phrase differs from another. There is no reasonable implication to be drawn from the usage.
There is nothing here.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago….”
The statement is crystal clear.
She has “seen the original vital records.”
She issued an official statement “verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii.”
There is a valid birth certificate under the federal legal definition posted above.
There is verification by the custodial official.
There is no credible evidence of birth on Kenya or elsewhere.
There is no room for speculation based on a so-called distinction between “accepted” or “filed.” This is official.
Paully ought to learn how to present a case.
Kids, don’t try this at home or in court.
My patience is at an end. Have a nice life, Paully.
Paully
1, November 23, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Vince Treacy, My previous comment provided links that demonstrate Date Accepted by State Registrar.
Vince Treacy
1, November 23, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Pauly, I have seen the new links. So what does the fact that some say filed and others accepted mean?
Vince Treacy,
Are you really that stupid? You already tried to make that claim.
1.“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
To the regulars:
Just to refresh our recollection, the Hawaiian officials have seen the records, and they show Obama was born in Hawaii:
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago….”
See full story in USAToday:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm
The same story notes that U.S. House of Representatives reached the same conclusion in a nonbinding resolution.
“A congressional resolution introduced by Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, to commemorate the 50th anniversary of island statehood was delayed Monday.
“The resolution includes a clause noting Obama’s Hawaiian birthplace. The line ‘Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961’ appeared to be construed by birthers as a thinly veiled attempt to get Congress to affirm Obama’s U.S. citizenship, said Dave Helfert, an Abercrombie spokesman.
“As the issue came to a vote Monday, Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., rose to object, saying there was not a quorum present. The House later voted 378-0 to approve the resolution. Bachmann voted in favor of the resolution.”
All rational, reasonable people have examined this issue and moved on. Obama was born in Hawaii.
-30
Vince,
I commend your patience, but the racist birthers will not be deterred with something so petty as the facts.
Paully. “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.”
So show a COLB Certification that says “Accepted.”
Haven’t seen one yet. The COLB posted said “FILED.”
Paully, at 3:50 pm: “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.”
Now how does Paully know that if without working for State of Hawaii?
Besides, “DATE FILED BY REGISTRAR” looks pre-printed, just like all the other entries, like date of birth, mother’s name, and certificate number. It is in the same typeface.
http://s477.photobucket.com/albums/rr131/stevesharp2918/?action=view¤t=DanaeCOLB-DateFiledbyRegistrar-crop.jpg
It looks like COLBs under the new system are pre-printed to say, “date filed,” not “date accepted.” Paully has yet to come up with a COLB that says, “date accepted.” The only ones with “date accepted” printed on them are the obsolete long forms. “Date filed” does not in fact seem to be a computer-generated “if/then” heading. It looks just like “hour of birth” or “sex.”
Sorry, but Paully seems to be barking up the wrong tree.
For some reason, Inspector Smith reminds me of another blowhard, Commander McBragg:
If you think the Global Warming Scam was big check this out.
http://jbjd.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/counsel-for-dnc-services-corporation-performs-3-card-monte-for-federal-court/#comment-1605
InspectorSmith you are an ignorant fool and your posts clearly demonstrate your best talent. I tried to view one of your videos but you are incapable of 3rd grade diction.
Your comments about Mike A. were inexcusable. Everyone here champions free speech; however, there are times when intelligent people will refuse to listen to foulmouthed, nonsensical noise.
As a former LEO, I understand the need for redemption for one’s criminal mistakes, although you do not appear to have learned from your mistakes and perhaps you were set free far too soon.
Did you get your “inspector” badge out of a nickel gumball machine or from a prison confidant?
Mr. Smith,
I find it sad that you would consider poisoning your grandmother if she knew a damaging secret about you, but again, if you want to imply that President Obama did that you can (and did), but if you want to convince anyone else of that, you need evidence. Also, if you had read this thread (as well as the other ‘birther’ threads here), you would know that Vince has done yeoman work debunking every birther theory imaginable with well-documented research, logic, and patience. If he says something I (and I suspect almost all of the posters here) take him at his word. Your attack on him only damages your credibility, not his.