TPMMuckraker

Army Captain Client Threatens Taitz With Bar Complaint: She Doesn't Speak For Me

Spread the word and support this article by retweeting it!


Orly Taitz

Share

Twitter Facebook Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

The Orly Taitz "birther soldier" case playing out in U.S. District Court in Georgia finally jumped the shark Friday.

The moment came when Army Capt. Connie Rhodes, the client of Birther agitator Taitz, sent a letter to the judge renouncing her ex-counsel and saying she intends to file a complaint against Taitz with the California bar.

Rhodes, who said she was "currently" shipping out to Iraq, reveals in the letter that she did not authorize the emergency request for stay of deployment -- filed last week purportedly on Rhodes' behalf by Taitz -- and in fact first heard about the filing on the local evening news.

She writes:





... 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.

The letter also complains that the initial filing for a temporary restraining order earlier this month, which objected to serving under Barack Obama because he is (allegedly) not legitimately president, 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."

Which may not actually make sense, but Rhodes has clearly soured on the whole undertaking.

If she makes good on her promise to file a complaint against Taitz for her "reprehensible and unprofessional actions," it will be at least the second Taitz faces in the California bar.

And Taitz still faces a $10,000 fine from Judge Clay Land for filing the very motion Rhodes says Taitz was not authorized to file. Land gave Taitz until October 2 to respond and explain why she shouldn't be fined.

Meanwhile, in a sign Taitz may be trying to marshal financial support ahead of the hefty fine, she posted a blank entry with a PayPal donate button at the top of her blog yesterday.

Join the Conversation!

60 comments

Recommend Recommend (7)

September 21, 2009 11:13 AM   

I suppose I have to give some credit to the Army doctor for sucking it up fulfilling her duty, though I'm not inclined to believe that she had "no idea" Taitz was pursuing a pretty wacky course (er, "political conjecture") in the case.

One thing is for sure- if the California bar decides that there's enough grounds here to hold a disciplinary hearing against Taitz, the hearing officer's decision is going to be hilarious.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

EH

user-pic

September 21, 2009 11:19 AM    in reply to KilgoreTrout XL

It doesn't sound like there was any sucking up to be done. Reads to me more like party-chatter that Orly overheard, said "oh, I can find out for you," and then ran with it. At least, I wouldn't be surprised.

Furthermore, I imagine Ms. Rhodes has an abiding interest in not having people spit in her food at the mess hall in Iraq, so she's certainly motivated to save some face here, eat some crow, and not look like so much of a nut to her new coworkers. Scapegoating Orly would be the classic approach to doing that.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 11:57 AM    in reply to EH

I agree with EH. I'll bet Ms. Rhodes decided she needed to distance herself from Taitz after she realized she was going to have to fulfill her duty in Iraq for fear of being fragged. Not conscience but self interest. I still give her credit for going, if she does go.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 12:49 PM    in reply to millebornes

Best part? From what she has said on her blog, it sounds like Orly is going to try and dump the fine in her legal bill to Captain Rhoades. This is so awesome to watch. So much crazy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 9:47 PM    in reply to Gopherit

Judges can, and frequently do, accompany sanction orders with a provision that the lawyer is to pay the sanction out of his own pocket, and not bill the client for it. I'd put the chances of Judge Land neglecting that little detail at somewhere between none and less than that.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 12:56 PM    in reply to EH

Reads to me more like party-chatter that Orly overheard, said "oh, I can find out for you," and then ran with it.

Well THAT is complete bullshit. Rhodes went in with full knowledge and got scared when the reality hit.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 1:16 PM    in reply to Karl the Marxist

Agreed. Apparently she didn't realize she'd bought into a bunch of lunatic horseshit until she read some sane and reasoned critiques of it -- especially as concerns Oily Tits.

One wonders what sort of undergraduate education the doctor got, in view of her lack of critical faculties.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 2:14 PM    in reply to JNagarya

Actually, I suspect this (punitive articles of the UCMJ)may have had something to do with it:

885. ART. 85. DESERTION (a) Any member of the armed forces who-- (1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently; (2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or (3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another on of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States; is guilty of desertion. (b) Any commissioned officer of the armed forces who, after tender of his resignation and before notice of its acceptance, quits his post or proper duties without leave and with intent to remain away therefrom permanently is guilty of desertion. (c) Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.

866. ART. 86. ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE
Any member of the armed forces who, without authority--
(1) fails to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed;
(2) goes from that place; or
(3) absents himself or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty at which he is required to be at the time prescribed; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

887. ART. 87. MISSING MOVEMENT
Any person subject to this chapter who through neglect or design misses the movement of a ship, aircraft, or unit with which he is required in the course of duty to move shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

888. ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

* * *

892. ART. 92. FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION
Any person subject to this chapter who--
(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;
shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

* * *

933. ART. 133. CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN
Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

934. ART. 134. GENERAL ARTICLE
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.

She'll be damn lucky if there's not a court-martial waiting for her at the end of her rotation, even after firing Orly. They take this stuff seriously in the Army. Why? Because of these two articles:

880. ART. 80. ATTEMPTS (a) An act, done with specific intent to commit an offense under this chapter, amounting to more than mere preparation and tending, even though failing, to effect its commission, is an attempt to commit that offense. (b) Any person subject to this chapter who attempts to commit any offense punishable by this chapter shall be punished as a court-martial may direct, unless otherwise specifically prescribed. (c) Any person subject to this chapter may be convicted of an attempt to commit an offense although it appears on the trial that the offense was consummated.

881. ART. 81. CONSPIRACY
Any person subject to this chapter who conspires with any other person to commit an offense under this chapter shall, if one or more of the conspirators does an act to effect the object of the conspiracy, be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 10:56 AM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

Thanks, NC. Very important info.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 11:16 AM   

Orly's toast. I'm surprised she hasn't already been disbarred.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 11:23 AM    in reply to magster

Idunno. I think the setup is for a martyrdom claim. There will be rumors of secret pressure on Rhodes, or that Rhodes was an ACORN plant, and the federal judiciary will get held up by nutbags as part of the conspiracy. (Which worked so well and nonviolently for the militia folks.)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 11:30 AM    in reply to magster

christ, I didn't know she was barred in the first place. I thought she was just some nut with a mail-order law degree, but I guess you have to be admitted to the bar in order to represent anyone but yourself in court.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 1:57 PM    in reply to rynato

In California apparently all that is required to be accepted by the Bar is a mail-order law school degree and passing the bar exam.

In fact, California is one of a few states that does not even require a mail order law school degree. You can still "Read the Law", take and pass the bar exam, and become a practicing attorney in California.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 2:09 PM    in reply to Richardxx

Not quite true. You need to get a degree from an unaccredited law school but also need to pass the Baby bar after one year of law schol). Only 20% pass the baby bar and the pass rate of the real bar exam for graduates on unaccredited law schools is about 20% as well. You can also "read the law" which is basically apprenticing yourself to a lawyer who teaches you. The requirements for the latter are actually quite stringent and only a couple people a year try that. Taitz beat the odds in passing the bar exam after attending an unaccredited school

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 9:50 PM    in reply to Richardxx

Also, can I just add that passing the California bar exam does not belong in a sentence that starts "all that is required." Take it from one who has taken it: it's hard. Ms. Taitz apparently managed to pass it, and that means she's not a complete moron. Nuts, sure. But passing the California bar is a significant achievement and shouldn't be downplayed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 11:21 AM   

I think Orly could be in a lot more trouble if the complaintant said she never wanted to fight her deployment to begin with. If there was no complaint why was one filed to begin with?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 4:09 PM    in reply to Libertine

I think the original declaration by the captain objected to deployment (at least, that's what the court opinion said) so it appears that the captain is changing her story. Of course, she understood that proceeding with the case would subject her to sanctions and very possibly impact her military career.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 11:31 AM   

Looks like Rhodes is also now a part of the traitorous conspiracy to cover up the truth about Obama's place of birth.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 11:32 AM   

Did you guys follow the link to Orly's site?

What kind of fucking pompous ass prominently attaches, 'Esquire' to their name? Holy crap.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 11:42 AM    in reply to rynato

...adding, she is entitled to do so, but frankly I almost never hear of any other attorney doing so.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 11:45 AM    in reply to rynato

christ it's even better (worse) than that; "Doctor" Orly Taitz "Esquire".

Well, then, since she is such an accomplished and well-titled person, surely her birther claims are completely rational and totally not batshit crazy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

user-pic

September 21, 2009 4:17 PM    in reply to rynato

The multi-talented Orly has a dental practice, too, doncha know?

Maybe Rhodes went in for a dental exam, and Dr. Taitz took some garbled answers to questions that Rhodes gave while her mouth was being probed with a dental pick as consent to proceed with a lawsuit...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 11:59 AM    in reply to rynato

Every attorney I've ever worked with always puts it on their business card.

I'm not sure the OP knew it was a common designation for Attorney.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 12:18 PM    in reply to ohyeathatsright

I DO know that.

I never see it used in the real world.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 12:43 PM    in reply to ohyeathatsright

I'm a lawyer for a pretty posh D.C. firm. The cards for the firm's hundreds of attorneys follow a standard format, and nowhere on my card does the word "esquire" appear.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 1:46 PM    in reply to Henrietta

Some lawyers think its prestigious (or, possibly believe they're either knights-in-training or owners of large tracts of land in England worked by tenants) and some think it's just pretensious and stupid.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 9:53 PM    in reply to ohyeathatsright

I don't know anyone who uses "Esq." in reference to himself. It's common practice to use it in reference to other lawyers, though. If I'm writing a business letter to another lawyer, I'll generally use "Esq." on the envelope and the inside address on the letter, but nowhere else.

It's a pretty small point to pick on her over, though, considering the multiplicity of much more insane stuff available to comment on.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 11:46 AM    in reply to rynato

A megalomaniac...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

EH

user-pic

September 21, 2009 12:42 PM    in reply to rynato

It's quite common in English-speaking parts of the world that aren't the United States.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 11:39 AM   

The reason that she's filing it is because under rule 11, the court can sanction the client as well. By distancing herself from the motion for reconsideration (or emergency deployment or whatever-taitz is an idiot), the client is getting out of the crosshairs and letting Orly float on the iceberg alone.

(Howzzat for a mixed metaphor?)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 11:54 AM    in reply to rumpole

Hell, mix 'em up. I think that Ms Taitz's days as a lawyer are numbered, even in California. I don't believe you can practice anywhere else with an on-line law degree.

I imagine the only thing worse than her legal representations would be having dental work done by an obviously deranged dentist.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

user-pic

September 21, 2009 4:21 PM    in reply to serge

Yeah, I am getting Sweeney Todd-like vibes from this chick...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 12:16 PM    in reply to rumpole

Which is why any good lawyer will always get everything in writing.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 11:50 AM   

I remember reading that Taitz had brought an earlier suit on behalf of Rhodes in a different venue, which that judge had also dismissed. One of the requirements of obtaining a temporary restraining order is that there has been no prior request for the same relief (this requirement exists to prevent "forum shopping," i.e., looking around for a more sympathetic judge).

If it is true that there was a prior dismissal in another court, then we can conclude that Taitz's ethical violation is that much greater. We can also conclude that either: (a) Rhodes didn't know about the second filing, or (b) she knew about it and her recent letter renouncing Taitz reflects her changed mind about her case.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 11:51 AM   

Looks like there's going to be an Oily Taint on the legal waters after she crashes and burns.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 11:57 AM   

TPM, please do something about that photo! Oh, the humanity!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 12:07 PM    in reply to Ann Arbor

Looks like she got a Venus Flytrap planted above her eyes.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 12:16 PM    in reply to Ann Arbor

At least it's just a silent photo, gruesome admittedly. She could be speaking, on the other hand, something altogether excruciating.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 12:19 PM    in reply to serge

Agreed 1000%. I've tried to listen to this woman but she doesn't speak so much as she rambles and filibusters.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 1:02 PM    in reply to Ann Arbor

Why, that is how retired sex workers look.

I objected to the slightly reclined, gauzy looking head shot that looked like something you might see while under the influence of too much Ambien.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 12:05 PM   

Well Orly is such a transparent Ann Coulter wannabe that I sort of hope the judge denies her the martyrdom she obviously desires. If he fines her, she'll appeal, get more attention and raise more money.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 2:49 PM    in reply to Aatos

And her leaching money out of the pockes of crazy right-wingers is bad how exactly?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 3:56 PM    in reply to Lestatdelc

Never, before this moment, did I think it was possible to say something that I thought was too unfair to Ann Coulter.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 12:05 PM   

How to tell someone has the full crazy?

When even Foxnews stays away from them.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 12:18 PM   

I am looking forward to her reality TV show. She doesn't have one yet, but it's only a matter of time.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 12:50 PM    in reply to rubyxyz

It may be a stretch to use Orly Taitz's name and reality in the same sentence, Ruby. She is not breathing the same air we do.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 12:19 PM   

I don't believe this. This client is a loser. She was in on this whole attack-Obama thing as much as her lawyer was. They're both ultra- anti-Obama people. And, now Rhods realizes that her behavior could lead to disciplinary action and so she's changing her mind. It's really pathetic.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 1:08 PM    in reply to Mateo123

There has to be more to this than a lawyer/client relationship. Maybe it was pillow talk that got the legal actions started and that is the reason there is nothing in writing.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 1:09 PM   

I think this is a guy dressed up as a shiela.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 2:07 PM    in reply to rbe1

Yeah, I agree. Obvious transvestite. What real woman would do that to her eyelashes?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 1:15 PM   

In the birther/deployment suit pending in California, Taitz filed with the court the fraudulent "Kenyan birth certificate" that has been fully debunked as an obvious forgery on its face.

Although she cites the Cal case as her great hope, it is the case that may really get her in deep trouble.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 1:19 PM    in reply to Subliminability

Correction: the case in federal court in California is not a deployment case. It's the challenge filed by Alan Keyes.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 1:41 PM   

Mateo, I understand where you're coming from but it amounts to legal malpractice if a lawyer does NOT inform the client of the possible consequences of losing the case. If Taitz didn't inform Rhodes, she was depriving her client of the chance to choose courses of action and, in the case of Taitz, may be using her client for political purposes rather than serving the client's interests above all else.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 2:38 PM   

Please do not disturb. Orly is in the process of self immolation. Just sit back and watch the show.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 2:47 PM   

I always liked the metaphor of her shooting out word confetti.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 3:50 PM   

Was going to suggest mercury poisoning from her dental history but the usual descriptors of mercury poisoning: "excessive timidity, diffidence, increasing shyness, loss of self-confidence, anxiety, and a desire to remain unobserved and unobtrusive." don't really apply. From here:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1550196&pageindex=1

She's really not that far off from declaring that Obama is secretly one of the lizard people. I seriously wonder if psychiatric intervention is needed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 3:59 PM    in reply to Snig

Yes, but, unfortunately if she's not a danger to herself or others, civil commitment is off the table.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 21, 2009 4:08 PM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

Isn't legal malpractice a danger to others, particularly her clients?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 22, 2009 1:23 PM   

Well if the Army paid for Capt. Rhodes schooling, and chances are they did, she might have figured out that the Army might want the cost of education back if she's refusing to honor her obligations, which I would imagine is easily into six figures.

I smell a lawsuit.

Capt. Rhodes is a doctor. She might be a wingnut, but she is capable of understanding the severity of actions and their implications. Even if this passes over, she has severely hurt her career in the Army. If it doesn't, she could be stripped of her rank and tossed out with something like an other-then-honorable discharge. Her license to practice medicine could be yanked and the Army could still demand reimbursement of her training.

And for the record, if she would have refused to deploy, she would be refusing order from more then Obama. She would have had to refuse orders from her entire chain of command.
-------------------------------------
Orly Taitz was born in Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic. The hypocrisy of her challenging an American is mammoth.

She is Jewish and believes that Obama is Muslim, therefore hell bent on destroying Israel. She also believes that Fox News is partially owned by Saudi Arabia. I suspect this is why Fox hasn't had her on. Birthers loath her for the most part.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

September 28, 2009 11:10 AM    in reply to ScottW

Birthers loathe her? I hadn't seen that. Your source?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on