“This case is now a quasi-criminal prosecution of the undersigned attorney,” says a new filing by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. in Rhodes v. MacDonald in Georgia. You know the one that was dismissed with the brightest of judicial flame trails; the one where the Plaintiff, Dr. Connie Rhodes, submitted the notorious Office Max Fax on her way to Iraq, wherein she fired the Birther Queen for filing a Motion to Stay Deployment the day after the case had been dismissed. That would be Document 18, which Orly did her damnedest to behave as if she had heard of only in passing. I guess she is finally admitting the Rhodes letter was not a forgery, eh?
Now Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. announces her intention to break attorney-client privilege. I’ve never heard of this before. I know a client can do it, but an attorney? How Taitz gets to withdraw as counsel from a client who already fired her as counsel is something I don’t understand, as well, but that’s what she’s trying to do.
Highlighting interesting bits:
MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL
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.
SATURDAY, September 26, 2009
Orly Taitz, DDS, Esq.
California Bar ID No. 223433
FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Captain Connie Rhodes, M.D. F.S.
(Gee, unsigned again.)
In Judge Land’s Order to Show Cause:
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.
While the response filed today is supposed to be to the Order to Show Cause why she should not pay the ten thousand bucks for filing a “frivolous” motion, her being fired by Rhodes didn’t enter into that. The Order to Show Cause would have been issued whether Rhodes fired Taitz or not, so I don’t see how anything to do with her being fired by Capt. Rhodes warrants a breakage of the privilege.
Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. is licensed to practice law by the state of California, where Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068 says this:
(e)(1) To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself or herself to preserve the secrets, of his or her client.
Capt. Rhodes may be in a position to file a whopper of a complaint with the California Bar. If she does that, Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. may then be in a position to break the privilege in the course of defending herself with the California Bar against some future disciplinary action:
The duty to honor the secrets and confidences of a client also applies to former clients and only the client can release the attorney from this duty. … Privileged communications do not become discoverable solely because they are related to issues raised in litigation. … However, an attorney may divulge confidential client communications as a “self-defense” in actions brought by the client.
Again, today’s response is to Judge Land’s Order to Show Cause should be related to “issues raised in litigation,” which expressly do not cause privileged communication to become discoverable; and not to “actions brought by the client.”
There is subsection (e)(2), which is interesting:
… an attorney may, but is not required to, reveal confidential information relating to the representation of a client to the extent that the attorney reasonably believes the disclosure is necessary to prevent a criminal act that the attorney reasonably believes is likely to result in death of, or substantial bodily harm to, an individual.
Remember, Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. always says President Obama is out and about murdering witnesses, so she may think linking Documents 17 and 18, the court sanctions and the Rhodes letter, is going to open up for her another shot at spouting her Birfer cause, or having witnesses do so.
Judge Land has shown himself to be very prompt in his rulings, so we may see very soon what he thinks of this latest tactic.
I am very curious about something regarding a different Birther case, Barnett v. Obama in California. Capt. Rhodes was added as a plaintiff in that case on August 20 when Taitz filed a First Amended Motion for Letters Rogatory and Initiation of Discovery. The last I remember hearing about this, the Motion had been returned to Magistrate Judge Nakazato on September 10, after Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. made a crazy ass attack to have him recused from the case.
Early this week with her Preliminary Response to the Government’s Motion to Dismiss, Taitz filed an Exhibit indicating Rhodes might be called as a witness in Barnett v. Obama. Having already alienated two witnesses, Rhodes would make three.
But Rhodes’s status as a plaintiff in Barnett v. Obama has always been unclear to me. As I understand it, you can’t just plop down plaintiffs whenever you feel like it, without formally petitioning the court, and I don’t believe Judge Nakazato has yet ruled on the August 20 Motion, which he has to do before Judge Carter agrees to hear it. But if, for some reason, Rhodes were accepted by the court as a plaintiff in Barnett v. Obama, it makes today’s filing in Rhodes v. MacDonald that much more clueless.
Part of me is tempted to say Connie Rhodes gets what she deserves; she did, after all, of her own free will, get herself into this mess. But there’s another part of me that says, Damn Orly Taitz to Hell, a soldier in Iraq has enough to contend with, without this phony baloney maneuver coming at her.