Letter signed Capt. Connie Rhodes says she never OK'd appeal, says Rhodes will file complaint against attorney Orly Taitz

ariquelmy@ledger-enquirer.comSeptember 19, 2009 

A letter filed Friday and signed Capt. Connie Rhodes, who filed a complaint Sept. 4 in U.S. District Court that sought to stop her deployment to Iraq by arguing that President Barack Obama can’t legitimately hold office, states that she never authorized her attorney to appeal a Wednesday ruling against her.

Additionally, Judge Clay Land — who denied Rhodes’ request and threatened sanctions against her lawyer, Orly Taitz, a national figure in the “birther” movement — states that Taitz has two weeks from Friday to explain why he shouldn’t impose a $10,000 penalty against the California lawyer.

Both Land’s order and the letter came on the heels of a Thursday request from the captain that Land reconsider his Wednesday order against her. In that order, Land called Rhodes’ Sept. 4 complaint “frivolous,” and says Taitz could face sanctions if she ever again filed in his court a similar frivolous action.

In the Friday letter, it states that Rhodes never told Taitz to file for a reconsideration, and that she intends to formally complain about her attorney. “I became aware on last night’s local news cast that a motion to stay my deployment had been entered on my behalf,” the Friday letter to Land states. “I did not authorize this motion to be filed.

“Furthermore, I do not wish for Ms. Taitz to file any future motions or represent me in any way in this court. It is my plan to file a complaint with the California State Bar due to her reprehensible and unprofessional actions,” the letter states.

The letter says that Rhodes is currently deploying to Iraq, and that it’s evident her initial complaint 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.”

In that complaint, Rhodes had argued that some facts point to Obama not being naturalized or possibly an illegal immigrant. She added that she couldn’t in good conscience obey orders that came down a chain of command that started with Obama.

Ruling against her on Wednesday, Land states that Rhodes “has presented no credible evidence and has made no reliable factual allegations to support her unsubstantiated, conclusory allegations and conjecture that President Obama is ineligible to serve as president of the United States. “Unlike in ‘Alice in Wonderland,’ simply saying something is so does not make it so,” Land states.

Rhodes responded Thursday with an emergency request for stay of deployment and request to amend the judgment — a motion the letter states was never authorized by Rhodes. The Thursday motion states 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.”

In his Friday order, Land called Taitz’ motion for reconsideration a “tirade.”

“She continues to file motions that do not address legal issues but that describe the president as a ‘prevaricator,’ allege that the president’s father was ‘disloyal and possibly treacherous’ to the ‘British Crown,’ accuse (Land) of treason, and suggest that the United States District Courts in this Circuit are ‘subservient’ to the ‘illegitimate’ ‘de facto President,’” Land’s Friday order states. “Although the First Amendment may allow plaintiff’s counsel to make these wild accusations on her blog or in her press conferences, the federal courts are reserved for hearing genuine legal disputes and not as a platform for political rhetoric that is disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action.”

Land then states he is considering a penalty of $10,000 against Taitz, and that she has two weeks to explain why he shouldn’t impose it.

Ledger-Enquirer is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service