CITES CONFLICT OF INTEREST ISSUES, WHICH MAKE IT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF RHODES FOR TAITZ TO DEFEND HERSELF AGAINST SANCTIONS ALONE
by John Charlton
(Sept. 26, 2009) — In a stunning display of integrity as an attorney-at-law, Dr. Orly Taitz counsel for Captain Connie Rhodes, M.D., in the case Rhodes vs. MacDonald, has petitioned Judge Clay D. Land, to be dismissed from her duties in the case.
In her Motion to Withdraw as Counsel, Dr. Taitz explains her reasons:
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.
And states her willingness to defend herself against the threat of sanctions:
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.
Small correction. Rhodes’ letter says “I am faxing this letter as was advised by [the clerk].” She only states what the clerk advised. Nowhere does she state who talked to the clerk. My reaction on first seeing this letter, and her wording of this particular sentence, was to wonder who actually spoke to the clerk.
Stunning display of integrity?
Let me ask you why a display of common integrity, be “stunning,” as it might come from Orly Taitz? After all, Rhodes has very clearly canned her, if her fax was authentic.
————-
Mr. Charlton replies: That’s the rub Arlen: if her fax was authentic; its not been authenticated yet, so Taitz’ concession is to be noted as remarkable. I myself am convinced the fax has no legal weight, as it is not notarized; and we know it contains a lie, namely the assertion that Rhodes herself spoke with the clerk. On that basis alone the clerk should never have accepted it; neither did the author, Mr. Parton have power of attorney for Rhodes, for the docket should have indicated that and his signature. It is highly irregular; the court is obviously biased. That makes Taitz’ motion stunning.
BTW, I have long read your site, thanks.