They've got muck; we've got rakes. TPM Muckraker

Taitz: Ex-Client's Letter Renouncing Me In Birther Case May Be A Forgery

Rpvc65bhmtad8ff2ote5
Newscom

In the e-mail to TPMmuckraker (read it in full below), Taitz claims she was acting like any attorney would by not seeking "additional consent" from her client before filing what she refers to as a "Motion for reconsideration." It was actually an emergency request for stay of deployment -- which seems like the kind of thing you'd want to consult an Iraq-bound client about.

As for Rhodes' letter, in which she states her intention to file a bar complaint against her former attorney, Taitz writes:

I don't know if this letter came from her, since she is in Iraq now and the Office -max store from where it came, states that they don't send faxes for customers. The signature on her notarized letter from Kansas and this letter looks different.

Not to go too far down the rabbit hole, but the Rhodes letter, which was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, checks out as far as it can be checked.

In her letter Rhodes said she was "faxing this as was advised by Tim, who works in the District Clerk's office." We called the district office in question, in Columbus, Georgia, and one Tim, who said he could not talk to the press, answered the phone. And as you can see here, the Office Max from which Rhodes faxed the letter is right down the road from that very court office. (We've also left a message for the clerk of the court.)

We asked Taitz who, in her view, would have forged the Rhodes letter, and she wrote back she doesn't have "any more info." And ended by saying, ominously, that "I will have my hands full for the next couple of months" on various Birther actions around the country.

Here's her full response to our request for comment about the Rhodes letter:

I don't know if this letter came from her, since she is in Iraq now and the Office -max store from where it came, states that they don't send faxes for customers. The signature on her notarized letter from Kansas and this letter looks different.
Regardless, whether it is her or not, there is no ground for accusations. She authorized me to proceed with the legal action. Motion for reconsideration is a routine procedure and attorney is not required to get an additional consent from the client. Any attorney will confirm that. That is particularly true in exigent circumstances like these.
It appears Connie was pressured by the military. It appear to be a concerted effort to quash all free speech, particularly any legal challenges to Obama's legitimacy, Attorney Hemenway in DC was threatened with sanctions of $10,000, I was threatened with sanctions. Connie Rhodes was threatened with high costs of litigation to be paid to the Department of Defense and Department of Justice. It is possible that this letter was written to avoid paying high litigation costs.
The most important question is still on the table: why would the judge levy $10,000 in sanctions instead of instructing Obama to produce a real Hospital birth certificate with a name of the hospital name of the doctor and signatures , so we can locate this birthing file? Why go to such extend? The only answer is: that the administration is scared, they know they have nothing to show for except for the piece of JPG garbage that Obama posted on the Internet (no name of the hospital, no name of the doctor).
Well, all good that ends good. This threat of sanctions gives me an opportunity to demand rule 11 discovery and get all of Obama' records through the back door

Orly Taitz DDS Esq

Late Update: Clerk of Court Gregory Leonard tells TPMmuckraker that, while it's up to the judge to assess the legitimacy of the Rhodes letter, he did hear from the Columbus district office, and authorized Rhodes to submit the letter initially by fax because she was en route to Iraq. It has to be followed up by the original letter, he said.