Skip to comments.
Judge (Land) refuses to accept Rhodes’ Letter
The Post & Email ^
| Sept. 28, 2009
| John Charlton
Posted on 09/29/2009 3:49:08 AM PDT by Red Steel
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
1
posted on
09/29/2009 3:49:08 AM PDT
by
Red Steel
To: Red Steel
Silly faxes from Kinkos or OfficeMaxes written by ‘acquaintances’ that are sent to courts as genuine articles are for forgers. :^)
2
posted on
09/29/2009 3:53:49 AM PDT
by
Red Steel
To: Red Steel
Silly faxes from Kinkos or OfficeMaxes written by acquaintances that are sent to courts as genuine articles are for forgers. :^) And yet the judge did rely on that very letter in making his decision: "Plaintiffs counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff (Doc. 20). Plaintiff apparently does not object to such withdrawal. (See Doc. 18.)" If the court considers it a forgery then why would it reference it in granting the motion to withdraw?
So has Orly filed her response as to why she shouldn't be sanctioned yet?
To: Non-Sequitur
Well looks who is up in the morning bright eyed and bushy tailed.
4
posted on
09/29/2009 4:06:12 AM PDT
by
Red Steel
To: Red Steel; All
Don't be fooled by N.S.'s moderated tone and language as of late. A schill is a schill, and he knows he's being closely-watched by the moderators. “Thin ice” is an apt description. Judge Land must think his sanction is on thinner ice as well, as his tone and language is more subdued than previous Orders - no subjective or editorial use of the phrase "birther movement" and other obviously colorful language - LOL. This from his most latest Order:
Moreover, the Court notifies counsel that in issuing its show cause sanctions order, the Court did not rely upon the letter sent by Plaintiff purporting to discharge counsel (Doc. 18), nor does the Court intend to rely upon that document in future proceedings regarding sanctions against Plaintiffs counsel. Whether Plaintiff expressly authorized counsel to file the motion for reconsideration is irrelevant to the Courts determination of whether the filing was legally frivolous.
Judge Land must think he's being watched by moderators too - i.e., higher Appeals courts that are apt to throw out his sanction of Orly - seeing him for the activist cool-aid drinking judge he is. |
5
posted on
09/29/2009 4:28:33 AM PDT
by
BP2
(I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
To: Red Steel
Bushy tailed
6
posted on
09/29/2009 4:51:29 AM PDT
by
Red Steel
To: Red Steel
I’m trying to keep up with the information, and what’s posted looks like the judge said he won’t rely on the letter specifically as regards to sanctions, not that he refused to accept the letter. Of course there could be sources in addition to the article that says he refused to accept it or that proper procedures weren’t followed by the clerk. Does anyone know where to find them?
I’m not a lawyer, and would like to see comments from freeper lawyers on this.
To: Red Steel
This post, particularly the heading, is simply
FALSE.
The Court has at least provisionally accepted the letter, pending receipt of the original from Iraq.
In fact, Judge Land granted Taitz's motion
on the basis of Rhodes' letter! Read the actual order, now what someone says that the order says! The actual
ORDER reads as follows:
"Plaintiffs counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff (Doc. 20). Plaintiff apparently does not object to such withdrawal. (See Doc. 18.[RHODES LETTER])." In other words, given that the Rhodes Letter says that she doesn't want Orly acting on her behalf, the Judge has granted the Motion to withdraw. He notes, however, that Orly remains subject to sanctions for filing the Motion to Stay, and that she would remain subject to sanctions whether or not she withdrew as counsel.
8
posted on
09/29/2009 9:12:25 AM PDT
by
Sibre Fan
To: sometime lurker
Im trying to keep up with the information, and whats posted looks like the judge said he wont rely on the letter specifically as regards to sanctions, not that he refused to accept the letter. Of course there could be sources in addition to the article that says he refused to accept it or that proper procedures werent followed by the clerk. Does anyone know where to find them? IANAL either, but your statement is accurate. Land didn't "reject" Rhodes letter -- it's been entered into the Pacer case file. He simply informed Taitz that it's not a factor in his order to show cause that she shouldn't be sanctioned.
There aren't any other sources/documents out there on the letter -- simply this blogger's erroneous interpretation of Land's response to Taitz' motion to withdraw.
9
posted on
09/29/2009 9:27:22 AM PDT
by
browardchad
("Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own fact" - Daniel P Moynihan)
To: sometime lurker
The faxed letter has been tentatively accepted by the court until a genuine letter by Rhodes follows it up. According to a court clerk, it was written by an "acquaintance" on behalf of Rhodes since she was about to deploy to Iraq. The letter most likely expresses her views about withdrawing from the case as far as she wants to take it after the ruling by Land. What I find perplexing and very dubious and completely over-the-top is the wording in the letter. It appears to me that this "acquaintance," who should have been a close friend, took advantage and put extra words in her mouth.
The letter should have been short and sweet like this.
To the Honorable Judge Clay Land,
I am not pursuing further action in my case, Rhodes v. Mcdonalds, and I formally withdrawal from the case. This letter has also been sent to my counsel Orly Taitz informing her of my decision.
Sincerely, Connie Rhodes
She could have written this in 2 minutes and put it in the mail.
That's all that was needed. The stuff in her letter that I'm going to file a complaint against Taitz is very likely hogwash. And it's very telling we haven't heard anything in public about any follow up to her faxed letter. I'll withhold final judgment until all is said about this.
To: Red Steel
YOU go Red Steel ! I say NO MERCY for ‘NS’...king of the ugly trolls !
11
posted on
09/29/2009 12:03:34 PM PDT
by
rocco55
To: Sibre Fan
And yet the judge did rely on that very letter in making his decision: "Plaintiffs counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff (Doc. 20). Plaintiff apparently does not object to such withdrawal. (See Doc. 18.)" If the court considers it a forgery then why would it reference it in granting the motion to withdraw? Notice the word "apparently", indicating some doubt about the matter. Perhaps the judge has some new information giving him further doubts about the letter, after he'd granted the dismissal? Perhaps some communication from Captain Rhodes, now that she should be someone settled in theater?
12
posted on
09/29/2009 3:29:23 PM PDT
by
El Gato
("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
To: El Gato
Notice the word "apparently" [contained in Judge Land's order], indicating some doubt about the matter. Perhaps the judge has some new information giving him further doubts about the letter, after he'd granted the dismissal? Perhaps some communication from Captain Rhodes, now that she should be someone settled in theater?
Perhaps. Or, perhaps as the clerk reportedly said, they took the fax, assuming authenticity, pending receipt of the original expected to be mailed from Iraq. Sometimes, the simple explanation is actually the right one.
To: Red Steel
Obligatory graphic ping!
14
posted on
09/29/2009 3:39:27 PM PDT
by
The Comedian
(Evil can only succeed if good men don't point at it and laugh.)
To: El Gato
Notice the word "apparently", indicating some doubt about the matter. Perhaps the judge has some new information giving him further doubts about the letter, The Judge is just saying that he won't consider the letter when he sanctions Orly, so that she can't try to drag her victim, err, former client, into the sanctions proceedings.
15
posted on
09/29/2009 3:48:11 PM PDT
by
Pilsner
To: Red Steel
" The citizen journalist, Larry Sinclair, has been vindicated; the Rhodes letter will not be considered by the Court; so says Judge Clay D. Land of the Federal Court, Middle Division, Georgia; whose assistant clerk appears to have not observed proper procedures about the admission of documents to the docket. "
What is this all about ? ... the judge's assistant clerk not observing proper procedures ?
Yeah, some here in FR criticize Orly of being incompetent.
16
posted on
09/29/2009 7:02:25 PM PDT
by
American Constitutionalist
(There is no civility in the way the Communist/Marxist want to destroy the USA)
To: American Constitutionalist
Personally, I wouldn’t have taken that letter written by ‘an acquaintance’ of Rhodes If I was the clerk by placing it in the docket. You’ll notice that the signature looks like a cut and paste job, and was faxed a few minutes away from the Court House without notarization. It appears to me this clerk did not follow proper procedure as the author says. However, it’s acting as a placeholder until Rhodes follows up with a genuine letter of her own.
To: The Comedian
18
posted on
09/29/2009 7:41:28 PM PDT
by
mlo
To: Sibre Fan
Perhaps. Or, perhaps as the clerk reportedly said, they took the fax, assuming authenticity, pending receipt of the original expected to be mailed from Iraq. Sometimes, the simple explanation is actually the right one. That's pretty much what I thought "apparently" meant.
I still wonder if anyone has heard from Captain Rhodes herself.
Although I must say, giving any credence, even provisionally, to something that was not expected, as in the court was expecting a filing, from someone you only talked to on the phone, and sent from an anonymously from a public fax service, which was less than 3 miles away from the courthouse, seems kind of irresponsible, IMHO. YMMV.
19
posted on
09/29/2009 8:53:22 PM PDT
by
El Gato
("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
To: BP2
Judge Land must think his sanction is on thinner ice as well, as his tone and language is more subdued than previous Orders - no subjective or editorial use of the phrase "birther movement" and other obviously colorful language - LOL. This from his most latest Order: Yes, no bombastic BS. LoL!
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson