Something was not right about this, and I have been thinking about it for a few days, then it occurred to me.
You are correct that Orly Taitz did file for reconsideration. She did so quite legally. You said the Captain had fired her, but it fact that was not correct.
We (members of FR) went round and round about the letter faxed from a Kinko’s, as being a fake. In fact, The good captain was in route to her duty station, and a FRIEND had copy/pasted her signature onto a document that HE had typed, and faxed it to the court house clerk, not Orly Taitz. The clerk rejected it, as it did not come from the Captain, and in fact, it was later learned that this cleark had instructed this person to illegally forge this notice. So, when Orly Taitz filed for reconsideration, she had not been notified by the Captain personally, or in writing. The note was admitted as being a fake by the guy who did it, and he said it was suggested to him by the court clerk, and he knew her intentions.
Once the captain got to her duty station, she confirmed with Orly Taitz that she wanted to halt any proceedings on her behalf, at which time, Orly Taitz, filed for the Captain to be removed from the case.
At no time did Orly Taitz misrepresent the Captain, and once notified, removed her.
I see no wrong doing on Orly Taitz part, and in fact it would have been wrong to remover her from the case based on Heresay evidence, or a fake document.
http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2009/09/19/captain-connie-rhodes-fax-letter-to-judge-clay-d-land-september-18-2009-fake-larry-sinclair-sinclair-investigation/
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19905657/RHODES-v-MacDONALD-18-Letter-regarding-from-plaintiff-regarding-withdrawal-of-motion-to-stay-Govuscourtsgamd77605180
You are correct that Orly Taitz did file for reconsideration. She did so quite legally. You said the Captain had fired her, but it fact that was not correctI re-checked and you're right as to timeline. There could have been questions as to whether she had (or needed) instructions from her client to file for reconsideration, but the judge's sanctions order doesn't rely on that-- she was sanctioned for the content of her motion.