Main Menu

Taitz’s bogus subpoena

Let me present to you a very unsettling sentence:

Orly Taitz is an officer of the court.

It’s true in California, but not in the District of Columbia where she issued a “subpoena” in the case of Taitz v Astrue, to Hawaii Department of Health Director Loretta Fuddy, commanding her to give a deposition at the Health Department offices in Hawaii on June 27, produce the original of Barack Obama’s long-form birth certificate and allow a copy to be made. Here is how Taitz filled out the subpoena:

Click for larger version

So what’s wrong with this picture? Commenter JoZeppy explains:

There are limitations, of course, and Orly’s screws everything up. First off, you have to be authorized to practice either where the deposition is to take place, or where the case is pending. Orly is neither. Secondly, a valid subpoena must be issued under the court where the production and deposition are to take place. Orly issues a DC subpoena for a deposition to take place in Hawaii. Not a valid subpoena. Finally, you cannot require the disclosure of privileged or other protected material, which is what she is requesting.

See: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – Rule 45

Commenter John Reilly adds:

Ms. Dr. Taitz’s subpoena fails for an entirely different reason. In a Federal case, absent a court order, discovery may not be taken before the Rule 26 conference. Rule 26(d). The Rule 26 conference does not occur until the pleadings are finalized. It certainly has not happened yet….

One also wonders what the relevance of the material sought is to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Social Security Administration.

Speaking of errors on the part of Orly Taitz, the government has moved that her complaint be stricken from the record because:

Those filings contain numerous social-security numbers, along with Plaintiff’s allegations as to the individuals to whom those numbers are assigned. “Unless the court orders otherwise, in an electronic or paper filing with the court that contains an individual’s social-security number . . . a party or nonparty making the filing may include only . . . the last four digits of the social-security number.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a)(1). Defendant accordingly moves the Court to strike Plaintiff’s Complaint, First Amended Complaint, and all attached exhibits, and to order Plaintiff to refile the documents under seal or with properly redacted social-security numbers.

I must say it’s pretty stupid of Taitz to serve the Government with an exhibit documenting the illegal use of the Social Security Number Verification System by a certain birther. In any case, the exhibit is all over the Internet now.

Learn more:

, , , , ,

84 Responses to Taitz’s bogus subpoena

  1. avatar
    JoZeppy May 24, 2011 at 10:12 pm #

    And forgive my lack of citation…but all of what I stated can be found in Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civl Procedure.

  2. avatar
    Hawaiiborn May 24, 2011 at 10:19 pm #

    Here:
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule45.htm

    Rule 45. Subpoena
    (a) In General.

    (1) Form and Contents.

    (A) Requirements — In General. Every subpoena must:

    (i) state the court from which it issued;

    (ii) state the title of the action, the court in which it is pending, and its civil-action number;

    (iii) command each person to whom it is directed to do the following at a specified time and place: attend and testify; produce designated documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things in that person’s possession, custody, or control; or permit the inspection of premises; and

    (iv) set out the text of Rule 45(c) and (d).

    (B) Command to Attend a Deposition — Notice of the Recording Method. A subpoena commanding attendance at a deposition must state the method for recording the testimony.

    (C) Combining or Separating a Command to Produce or to Permit Inspection; Specifying the Form for Electronically Stored Information. A command to produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things or to permit the inspection of premises may be included in a subpoena commanding attendance at a deposition, hearing, or trial, or may be set out in a separate subpoena. A subpoena may specify the form or forms in which electronically stored information is to be produced.

    (D) Command to Produce; Included Obligations. A command in a subpoena to produce documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things requires the responding party to permit inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the materials.

    you can view the rest at the link

  3. avatar
    Paul May 24, 2011 at 10:26 pm #

    Oh Lord… she’s just the gift that keeps on giving, int-she…

  4. avatar
    GeorgetownJD May 24, 2011 at 10:29 pm #

    Charlie Brown.

    Football.

    Lucy.

  5. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 24, 2011 at 10:30 pm #

    JoZeppy:
    And forgive my lack of citation…but all of what I stated can be found in Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civl Procedure.

    Thanks for the assist. Article updated with citation.

  6. avatar
    BouquetofRoses May 24, 2011 at 11:01 pm #

    This article definitely answered the email I had sent you. Thanks, Dr. C.

  7. avatar
    JoZeppy May 24, 2011 at 11:02 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Thanks for the assist. Article updated with citation.

    Glad to be of assistance. I feel honoured to be able to contribute.

  8. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett May 24, 2011 at 11:56 pm #

    Speaking of Orly, Oh For Goodness Sake is reporting that Lucas Smith is in jail.

    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=17628

    Hopefully all those weird comments about other posters’ sexual preferences won’t be uttered in real life by him while trying to make new friends.

  9. avatar
    John Reilly May 25, 2011 at 12:03 am #

    Ms. Dr. Taitz’s subpoena fails for an entirely different reason. In a Federal case, absent a court order, discovery may not be taken before the Rule 26 conference. Rule 26(d). The Rule 26 conference does not occur until the pleadings are finalized. It certainly has not happened yet since the government just appeared. Since the government will prevail on its motion to dismiss, Ms. Dr. Taitz will need to re-file. Then the government will move to dismiss on other grounds, such as that her complaint lacks any basis whatsover as she is seeking information exempt from diclosure under FOIA. She will never get to discovery, or to the Rule 26 conference.

    I believe all of his was thoroughly explained to Ms. Dr. Taitz in Judge Carter’s case.

    Apparently civil procedure is not a required course at her law school.

  10. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 25, 2011 at 1:03 am #

    J. Edward Tremlett:
    Speaking of Orly, Oh For Goodness Sake is reporting that Lucas Smith is in jail.

    http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=17628

    I looked up the charge – Arizona Revised Statutes 13-3842 — it’s an extradition warrant from another state.

  11. avatar
    G May 25, 2011 at 1:07 am #

    J. Edward Tremlett: Speaking of Orly, Oh For Goodness Sake is reporting that Lucas Smith is in jail.http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=17628Hopefully all those weird comments about other posters’ sexual preferences won’t be uttered in real life by him while trying to make new friends.

    This wouldn’t be Lucas Smith’s first time in jail, so he probably has a good idea of how to deal with being in that type of situation and get through it.

  12. avatar
    elmo May 25, 2011 at 7:40 am #

    This is hardly the first time that Orly has filed documents with unredacted Social Security numbers. She can no longer claim simple ignorance. She’s doing this on purpose, because her only aim is publicity.

    If that isn’t sanctionable conduct by a lawyer, I don’t know what is.

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 25, 2011 at 8:36 am #

    John Reilly: I believe all of his was thoroughly explained to Ms. Dr. Taitz in Judge Carter’s case.

    Apparently civil procedure is not a required course at her law school.

    Apparently not. On January 17, 2009 Orly posted a note on her old blog: “I am looking for people experienced with subpoenas please call [XXX-XXX-XXXX] in the morning or e-mail “

  14. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 25, 2011 at 8:45 am #

    J. Edward Tremlett: Speaking of Orly, Oh For Goodness Sake is reporting that Lucas Smith is in jail.

    Well unless it’s related to his Obama conspiracy-related activities, it’s no business of mine.

  15. avatar
    El Diablo Negro May 25, 2011 at 8:49 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Apparently not. On January 17, 2009 Orly posted a note on her old blog: “I am looking for people experienced with subpoenas please call [XXX-XXX-XXXX] in the morning or e-mail ”

    Hmmm, I thought lawyers were supposed to be experienced with subpoenas. Go figure.

  16. avatar
    El Diablo Negro May 25, 2011 at 9:03 am #

    Expelliarmus: I looked up the charge – Arizona Revised Statutes 13-3842 — it’s an extradition warrant from another state.

    There is a $10k bond on his head. Must be serious? or is $10k a standard for extradition?

  17. avatar
    Majority Will May 25, 2011 at 9:04 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Apparently not. On January 17, 2009 Orly posted a note on her old blog: “I am looking for people experienced with subpoenas please call [XXX-XXX-XXXX] in the morning or e-mail ”

    And her gardener called?

    Her experience in receiving them for dental and medical malpractice must not have been much help.

    http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=2148

  18. avatar
    Reality Check May 25, 2011 at 10:13 am #

    The subpoena was probably the joke of the day around the DoH office in Honolulu when it showed up in the mail.

  19. avatar
    JoZeppy May 25, 2011 at 10:46 am #

    Well, left the following post on orly’s site. I probably should have supported the unduly burdensome part with some case law…but I have better things to do than find my last motion to quash and see who we cited. We’ll see if it makes it through moderation:

    Sorry Orly, but your subpoena isn’t valid, and even if it was valid on its face, the Court would have to quash it upon motion of Hawaii. Did you even check the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure before sending this off?

    Discovery has not started yet. You cannot take any discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1).

    You issued a Dist. DC subpoena for a deposition/production to take place in Hawaii. A subpoena has to be issued under the District Court for where the deposition/production is to take place. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(2).

    Your subpoena was not issued by the court. You are not admitted to practice before either the D.D.C. nor D. Hawaii, therfore you cannot sign a subpoena. An attorney can only sign a subpoena when they are admitted to practice in that district where the deposition/production are to occur, or in the court with the underlying matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(3).

    Your subpoena is unduly burdensome and can expose you to sanctions, including Hawaii’s attorney fees related to quashing your subpoena. A third party subpoena that requests information that is not relevant to the trial, or reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable evidence is considered unduly burdensome. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1). Your case in DC is over a FOIA request from SSA. Hawaii has nothing to do with social security. Birth certificates are unrelated to request to SSA, because SSA has nothing to do with birth certificates. Your subpoena is not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable information.

    Upon request from Hawaii, the Court is required to quash your subpoena. A court is required to quash a subpoena when the documents requested are privileged or protected. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(C)(3)(iii). Hawaii law prohibits the release of birther certificates to people who do not have a direct tangible interest. That means the documents are “otherwise protected.” The subpoena will be quashed.

  20. avatar
    John Reilly May 25, 2011 at 10:49 am #

    Reality Check’s comments reminds us that we do not know how the subpoena was served; past experience teaches that Ms. Dr. Taitz has no idea how to properly serve legal documents. Absent consent or waiver by the witness, a subpoena may not be served by mail. It should be accompanied by a check for the witness fee. While a subpoena may seek an inspection (think of a subpoena to allow an appraiser to value a home), the issuing party may not compel the subpoenaed party to host the actual deposition. Depositions are usually set at a lawyer’s office; sometimes a witness will offer (foolishly) to allow the deposition to occur on his or her premises, but witnesses are under no obligation to do so.

    I would have thought that such elemental matters would be covered in law school since subpoenas are the bread and butter of trials and civil litigation. I thought perhaps Ms. Dr. Taitz stayed home from school the day the subject was covered, but then I recalled that her law school did not actually require anyone to actually show up.

  21. avatar
    John Reilly May 25, 2011 at 10:55 am #

    Perhaps by now we have identified 12 things wrong with the subpoena, much like one of those “what’s wrong with this picture” puzzles. 12 things wrong. On a one-page form legal document that any lawyer ought to know how to fill out.

  22. avatar
    Thrifty May 25, 2011 at 11:04 am #

    John Reilly: Past experience teaches that Ms. Dr. Taitz has no idea how to properly serve legal documents.

    Isn’t she the same woman who thought “serving papers to the United States Supreme Court” meant “leaving papers with a front desk clerk at a hotel where a Supreme Court Justice was giving a speech”?

    I can’t say I’d do any better than Orly Taitz in trying to pursue legal action. But then again, I’m not claiming to be a lawyer and I’m not pursuing crank conspiracy theories, so it’s okay.

  23. avatar
    Thrifty May 25, 2011 at 11:04 am #

    John Reilly: Perhaps by now we have identified 12 things wrong with the subpoena, much like one of those “what’s wrong with this picture” puzzles. 12 things wrong. On a one-page form legal document that any lawyer ought to know how to fill out.

    We could play a new game. What did Orly get correct?

  24. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett May 25, 2011 at 11:12 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Well unless it’s related to his Obama conspiracy-related activities, it’s no business of mine.

    True, that.

  25. avatar
    The Magic M May 25, 2011 at 11:20 am #

    > I can’t say I’d do any better than Orly Taitz in trying to pursue legal action.

    Since it’s virtually impossible to do worse, even by pure chance you’d do a couple of things better. 😉

    As for myself, I have appeared “pro se” several times in my country and while I’m not familiar with the details of the FRCP in the US, I bet at least after getting things wrong a couple of times I would have learned more than Orly ever did.

    Her problem is she never learns. My theory is she has a condition (sort of like a God complex) that makes it impossible for her to learn anything since that would mean admitting she was wrong in the first place. And she can never admit she was wrong, anywhere, ever.
    So if she really changed her ways to serve a defendant properly, it would mean accepting she was wrong and the court(s) who told her was right – impossible for a birther, even more so for Special Orly.

  26. avatar
    richCares May 25, 2011 at 11:35 am #

    Just finished watching the response to Obama’s speech in Great Britain, an amazing display of respect for our president. Makes one feel proud to be an American. The Usurper rules.

  27. avatar
    richCares May 25, 2011 at 12:40 pm #

    BirfirStanis are really excited as their headlines state:
    “Judge Subpoenas Hawaii Dept, Health: Produce the ORIGINAL OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE!!!!”
    .
    why is it so easy to scam birthers

  28. avatar
    Bob May 25, 2011 at 1:18 pm #

    Taitz’s ineptitude obscures the basic pointlessness of the underlying argument allowing her and her followers to continue with their weird obsession.

  29. avatar
    ellen May 25, 2011 at 1:23 pm #

    Re the “subpoena.’ i thought that they had to be signed by the judge. I cannot see a signature on that document.

  30. avatar
    Thrifty May 25, 2011 at 1:25 pm #

    Supposing by some miracle Taitz were granted exaclty what she wants in regard to the birth certificate. She would be escorted into the offices of the Hawaii Department of Health where this bound volume containing the long form is kept. Then she is presented the book. What exactly are the odds that she would claim an entire forged book had been presented by the Obama conspiracy? After all, it would still name the father’s race as African, and this appears to be the main piece of evidence pointed to, content-wise, that the LFBC is forged.

  31. avatar
    Suranis May 25, 2011 at 1:28 pm #

    richCares:
    BirfirStanis are really excited as their headlines state:
    “Judge Subpoenas Hawaii Dept, Health: Produce the ORIGINAL OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE!!!!”
    .
    why is it so easy to scam birthers

    Its easy to scam people when they desperately want something to be true.

  32. avatar
    vma224 May 25, 2011 at 2:10 pm #

    Birthers think this is a real subpoena, they are all excited over another OMG moment, that makes it OMG moment #123,999. Noiw that’s a lot of failures. How many does it take to convince them?
    That should be AfterBirther

  33. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 25, 2011 at 3:43 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Well unless it’s related to his Obama conspiracy-related activities, it’s no business of mine.

    Well, Mr. Smith has been a semi-regular poster here. It makes sense for us to know why he’s not currently able to post.

    El Diablo Negro: There is a $10k bond on his head. Must be serious? or is $10k a standard for extradition?

    I would think $10K to be very low end for a bond. So to me, that amount suggests that the warrant is for a very low-grade felony. A felony because states usually don’t bother with extradition warrants for misdemeanors — but low end because if it was something really serious (like murder) there would probably be a no-bail warrant.

  34. avatar
    obsolete May 25, 2011 at 3:57 pm #

    Expelliarmus: but low end because if it was something really serious (like murder) there would probably be a no-bail warrant.

    So I should play the Lucas/birther game and post all over the internet:
    Birther Lucas Smith in jail- Murder charges not confirmed

  35. avatar
    Majority Will May 25, 2011 at 4:33 pm #

    obsolete: So I should play the Lucas/birther game and post all over the internet:
    Birther Lucas Smith in jail- Murder charges not confirmed

    Which would immediately prompt rabid counter-claims from gelatinous birtherians that he’s obviously being framed by the DOJ.

  36. avatar
    El Diablo Negro May 25, 2011 at 5:00 pm #

    obsolete: So I should play the Lucas/birther game and post all over the internet:
    Birther Lucas Smith in jail- Murder charges not confirmed

    Just be sure to put in “Satire” or they may try to sue you for defamation.

  37. avatar
    AdrianInEngland May 26, 2011 at 6:57 am #

    Ah, Discovery ™, the Holy Grail of the birthers. “if we could just be granted discovery, we could uncover all of Barry’s secrets”. Unfortunately for them, discovery isnt granted until the case is shown to have at least an iota of merit, none of them have, at least till this point. If you read the freeper comments, they all follow the “any day now, (Corsi, Taitz, etc) will be granted discovery/serve Obama with a citizens grand jury indictment” fantasies, sad, but quaint, really

  38. avatar
    Daniel May 26, 2011 at 4:12 pm #

    Being granted discovery is the worst thing that could happen to Birthers.

  39. avatar
    Thrifty May 26, 2011 at 4:17 pm #

    Daniel: Being granted discovery is the worst thing that could happen to Birthers.

    Why?

  40. avatar
    Daniel May 26, 2011 at 4:29 pm #

    Message returned when attempting to access Orly’s website today….

    “Error establishing a database connection”

    Rather prophetic….

  41. avatar
    Daniel May 26, 2011 at 6:03 pm #

    Thrifty: Daniel: Being granted discovery is the worst thing that could happen to Birthers.

    Why?

    Because there’s nothing to discover.

    So long as Birthers don’t get “discovery” they can flog their shoulda/would/coulda with impunity under the guise of “we just want the truth” fallacy.

    With discovery they will lose one more excuse.

  42. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 26, 2011 at 6:22 pm #

    Daniel: “Error establishing a database connection”

    Stuff like that happens sometimes, but she’s been down a good while. Errors like that can happen if the hosting provider’s database server crashes really bad. I suppose she will be saying tomorrow that she was hacked.

  43. avatar
    Daniel May 26, 2011 at 8:06 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Stuff like that happens sometimes, but she’s been down a good while. Errors like that can happen if the hosting provider’s database server crashes really bad. I suppose she will be saying tomorrow that she was hacked.

    Yeah I know, but it just seems more funny when it happens to Orly.

    Considering how badly she mangles her own website, I’m surprised MySQL hasn’t just proclaimed her a hazard to data integrity and invoked the hidden self-destruct procedure in line 42

  44. avatar
    dunstvangeet May 27, 2011 at 2:50 am #

    And even if a case does get into discovery…

    You first have to prove that the records that you want discovery on actually exist. Then you have to prove that they are relevant. I don’t know of one judge that would actually allow the birthers to go on the fishing expedition that they seem to want in everything.

    My gut says that if they were ever allowed discovery, the only thing that would come of it is the COLB that was released online 3 years ago.

  45. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 27, 2011 at 8:18 am #

    So, does issuing a subpoena in a jurisdiction where one is not licensed to practice constitute practicing law without a license?

    Update: I guess I have answered my own question and the answer is no. The practice of law involves someone doing something for another and Orly is representing herself.

    Here is a compendium of the definition of “practicing law” in the various states:

    http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/cpr/model-def/model_def_statutes.authcheckdam.pdf

    So revised question: is Taitz guilty of impersonating an officer the court? And if so, in what jurisdiction?

  46. avatar
    Bovril May 27, 2011 at 9:47 am #

    “Officer of teh court” is simply Mad Ole Orly’s latest example of Buzz-Word Bingo. She latches onto some legal sounding word or phrase and then pimps it for a month or so…”Misprision of Treason” was a particular favourite of hers for a while as an example.

    To recap Orly’s fail with this “sub-poena”

    Orly took it upon herself to fill in a (outdated) blank sub-poena form. According to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically rule 45, she monumentally screwed the pooch…..again. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule45.htm)

    First, she is not an officer of the court in this situation as she is not authorized to practice either where the deposition is to take place, or where the case is pending (DC and Hawai’i).

    As such, she has no rights, privileges or authorities to raise a legally enforceable sub-poena.

    Next, even assuming she WAS authorized to practice, a sub-poena for discovery could only be raised AFTER she had participated in a Rule 26(d) conference where the pleadings are finalized.

    Third, the sub-poena for discovery has to relate to the case in hand and is not and cannot be used as a general ferreting around fishing expedition. As the case is a FOIA case against the Social Security Administration, the birth certificate in Hawai’i has no probative value.

    Fourth, The government has moved to strike her complaints from the records as, even though she has been told innumerable times by multiple judges, NOT TO ENTER AN UNREDACTED SSN IN HER PLEADINGS, she continues to do so in direct violation of the requirements of the FRCP.

    Fifth, the sub-poena, even if valid (not) and raised by a legitimate entity (not) and relevant to the case in hand (not) and not under motion to strike STILL cannot be used to disclose privileged or protected information.

    Oh and this all presumes that she actually served the damn thing correctly and legally, something she has singularly failed to do in almost all her multiple cases to date.

  47. avatar
    foreigner May 29, 2011 at 10:18 pm #

    birther-ridiculers are so predictable.
    They try to find some formal errors so to delay the process of figuring out the truth.
    Which they claim is that the certificate is genuine, but mustn’t be examined
    and proved for some undisclosed reason.
    Fact is that the Obama campaign did produce a certificate that does not
    stand the requirements of proof as accepted e.g. by Courts.
    Oops. Didn’t they know that ? Can that error be corrected ?
    The way how it could be done is demonstrated by the birthers,
    so now they know it.
    Will they do it, can’t they do it or don’t they want to do it ?
    If they can’t then, how could they claim the produced certificate is genuine
    without telling about the problems with it ?
    If they don’t want to, then why ? If not there are some embarrassing details whose
    disclosure must still be delayed until the next election.
    Or is the whole issue just only being used by the birther-ridiculers to build traps,
    so to discredit and ridicule their opponents ?
    Not that I think it would/should matter where he was born for his
    suitability and loyality as president.Just how this is being handled in USA
    by “birthers” and “birther-ridiculers”, shows something (negative) about the
    credibility of the Country and its president.

  48. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 29, 2011 at 10:35 pm #

    foreigner:
    birther-ridiculers are so predictable.

    Fact is that the Obama campaign did produce a certificate that does not
    stand the requirements of proof as accepted e.g. by Courts.
    Oops. Didn’t they know that ? …

    No, I didn’t know that and since you didn’t explain your comment, I still don’t. I’ve been here for 2 1/2 years, and I don’t know of any support for this claim, but feel free to enlighten me.

    HOWEVER, comments about the birth certificate don’t belong here on the Taitz subpoena article, so please put them here:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/05/the-occasional-open-thread-searching-for-mr-goodbirther/

  49. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 29, 2011 at 10:42 pm #

    No response published by the court on the Motion to Strike as of just now.

  50. avatar
    Daniel May 30, 2011 at 12:01 am #

    foreigner: Fact is that the Obama campaign did produce a certificate that does not
    stand the requirements of proof as accepted e.g. by Courts.
    Oops. Didn’t they know that ?

    Obama’s COLB, along with every COLB issued by the state of Hawaii, contains the following statement from the State oif Hawaii…. “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.”

    Oops, didn’t you know that?

    Fail birther is fail;.

  51. avatar
    Benji Franklin May 30, 2011 at 12:09 am #

    Doc,
    You asked –
    “So revised question: is Taitz guilty of impersonating an officer the court? And if so, in what
    jurisdiction?”

    In Orly’s case, getting someone with the constitution of a dentist to successfully impersonate and officer of the court, is like pulling teeth.

    BenjiFranklin

  52. avatar
    foreigner May 30, 2011 at 5:37 am #

    > Obama’s COLB, along with every COLB issued by the state of Hawaii, contains the following
    > statement from the State oif Hawaii…. “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact
    > of birth in any court proceeding.”
    > Oops, didn’t you know that? Fail birther is fail;.

    Hawaii DOH _itself_ is being suspected of fraud here and is the subject of the subpoena,
    if/when Taitz or others get it correctly.

    ———————————————————————–

    >> Fact is that the Obama campaign did produce a certificate that does not
    >> stand the requirements of proof as accepted e.g. by Courts.
    >> Oops. Didn’t they know that ? …
    >
    > No, I didn’t know that and since you didn’t explain your comment, I still don’t.
    > I’ve been here for 2 1/2 years, and I don’t know of any support for this claim,
    > but feel free to enlighten me.

    in a process about a possibly fake document you (obviously) need the original
    examined by the Court or an certification by an independent notary.
    That document with the layers is obviously not sufficient to prove the claim as you
    can see from the reactions. It would have been easy to do that (proof)
    by the Obama-campaign. They (Obama+Hawaii DOH) could also have copied it
    without the layers. They decided not to do it and even now that they should be
    aware of the critics and concerns, they didn’t (yet) do it.

    > HOWEVER, comments about the birth certificate don’t belong here on the Taitz subpoena
    > article, so please put them here:
    > http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/05/the-occasional-open-thread-searching-for-mr-goodbirther/

    I think it belongs here, but thanks for the link.

  53. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 30, 2011 at 7:38 am #

    foreigner: in a process about a possibly fake document you (obviously) need the original
    examined by the Court or an certification by an independent notary.

    OK, I see what you are getting at. However Obama allowed reporters to look at and handle the original documents in the case of both birth certificates he produced. Obviously not every American can individually look at the originals; however, our press representatives have looked at them and reported on seeing them and handling them and verified the seals.

    Do you want to cite a court rule that requires: ” certification by an independent notary?” I don’t even know what that means.

    It is true that Obama’s documents have not appeared in court; no court has ever asked for them, but that is not equivalent to what you are saying, that they don’t meet the “standards of proof as accepted…by courts.”

    Since you are a foreigner, perhaps you are not familiar with the rules of evidence in the United States. Read more here:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/

    and particularly Rule 803(8) and 803(9).

  54. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 30, 2011 at 7:43 am #

    foreigner: Hawaii DOH _itself_ is being suspected of fraud here and is the subject of the subpoena, if/when Taitz or others get it correctly.

    All sorts of lunatic ideas are suspected by people, but that doesn’t equate to the ability bring a lawsuit. In US Federal Court, there are very specific rules about what cases can be brought and what evidence may be subpoenaed. Since Taitz v Azure is a case about whether the Government is allowed and required to release Social Security records on a living person, nothing about Obama’s eligibility or Hawaii’s integrity has any relevance to the case, so Taitz will never get her subpoena right because it is excluded from the start by the complaint she brought.

    Hypothetically some lawsuit might be brought someday in which the birth certificate might be presented; however, according to our rules the document which Obama showed to the press meets the standard. That document could be challenged, but the cranks who make YouTube videos are not qualified to give “expert testimony” and would not withstand cross-examination if they did.

  55. avatar
    Bovril May 30, 2011 at 8:30 am #

    Doc,

    I bet if you check “foreigner” IP address you will find a US location…….

    As for the word salad he/she/it vomits forth, lets see shall we

    Both documents the “short form” and the “longer form” are both sufficient in law for all legal purposes, such as applying for a passport, demonstrating citizenship etc.

    Both documents are legally self certifying and as per the Constitution are held as good to go in all US states (and DC).

    Neither document has any matters, items or issues that call ANY of the information in doubt

    Betting that Mad Ole Orly will EVER get a legal filing right is akin to waiting for a double inverted rainbow, statistically possible but vanishingly small in probability

    In the USA, there is (a) the presumption of innocence and (b) the burden of proof lies with the opposing party.

    You, as with all Birfoons, start with a whine without foundation, link it in a self sustaining mastubatory circle with fellow failures to come up with a fantasy with no basis in reality then squeal that everyone is “in on it”.

    The “Document with layers” is a figment of Birfoons fetid imagination, there is a PAPER document that meets all requirements and then there is a SCAN, which Birfoons wet themselves over, that has no legal standing but simply a way in which the mass populance can, if they want to view it.

    I bet you’re one of those sad individuals who posted that the act of blanking out the serial number in the original short form image somehow miraculously invalidated the paper original, aren’t you.

  56. avatar
    foreigner May 30, 2011 at 8:31 am #

    OK, I see what you are getting at. However Obama allowed reporters to look at and handle the original documents in the case of both birth certificates he produced. Obviously not every American can individually look at the originals; however, our press representatives have looked at them and reported on seeing them and handling them and verified the seals.

    I’m not aware that reporters did see the original. If they did, there should be a photograph of the original ??
    As I understood the original never left Hawaii and reporters only saw copies.
    Else the analyses of the graphic experts and WND claiming it’s a forgery were meaningless.

    The linked American Legalese and the context is a bit hard to understand for me,
    Maybe you mean “proof of birth” as in proving one’s identity in a job application or such.
    I feel that the requirements are different (from what I saw about US-justice on TV etc.)
    when the suspicion is : >forgery of the very document, that shall proof something That document could be challenged

    and it had been challenged. To me it looks as 1 for the challengers and 0 for the defendents
    at the moment. While the White House remains silent.

  57. avatar
    foreigner May 30, 2011 at 8:36 am #

    ahh, i checked
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orly_Taitz
    pancake painting
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7ba9KRIIik
    she may have no good arguments and look silly
    but that doesn’t prove she’s wrong

  58. avatar
    Suranis May 30, 2011 at 8:48 am #

    dunstvangeet: And even if a case does get into discovery…

    You first have to prove that the records that you want discovery on actually exist

    Well thats easy. All they have to so is present the 2 BCs Obama has presented which document those vital records exist.

    The ones they claim are forged.

    Oh, right.

  59. avatar
    Scientist May 30, 2011 at 8:54 am #

    foreigner: I’m not aware that reporters did see the original. If they did, there should be a photograph of the original ??
    As I understood the original never left Hawaii and reporters only saw copies.

    Reporters have seen the paper biirth certificate and have shown photos they took of it (Savannnah Guthrie for one). That piece of paper was directly photocopied from the original in the presence of several officials, including the Director of Vital Records.

    There is simply no legal precedent that I am aware of whereby a birth certifiicate that the issuing authority stands behind can be challenged. It’s the equivalent of claiming that a $100 that the Federal Reserve says it issued is counterfeit. You will simply get nowhere with that, not just in court, but at any bank.

    Why do you find the claim that Barack Obama was born where his parents lived, where the maternal grandparents who rasied him lived, where there are good hospitals, etc. so hard to believe that you need totally unprecedented levels of proof? It’s the other crazy made-up stories about traveling back and forth to some third world country in the midst of an independence struggle that would need extraordinary proof.

  60. avatar
    Scientist May 30, 2011 at 8:55 am #

    foreigner: she may have no good arguments and look silly
    but that doesn’t prove she’s wrong

    Her looks don’t prove she’s wrong, but where I come from, no good arguments = wrong

  61. avatar
    foreigner May 30, 2011 at 9:40 am #

    > Reporters have seen the paper biirth certificate and have shown photos they took of it
    > (Savannnah Guthrie for one).

    I can’t find it with these keywords. Instead I found what Obama said:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA0FBbgRZyQ
    which doesn’t make sense to me. Addressing the issue directly is much easier
    then the ridiculing and dismissing strategy. It may be not an important (and I think
    he should be president -cause elected- even if born elsewhere) in itself, but
    Obama’s credibility and that of USA is at stake here.

    > That piece of paper was directly photocopied from the original in the presence of several
    > officials, including the Director of Vital Records.

    so, where did the layers come into it ? It is accepted even by anti-birthers AFAIK
    that the document at the White House webpage was computer-edited.
    Is there any non-edited document available ?

    Checking the eligibility of the president is somehow on a higher level than issuing
    a passport or such and justifies a little (not much) forensic work, don’t you think ?
    This could be verified by an independent observer (a birther) who just only may
    confirm the birth-truth, not any other possibly embarrassing details.

    Why may Taitz not see it ?

  62. avatar
    foreigner May 30, 2011 at 9:42 am #

    scientist, “no good arguments” does just mean : undecided.
    Little or no evidence for the issue but no evidence for the opposite either. .
    That’s how science goes.

  63. avatar
    Majority Will May 30, 2011 at 10:05 am #

    foreigner:
    scientist, “no good arguments” does just mean : undecided.
    Little or no evidence for the issue but no evidence for the opposite either. .
    That’s how science goes.

    That doesn’t make any sense. What are you hiding?

  64. avatar
    Majority Will May 30, 2011 at 10:07 am #

    foreigner:
    > Reporters have seen the paper biirth certificate and have shown photos they took of it> (Savannnah Guthrie for one).

    I can’t find it with these keywords. Instead I found what Obama said:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA0FBbgRZyQ
    which doesn’t make sense to me. Addressing the issue directly is much easier
    then the ridiculing and dismissing strategy. It may be not an important (and I think
    he should be president -cause elected- even if born elsewhere) in itself, but
    Obama’s credibility and that of USA is at stake here.

    > That piece of paper was directly photocopied from the original in the presence of several> officials, including the Director of Vital Records.

    so, where did the layers come into it ? It is accepted even by anti-birthers AFAIK
    that the document at the White House webpage was computer-edited.
    Is there any non-edited document available ?

    Checking the eligibility of the president is somehow on a higher level than issuing
    a passport or such and justifies a little (not much) forensic work, don’t you think ?
    This could be verified by an independent observer (a birther) who just only may
    confirm the birth-truth, not any other possibly embarrassing details.

    Why may Taitz not see it ?

    Why do you haves such utter disrespect for our laws?

    What are you hiding?

  65. avatar
    Bovril May 30, 2011 at 10:18 am #

    What part of PAPER and SCAN don’t you get Muppet?

    Paper = Original
    Scan = Not original

    Paper = Legal document
    Scan = Not a legal doument

    You can whine (which you do so very well) as much as you like, the FACT is that the President is the President, remains the President and you and your Birfoon buddies can fantasize about “layers” to the cows come home and not make one iota of difference.

    Sucks to be so terminally stupid as a Birfoon.

  66. avatar
    Suranis May 30, 2011 at 10:38 am #

    foreigner: > Reporters have seen the paper biirth certificate and have shown photos they took of it
    > (Savannnah Guthrie for one).

    I can’t find it with these keywords

    http://www.google.ie/search?q=Savannnah+Guthrie+birth+certificate+photos&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=X7O&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=X&ei=6KrjTZDGMNSahQe6_u3pBw&ved=0CBwQBSgA&q=Savannah+Guthrie+birth+certificate+photos&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=21b05381cd9380cd&biw=1073&bih=451

    Its the top link. All I did was google “Savannah Guthrie birth certificate photos.”

    I know that’s a complicated thought process to search for those words, considering we were talking about Savannah Guthrie’s birth certificate photos, but I like being helpful.

    I’m glad i could help.

  67. avatar
    Suranis May 30, 2011 at 10:45 am #

    foreigner: Why may Taitz not see it ?

    Because Orly taitz is not Barack Obama. nor anyone else alowwed to view the record under Hawaiin law

    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol06_ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.htm

    (b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in a public health statistics record:

    (1) The registrant;

    (2) The spouse of the registrant;

    (3) A parent of the registrant;

    (4) A descendant of the registrant;

    (5) A person having a common ancestor with the registrant;

    (6) A legal guardian of the registrant;

    (7) A person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant;

    (8) A personal representative of the registrant’s estate;

    (9) A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;

    (10) Adoptive parents who have filed a petition for adoption and who need to determine the death of one or more of the prospective adopted child’s natural or legal parents;

    (11) A person who needs to determine the marital status of a former spouse in order to determine the payment of alimony;

    (12) A person who needs to determine the death of a nonrelated co-owner of property purchased under a joint tenancy agreement; and

    (13) A person who needs a death certificate for the determination of payments under a credit insurance policy

    Taitz is none of the above.

    And remember Taitz has twice ran to the courts with obviously faked Birth certs from Kenya without bothering to check if they are accurate or not, so her record as a document analyst is about on a level with my record in knitting.

  68. avatar
    Suranis May 30, 2011 at 10:48 am #

    Oh and before you say that Law was put there for barack Obala, that law was enacted in 1941 and its last amendment was in 2001.

    (Sorry for the multiple posts doc)

  69. avatar
    Scientist May 30, 2011 at 12:59 pm #

    foreigner: scientist, “no good arguments” does just mean : undecided.
    Little or no evidence for the issue but no evidence for the opposite either. .
    That’s how science goes.

    Really??? No evidence for the opposite?? And that’s how science goes??? I guess I’ve wasted the last 30 years or so…

    foreigner: I can’t find it with these keywords.

    I note that you were directed to Savannah Guthrie’s photos, so i won’t repeat the link.

    foreigner: so, where did the layers come into it ? It is accepted even by anti-birthers AFAIK
    that the document at the White House webpage was computer-edited

    It’s not computer ediited and I don’t know anyone credible who says it is. You have to use some software to process an image, just as you use software to turn music into an mp3 file. Those who have seen the paper and the pdf have seen no differences. The information on the paper and the pdf is the same and it’s the informattion that matters.

    foreigner: Checking the eligibility of the president is somehow on a higher level than issuing
    a passport or such and justifies a little (not much) forensic work, don’t you think ?

    Curiously enough, the US managed to survive 42 previous Presidents over 220 years without a lick of forensic work on any of them.

    Let me give you a primer on the basics of scientifiic experimentation. Valid experiments require controls; if you treat 100 people with a drug and 10 get better you can conclude nothing unless you have a placebo-treated group in which only 2 got better. Similarly if a pdf document has layers, that tells you nothing usless you examine other pdf documents. At which point, the birther complaints fell apart.

    Now where am I going? Let’s say you had access to the original record in Honolulu and wanted to do orensic analysis. The only meaningful study would require validating your methodology against a set of known controls. Where would one find known controls for 1961 Hawaiiian birth certificates-ones prepared on the same paper with the same typewriters, signed byy the same doctors and registrars? Well, the only validated source of Hawaiian birth certificates is the Hawaiian DOH, who have already said that Obama’s is a valid Hawaiian birth certificate. See the problem??

  70. avatar
    foreigner May 30, 2011 at 1:49 pm #

    thanks, I found the photos
    and was linked to
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/05/be-sealed/#comments
    (closed for comments now ?)

    thanks to Retired Intelligence Officer who remained factual
    and ontrack and makes sense to investigate the truth despite all these
    attacks,insults supposedly intened to be “funny” here.
    That’s America.
    (gets better on May.15)

    Dr.Conspiracy, who seems to be running this blog comes in next,
    some good info and not so many insults as the others.

    Just my opinion. Now guess, what reaction I expect on this …

    You’ll have to ask these questions so they can get an answer.

    I’d like to hear RIO’s summary, what he thinks now after 2.5 weeks

    seems to me that most people here had been either Dem or Rep
    before and did choose their opinon on this birther issue accordingly.
    Right ?

  71. avatar
    foreigner May 30, 2011 at 1:51 pm #

    oops, I should have posted that to the open thread.

    I meant
    no good arguments = failed proof = no proof of the opposite

  72. avatar
    Scientist May 30, 2011 at 2:09 pm #

    foreigner: seems to me that most people here had been either Dem or Rep
    before and did choose their opinon on this birther issue accordingly.
    Right ?

    I thought McCain was eligible and I think Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio are too. I would be just as dismissive of foolish arguments directed in theiir direction as i would of those directed at Obama.

  73. avatar
    Daniel May 30, 2011 at 5:55 pm #

    foreigner: and it had been challenged. To me it looks as 1 for the challengers and 0 for the defendents

    The document has never been successfully challenged in the legal sense.

    “Challenged” in the legal sense doesn’t mean some redneck decided he didn’t like the look of it.

    Challeneged in the legal sense involves substantive objective evidence that the document was not issued and certified by the issuing authority.

    The only thing that Birthers have ever managed to bring forward is a long list of woulda/shoulda/coulda… which is not in any sense objective evidence.

  74. avatar
    Judge Mental May 30, 2011 at 6:32 pm #

    foreigner: thanks, I found the photosand was linked tohttp://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/05/be-sealed/#comments(closed for comments now ?)thanks to Retired Intelligence Officer who remained factualand ontrack and makes sense to investigate the truth despite all theseattacks,insults supposedly intened to be “funny” here.That’s America.(gets better on May.15)Dr.Conspiracy, who seems to be running this blog comes in next,some good info and not so many insults as the others.Just my opinion. Now guess, what reaction I expect on this …You’ll have to ask these questions so they can get an answer.I’d like to hear RIO’s summary, what he thinks now after 2.5 weeksseems to me that most people here had been either Dem or Repbefore and did choose their opinon on this birther issue accordingly.Right ?

    Nothing Scientist has recently tried to impart to you about how to determine reliable results has sunk in has it?

    It should be obvious to you that no contributor on here can actually know with confidence whether most contributors on here chose their ‘side’ on the birther issue on mainly party political lines or for other reasons.

    For the record I chose mine after objective analysis of the available information and evidence. Zero party political influence whatsoever. I am certainly far more conservative than liberal in my political outlook.

  75. avatar
    Daniel May 30, 2011 at 6:43 pm #

    foreigner: seems to me that most people here had been either Dem or Rep
    before and did choose their opinon on this birther issue accordingly.
    Right ?

    I am a registered Republican, and like most Republicans, I am against birthers both on the basis of the value I place on honesty and integrity, and the fact that birthers are dragging down the Republican party by making it seem like Republicans are a party of nutcases.

    Birthers are handing the next election to Obama on a platter, and I don’t like that.

  76. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 30, 2011 at 6:55 pm #

    foreigner: (closed for comments now ?)

    Comments automatically close after 14 days.

  77. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 30, 2011 at 7:03 pm #

    foreigner: seems to me that most people here had been either Dem or Rep
    before and did choose their opinon on this birther issue accordingly.

    Since most of the folks here have not declared their political affiliations, It’s hard for me to see what your “seems to me” is based on unless you are just looking at polling numbers that show that most birthers are Republicans.

    In fact, there are Democrats, Republicans and independents here, and quite a number of “foreigners” who wouldn’t fit any US political classification. About 7% of the site’s traffic comes from British Commonwealth countries.

  78. avatar
    foreigner May 31, 2011 at 12:42 am #

    I was judging by the firm believs of people here and at birther forums who rarely
    change sides on one aspect. I’ve also seen that on political forums.
    Most people are clear Pros and Cons, few Indifferents/Undecideds

    too bad we can’t make an (anonymous) poll here, like we can do in forums.
    Hmm, there should be some webpage which performs such a poll for
    blog-visitors, recognized by the cookie(or what it is) that automatically puts “foreigner”
    in the Name(required) field here

  79. avatar
    G May 31, 2011 at 12:57 am #

    foreigner: I was judging by the firm believs of people here and at birther forums who rarelychange sides on one aspect. I’ve also seen that on political forums.Most people are clear Pros and Cons, few Indifferents/Undecideds too bad we can’t make an (anonymous) poll here, like we can do in forums.Hmm, there should be some webpage which performs such a poll forblog-visitors, recognized by the cookie(or what it is) that automatically puts “foreigner”in the Name(required) field here

    Your whole premise is an absurd false equivalency.

    Why don’t we have a debate on “both sides” of the issue on whether the moon is made of green cheeze or not?

    Simple: Because it is NOT. No point entertaining any fringe crazy group claiming that it is. Same with Birtherism.

  80. avatar
    Daniel May 31, 2011 at 1:01 am #

    foreigner: I was judging by the firm believs of people here and at birther forums who rarely
    change sides on one aspect.

    The same thing happens on “Flat Earth” forums.

    THe people who refuse to believe the Earth is Spherical; who insist, despite all scientific evidence to the contrary, that the Earth is a flat disk, never seem to change sides.

    Of course the people who are smart enough to realize how ridiculous the flat earthers are, also don’t change sides.

    Birthers and flat earthers, along with holocaust deniers, moon landing deniers, 9/11 deniers, chem trailers, etc, are exactly the same in essence.

  81. avatar
    foreigner May 31, 2011 at 3:10 am #

    put the other conspiracy theories in other forums and blogs.
    Just by mentioning them in the same sentence you _and Obama_
    are trying to ridicule them ?
    You’ll have to address the details instead, if you want to refute them.
    That’s how science works.
    Now come the Whyers who want to prevent this …

  82. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 31, 2011 at 8:43 am #

    foreigner: too bad we can’t make an (anonymous) poll here, like we can do in forums.

    You can’t make polls, but I can. See POLLS link on the right sidebar.

  83. avatar
    Rickey May 31, 2011 at 12:56 pm #

    foreigner:
    I was judging by the firm believs of people here and at birther forums who rarely
    change sides on one aspect.

    Speaking for myself, I was never a birther but I was originally drawn into the conversation by the claims that Obama could not have traveled to Pakistan on a U.S. passport in 1981 because Americans were banned from entering Pakistan then.

    I was suspicious about the claim because no one ever produced proof of such a ban. Then I discovered that Pakistan International Airlines had daily flights from New York to Pakistan in 1981. Then someone discovered the New York Times travel article from 1981 which explained the relatively simple procedure for Americans to obtain a visa to visit Pakistan for up to thirty days. And then someone located an actual State Department travel advisory from 1981 which made it clear that anyone with a U.S. passport was free to travel to Pakistan.

    From that point on, every birther theory has been debunked and every birther lawsuit has been dismissed, The birther movement is an epic FAIL in every respect.

  84. avatar
    Daniel May 31, 2011 at 1:05 pm #

    foreigner: Just by mentioning them in the same sentence you _and Obama_
    are trying to ridicule them ?
    You’ll have to address the details instead, if you want to refute them.
    That’s how science works.

    If you don’t want to be ridiculed, don’t be ridiculous.

    And science does not work by chasing ridiculous imaginings with no evidence to support them. That would be, in fact, anti-science.

    Of course it’s not surprising that you flat earthers don’t want to understand that.

    Oops, sorry, I meant birthers. You and the flat earthers are so much like twins it’s sometimes hard to remember which one is actually being addressed