Main Menu

Taitz files again, again

RuemmlerOrly Taitz, always looking for a new lawsuit to file, has settled on White House counsel Kathy Ruemmler (pictured right) in her official capacity. Why? Something about a forged Obama birth certificate, social-security numbers and Columbia University [sic]. It’s a Freedom of Information Act case and Orly’s old friend Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth has been assigned (1:11-cv-01421-RCL).

I’m reading the complaint and so far I don’t see a connection with the FOIA or Ruemmler. Ah, here she gets to it on page 5 (after 4 pages of general birther stuff). Taitz says she sent Ruemmler a FOIA request to examine the certified copies of Obama’s long form birth certificate and Ruemmler didn’t respond. It would have been helpful if Taitz had put a date on that request, but ya know …

On page 6, Taitz admits that the FOIA excludes “central offices of the White House” but says that this exclusion doesn’t apply because the documents she seeks are not “generated by the President as part of his duties.” So basically, Taitz argues that the birth certificate is not a federal government document which begs the question of how she expects to obtain it under the federal FOIA. Taitz cites United States v Nixon, a case where the subpoena of tape recordings made in the White House was upheld (not a FOIA case). In Nixon, a prosecutor showed sufficient cause that the tapes (now called the Watergate Tapes) likely contained evidence of a crime. The Supreme Court held unanimously that the President did not have absolute immunity from a subpoena. Taitz builds her own pile of suspicion (none of which is worth a hill of beans in court) but doesn’t seem to understand that she’s not a prosecutor, just a regular citizen, and a nut case conspiracy theorist at that.

Has Orly learned anything? Yes and no. The social-security numbers are correctly redacted, but the case is nonsense.

Prediction: Summarily dismissed.

Learn more:

Update 2:

Taitz has also filed suit in Hawaii state court against Fuddy and Onaka. The filing is said to be 48 pages long and makes a claim under the State’s Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA) a freedom of information statute. [link to Taitz web site] Andy Martin (Martin v. Lingle) already lost a similar case in Hawaii.

, ,

55 Responses to Taitz files again, again

  1. avatar
    Obsolete August 8, 2011 at 5:36 pm #

    It gets easier and easier to predict how these cranks lawsuits end, doesn’t it?
    😉

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 8, 2011 at 5:45 pm #

    So which takes more thought, an Obot deciding a birther lawsuit will be dismissed, or a birther determining that Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery?

    Obsolete: It gets easier and easier to predict how these cranks lawsuits end, doesn’t it?

  3. avatar
    Lawyerwitharealdegree August 8, 2011 at 5:49 pm #

    Since he mentioned “her stupidity” in his last missive, Lamberth MIGHt issue sanctions this time. If he wants to put a stop to this nonsense, that is.

  4. avatar
    GeorgetownJD August 8, 2011 at 5:55 pm #

    Prediction: This is the suit that earns Orly a “vexatious litigant” restraining order in DC.

  5. avatar
    jayHG August 8, 2011 at 5:56 pm #

    I can’t believe it, but each time I attempt to read an oily taitz pleading, I am struck anew with it’s absurdity and stupidity.

  6. avatar
    katahdin August 8, 2011 at 6:13 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    So which takes more thought, an Obot deciding a birther lawsuit will be dismissed, or a birther determining that Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery?

    Remember, birthers start with the conclusion that President Obama can’t be President, so anything he releases must be a forgery. That takes no thought at all. The only real thought in the whole exercise is deciding why the birther lawsuit will be dismissed.

  7. avatar
    obsolete August 8, 2011 at 6:57 pm #

    katahdin: The only real thought in the whole exercise is deciding why the birther lawsuit will be dismissed.

    Exactly- sometimes we wonder if they will be dismissed because the birther has the law wrong, or if it will be dismissed because they wrote it in crayons, for example.

  8. avatar
    Rickey August 8, 2011 at 9:13 pm #

    It should be plain to a child that Obama’s copies of his birth certificate are his personal property and not subject to the FOIA, which suggest that Orly would struggle as a contestant on Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 10, 2011 at 10:22 am #

    For you legal types, I have added some cases to the end of the article. I’m running to a dental appointment, so I haven’t had time to dig in.

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 11, 2011 at 10:31 am #

    Please note new update 2 at the end of the article.

  11. avatar
    G August 11, 2011 at 1:30 pm #

    Standard MO for Orly. Just keep filing endless lengthy junk lawsuits. The courts really need to declare her a vexaticious litigator and strip her of her ability to practice.

    Dr. Conspiracy: Please note new update 2 at the end of the article.

  12. avatar
    G August 11, 2011 at 1:30 pm #

    Oops. Typed too fast. Meant to say vexatious.

  13. avatar
    Wile E. August 11, 2011 at 1:53 pm #

    G:
    Oops.Typed too fast.Meant to say vexatious.

    Or you could just embrace it as a freudian portmanteau….vexaticious=vexatious+fictitious.

  14. avatar
    G August 11, 2011 at 2:03 pm #

    😉 Good one.

    Wile E.: Or you could just embrace it as a freudian portmanteau….vexaticious=vexatious+fictitious.

  15. avatar
    Rickey August 11, 2011 at 2:50 pm #

    In classic Orly fashion, her complaint in Taitz v. Fuddy refers to the “United Information Practices Act” and the “Unified Information Practices Act” – and that’s just on the first page!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/62065254/Taitz-v-Fuddy-and-Onaka-Hawaii-Department-of-Health-First-Circuit-Court-Hawaii-Judge-Rhonda-Nishimura

  16. avatar
    ShapeShipper August 11, 2011 at 3:13 pm #

    Rickey:
    In classic Orly fashion, her complaint in Taitz v. Fuddy refers to the “United Information Practices Act” and the “Unified Information Practices Act” – and that’s just on the first page!

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/62065254/Taitz-v-Fuddy-and-Onaka-Hawaii-Department-of-Health-First-Circuit-Court-Hawaii-Judge-Rhonda-Nishimura

    She’s on the right track.

    §92F-28 Access to personal records by order in judicial or administrative proceedings; access as authorized or required by other law. Nothing in this part shall be construed to permit or require an agency to withhold or deny access to a personal record, or any information in a personal record:

    (1) When the agency is ordered to produce, disclose, or allow access to the record or information in the record, or when discovery of such record or information is allowed by prevailing rules of discovery or by subpoena, in any judicial or administrative proceeding; or

    (2) Where any statute, administrative rules, rule of court, judicial decision, or other law authorizes or allows an individual to gain access to a personal record or to any information in a personal record or requires that the individual be given such access. [L 1988, c 262, pt of §1]

  17. avatar
    Rickey August 11, 2011 at 4:04 pm #

    ShapeShipper: She’s on the right track.

    Wrong again. Isn’t it embarrassing to be wrong about nearly everything you say?

    In case you missed it, Andy Martin tried Orly’s latest gambit back in 2008. Here is what the Supreme Court of Hawaii had to say about it:

    Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus filed by petitioner Andy Martin and the papers in support, it appears that the issuance by the Department of Health of a certified copy of a vital statistics record to petitioner was not mandatory, but involved the exercise of discretion and judgment. See HRS § 338-18 (b) (Supp. 2007) (The department shall disclose vital statistics records to those persons enumerated in HRS § 338-18(b)(l) through (13); otherwise, “[t]he 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. “) . Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief against the respondent public officials.

    Another Orly FAIL.

  18. avatar
    JoZeppy August 11, 2011 at 4:23 pm #

    ShapeShipper: She’s on the right track.

    How so? There is still no legitimate reason why Orly can justify her having access to the documents. She’s exactly where she was before. Asking for documents that she is expressly forbidden to have access to, with a complete failure to articilate any reason under the law why she should be considered an exception. You can’t walk into a court room and say “I want an order stating I can view these documents, because the law says I need a court order to view them” and then not articulate a reason why the court should grant you an order.

  19. avatar
    ShapeShipper August 11, 2011 at 9:14 pm #

    Rickey: HRS § 338-18(b)(13)

    HRS § 338-18(b)(13)(g)(4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings;

    Despite the desperate pleadings of the Obot Online Parade, Taitz v Astrue is viable. Consequently, the non-party subpoena to HI DoH is valid and enforceable. Your name calling and bold lettering confirms it. You’re scared.

    Admitting your wrong will only hurt for a little bit. But, I won’t hold my breath.

  20. avatar
    sfjeff August 11, 2011 at 9:21 pm #

    ShapeShipper: HRS § 338-18(b)(13)(g)(4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings; Despite the desperate pleadings of the Obot Online Parade, Taitz v Astrue is viable. Consequently, the non-party subpoena to HI DoH is valid and enforceable. Your name calling and bold lettering confirms it. You’re scared.Admitting your wrong will only hurt for a little bit. But, I won’t hold my breath.

    Let me just say that I am not an attorney, so I will not argue with you on this.

    But lets check back in a month. Bet the Courts will have rejected Orly, and your whole argument.

    See you in September.

  21. avatar
    Rickey August 11, 2011 at 9:24 pm #

    ShapeShipper: . Your name calling and bold lettering confirms it. You’re scared.

    Admitting your wrong will only hurt for a little bit. But, I won’t hold my breath.

    Calling you “wrong” is name calling? It seems that someone has become very thin-skinned.

    The reality is that every prediction you have made in the past 2 1/2 years or so has failed to come to pass, so you deserve a much stronger term than “wrong.”

    If Orly gets her examination of Obama’s birth certificate, I will be the first in line to admit that I was wrong. Will you do the same when her request is shot down? Somehow I doubt it.

  22. avatar
    Obsolete August 11, 2011 at 9:40 pm #

    Yes, ShapeShifter.
    Surely THIS will be the winning lawsuit which results in the courts overstepping their constitutional powers and removing the scary black man from your White House.

    It sure must be fun to want to nullify the choice of 69 million voters, based on nothing but lies and crazy, paranoid theories fuelled by evidence such as the numbers “1890” randomly placed on an Internet record search.

  23. avatar
    Obsolete August 11, 2011 at 9:51 pm #

    Let’s remember-
    Orly has the process backwards. She wants to see Obama’s LFBC to try and find something “wrong” with it.
    She has no actual evidence of fraud that would justify an examination by anybody.

    Her whole legal argument is: “I believe Obama is icky, Mooslimy, and a ghetto thug. He must have cheated to win. Let me comb through his records and I will find something to back me up”.

    Thankfully, OUR America doesn’t work that way.

  24. avatar
    Sef August 11, 2011 at 10:33 pm #

    Obsolete: Her whole legal argument is: “I believe Obama is icky, Mooslimy, and a ghetto thug. He must have cheated to win. Let me comb through his records and I will find something to back me up”.

    She and the other birthers have been watching too much TV.

  25. avatar
    Joey August 11, 2011 at 11:37 pm #

    I think ShapeShiipper may have forgotten that Barack Obama is not a party to Taitz v Astrue. Ms. Taitz is suing Michael J. Astrue, the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration under a Freedom of Information Act request.

    Shapeshipper might want to read a previous lawsuit that was adjudicated on this particular issue: http://www.courts.state.hi.us/docs/opin_ord/ica/2011/apr/ica30176.pdf

  26. avatar
    US Citizen August 12, 2011 at 4:56 am #

    But he IS Mooslimy!!
    It all started when Dudley Doo-right signed Berg’s petition.
    Berg and Taitz are in a fight, so logically Moose and Squirrel must die!
    You’re just not thinking this through like Shapeshifter.
    You see, America is like Nell tied to the train tracks and….

    .. well yes…. too much TV.

    I’m waiting for Orly to say “No Mr. Wizard! I don’t want to be a constitutional attorney any more! Make me a dentist like I was before.”

    All we need now is a good Sherman and Peabody pun, but the Wayback Machine is broken.
    Birtherism: The new Fractured Fairy Tales!

  27. avatar
    Keith August 12, 2011 at 4:57 am #

    ShapeShipper: HRS § 338-18(b)(13)(g)(4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during the course of… legal proceedings;

    Exactly which legal proceedings were President Obama’s vital records “acquired during the course of”?

    A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired… for purposes of legal proceedings;

    For which legal proceeding were President Obama’s vital events acquired?

    Despite the desperate pleadings of the Obot Online Parade, Taitz v Astrue is viable. Consequently, the non-party subpoena to HI DoH is valid and enforceable. Your name calling and bold lettering confirms it. You’re scared.

    Admitting your wrong will only hurt for a little bit. But, I won’t hold my breath.

    IANAL but I think I can read a calendar. President Obama’s vital records were established more than 45 years before any such legal proceedings and haven’t been ‘acquired’ by anyone anywhere for the purposes of any legal proceedings of any kind at any time.

  28. avatar
    ShapeShipper August 12, 2011 at 9:15 am #

    Keith: Exactly which legal proceedings were President Obama’s vital records “acquired during the course of”?

    For which legal proceeding were President Obama’s vital events acquired?

    Natural born citizens use a certified copy of their LFBC to obtain their SSN through the SSA. Dr. Taitz is suing the SSA over Obama’s SSN(s). Dr. Taitz has a vested interest in verifying Obama’s LFBC held in a vault controlled by HI DoH. HRS § 338-18(b)(13)(g)(4) provides an opportunity for Taitz to verify Obama’s vital records held by the HI DoH.

    What’s the problem? Would Obama be embarrassed if his vital records were verified?

  29. avatar
    John Reilly August 12, 2011 at 9:37 am #

    Ms. Dr. Taitz has no standing to check on whether the Social Security Administration did its job correctly in issuing a social security number to anyone, including the President, no matter how curious she is. Molreover, all HRS 338-18(b)(13)(g)(4) says is that if Ms. Dr. Taitz is in a legal proceding with President Obama (i.e., a lawsuit), and President Obama offers into evidence a birth certificate, Ms. Dr. Taitz can go to DOH and DOH is authorized to tell her the document is genuine. The statute does not say that Ms. Dr. Taitz gets to check to see if DOH has done its job correctly. Ms. Dr. Taitz is not in any legal proceeding currently with the President (except perhaps for the 9th Circuit appeal), and the President has not offered his birth certifucate into evidence in any legal proceeding so far. An application for a social security number is not a legal proceeding, and even if it was, Ms. Dr. Taitz was not an attorney for any party to President Obama’s application for a social security number.

    Soon enough, the Hawaii courts will dismiss these latest two proceedings, just as they have protected DOH’s records in the past.

  30. avatar
    Rickey August 12, 2011 at 10:07 am #

    ShapeShipper:

    What’s the problem? Would Obama be embarrassed if his vital records were verified?

    First of all, Orly and her so-called “experts” aren’t qualified to verfiy Obama’s records, even if they had the opportunity to see them.

    Embarrassment has nothing to do with it. Hawaii is obligated by its own laws to protect the vital records of people born there. If they were to make an exception for Obama’s records, it would create a precedent which could potentially open the door to others who want to see the vital records of people.

    Come back and see us in mid-September, and we’ll see how Taizt v. Astrue and Taitz v. Fuddy are doing.

  31. avatar
    JoZeppy August 12, 2011 at 10:22 am #

    ShapeShipper: Despite the desperate pleadings of the Obot Online Parade, Taitz v Astrue is viable. Consequently, the non-party subpoena to HI DoH is valid and enforceable. Your name calling and bold lettering confirms it. You’re scared.

    You really should not comment about things you do not understand. Your comments show that you don’t have the first clue about the law or the rules of discovery in a federal court. There is no chance Orly will get anything out of it, and no, her subpoena is not remotely valid or enforceable.

    First thing you fail to understand, generally, there is no discovery in a FOIA suit. On that point alone, the subpoena is not enforceable, because she no right under the law to issue it. In the rare instances where a court does grant discovery in a FOIA suit, it only occurs when the court specifically grants it (which it has not), and always after dispotive motions are ruled on (which has not happened yet), and the only subject relevant to discovery is whether the government agency performed a good faith effort to locate the documents. There is no document in the possession of the Hawaii DoH that could remotely be relevant to her FOIA suit, therefore by definition, Orly’s subpoena is overbroad and unduly burdensome, and an abuse of discovery on the part of Orly. So no, the subpoena is neither valid or enforceable, and very possibly will result in Orly paying the state’s attorney fees in reponding to her motion to compel.

    The second thing you fail to understand is that Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that if the requested material is protected by some privilige or somehow exempt from production (as in this case), upon request, the court MUST grant a protective order against enforcement of the subpoena.

    ShapeShipper: Admitting your wrong will only hurt for a little bit. But, I won’t hold my breath.

    Then I recommend you start practicing now. I can predict with near 100% certain what the possible outcomes will be. 1) Judge Lamberth will grant the government’s Motion to Dismiss before Orly hearing in D Hawaii, making Orly’s Motion to Compel in D. Hawaii moot. or 2) Judge Lamberth will dismiss Orly complaint only after the hearing in Hawaii, but the D. Hawaii will deny Orly’s motion based on any combination of the following reasions: that her subpoena is invalid, premature, overbroad, unduly burdensome, seeks protected material, seeks irrelevant matierals. The only question in the second option is will Orly be sanctioned.

  32. avatar
    Scientist August 12, 2011 at 10:25 am #

    ShapeShipper: What’s the problem? Would Obama be embarrassed if his vital records were verified?

    Would you be embarrassed if I verified yours? I have as much right to dig into your papers as Orly does to dig into Obama’s. I will be over at 3 with my subpoena. Be there or else.

  33. avatar
    JoZeppy August 12, 2011 at 10:29 am #

    ShapeShipper: Natural born citizens use a certified copy of their LFBC to obtain their SSN through the SSA. Dr. Taitz is suing the SSA over Obama’s SSN(s). Dr. Taitz has a vested interest in verifying Obama’s LFBC held in a vault controlled by HI DoH. HRS § 338-18(b)(13)(g)(4) provides an opportunity for Taitz to verify Obama’s vital records held by the HI DoH.What’s the problem? Would Obama be embarrassed if his vital records were verified?

    You fail to understand the nature of Orly suit. It has nothing to do with natural born citizens, or even President Obama. Orly has sued SSA because they have told her that certain documents she requested under FOIA are exempt from disclosure because they relate to a living person (a catagory of documents specifically exempt from disclosure under FOIA). All that is relevant to Orly suit is whether those documents are properly excluded. As such, it is purely a question of law, so not only is there no document in the possession of the State of Hawaii that could be relevant, there is no document in the world that is relevant to her suit.

  34. avatar
    Scientist August 12, 2011 at 10:47 am #

    Let’s take Orly’s “case” to its logical conclusion. She claims that private citizens have the right to verify the SSN used by other citizens. Then why wouldn’t a private citizen have the right to verify driver’s licenses used by other citizens? Why can’t I set up a roadblock in front of my house and ask to see license and registration from every passing car? Anyone??

  35. avatar
    Daniel August 12, 2011 at 11:09 am #

    ShapeShipper: Natural born citizens use a certified copy of their LFBC to obtain their SSN through the SSA.

    Actually most use their “short form” to get a SSN. People from Hawaii use their COLB.

    Bet that just burns your shorts, eh?

  36. avatar
    Daniel August 12, 2011 at 11:18 am #

    Shapeshifter:

    Please, please…. PLEASE promise us that you will show up back here in the week following Sept 14th, no matter what the outcome, so that we may revisit your claim.

    I’m sure you’re confident enough that you’re not afraid, right?

  37. avatar
    Rickey August 12, 2011 at 11:22 am #

    ShapeShipper: Natural born citizens use a certified copy of their LFBC to obtain their SSN through the SSA.

    Not me. I’m 63 years old and I’ve never seen my LFBC. That hasn’t prevented me from getting my SSN, driver’s license, passport, register to vote, and enlist in the U.S. Navy. When I was a teenager and needed my SSN I walked into the local Post Office with my short-form birth certificate, filled out some forms and voila! I had my Social Security Card.

    I really should start to keep a running tally of all the times you make claims which are demonstrably untrue.

  38. avatar
    Sef August 12, 2011 at 11:36 am #

    Has anyone seen the other 47 pages of Orly’s POS HI State filing. She’s been exceedingly quiet about it after her initial crowing. Maybe someone told her about Robert Justice’s failure?

  39. avatar
    The Magic M August 12, 2011 at 11:41 am #

    ShapeShipper:
    What’s the problem? Would Obama be embarrassed if his vital records were verified?

    If Orly really wanted to properly verify the records, why didn’t she bring a real forensic expert? Vogt and Irey are not qualified to make a statement either way.

    If they said “it’s legit” (haha, like that’s ever gonna happen), birthers would just throw them under the bus; besides, on an objective level, that wouldn’t mean it is legit, simply because they are unqualified to state so.

    If they said “it’s forged”, that wouldn’t mean it is forged, simply because they are unqualified to state so.

    So how could Orly’s trip have been anything but a total failure, regardless of how Hawaii had reacted?

    The only possible win for Orly would’ve been Hawaii saying “sorry, we’d love to show you the document, but there is none”. I repeat myself: ha-ha, like that’s ever gonna happen.
    And for that, she wouldn’t have needed Vogt and Irey to accompany her.
    What a waste of money.

    In a side note: is there proof those two people actually went to Hawaii? Or is it just Orly saying so? Did they really front all this money? If so, how stupid are they? If not, who paid for their trip? The Koch brothers?

  40. avatar
    JD Reed August 12, 2011 at 11:59 am #

    I’m a “seasoned citizen” myself, and I don’t know what documentation I used to get my social security card. I don’t believe it was my long from birth certificate because the copy I have indicates that it was the first such document issued for me, and it was issued four years AFTER I got my social security card. I do know that my LFBC was necessary to enlist in the Naval Reserve. But it apparently was not necessary to enroll in college, because I enrolled two years before obtaining the LFBC. I also don’t know what ID was required when I registered for the draft, an event that also preceded the LFBC that I now have.

    These events occurred in the ’60s, while Obama’s life passages were in the late ’70s and ’80s. Today. of course, a “short form” comparable to the certification of live birth that Obama placed on line as a candidate suffices for all these necessary passages that require a BC.

  41. avatar
    Joey August 12, 2011 at 12:03 pm #

    There is an American Board of Forensic Document Examiners which certifies experts to testify in courts of law as to the authenticity of original documents.
    Orly Taitz knew that Hawaii law clearly states that an “order from a court of competent jurisdiction” is required to gain access to an original birth record and yet she went to Hawaii with a subpoena? Yeah, right!
    Orly Taitz also knows that her “experts” are not qualified to rule on the authenticity of original, vault copy documents.
    She is doing a good job of keeping her name in the news and keeping those internet donations coming in. Birthers are true believers and very gullible folk.
    But she has lost every decision in courts of law over the last three years connected to President Obama’s eligibility and she was fined $20,000 for wasting a federal judge’s time with “frivolous” nonsense. The federal judge’s words, not mine.
    The current chief federal judge (a Reagan appointee) that she is before in “Taitz v Astrue” has slammed her saying that she is “either toying with the court or displaying her own stupidity,”
    In a previous attempt at quo warranto before this same trier of fact, Judge Royce C. Lamberth said of Orly in “Taitz v Obama,” that “This is one of several lawsuits brought by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, as is required by the Constitution. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.”–Taitz v Obama (Quo Warranto) US District Court for the District of Columbia , April 14, 2010.
    Judge Lamberth knows Orly Taitz.

  42. avatar
    Sef August 12, 2011 at 12:08 pm #

    The Magic M: we’d love to show you the document, but there is none”

    They could have said they had no such document because the “subpoena” was for a person named “Barack Hussein Obama III”. Orly never acknowledged or corrected her error.

  43. avatar
    Keith August 13, 2011 at 3:38 am #

    ShapeShipper: Natural born citizens use a certified copy of theirLFBC to obtain their SSN through the SSA.

    False. I am a Natural Born Citizen, I have an SSN, I did not use an LFBC to obtain it.

    Dr. Taitz is suing the SSA over Obama’s SSN(s).

    And the vital record she is interested in was not ‘acquired’ for or during that suit. Your quoted regulation does not apply.

    Dr. Taitz has a vested interest in verifying Obama’s LFBC held in a vault controlled by HI DoH.

    No, she doesn’t. She has only a morbid curiosity interest. The LFBC has no bearing what-so-ever on a FOIA dispute over an SSA application form. Period.

    HRS § 338-18(b)(13)(g)(4) provides an opportunity for Taitz to verify Obama’s vital records held by the HI DoH.

    No, it doesn’t. It has no bearing on anything at all.

    What’s the problem? Would Obama be embarrassed if his vital records were verified?

    Of course not. They have already been verified, several times over.

  44. avatar
    Keith August 13, 2011 at 3:45 am #

    JD Reed: I do know that my LFBC was necessary to enlist in the Naval Reserve.

    I suggest that you needed an official birth certificate. The fact that you used a Long Form is probably immaterial; a Short Form would have served just as well.

    A hospital souvenir would probably not have worked, or maybe it would have if the recruiter was sufficiently relaxed about it.

  45. avatar
    The Magic M August 13, 2011 at 8:02 am #

    Sef: They could have said they had no such document because the “subpoena” was for a person named “Barack Hussein Obama III”. Orly never acknowledged or corrected her error.

    Yes, but this would’ve caused more birther madness, like a new meme “Hawaii acknowledged they have no records” – why would they *not* forget that Hawaii talked about Obama *III*?

  46. avatar
    Northland10 August 13, 2011 at 10:29 am #

    ShapeShipper: Natural born citizens use a certified copy of their LFBC to obtain their SSN through the SSA.

    No, they use the form that is provided by their state. If the state agency provides a certified “short form,” then that is what the applicant is to present.

    http://www.ssa.gov/ssnumber/ss5doc.htm

    and from a FAQ page:

    If your copy is signed by the agency that issued your birth certificate and carries an official seal, then it’s acceptable.

    It does not have to be a “long form.”

  47. avatar
    gaetano August 17, 2011 at 9:02 am #

    Stick around a little longer. Obama has a whole bag of birth certificates,just waiting to show you. Pick your choice.If this one doesn’t satisfy you, we will show you another. You idiot,lieing,scumbag,freebie wanters,lazy,jobless,un-American,Godless, pieces of garbage ,
    DEMOCRATS,need to go to another country and leach of someone else.

  48. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 17, 2011 at 9:38 am #

    Quick, grab the Lysol.

    gaetano: DEMOCRATS,need to go to another country and leach [sic] of [sic] someone else.

  49. avatar
    G August 17, 2011 at 9:40 am #

    *waaah* You are pathetic. You come across as a juvenile, sniveling and whiney little bigot who has nothing of value to say and can only sling poo. Good luck with your little hate-on there.

    gaetano: Stick around a little longer. Obama has a whole bag of birth certificates,just waiting to show you. Pick your choice.If this one doesn’t satisfy you, we will show you another. You idiot,lieing,scumbag,freebie wanters,lazy,jobless,un-American,Godless, pieces of garbage ,DEMOCRATS,need to go to another country and leach of someone else.

  50. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 17, 2011 at 9:45 am #

    I think I registered by mail and didn’t have to show ID. Not sure.

    JD Reed: I also don’t know what ID was required when I registered for the draft, an event that also preceded the LFBC that I now have.

  51. avatar
    Rickey August 17, 2011 at 10:01 am #

    G:
    *waaah*You are pathetic.You come across as a juvenile, sniveling and whiney little bigot who has nothing of value to say and can only sling poo.Good luck with your little hate-on there.

    Have you noticed that most notes posted by birthers contain misspellings and grammatical errors? Are they all high school dropouts?

  52. avatar
    The Magic M August 17, 2011 at 10:30 am #

    Rickey: Are they all high school dropouts?

    You could also ask: Are they all *the same* highschool dropouts? From reading WND, you get the impression that certain misspellings (“marshall law”, “duel citizen” and the whole “your/you’re” and “their/they’re” enchillada) are so common it defies statistical expectations.

    Today I’ve even noticed two birthers within 1 hour writing a post about “bimbo explosion” (or something, I can’t quite remember the expression), an expression so unusual it hardly is plausible it appears within two postings of different people at nearly the same time.

    Kinda makes me believe quite a lot of birther Facebook accounts may belong to the same persons.

  53. avatar
    Daniel August 17, 2011 at 11:12 am #

    gaetano: You idiot,lieing,scumbag,freebie wanters,lazy,jobless,un-American,Godless, pieces of garbage ,
    DEMOCRATS,need to go to another country and leach of someone else.

    I’m a Republican.

    Guess that’s just one more thing you’re completely wrong about.

  54. avatar
    Bovril August 17, 2011 at 12:52 pm #

    So “gaetano”, lets see, I have….

    An extortionately well paid job
    Regarded as one of the top 100 in portions of my field according to my peers
    A professional role that requires me to be ethical and aggressively penalizes lying
    Fought for my country and was medically discharged for injuries in the field

    That’s another 4 things you’re wrong on, care to try again?

  55. avatar
    Northland10 August 17, 2011 at 1:22 pm #

    @Gaetano

    I especially enjoy how the first word after idiot was spelled incorrectly.

    For the record, I have a job, with a church (actually 2 jobs as church music is not often fulltime, so I have the day job). As for feebies, I do not even participate in raffles. I would rather donate to the cause directly. I am likely odd in that aspect but what do you expect from a Quaker raised Eagle Scout. Though I may be odd, I don’t think I fall under the angry one’s description.