Main Menu

Taitz admits White House document is Obama’s “original long form birth certificate”

Stunning disclosure in court documents

Orly Taitz (pictured right) has published the text of her new complaint in the state lawsuit, Taitz v Fuddy, against Dr. Fuddy and Dr. Onaka of the Hawaii Department of Health to obtain Obama’s birth certificate under the state’s UIPA statute. The rambling recapitulation of birther talking points (every thing to Columbia College attendance to long form forgery) is largely irrelevant. Her main argument is: UIPA requires disclosure except when privacy is required, and Obama’s release of the long form is a waiver of privacy.

Taitz’s complaint contains the following shocking admission (point 34.4):

Obama has already waived any claims of privacy in relation to the original long form birth certificate, as he personally disclosed the document and posted it on the official White house internet site WhiteHouse.gov easily accessible by any US or foreign citizen.

I think that this is a plain admission on Taitz’s part that the White House document is authentic, original and legitimate because the whole context of her argument is that Obama waived his right to privacy when he published this document. She can’t have it both ways – either Obama released his original form and Taitz already has what she’s asking the State for, or he has not in which UIPA protects the original.

The essential flaw in Taitz’s argument, though, is that she misrepresents the UIPA statute. Taitz says (34.2):

Hawaii Unified Information Practices act UIPA, as codified under 92F allows the public at large  inspection of records in custody of the state agencies, unless such records are protected by local privacy codes.

That’s not quite what it says. The actual statute is:

§92F-11 Affirmative agency disclosure responsibilities. (a) All government records are open to public inspection unless access is restricted or closed by law.

Vital records are closed by law:

§338-18  Disclosure of records. To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.


In related news, the peripatetic Orly Taitz will be back in Hawaii on September 14 for the hearing on her motion to compel Hawaii Department of Health Director Loretta Fuddy to answer a subpoena for Barack Obama’s birth certificate in the federal FOIA case of Taitz v Astrue.

Not content to just show up, Taitz wants company:

I am asking my supporters to come to my “Motion to compel” hearing against Loretta Fuddy, director of Health, State of HI.

Certainly this won’t influence the court, nor increase the meager coverage (if any) she’ll get in the local media. Why should these folks spend thousands to travel to Hawaii? I guess to stroke Orly’s ego.

, ,

87 Responses to Taitz admits White House document is Obama’s “original long form birth certificate”

  1. avatar
    joyeagle August 18, 2011 at 9:16 am #

    First, I’m not a Taitz fan or any of her actions, but since you are speaking of her logic here … I get it. If the LFBC is published and accessible to all already, what is the harm in letting her check out the original and verifying/validating–it can’t be a privacy concern any more. Right? And she will be able to close the door on this once and for all.
    Ok, so I no there is no cloture (sp intended) to a birther, but in this one argument, the privacy thing does seem to be irrelevant at this point–or is there still information on the LFBC that has not been fully revealed. I think some folks on here before have mentioned a side panel with more of the doctor’s inputs than what has been shown.

  2. avatar
    The Magic M August 18, 2011 at 9:24 am #

    > the privacy thing does seem to be irrelevant at this point

    Not to Hawaiian law which simply does not include a waiver clause.

    This is one of the bigger fallacies in Birtherverse. They assume that Hawaii makes an evaluation of whether a release would intrude on privacy matters and simply chose to say “we consider this still private”. The reality is that Hawaii does not and cannot make such an evaluation; the record is protected *per se*. No action of Obama can waive that protection (only his explicit consent could release the record from its “private” status).

    Birthers however seem to think Hawaii is just not releasing it out of spite and ignore that Hawaii cannot release it by law.

    > what is the harm in letting her check out the original

    Again, the question is not if there is harm but if the law is followed to the letter.
    An administration (just as any person) can violate a whole lotta laws without “harming” anyone, yet that doesn’t entitle it to do so.
    There probably wouldn’t be any harm in releasing your IRS records either, that however doesn’t magically entitle the IRS to break the law by doing so.

  3. avatar
    Scientist August 18, 2011 at 9:26 am #

    What you are missing is that no one appointed, elected or otherwise annointed Orly Taitz inspector of documents. She has no right to examine anyone’s documents, not the President’s, not mine and not even yours (well, maybe yours). We don’t allow private parties to play cop and that is a good thing. Otherwise, I could set up a roadblock in front of my house, stop cars and demand to see licenses and registrations and collect on the spot fines from anyone whose documents I deemed deficient. Now that sounds like a good idea, doesn’t it?

  4. avatar
    The Magic M August 18, 2011 at 9:27 am #

    > or is there still information on the LFBC that has not been fully revealed

    Which would be totally irrelevant as the only relevance is whether there is sufficient proof that Obama was born in Hawaii.
    Nothing on any “side panel” could ever change that (unless you’re living in Birtherverse where they believe there could actually be a note saying “just kidding, what we wrote on the rest of the BC isn’t true, he was actually born in Kenya” – remember how they swallowed that actually forged Hawaiian BC that said “Birthplace: Hawaii” with a footnote “Actual birthplace: Kenya”…).

    Then again, as I pointed out, there are still those birthers who believe they can dig up something “embarrassing” in additional documentation – yeah right, as if some “side panel” would add info such as “Religion: Muslim; Party affiliation: Communist; Americanness: 2%”.

  5. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 18, 2011 at 9:32 am #

    The whole birther movement’s shtick is that Obama’s long form has NOT been revealed, so how can they turn around and say that Obama waived his privacy by revealing it?

    I have revised my article to make this point more plain.

    But yes, there are portions of the long form that have not been revealed, medical information to be specific.

    joyeagle: Ok, so I no there is no cloture (sp intended) to a birther, but in this one argument, the privacy thing does seem to be irrelevant at this point–or is there still information on the LFBC that has not been fully revealed

  6. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 18, 2011 at 9:52 am #

    I apologize for the 12 14 15 revisions to this article. First it was about Taitz asking supporters to go to Hawaii, and then I thought I would add in the fact that she had released her complaint in Taitz v Fuddy, and then, I “discovered” the fallacy in her argument, and then I found the smoking gun quote, and then I added the picture, and then I realized that the second part of the story was the important part and moved it up top, and then I added the subtitle, and then I changed the subtitle, and the title, and I fixed all these typos again and again.

  7. avatar
    charo August 18, 2011 at 10:09 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The whole birther movement’s shtick is that Obama’s long form has NOT been revealed, so how can they turn around and say that Obama waived his privacy by revealing it?

    I have revised my article to make this point more plain.

    But yes, there are portions of the long form that have not been revealed, medical information to be specific.

    Perhaps Geprgetown JD will weigh in, but it seems you are referring to the doctrine of judicial estoppel. It doesn’t apply to Orly IMO. She can argue the inconsistent position.

    A claim made or position taken in a former
    action or judicial proceeding will, in general,
    estop the party to make an inconsistent claim
    or to take a conflicting position in a
    subsequent action or judicial proceeding to
    the prejudice of the adverse party.
    In order to work an estoppel, the position
    assumed in the former trial must have been
    successfully maintained. …

    http://www.4dca.org/Mar%202005/03-30-05/4D04-923.pdf (I have not used proper citation, just provided the link)

  8. avatar
    charo August 18, 2011 at 10:13 am #

    p.s. There are tons of cases on discussing the issue. I just used this one for the principle.

  9. avatar
    Scientist August 18, 2011 at 10:15 am #

    charo: It doesn’t apply to Orly IMO. She can argue the inconsistent position

    But perhaps charo, you would like to explain how someone else’s SSN is Orly’s business. Is your SSN my business or mine yours? If I take it into my head that your SSN is “wrong” does that give me a right to conduct an inquisition??? It seems to me that my rights begin and end with making a report to Social Security.

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 18, 2011 at 10:16 am #

    Yes, but here she’s taking contradictory positions in the same complaint.
    I’m not making the legal argument here, but the logical one. Taitz loses the legal argument based on the UIPA statute itself, which she misrepresents. I’ll update the article.

    charo: A claim made or position taken in a former
    action or judicial proceeding will, in general,
    estop the party to make an inconsistent claim
    or to take a conflicting position in a
    subsequent action

  11. avatar
    charo August 18, 2011 at 10:18 am #

    Scientist: But perhaps charo, you would like to explain how someone else’s SSN is Orly’s business.Is your SSN my business or mine yours?If I take it into my head that your SSN is “wrong” does that give me a right to conduct an inquisition??? It seems to me that my rights begin and endwith making a report to Social Security.

    You are making this personal. There are plenty of qualified people here who will probably weigh in on the legality of arguing inconsistent positions.

  12. avatar
    charo August 18, 2011 at 10:21 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Yes, but here she’s taking contradictory positions in the same complaint.

    I can see an argument that considers two cases: either Obama did, or he did not release an authentic document. But if one takes either position, Taitz loses.

    The real problem is that the UIPA statute isn’t what Taitz says it is. I’ll update the article.

    She is her own client so she is not harming someone else by taking an inconsistent position. She can sue herself for ineffective counsel.

  13. avatar
    charo August 18, 2011 at 10:22 am #

    Access is forbidden to the link you have for the text of her new complaint.

  14. avatar
    Scientist August 18, 2011 at 10:24 am #

    charo: You are making this personal. There are plenty of qualified people here who will probably weigh in on the legality of arguing inconsistent positions.

    The problem is not that Orly is inconsistent. It’s that she has NO argument at all. She is a private party and private parties have no authority to enforce the social security laws. Do you not get that? Are you saying that if Orly decides that her next door neighbor is cheating on their taxes that she can conduct an audit?

    Please stop ducking and answer the central question here…

  15. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 18, 2011 at 10:31 am #

    Works for me. I copied and pasted the text and made a local copy:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Complaint-Taitz-v-Fuddy.pdf

    charo: Access is forbidden to the link you have for the text of her new complaint.

  16. avatar
    charo August 18, 2011 at 10:36 am #

    Scientist: The problem is not that Orly is inconsistent. It’s that she has NO argument at all.She is a private party and private parties have no authority to enforce the social security laws.Do you not get that? Are you saying that if Orly decides that her next door neighbor is cheating on their taxes that she can conduct an audit?

    Please stop ducking and answer the central question here…

    I’m not saying anything except that she can argue inconsistent positions.

  17. avatar
    Bran Mak Morn August 18, 2011 at 10:46 am #

    There are several reasons why certified copies are given out, and the original is kept in a secure setting. The I will offer two.

    One is that it protects the documents from people who would tamper with it. Imagine if Orly’s views were correct; soon some unscrupulous person would go in, access the document, tamper with it.. and go voila… see this… it’s in the original!

    Second, it’s not just that there is no waiver, it is an issue of protecting the rule of law and the rule of evidence. If evidence can be dismissed on so flaky a ground, and the Constitution’s own deference to the state for its own documents is rejected, the courts will be in chaos.

  18. avatar
    charo August 18, 2011 at 10:46 am #

    Regarding the UIPA case

    HRS ÿÿ 92F-12(b) and ÿÿ HRS 92F-13 provide conflicting
    directions on which section takes precedence in the event of a
    request for records that satisfies the criteria of both sections.
    HRS ÿÿ 92F-12(b) provides that “[a]ny provision to the contrary
    notwithstanding, each agency shall . . . disclose” the six
    categories of records or information listed in HRS ÿÿ 92F-12(b).
    (Emphasis added.) On the other hand, HRS ÿÿ 92F-13 states that
    “[t]his part,” which includes HRS ÿÿ 92F-12(b), “shall not require
    disclosure of” the five categories of records set forth in HRS
    ÿÿ 92F-13. Assuming, without deciding, that HRS ÿÿ 92F-12(b)(3)
    may override HRS ÿÿ 92F-13(4), we conclude that Plaintiff failed
    to state a claim for relief based on HRS ÿÿ 92F-12(b)(3) in his
    complaint.

    (sorry for the bad form)

    The court found a conflict in two parts of the act: the prohibition against releasing private information and exceptions that allow releasing of the information. It’s decision left open the door that an exception may apply in some scenario, but it would be very tough to win the argument, at least with this panel of judges. (they took somewhat of an inconsistent position haha)

  19. avatar
    charo August 18, 2011 at 10:47 am #

    I forgot to state the case was Justice v. Fuddy (recently decided)

  20. avatar
    Bob August 18, 2011 at 10:52 am #

    By giving Taitz access to the archives she could argue that any random nut on the internet could gain access to the archives thus nullifying its integrity.

  21. avatar
    Scientist August 18, 2011 at 10:52 am #

    charo: I’m not saying anything except that she can argue inconsistent positions.

    Anyone can argue anything they like. The bottom line is that if I go to court claiming that I can audit your tax returns, the arguments i make in support of that inherently absurd position are quite meaningless.

  22. avatar
    The Magic M August 18, 2011 at 10:53 am #

    Bran Mak Morn:
    One is that it protects the documents from people who would tamper with it. Imagine if Orly’s views were correct; soon some unscrupulous person would go in, access the

    The more likely case would be a birther destroying the document in the hope that this quashes any hope for Obama to prove where he was born.

  23. avatar
    Scientist August 18, 2011 at 10:54 am #

    Scientist: Otherwise, I could set up a roadblock in front of my house, stop cars and demand to see licenses and registrations and collect on the spot fines from anyone whose documents I deemed deficient. Now that sounds like a good idea, doesn’t it?

    Just to report, I stopped 20 cars and, interestingly, found them all to be in violation. I collected $350 in fines. Sweet!!!

  24. avatar
    charo August 18, 2011 at 10:55 am #

    Now that I have actually looked at the complaint, I think that Orly’s complaint could be used as a means of extracting information: the suspect will have to successfully read and summarize her position …. or confess.

    I’m out of here…

  25. avatar
    John Reilly August 18, 2011 at 10:56 am #

    As I observed in another post this morning, my social security number is no one’s business, especially Ms. Dr. Taitz who would blast it all over the place. As Ms. Dr. Taitz has proven, publishing the President’s social security number increases the number of people unlawfully using that number for mischief or worse.

    Ms. Dr. Taitz has no argument because she cannot rummage around in these confidential records. Period. The State of Hawaii says that the President was born there. There never was an issue over the President’s eligibility, and nothing dug up by anyone has changed that fact.

    I also note that Ms. Dr. Taitz thought that by packing the Court before Judge Carter would influence his decision. When it did not, and he complained about the endless phone calls from her supporters, she whined to the 9th Circuit about how she was unfairly accused of trying to influence the Court improperly. Now on her web site she calls again for the same sort of reprehensible action, the idea that Court decisions ought to be made by counting how many supporters each side has. I know Courts read election returns; I wonder if the 9th Circuit or the Hawaii District Court reads her web site.

    Ms. Dr. Taitz should retyrn to Moldava, where she will be happy. Well, we’ll be happy.

  26. avatar
    Bovril August 18, 2011 at 10:56 am #

    Charo,

    In no particular order in Orly’s insane quest

    The “case” is about a living persons BC and associated data

    Said BC is the property of and ONLY the property of the issuing authority

    This case has NOTHING to do with her insane case regarding the SSN

    The issuing authority for the BC is the DoH (of Hawai’i)

    The DoH has specific legal frameworks of disclosure that it MUST obey

    Said legal frameworks apply to the DoH

    Said legal frameworks do NOT to apply the actions and activities of third parties

    Taitz has received multiple letters fron the DoH explaining why no BC for her

    These letters state the law the DoH must follow

    These letters state precisely why she does not have an exemption

    These exemptions are applicable to EVERYONE not just insane dentist/lawyers

    Taitz has not articulated any reasoned argument why she should have an exemption

    All of the above reasons apply equally to her guano insane SSN snipe hunt, simply replace BC with SSN and DoH with SSA.

    She can (and will continue to) screech but it’s that simple, she has no case, she never had a case, she never will have a case, she’s batshit insane and a racist and bigotted sociopath to boot.

  27. avatar
    bob August 18, 2011 at 11:27 am #

    charo:
    I forgot to state the case was Justice v. Fuddy (recently decided)

    You are aware of the recent decision Justice v. Fuddy. It contains the answer to your question. The court will cite it when dismissing Taitz v. Fuddy.

  28. avatar
    JoZeppy August 18, 2011 at 11:30 am #

    charo: The court found a conflict in two parts of the act: the prohibition against releasing private information and exceptions that allow releasing of the information. It’s decision left open the door that an exception may apply in some scenario, but it would be very tough to win the argument, at least with this panel of judges. (they took somewhat of an inconsistent position haha)

    I wouldn’t say it was inconsistent. They left open the possiblity that there may be an exception in an extremely rare life or death situation. As this is obviously not such a case, any actual discussion on whether it there is such an exception would be dicta anyway, so they really don’t need to go there (much like the definition of NBC in Minor). So they briefly discussed the possible issues, found that they aren’t anywhere near those types of issues, and upheld the dismissal. I would say that it was a fine example of judicial restraint.

  29. avatar
    charo August 18, 2011 at 11:41 am #

    JoZeppy: I wouldn’t say it was inconsistent. They left open the possiblity that there may be an exception in an extremely rare life or death situation.As this is obviously not such a case, any actual discussion on whether it there is such an exception would be dicta anyway, so they really don’t need to go there (much like the definition of NBC in Minor).So they briefly discussed the possible issues, found that they aren’t anywhere near those types of issues, and upheld the dismissal.I would say that it was a fine example of judicial restraint.

    There are specific exceptions in the Act, one of them being the subject of the Justice case. It’s hard to tell from her complaint, but I think in part, Orly is claiming a waiver because there was an exception made to the POLICY, not the law. She has to work within the exceptions to the law.

  30. avatar
    Daniel August 18, 2011 at 11:43 am #

    The basic flaw in the “it’s already out there” arguement is that the satute covers the State’s disclosure, not Obama’s.

    If Obama tacked up a copy of the LFBC on the telephone pole outside the office of the DOH, such that it could be seen through the glass doors from the wicket where Orly stood to demand access, that still would not alter the rules governing access, because the action was Obama’s, not the DOH.

  31. avatar
    charo August 18, 2011 at 11:43 am #

    bob: You are aware of the recent decision Justice v. Fuddy.It contains the answer to your question.The court will cite it when dismissing Taitz v. Fuddy.

    I don’t believe I had a question. The court clearly stated there is a conflict and answered that even if the exception provision overrides, Justice failed to make his case.

  32. avatar
    charo August 18, 2011 at 11:51 am #

    Daniel:
    The basic flaw in the “it’s already out there” arguement is that the satute covers the State’s disclosure, not Obama’s.

    If Obama tacked up a copy of the LFBC on the telephone pole outside the office of the DOH, such that it could be seen through the glass doors from the wicket where Orly stood to demand access, that still would not alter the rules governing access, because the action was Obama’s, not the DOH.

    Obama himself can (and did) permit his birth certificate to be published, both the long and short form. It was policy not to make available the long form, and the DOH overrode the policy at the request of Obama. The UIPA does not require agencies to disclose “[g]overnment records which, if disclosed, would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” She would be better off arguing that there is no unwarranted invasion of privacy when he handed out copies to the press.

  33. avatar
    charo August 18, 2011 at 11:55 am #

    bob: You are aware of the recent decision Justice v. Fuddy.It contains the answer to your question.The court will cite it when dismissing Taitz v. Fuddy.

    The court could dismiss it for failure to make sense. In any case, the release of the LF was not part of the underlying facts in Justice.

  34. avatar
    Rickey August 18, 2011 at 12:10 pm #

    charo: I don’t believe I had a question.The court clearly stated there is a conflict and answered that even if the exception provision overrides,Justice failed to make his case.

    The court only stated that there is a conflict about which section takes precedence, HRS § 92F–12(b) or § HRS 92F–13. But the court went on to say that this conflict doesn’t matter.

    The decision states clearly and unambiguously that an individual’s vital records are protected from disclosure absent “a showing of compelling circumstances affecting the health or safety of any individual.” This is a hurdle which Orly cannot clear.

  35. avatar
    gorefan August 18, 2011 at 12:29 pm #

    charo: She would be better off arguing that there is no unwarranted invasion of privacy when he handed out copies to the press.

    Charo,

    There is also undisclosed medical information on the Certificate of Live Birth (the bound volume edition). This information is protected by both state and federal privacy laws.

    How can Hawaii allow Orly to inspect the Bound Volume Birth Certifcate without revealing this medical information?

  36. avatar
    J.Potter August 18, 2011 at 12:32 pm #

    No need to apologize, Doc, your dedication is appreciated, and it’s a great article. I don’t ever see any improvements being made over in the birther echo chambers!

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I apologize for the 12 14 15 revisions to this article. First it was about Taitz asking supporters to go to Hawaii, and then I thought I would add in the fact that she had released her complaint in Taitz v Fuddy, and then, I “discovered” the fallacy in her argument, and then I found the smoking gun quote, and then I added the picture, and then I realized that the second part of the story was the important part and moved it up top, and then I added the subtitle, and then I changed the subtitle, and the title, and I fixed all these typos again and again.

  37. avatar
    JoZeppy August 18, 2011 at 12:34 pm #

    charo: There are specific exceptions in the Act, one of them being the subject of the Justice case. It’s hard to tell from her complaint, but I think in part, Orly is claiming a waiver because there was an exception made to the POLICY, not the law. She has to work within the exceptions to the law.

    There are exceptions in the Act, and none of them apply. An exception made to policy is irrelevant. The exception to policy did not violate any law, and you still can’t get around the fact there are no waiver provisions in the law. Orly’s claims simply have no basis in law.

  38. avatar
    JoZeppy August 18, 2011 at 12:53 pm #

    charo: Obama himself can (and did) permit his birth certificate to be published, both the long and short form. It was policy not to make available the long form, and the DOH overrode the policy at the request of Obama. The UIPA does not require agencies to disclose “[g]overnment records which, if disclosed, would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” She would be better off arguing that there is no unwarranted invasion of privacy when he handed out copies to the press.

    Which would still do her no good in that there are other provisions clearly stating the documents cannot be disclosed. The possible conflict in Justice v. Fuddy was that there was a provision stating that when health or saftey of an individual involved, the documents should be released, which potentially conflicted with the provision stating that only people with a direct vested interest can get the vital records. As there is no need to rely on the exceptions to documents to be produced under the UPI, and the more directly applicable section of the law is the direct prohibition of release of vital records, you can’t claim the execption of the UPI is waived, and ignore the direct prohibition of relasing vital records.

  39. avatar
    charo August 18, 2011 at 1:39 pm #

    JoZeppy: Which would still do her no good in that there are other provisions clearly stating the documents cannot be disclosed.The possible conflict in Justice v. Fuddy was that there was a provision stating that when health or saftey of an individual involved, the documents should be released, which potentially conflicted with the provision stating that only people with a direct vested interest can get the vital records.As there is no need to rely on the exceptions to documents to be produced under the UPI, and the more directly applicable section of the law is the direct prohibition of release of vital records, you can’t claim the execption of the UPI is waived, and ignore the direct prohibition of relasing vital records.

    The court held off in deciding whether the exceptions could overrule the prohibition provision. The analysis considered whether Justice proved he met the exception; he did not. The whole premise of the prohibition is that we don’t want our private records publicly exposed. The vital record was publicly exposed. There are other reasons for not allowing the original to be handled by anyone other than those with a direct and tangible interest. In this case, the invasion of privacy simply isn’t one of them. It was before the release of the long form. The short form did not contain all of the information on the long form (although there is not a whole lot more).

  40. avatar
    charo August 18, 2011 at 1:42 pm #

    gorefan: Charo,

    There is also undisclosed medical information on the Certificate of Live Birth (the bound volume edition).This information is protected by both state and federal privacy laws.

    How can Hawaii allow Orly to inspect the Bound Volume Birth Certifcate without revealing this medical information?

    Good point, but that can be overcome. Can’t the certificate be taken out? I don’t know how they are bound.

  41. avatar
    Thrifty August 18, 2011 at 1:51 pm #

    Why should these folks spend thousands to travel to Hawaii?

    Well to be fair, Hawaii does have some rather lovely resorts and beaches.

  42. avatar
    jayHG August 18, 2011 at 1:54 pm #

    JoZeppy: Which would still do her no good in that there are other provisions clearly stating the documents cannot be disclosed. The possible conflict in Justice v. Fuddy was that there was a provision stating that when health or saftey of an individual involved, the documents should be released, which potentially conflicted with the provision stating that only people with a direct vested interest can get the vital records. As there is no need to rely on the exceptions to documents to be produced under the UPI, and the more directly applicable section of the law is the direct prohibition of release of vital records, you can’t claim the execption of the UPI is waived, and ignore the direct prohibition of relasing vital records.

    JoZeppy, you’re mistaken – birther have an amazing ability to ignore all kinds of stuff, especially when it shows that they are bats$%t crazy!!!!

  43. avatar
    jayHG August 18, 2011 at 1:56 pm #

    charo: Good point, but that can be overcome. Can’t the certificate be taken out? I don’t know how they are bound.

    Charo, forget it – give it up…..Ms. Dr. Esq. Orly is not going to win here.

  44. avatar
    JoZeppy August 18, 2011 at 2:06 pm #

    charo: The court held off in deciding whether the exceptions could overrule the prohibition provision. The analysis considered whether Justice proved he met the exception; he did not. The whole premise of the prohibition is that we don’t want our private records publicly exposed. The vital record was publicly exposed. There are other reasons for not allowing the original to be handled by anyone other than those with a direct and tangible interest. In this case, the invasion of privacy simply isn’t one of them. It was before the release of the long form. The short form did not contain all of the information on the long form (although there is not a whole lot more).

    No it didn’t. Read the actual statutes. The UPI lists what documents HAVE to be produced, which included the subsection on anything that would impact the health and safety of an individual. The potential conflict arose in what the UPI said needs to be provided, and what the vital records stat says can’t be disclosed, and which would rule. As vital records no not fall under any of the catagories normally, you don’t need to look at the exceptions for reasons not to provide them under the UPI. If you can’t give a reason why the document is required to be provided in the first place, you don’t look at the exceptions of you don’t have to provide it.

  45. avatar
    Scientist August 18, 2011 at 2:09 pm #

    charo: Can’t the certificate be taken out?

    If an elephant were in your living room, you would manage to focus on the nice flower pattern on the draperies. The elephant = Obama’s records are NOT Taitz’s business, None of them. Under any circumstances. The end

  46. avatar
    charo August 18, 2011 at 2:11 pm #

    JoZeppy: As vital records no not fall under any of the catagories normally, you don’t need to look at the exceptions for reasons not to provide them under the UPI.

    Then why did the court do it?

  47. avatar
    charo August 18, 2011 at 2:12 pm #

    Scientist: If an elephant were in your living room, you would manage to focus on the nice flower pattern on the draperies.The elephant = Obama’s records are NOT Taitz’s business,None of them.Under any circumstances.The end

    Yet Donald Trump managed to get Obama to pass copies out to the press.

  48. avatar
    Rickey August 18, 2011 at 2:12 pm #

    The privacy issue is a red herring.

    This footnote in Justice v. Fuddy is important:

    HRS § 92F–13 sets forth five categories of records that are exceptions to the UIPA’s general rule of disclosure: § 92F–13 Government records; exceptions to general rule. This part shall not require disclosure of:(1) Government records which, if disclosed, would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;(2) Government records pertaining to the prosecution or defense of any judicial or quasi-judicial action to which the State or any county is or may be a party, to the extent that such records would not be discoverable;(3) Government records that, by their nature, must be confidential in order for the government to avoid the frustration of a legitimate government function;(4) Government records which, pursuant to state or federal law including an order of any state or federal court, are protected from disclosure; and(5) Inchoate and draft working papers of legislative committees including budget worksheets and unfiled committee reports; work product; records or transcripts of an investigating committee of the legislature which are closed by rules adopted pursuant to section 21–4 and the personal files of members of the legislature.

    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/hi-intermediate-court-of-appeals/1563066.html

    Vital records are exempt from disclosure under UIPA pursuant to both category (1) and category (4). Even if allowing Obama’s birth certificate to be inspected would not constitute an invasion of privacy, such an inspection still is prohibited pursuant to category (4).

  49. avatar
    Rickey August 18, 2011 at 2:16 pm #

    charo: Then why did the court do it?

    The court did it because the plaintiff raised the issue of an exception. The court properly addressed the issue which was raised by the plaintiff, and then properly dismissed it.

  50. avatar
    G August 18, 2011 at 2:17 pm #

    LOL! Good one. Maybe Orly should… heck, if she did, she’d finally be pursuing a case with merit to it. 😉

    charo: She is her own client so she is not harming someone else by taking an inconsistent position. She can sue herself for ineffective counsel.

  51. avatar
    Critical Thinker August 18, 2011 at 2:19 pm #

    You all know that this whole discussion is hypothetical at this point, don’t you? Neither of Orly’s cases in HI are going to reach the point of determining whether HI laws allows the state to disclose Obama’s original BC to her. In the federal case, her subpoena will be thrown out because she failed to properly serve the state of HI and the defendant. Also, a record held by the state of HI is not relevant to a FOIA lawsuit. In the state case, she has filed for legal action (writ of mandamus) in a state circuit court despite the fact that HI abolished writs of mandamus in circuit courts. Yes–she filed for the wrong type of petition in the wrong type of court.

    Obama is not sweating bullets over either of these.

  52. avatar
    charo August 18, 2011 at 2:21 pm #

    G:
    LOL!Good one.Maybe Orly should… heck, if she did, she’d finally be pursuing a case with merit to it.

    I quick hi- my so n was bit by a nasty ole wasp, right before soccer tryouts- I wondered if it weren’t some kind of species that you mentioned by his reaction- it is a 3 day tryout thankfully and that is where I am headed

  53. avatar
    G August 18, 2011 at 2:23 pm #

    One could argue that inconsistent positions is all that Orly has… 🙂

    charo: I’m not saying anything except that she can argue inconsistent positions.

  54. avatar
    JoZeppy August 18, 2011 at 2:34 pm #

    charo: Then why did the court do it?

    The court only mentioned in passing in the recitation of either side’s arguments. Under heading D is the actual rationale of the court (the part that really matters). Justice argued that the vital records were required to be produced under the list of types of documents specified in the UPI (documents effecting the health and safety of an individual) as documents that the state must provide. The court noted the potential conflict between the UPI’s requiremnts to produce and the vital records stat prohibition, but ruled that since his claim that Justice’s claim that the President’s eligibility effects his health and safety is b.s. they need not figure out any possible conflict between the two statutes.

  55. avatar
    G August 18, 2011 at 2:35 pm #

    Thanks for the update. I’m assuming from your reply that he’s okay now and doesn’t suffer from a dangerous allergic reaction to wasp stings. I wish him good luck and his soccer tryouts and more importantly, that he has fun during them.

    charo: I quick hi- my so n was bit by a nasty ole wasp, right before soccer tryouts- I wondered if it weren’t some kind of species that you mentioned by his reaction- it is a 3 day tryout thankfully and that is where I am headed

  56. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 18, 2011 at 2:55 pm #

    I don’t know about Hawaii. The volumes I remember looking at were just metal post binders, like this one:

    http://www.buyonlinenow.com/enlarge.asp?SKU=WLJ27826

    I know that states scan their whole collections, and that requires unbinding them all.

    charo: Good point, but that can be overcome. Can’t the certificate be taken out? I don’t know how they are bound.

  57. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 18, 2011 at 3:24 pm #

    The birthers must be particularly fond of this variety of fish because all they talk about is privacy laws (and how they don’t apply).

    Rickey: The privacy issue is a red herring.

  58. avatar
    Konstantin Radtchenko August 18, 2011 at 3:33 pm #

    Candidate on President’s of USA accordingly Constitution of USA should have parents citizens of USA and also should be citizen of USA.
    When Barack Hussein Obama requested Senator McKain to show birth certificate, Senator published all information in press.
    But, Barack Hussein Obama did not published information about his citizenship and paid $2,000,000 to hide this information, having father citizen of UK.
    Sorry, he had not the right to hide this information.
    Usurper J.Stalin killing next representative of opposition usually said: no person, no problem.
    Also, no birth certificate, no position of USA President accordingly Constitution of USA.
    Does not matter, is present “privacy”, or “privacy” is not present.

  59. avatar
    Scientist August 18, 2011 at 3:44 pm #

    Konstantin Radtchenko:
    Orly, your English is improving. Keep at it!!

  60. avatar
    Scientist August 18, 2011 at 3:47 pm #

    charo: Yet Donald Trump managed to get Obama to pass copies out to the press.

    Yes and Orly is welcome to try the same route Trump used. She should get her own TV show and pretend she is running for President and lead the Republican polls (only to be replaced by even sleazier and more loony candidates). Donald at least reallized he had no actual legal right to ask for anything. Nor does Orly.

  61. avatar
    JoZeppy August 18, 2011 at 3:53 pm #

    Konstantin Radtchenko: Candidate on President’s of USA accordingly Constitution of USA should have parents citizens of USA and also should be citizen of USA.When Barack Hussein Obama requested Senator McKain to show birth certificate, Senator published all information in press.But, Barack Hussein Obama did not published information about his citizenship and paid $2,000,000 to hide this information, having father citizen of UK.Sorry, he had not the right to hide this information.Usurper J.Stalin killing next representative of opposition usually said: no person, no problem.Also, no birth certificate, no position of USA President accordingly Constitution of USA.Does not matter, is present “privacy”, or “privacy” is not present.

    The only thing worse than your spelling and grammar is your grasp on reality.

    No you don’t need citizen parents
    No Obama never requested, and McCain publisehd his birth certificate
    There is no evidence President spent anything.

    And yes, it is PRESIDENT Obama. Or if you like, you can simply call him Mr. President.

  62. avatar
    Daniel August 18, 2011 at 4:11 pm #

    I think JoeZeppy meant to say “McCain NEVER published his Birth Certificate” which is true.

    Konstantin; Would you consider it unreasonable to have to read at least some of an engineering text before taking an actual engineer to task for the way he designed a bridge?

    Next time at least read a little on the subject before you make a fool of yourself.

  63. avatar
    JoZeppy August 18, 2011 at 4:27 pm #

    Daniel: I think JoeZeppy meant to say “McCain NEVER published his Birth Certificate” which is true.

    THanks for catching that …you are correct about my intentions.

  64. avatar
    Joey August 18, 2011 at 4:44 pm #

    Hawaii statutes allow a person with a court order from a court of competent jurisdiction to see a COPY of a birth record. If the magistrate judge grants Orly’s motion for an Order to Compel on September 14th, she will be allowed to inspect or obtain a COPY of Obama’s Certification of Live Birth (short form), the official birth certificate of the state of Hawaii since 2001.
    I can conceive of NO circumstance under with Orly Taitz or Barack Obama or anyone else would be granted access to the ORIGINAL, vault copy birth certificate.

    Perhaps If there was to be a criminal investigation under a grand jury launched to look into forgery or tampering with regard to the original document, then a court order from a judge might force release of the original document. But that is NEVER going to happen in a civil suit, particularly one where Barack Obama is not a defendant.
    It’s still Taitz v Astrue that is the civil action here.
    I guess I could also conceive of a congressional investigation of Obama’s eligiblity before a committee of Congress. A subpoena for the original document from a Committee Chairperson might conceivably be honored by the state of Hawaii. But Congress has been singularly uninterested in this issue. Not one of the 535 members of Congress has ever requested a congressional investigation on the issue.

  65. avatar
    Sef August 18, 2011 at 5:04 pm #

    charo: She is her own client so she is not harming someone else by taking an inconsistent position.She can sue herself for ineffective counsel.

    I’d love to sit on that jury.

  66. avatar
    jayHG August 18, 2011 at 5:16 pm #

    Let’s not any of us forget that this is about mentally ill Orly and the social security administration. She thinks that this means she can put a sentence in a complaint about President Obama’s birth certificate and then take the complaint to the SSA in a whole other direction…….toward getting President Obama impeached.\

    None of her requests will go anywhere September 14 or EVER. So Charo, you can continue to pretend that Orly has a leg to stand on, but she doesn’t and no convuluted reading of various laws and statutes that you make will change that.

    Others of you who try to explain to Charo – you are beating your head against the wall. She’s very likely a birther who thinks that because President Obama’s father was from Kenya, the President was born in Canada…….see how crazy that sounds.

  67. avatar
    obsolete August 18, 2011 at 5:42 pm #

    The SSA already told Orly her allegations of SS fraud were “baseless”, I believe.
    Classic birther nuttiness. The SSA is the body who determines whether SS fraud has occurred or not, and pursues legal remedies. The Hawaiian DOH is the body in charge of determining whether a Hawaiian birth certificate is genuine or not.
    Yet Orly and the birthers won’t accept their answers, and pretend instead that they have not received an answer.
    Sometimes “no” means “no”.

  68. avatar
    Keith August 18, 2011 at 9:26 pm #

    Certainly this won’t influence the court, nor increase the meager coverage (if any) she’ll get in the local media. Why should these folks spend thousands to travel to Hawaii? I guess to stroke Orly’s ego.

    Another possiblity? Perhaps she is being funded by the Hawai’ian Tourism Authority.

    It could happen. The Australian governments (federal and state) sponsored Oprah’s trip.

  69. avatar
    GeorgetownJD August 18, 2011 at 9:40 pm #

    charo: Perhaps Geprgetown JD will weigh in, but it seems you are referring to the doctrine of judicial estoppel.It doesn’t apply to Orly IMO.She can argue the inconsistent position.

    A claim made or position taken in a former
    action or judicial proceeding will, in general,
    estop the party to make an inconsistent claim
    or to take a conflicting position in a
    subsequent action or judicial proceeding to
    the prejudice of the adverse party.
    In order to work an estoppel, the position
    assumed in the former trial must have been
    successfully maintained. …

    I don’t understand Doc to be referring to judicial estoppel.

    As you point out, that doctrine refers to taking a position in present litigation that is inconsistent position with prior litigation. But as important, judicial estoppel is an affirmative defense — that is, it is raised by the defendant as a shield to preclude the plaintiff from asserting a legal position which is inconsistent with a position he previously and successfully asserted in a prior proceeding. You are correct that it has no application to the UIPA case that Orly has filed.

    Doc’s point is that Orly is taking two positions, WITHIN THE SAME CLAIM, that are inherently contradictory. Either President Obama released a copy of the LFBC that is an authentic representation of the original that exists in the records of the Hawaii DOH, in which case there is no need to grant access to the original, or President Obama released a document that is nothing like the original LFBC, in which case he cannot have waived any privacy interest in the authentic LFBC. Either way, she has pled herself out of the cause of action.

    You point to our rules of civil procedure, which permit inconsistent pleading. That concept is embodied in Rule 8(d)(3), which provides:

    “(3) Inconsistent Claims or Defenses.

    A party may state as many separate claims or defenses as it has, regardless of consistency.”

    The operative word is “claims.” The rule refers to pleading multiple claims. Here, Orly is pleading a single claim that is wrought with factual inconsistencies. Let’s look at an example of how Rule 8(d)(3) comes into play. A good example is McCormick v. Kopmann, 23 Ill. App.2d 189 (1959).

    Mr. McCormick died in a car accident when a truck operated by defendant Kopmann collided with the automobile which McCormick was driving. McCormick’s widow filed suit against Kopmann and also against Anna, John and Mary Huls. The complaint contained four counts, or claims. InCount I the widow McCormick alleged that Kopmann drove his truck across the center line and struck the car that Mr. McCormick was driving. Kopmann was therefore negligent and thus liable to McCormick in tort. In Count IV the widow alleged, “in the alternative to Count I”, that Anna Huls operated a tavern that had sold too much alcohol to the now-deceased McCormick and allowed him to drive home drunk, or John and Mary Huls (who were the owners of a different drinking establishment) served McCormick until he was too intoxicated to drive. Under this theory of liability the Huls were negligent in not securing safe transportation home for him.

    The widow McCormick didn’t know whether her late husband was drunk or not, and both scenarios were plausible.

    AS A DEFENSE, Kopmann moved for dismissal on the theory that the allegations of Count I and Count IV were fatally repugnant and could not stand together. If McCormick was intoxicated, he was contributorily negligent in his own accident, relieving Kopmann of liability (in 1959 contributory negligence was a complete bar to recovery). He argued that the allegation in Count IV that McCormick’s intoxication was the proximate cause of his death, was a binding judicial admission.

    The court denied Kopmann’s motion to dismiss. The case went to trial and the jury sorted it all out, returning a verdict against Kopmann for $15,500 under Count I.

  70. avatar
    charo August 18, 2011 at 10:03 pm #

    jayHG: So Charo, you can continue to pretend that Orly has a leg to stand on,

    So jayHG, I thought she REALLY stands a good chance…

    charo: Now that I have actually looked at the complaint, I think that Orly’s complaint could be used as a means of extracting information: the suspect will have to successfully read and summarize her position …. or confess.

  71. avatar
    charo August 18, 2011 at 10:11 pm #

    G:
    Thanks for the update.I’m assuming from your reply that he’s okay now and doesn’t suffer from a dangerous allergic reaction to wasp stings.I wish him good luck and his soccer tryouts and more importantly, that he has fun during them.

    He made the team. The sport that he actually loves is lacrosse. I’m just trying to limit his xbox time. When he first go xbox live, I tripled him up with sports. 🙂

    I wasn’t sure if he was allergic or not because he had never been stung by a bee, but he was okay the next day. I should have an epi-pen around nonetheless.

  72. avatar
    G August 18, 2011 at 10:23 pm #

    Glad he made the team…and that he’s not allergic to wasps. An Epi-pen will still make a wise future investment. Lacrosse was not a sport option where I grew up. I only know of it from seeing it on TV. If you want his xbox time to be more healthy, maybe a Kinect would be a good Christmas gift… along with a sports game or two. That will give him quite a workout. 😉

    To comment on your reply to jayHG, you are kidding, right? You can’t seriously think that crazy and consistently inept Orly has a prayer in the world on any of her latest frivolous filings, do you? Come on, you are smarter than that…

    charo: He made the team. The sport that he actually loves is lacrosse. I’m just trying to limit his xbox time. When he first go xbox live, I tripled him up with sports. I wasn’t sure if he was allergic or not because he had never been stung by a bee, but he was okay the next day. I should have an epi-pen around nonetheless.

  73. avatar
    Keith August 18, 2011 at 10:31 pm #

    charo: Obama himself can (and did) permit his birth certificate to be published, both the long and short form. It was policy not to make available the long form, and the DOH overrode the policy at the request of Obama. The UIPA does not require agencies to disclose “[g]overnment records which, if disclosed, would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” She would be better off arguing that there is no unwarranted invasion of privacy when he handed out copies to the press.

    I don’t understand why you cannot understand this.

    The LAW protecting the vital records does apply to the Hawai’ian Department of Health.

    The LAW does restrict what the DoH does with the originals of anyones vital records and who is allowed to see them.

    The LAW does not allow the DoH to give third parties access to anyone’s vital records under any circumstances.

    The LAW does not restrict what the subject of a vital records does with his copies of his own vital records.

    The LAW allows the subject of a vital record to ask for an exception to policy and get an LFBC instead of the standard BC (and for the DoH to grant or deny that request).

    The LAW does not vary the responsibilities of the DoH to protect the vital record from 3rd party access based on the actions of the subject of the vital record.

    What the subject of a vital record does with their copy does not change the LAW or the responsibility of the DoH to protect that vital record according to the direction of that LAW.

    Whatever Obama does with his copy of the LFBC has no bearing what-so-ever on the responsibilities of the DoH. None. Zilch. Zip. Nada. Period. End of story.

    The DoH is a government agency tasked with the custodianship of vital records, and it is subject to the laws that define the standards of that custodianship. Obama is a private citizen who enjoys the same expectations of professionalism by the custodians of his vital records as every other Hawai’ian.

    Perhaps one more simile. If I entrust my money to a bank, I expect that bank to protect my money. I expect them to invest it in real estate, or commercial loans, or whatever, with an honest chance of being a good investment and doing ‘public good’ with that money. I do not expect them to take it and bet it all at an excursion to the Kentucky Derby or blow it at the local brothel. The fact that I go to the Kentucky Derby and bet, or discuss my portfolio with a local street walker, does NOT give the bank license to then go and do the same.

    Furthermore, Orly’s quest to get access to Hawai’ian vital records has nothing to do with a Federal FOIA dispute in Washington D.C. Nothing. Zilch. Zip. Nada. Period. End of story.

    Attempting to use a fraudulent subpoena from D.C. to trick a court in Hawai’i to tell the DoH to break Hawai’ian State law is, in my opinion, (and IANAL), prima facie evidence of her contempt for both the Hawai’ian courts she is attempting to bully, and the D.C. courts she is misrepresenting.

  74. avatar
    charo August 18, 2011 at 10:54 pm #

    G: To comment on your reply to jayHG, you are kidding, right? You can’t seriously think that crazy and consistently inept Orly has a prayer in the world on any of her latest frivolous filings, do you? Come on, you are smarter than that…

    I was being totally sarcastic (read my comment which I replayed back from earlier that essentially says reading and deciphering her complaint is a useful form of torture to extract confessions. Earlier, I was not able to access the link. The rest is just a discussion of the Justice v. Fuddy case and the idea that the purpose of the prohibition against disclosing private information seems somewhat ridiculous when the information was copied and handed out. That is not what Orly said but what I said. I also said that there were other reasons for denying access to the information but privacy, as was intended by the Act, is not an issue.

  75. avatar
    charo August 18, 2011 at 10:55 pm #

    And my saying so means absolutely nothing.

  76. avatar
    Rickey August 18, 2011 at 11:46 pm #

    GeorgetownJD:
    As you point out, that doctrine refers to taking a position in present litigation that is inconsistent position withprior litigation.But as important, judicial estoppel is an affirmative defense — that is, it is raised by the defendant as a shield to preclude the plaintiff from asserting a legal position which is inconsistent with a position he previously and successfully asserted in a prior proceeding.

    A good example of that came up during litigation over insurance coverage for asbestos litigation.

    As you know, asbestosis and related diseases tend to become symptomatic years (and even decades) after exposure to asbestos. Commercial Union Insurance Company and its subsidiaries insured many companies such as Johns-Manville when many workers were being exposed to asbestos, but were insuring very few of those companies when the asbestos claims started to arise in the seventies and eighties.

    Commercial Union’s stated position was that coverage should be triggered by the date on which symptoms first appeared – the date of “manifestation” – rather than the dates of exposure. This of course was an argument which was beneficial to the insurer, since Commercial Union had relatively few insurance policies in effect for asbestos manufacturers when asbestos litigation began to take off.

    However, it came to light that Commercial Union was taking the exact opposite position in cases where the company insured defendants which were policyholders during the manifestation period but were not policyholders during the exposure period. My recollection is that the triggered an angry reaction from the Federal courts which were trying those cases.

  77. avatar
    ShapeShipper August 19, 2011 at 10:22 am #

    function;(4) Government records which, pursuant to state or federal law including an order of any state or federal court, are protected from disclosure;

    Vital records are exempt from disclosure under UIPA pursuant to both category (1) and category (4). Even if allowing Obama’s birth certificate to be inspected would not constitute an invasion of privacy, such an inspection still is prohibited pursuant to category (4).

    HI DoH will have admit Obama’s OLFBC was sealed by court order for catagory (4) to be relevant. Of course, Dr. Taitz will want to verify the order.

  78. avatar
    gorefan August 19, 2011 at 10:33 am #

    ShapeShipper: HI DoH will have admit Obama’s OLFBC was sealed by court order for catagory (4) to be relevant. Of course, Dr. Taitz will want to verify the order.

    You misread category (4). It says “state or federal including an order of any state or federal court”

    That doesn’t mean that there has to be a court order, state laws (338-18 for example) and federal privacy laws alone prevent it from being inspected. But if there is a court order, that order alone would prevent it from being inspected.

  79. avatar
    Rickey August 19, 2011 at 12:18 pm #

    ShapeShipper:
    function;(4) Government records which, pursuant to state or federal law including an order of any state or federal court, are protected from disclosure;

    HI DoH will have admit Obama’s OLFBC was sealed by court order for catagory (4) to be relevant. Of course, Dr. Taitz will want to verify the order.

    Once again you display your inability to comprehend what you read.

    There is a difference between state or federal law and a court order. The statute says that records which are protected by state or federal law are protected from disclosure; it also says that records which are protected pursuant to a court order are protected from disclosure.

    Records which are protected pursuant to state or federal law do not require a court order, and records which are protected pursuant to a court order do not need to be protected by statute.

    You’re welcome.

  80. avatar
    ShapeShipper August 19, 2011 at 1:28 pm #

    Rickey:

    Records which are protected pursuant to state or federal law do not require a court order, and records which are protected pursuant to a court order do not need to be protected by statute.

    You need to go back to the Sven Magnussen School of Law … 2nd day, the legislative branch and the judicial branch are separate, but equal. (1st day … tuition is to be paid in advance.)

    The HI Legislature properly codifies the express intent UIPA is not to be used to unseal documents sealed by court order. But first, Fudgepacker must admit the document is sealed by court order.

    And that opens up a pathway to examination of why Soebarkah’s OLFBC was sealed in the first place.

  81. avatar
    Daniel August 19, 2011 at 1:43 pm #

    So Shapeshifter (appropriate name btw), since it’s obvious that you really need for your fallacies to be true, and logic and expertise will be completely ineffectual in any discussion with you, will you at least agree to come back after Sept 1th and have the courage to discuss your failure honestly?

  82. avatar
    Rickey August 19, 2011 at 1:44 pm #

    ShapeShipper: You need to go back to the Sven Magnussen School of Law … 2nd day, the legislative branch and the judicial branch are separate, but equal. (1st day … tuition is to be paid in advance.)

    The HI Legislature properly codifies the express intent UIPA is not to be used to unseal documents sealed by court order. But first, Fudgepacker must admit the document is sealed by court order.

    And that opens up a pathway to examination of why Soebarkah’s OLFBC was sealed in the first place.

    I apologize. Previously I accused you of a lack of reading comprehension, but I see now that I was too easy on you. Now you are compounding a felony with your ignorance and stupidity.

    Come back in mid-September and we’ll see how things are working out for Orly.

  83. avatar
    Tarrant August 19, 2011 at 3:33 pm #

    Doc is far more tolerant than I would be. The Fudgepacker comment would be over the line if I ran the board. ShapeShipper’s comments have gone from birthed troll to outright nasty lately.

  84. avatar
    Daniel August 19, 2011 at 4:40 pm #

    Shapeshifter has failed to convert us, so he’s desperately trying to get himself banned.

    If you cannot be the savior, at least you can try for martyr.

  85. avatar
    Obsolete August 19, 2011 at 6:25 pm #

    We know Shapeshifter’s judgement is suspect by his referring to Obama as “Soebarkah”, a word merely scribbled on a passport application with no context or explanation to even connect it to Barack Obama.

    It proves ShapeShifter has a strong confirmation bias against Obama. He also seems to believe there is a court order sealing Obama’s birth records, with no evidence to support this.

    I wonder if he will underhandedly suggest I am a homosexual for pointing this out. Even though I am not a homosexual, I am not offended by being called one.

  86. avatar
    katahdin August 19, 2011 at 6:56 pm #

    Obsolete:
    We know Shapeshifter’s judgement is suspect by his referring to Obama as “Soebarkah”, a word merely scribbled on a passport application with no context or explanation to even connect it to Barack Obama.

    It proves ShapeShifter has a strong confirmation bias against Obama. He also seems to believe there is a court order sealing Obama’s birth records, with no evidence to support this.

    I wonder if he will underhandedly suggest I am a homosexual for pointing this out. Even though I am not a homosexual, I am not offended by being called one.

    Mr. Troll was probably referring to President Obama as a homosexual, since that seems to be a current Republican meme.

  87. avatar
    richCares August 20, 2011 at 12:40 pm #

    “Come back in mid-September and we’ll see how things are working out for Orly.”
    don’t have to wait, just look at her track record!