Main Menu

Taitz subpoena, plan “B”

Reports from Hawaii are that Orly Taitz arrived at the Department of Health, was given a letter and sent away. No surprise there for me, and not for Taitz either based on comments she made on her blog before the trip. On the blog, she hinted at a plan “B” and that has been revealed.

Taitz filed a motion in federal court in Hawaii that has been docketed:

08/08/2011 1 (Proposed) Order on Ex Parte Emergency MOTION for Emergency Order to Show Cause and to Compel Attendance for Production of Documents and for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs – by Plaintiff Orly Taitz. (Attachments: # 1 Emergency Ex Parte Motion for Emergency Order to Show Cause and to Compel Attendance for Production of Documents and for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C)(emt, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2011: # 5 Exhibit D) (emt, ). (Entered: 08/08/2011)

08/08/2011 2 Filing fee: $ 39, receipt number HI000664 re 1 Ex Parte Emergency MOTION. (emt, ) (Entered: 08/08/2011)

08/08/2011 3 NOTICE of Hearing on 1 MOTION to Compel is set for 9/14/2011 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6 before JUDGE RICHARD L. PUGLISI. Plaintiff to provide notice of the hearing to Loretta Fuddy, Health Department, State of Hawaii.

H/t to the Fogbow.

76 Responses to Taitz subpoena, plan “B”

  1. avatar
    gorefan August 8, 2011 at 6:14 pm #

    So if between now and 9/14/2011, Judge Lmberth dissmisses the FOIA lawsuit, then the 9/14 hearing would just essentially go away?

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 8, 2011 at 6:20 pm #

    Sounds about right.

    gorefan: So if between now and 9/14/2011, Judge Lamberth dismisses the FOIA lawsuit, then the 9/14 hearing would just essentially go away?

  3. avatar
    Lucas D. Smith August 8, 2011 at 6:45 pm #

    Orly Taitz sent this fake subpoena to Lucas Daniel Smith and Charles Edward Lincoln III on 09.15.2009. Subpoena in Civil Case: 3rd Circuit #08-4443, #08-4340 and US Supreme Court #08-570. In re: Paul Andrew Mitchell. Philip J. Berg v. Barack Obama.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/61887416/Orly-Taitz-sent-this-fake-subpoena-to-Lucas-Daniel-Smith-and-Charles-Edward-Lincoln-III-on-09-15-2009-Subpoena-in-Civil-Case-3rd-Circuit-08-4443

  4. avatar
    gorefan August 8, 2011 at 6:56 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Sounds about right

    Now, I kinda hope Judge Lamberth sits on case until Sept. 15th. Then Orly and Company can fly back to Hawaii.

    I saw this in the ex parte thingy she filed in Hawaii Federal Court, the one that Daniel linked to,

    “Fuddy was subpoenaed to appear and produce documents and things on August 8, 2011”

    “and things”???? Is that fancy lawyer talk?

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/08/taitz-watch/#comment-129502

  5. avatar
    obsolete August 8, 2011 at 7:01 pm #

    Ported over from the other Taitz watch post:
    Reading Taitz’s emergency motion to compel, as linked to above, this is a large part of her argument:
    I suspect someone is using a Social Security number fraudulently, so I ask the SSA for documents to prove it- They tell me no fraud has been committed but just because they are the ones who determine what is or isn’t fraud say that, it is not up for them to decide how can I determine such if they won’t give me the documents and keep telling me no fraud has occurred?

    (I cleaned it up a bit for legibility as opposed to what Orly typically writes…)

    A question for Orly- How does she KNOW the letter she received was actually from Hawaii? Did she ask for a confirmation, and a further confirmation of the confirmation?

  6. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 8, 2011 at 7:02 pm #

    gorefan: Now, I kinda hope Judge Lamberth sits on case until Sept. 15th.Then Orly and Company can fly back to Hawaii.

    I saw this in the ex parte thingy she filed in Hawaii Federal Court, the one that Daniel linked to,

    “Fuddy was subpoenaed to appear and produce documents and things on August 8, 2011‘

    “and things”????Is that fancy lawyer talk?

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/08/taitz-watch/#comment-129502

    Orly will fly back to Hawaii no matter what. On Sept. 14th, she’ll be sitting on the steps, while the judge tries to find out why she’s actually there, because the case was dismissed.

    Furthermore, why is it that she filed an emergency motion in this court? Aren’t most subpoenas actually enforced by the judge that the case is in front of, not a judge in Hawaii?

    I feel sorry for Judge Pugligi, having to actually schedule this…

  7. avatar
    gorefan August 8, 2011 at 7:34 pm #

    dunstvangeet: Furthermore, why is it that she filed an emergency motion in this court?

    IANAL, but my understanding is that the subpoena has to come from the District Court where the deposition/examination is to take place. I believe a DC Federal Court subpoena would have required the deposition to take place within 100 miles of the DC Court and she cannot force the DOH to come to DC, so she got a copy of a Hawaii Federal Court subpoena and filled it out.

  8. avatar
    Tarrant August 8, 2011 at 7:49 pm #

    It always amazes me that birthers don’t realize that it isn’t up to them to decide whether or not a crime has occurred nor to prosecute it. There are people whose jobs it is to do that and if they decide that, in fact, no crime has occurred, that doesn’t mean you suddenly gain Citizen Police and Court powers to decide for yourself.

    Obsolete is right, her argument is essentially “The SSA and Hawaii say there is no fraud, but how would I know unless they show me everything?” Just like the birther’s “Hawaii and Congress and Courts say the President was born in Hawaii, but unless we see original documentation why should *I* believe it?” They don’t get that whether they believe it or not is irrelevant, if they don’t they may exercise their right to vote for another candidate next time. What matters is that the legal entities in charge of that determination (The SSA in the former, and Congress and the State of Hawaii in the latter) have made up their minds. The fact that they don’t like the answer doesn’t mean it is wrong (which Lt. Col. Lakin unfortunately learned).

  9. avatar
    raicha August 8, 2011 at 7:50 pm #

    A court must have personal jurisdiction over the witness before they can order the witness to do anything. So Hawaii is the proper place for a motion to compel compliance by a Hawaii resident.

  10. avatar
    Dean Striker August 8, 2011 at 8:13 pm #

    I am no lawyer, but it seems to me Taitz already knew something like this would happen. As I understand the process, she already had the necessary order in hand, so…

    Why did she not appear with the Federal Marshal or the Sheriff to execute or enforce the order already in hand?

    Seems to me she’s not very bright.

  11. avatar
    Tarrant August 8, 2011 at 8:18 pm #

    Because a sheriff doesn’t go just because Orly asks. They may go if a court asks, and what Orly had was not a court order. People think a subpoena is always a court order – it isn’t, necessarily, which is why Orly today filed for a Motion to Compel – which IS. She won’t get it, though.

  12. avatar
    gorefan August 8, 2011 at 8:43 pm #

    raicha: A court must have personal jurisdiction over the witness before they can order the witness to do anything.

    Thanks for the explaination.

  13. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 8, 2011 at 8:47 pm #

    Dean Striker: Why did she not appear with the Federal Marshal or the Sheriff to execute or enforce the order already in hand?

    Because the Federal Marshal and Sheriff do not enforce subpoenas. At most, you could argue that they enforce court orders. In order for a Federal Marshal to compel Fuddy to do anything, there would have to be a court order. Orly Taitz is in the process of getting that court order (which she will not get).

    Seems to me she’s not very bright.

    Can I nominate this for the understatement of the century?

  14. avatar
    Joey August 8, 2011 at 9:12 pm #

    Dean Striker:
    I am no lawyer, but it seems to me Taitz already knew something like this would happen.As I understand the process, she already had the necessary order in hand, so…

    Why did she not appear with the Federal Marshal or the Sheriff to execute or enforce the order already in hand?

    Seems to me she’s not very bright.

    Even non-lawyers like me can read the relevant Hawaii Statute (HRS 338-18(b) and see that Hawaii law requires a “court order from a court of competent jurisdiction” to gain access to a confidential birth record.
    A subpoena signed by a court clerk is NOT a court order signed by a judge.

  15. avatar
    D. Davis August 8, 2011 at 9:59 pm #

    A crooked government with unlimited funds and power can suppress just about anything it wants to and do it “legally.” It doesn’t require cleverness, just money in the right places Your website seems to exist to provide moral justification for this kind of situation. Increasingly, I believe, this situation is what has become known as “the American way.” Of course, I could be wrong

  16. avatar
    Bob August 8, 2011 at 10:08 pm #

    Nothing concerning Obama’s birth certificate or eligibility was ever suppressed.

  17. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 8, 2011 at 10:28 pm #

    From the Book of John in the Bible:

    24But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 25So the other disciples were saying to him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.”

    Tarrant: Just like the birther’s “Hawaii and Congress and Courts say the President was born in Hawaii, but unless we see original documentation why should *I* believe it?”

  18. avatar
    D. Davis August 8, 2011 at 10:29 pm #

    Let’s try this one out. Refusal to comply with a legal subpoena must, it would seem, have legal consequences. Since the refusal took place in Honolulu, it would seem that determination of such consequences would fall to the Honolulu Courts in whose jurisdiction the refusal took place. Thus the issue of compliance with the letter and spirit of the subpoena which the Health Department has ignored up to today and may not have honored today will have found itself before the rightful court of jurisdiction. Therefore, what’s wrong with the procedure so far?

  19. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 8, 2011 at 10:30 pm #

    On the contrary, this web site exists to debunk crank claims about Obama. We deal in facts.

    If you think the powers that be are engaging in a grand conspiracy, then I just ask you why you think that — because it certainly isn’t based on the evidence, which you yourself seem to be saying has been suppressed.

    As for what is wrong in the subpoena process, a subpoena is part of discovery in a trial; the Court rules say that there is no pre-trial discovery in a FOIA case. Also a subpoena must be relevant to the issues of the case, and whether the Social Security Administration must or must not disclose Obama’s social-security application is not predicated on what his birth certificate says, or even if one exists.

    D. Davis: Your website seems to exist to provide moral justification for this kind of situation.

  20. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 8, 2011 at 10:44 pm #

    D. Davis:
    Let’s try this one out. Refusal to comply with a legal subpoena must, it would seem, have legal consequences. Since the refusal took place in Honolulu, it would seem that determination of such consequences would fall to the Honolulu Courts in whosejurisdiction the refusal took place. Thus the issue of compliance with the letter and spirit of the subpoena which the Health Department has ignored up to today and may not have honored today will have found itself before the rightful court of jurisdiction.Therefore, what’s wrong with the procedure so far?

    I was wrong. I was thinking that the court that the case was before (a.k.a. Judge Lamberth’s court) would be the proper venue, but apparently others have corrected me. Hawaii is the proper venue for the motion to compel. Of course, that motion will actually be denied.

  21. avatar
    gorefan August 8, 2011 at 10:59 pm #

    D. Davis: Refusal to comply with a legal subpoena must, it would seem, have legal consequences.

    Hypothetically speaking this would be correct. However, as I understand it and IANAL, what Orly sent to the AG of Hawaii was not a legal subpoena, therefore it is unlike to have any legal consquences for ignoring it.

  22. avatar
    Obsolete August 8, 2011 at 11:03 pm #

    The fatal flaw in your thinking, D. Davis, is the fact that there is no legal subpoena. What Orly has it not much better than if I show up with a note from my mom.
    If the subpoena was actually valid, another problem is she hasn’t properly served it.

    We are cheering that the law is actually being upheld, that private records are kept from an improper witchhunt, and that people are being told “NO!” when they demand the President “Show us your papers again, boy!”

  23. avatar
    John Reilly August 8, 2011 at 11:40 pm #

    It would be helpful to see the letter the DOH gave to Ms. Dr. Taitz so we could see if the State was relying on the technical defects or the substance of the privacy right. My guess is the state dealt with the substantive issue.

    Ms. Dr. Taitz says on her web site that the District Court issued an order to show cause. Of course, it did no such thing. The Court’s order says a motion to compel is scheduled.

    As I read Ms. Dr. Taitz’s papers (on SCRIBD) she has offered no evidence, just argument. And she has asked for attorney’s fees even though she does not have an attorney. She is in pro per on this one.

  24. avatar
    G August 9, 2011 at 12:01 am #

    Only correct thing you’ve said so far.

    D. Davis: Of course, I could be wrong

  25. avatar
    G August 9, 2011 at 12:09 am #

    Wow. You are so full of wrong info, it is hard to take you seriously.

    Orly has received official replies from these agencies. They have told her in no uncertain terms that she is NOT entitled to the information she requested and they spelled out and cited the reasons why.

    Being told NO and WHY NOT *is* a valid answer. You cannot characterize that as ignoring her.

    Everything about her whole FOIA case here is a debacle of fail all of Orly’s own doing.

    FOIA requests DO NOT apply to personal records. Therefore, she’s barking up the wrong tree with nowhere to go from the start. She has been told this repeatedly. She has misfiled her info repeatedly, in the face of clear and bold reminders of what she is doing wrong and why. Nothing about her “subpoena” is in any way legit, as she did not go about any correct process of obtaining or serving one and she has been told about that repeatedly too.

    The only one in the process who is ignoring what they’ve been told is Orly herself.

    D. Davis: Thus the issue of compliance with the letter and spirit of the subpoena which the Health Department has ignored up to today and may not have honored today will have found itself before the rightful court of jurisdiction. Therefore, what’s wrong with the procedure so far?

  26. avatar
    Mike Dunford August 9, 2011 at 12:11 am #

    @obsolete:
    “A question for Orly- How does she KNOW the letter she received was actually from Hawaii? Did she ask for a confirmation, and a further confirmation of the confirmation?”

    Well, in this case, the letter was physically handed to her by a gentleman who indicated that he was with the Hawaii AG’s office.

    @D. Davis:
    “Thus the issue of compliance with the letter and spirit of the subpoena which the Health Department has ignored up to today and may not have honored today will have found itself before the rightful court of jurisdiction.”

    The health department did not ignore the subpoena today. The gentleman from the Hawaii AG’s office who was there very clearly explained that the letter he handed to Orly was their response. It might not be the response Orly wanted, but it was a response.

    If Orly was correct when she stated that the letter was basically a duplicate of the one they sent her when she first attempted to subpoena them, it very clearly outlines exactly why they believe that they are legally prohibited from complying with her request in the absence of a court order.

  27. avatar
    Sef August 9, 2011 at 12:22 am #

    Mike Dunford: If Orly was correct when she stated that the letter was basically a duplicate of the one they sent her when she first attempted to subpoena them, it very clearly outlines exactly why they believe that they are legally prohibited from complying with her request in the absence of a court order.

    IOW, the AG’s office is going to spend as little time as possible on this nutcase.

    BTW, thanks Mike for being there today/

  28. avatar
    richCares August 9, 2011 at 12:40 am #

    Birthers are taking Orly’s failed OMG moment and converting it into another OMG moment. Only a birther can do that! Amazing

  29. avatar
    Keith August 9, 2011 at 1:00 am #

    richCares:
    Birthers are taking Orly’s failed OMG moment and converting it into another OMG moment. Only a birther can do that! Amazing

    Einstein’s definition of insane clearly applies in this case. We should probably be careful that it doesn’t start applying to “our side”. Why would we expect any different outcome? Why are you amazed?

  30. avatar
    richCares August 9, 2011 at 1:21 am #

    Why are you amazed?
    that birthers latch on to so many OMG failures without hesitation

  31. avatar
    roadburner August 9, 2011 at 5:14 am #

    D. Davis: A crooked government with unlimited funds and power can suppress just about anything it wants to and do it “legally.” It doesn’t require cleverness, just money in the right places Your website seems to exist to provide moral justification for this kind of situation. Increasingly, I believe, this situation is what has become known as “the American way.” Of course, I could be wrong

    as far as `unlimited funds´ go, the 80 (approx) cases the birthers have brought and had dismissed have probably cost in legal fees the same as a meal for 6 in a decent restaurant..

    the `american way´ is not using ridiculous theories, forigners like vattel, and twisting the constitution because you don´t like an election result. a true american would respect the will of the people, respect the post of their president and commander in chief, and if they don´t like him, then use the democratic system to remove him at the next election.

    but if you want to keep clicking that paypal button and making WND and taitz a bit richer, feel free, it´s your choice.

  32. avatar
    The Magic M August 9, 2011 at 5:19 am #

    Tarrant: which is why Orly today filed for a Motion to Compel – which IS. She won’t get it, though.

    Which doesn’t stop birthers, including WND itself, from claiming the order was already granted when it wasn’t… *faceplant*

  33. avatar
    Bran Mak Morn August 9, 2011 at 6:21 am #

    Got to love birthers.

    We were told all that would happen on the 8th. We were told we were wrong in saying none of that will happen.

    It didn’t happen.

    Orly files in the courts.

    So, according to the birthers, it’s a big time win!

  34. avatar
    Tarrant August 9, 2011 at 6:52 am #

    Reading WND or freep you’d never know that Orly was denied something yesterday in particular the WND article is spun more than a top, claiming Orly’s filing as a monuments occasion and that the court is forcing Hawaii officials to “answer” for their coverup of Obama’s records.

    The more amazing thing to me is how much the birthers are eating that line up. I mean, the actual motion is right there for anybody to read. Actual attorneys on freep that have tried to point out what the case actually is just get shouted down as Obots. I feel for those actual conservatives on such forums that try to give ACTUAl legal reasoning and get shouted down while being right again and again.

    Cha-Ching goes that WND PayPal button, keep soaking the birthers I guess by making up story after story out of whole cloth. A fool and his money and so forth.

  35. avatar
    The Magic M August 9, 2011 at 7:59 am #

    > The more amazing thing to me is how much the birthers are eating that line up.

    On WND, they do hardly more than read the headline and skim the article.

    > I mean, the actual motion is right there for anybody to read.

    You expect birthers to read actual primary sources instead of blindly believing the spinned paraphrasings on birthers sites? How long have you been watching the movement, since yesterday? 😉

    If birthers read primary sources, most of their talking points wouldn’t exist (like the “Pakistan travel ban” or “Abercrombie said he can’t find the BC” or “Orly was granted discovery by judge”).

  36. avatar
    ShapeShipper August 9, 2011 at 8:09 am #

    D. Davis:
    Let’s try this one out. Refusal to comply with a legal subpoena must, it would seem, have legal consequences. Since the refusal took place in Honolulu, it would seem that determination of such consequences would fall to the Honolulu Courts in whosejurisdiction the refusal took place. Thus the issue of compliance with the letter and spirit of the subpoena which the Health Department has ignored up to today and may not have honored today will have found itself before the rightful court of jurisdiction.Therefore, what’s wrong with the procedure so far?

    A subpoena was issued through a Federal Court, so the Federal Court has jurisdiction. HI DoH is a non-party to the lawsuit which means HI DoH wasn’t named as a defendant in the Taitz v Astrue lawsuit.

    Since, HI DoH is a non-party the Fed Rules Civil Procedure 45 require the plaintiff to travel to the non-party’s Federal Court jurisdiction, U.S. District Court of Hawaii. The plaintiff, Taitz, has only subpoenaed documents from a non-party, so a letter of refusal to comply with the subpoena is fairly common. It is likely HI DoH claimed Privilege as reason not to comply, also a common response.

    Orly has already stated she thought Obama waived his privacy when he provided certified copies of his birth certificate to a reporter and posted a scanned image of the other on the WH website.

    Most likely, the Judge in US District Court of Hawaii will order Fuddy to provide a certified copy of the Original Long Form BC so the Taitz v. Astrue case can move forward. Of course, we all know the Original Long Form BC has been forged so a certified copy is useless.

    Back to Future.

  37. avatar
    The Magic M August 9, 2011 at 8:13 am #

    Bran Mak Morn:

    So, according to the birthers, it’s a big time win!

    Actually, that makes sense. I mean, if Hawaii had really shown the vault BC to Orly and her “experts”, they would have had to conclude it’s legit, so Hawaii complying would’ve been a major loss for the birthers. Consequently, Hawaii not showing the vault BC is a win for them, even in the Obots’ book. 🙂

    So unlike Schroedinger’s Cat, “Orly’s Hawaiian Adventure” is a win and a loss at the same time even when observed. Now that’s some superposition… *g*

  38. avatar
    The Magic M August 9, 2011 at 8:16 am #

    > Most likely, the Judge in US District Court of Hawaii will order Fuddy to provide a certified copy of the Original Long Form BC so the Taitz v. Astrue case can move forward.

    No, that’s quite unlikely (I reserve “impossible” to the physically and logically impossible cases). The BC is not an issue in Taitz vs. Astrue (which is an FOIA case on SSN data with neither Hawaii nor Obama being a party to it); its existence (or non-existence) has no bearing on the outcome of that case. So why would a judge issue an order that amounts to a fishing expedition into unrelated third-party documents?

    > Of course, we all know the Original Long Form BC has been forged

    Of course we all know this is the next goalpost the birthers will move to.

  39. avatar
    Scientist August 9, 2011 at 8:32 am #

    Shapeshipper- I wonder what your reaction would be if someone sued you over some matter and typed up a subpoena on their own and showed up at your door demanding to see all of your personal papers and files. I’m sure you would invite them in and let them go fishing through all of your personal info, right? Like hell you would…

  40. avatar
    G August 9, 2011 at 9:06 am #

    Yeah…good luck with that. You are so hopelessly delusional, there is very little point in responding, as you are wrong on everything here.

    Bottom line, no judge is going to go along with Orly’s frivolous filings. Just like every other bit of birther nonsense before, it is plainly obvious why these will fail. Sorry, but your latest OMG moments are going nowhere.

    ShapeShipper: Most likely, the Judge in US District Court of Hawaii will order Fuddy to provide a certified copy of the Original Long Form BC so the Taitz v. Astrue case can move forward. Of course, we all know the Original Long Form BC has been forged so a certified copy is useless.

  41. avatar
    Tarrant August 9, 2011 at 9:34 am #

    ShapeShifter:

    There is no way the court will do that because the birth certificate is not relevant to the case at hand. Even ignoring the fact that Orly’s case isn’t even in the discovery phase yet (regardless of what Orly says), there is no way that the birth certificate is relevant to the question of wether or not the SSA properly applied FOUA law in refusing her request.

    Birthers seem to have this odd belief that discovery means you get to ask for anything and everything in the universe you want and people will be required to provide it to you without question. There is wide latitude in discovery, yes, but the information requested must demonstrate some relevance to the case at hand. If I sue you for breaking my window I don’t get access to your bank account records “just because”. Orly’s case is about the Freedom of Information Act. The President’s birth certificate, whether real or nonexistent, has no bearing on whether it was applied, thus the court will not grant an order requesting it.

    Birthers cling to this “If only we reach discovery” principle without realizing that in the vast majority of their cases the BC has no relevance. Lakin asked for it and was told it was irrelevant then went to jail.

    (One can also point out that even in a case where it might be relevant, the court will accept a certified copy and will almost never permit the release of the original record).

  42. avatar
    Dave August 9, 2011 at 9:36 am #

    ShapeShipper — it is not at all clear to anyone other than Taitz that the BC has any relevance to this case. Here is the only sentence I could find in her filing that addresses this issue: “Plaintiff reasonably believes that the birth records the subject of the subpoena in issue here are relevant to and may have been the basis of the SSN application the subject of the superior action…”

    Taitz’s case seeks to get a copy of Obama’s SS-5. How can anything they discover from looking at the birth record affect whether or not they get the SS-5?

  43. avatar
    ShapeShipper August 9, 2011 at 10:00 am #

    Dave:
    ShapeShipper — it is not at all clear to anyone other than Taitz that the BC has any relevance to this case. Here is the only sentence I could find in her filing that addresses this issue: “Plaintiff reasonably believes that the birth records the subject of the subpoena in issue here are relevant to and may have been the basis of the SSN application the subject of the superior action…”

    Taitz’s case seeks to get a copy of Obama’s SS-5. How can anything they discover from looking at the birth record affect whether or not they get the SS-5?

    I don’t think HI DoH is arguing relevancy. I think they are arguing Privilege.

    Taitz has stated Obama published his Original BC on the WH website. Consequently, privacy concerns are not a legitimate argument.

    The HI DoH hasn’t admitted Obama published his Original BC and probably won’t. The only argument the HI DoH can make is that Taitz hasn’t submitted evidence of Obama publishing his Original BC on the WH website.

    To move the case, Taitz v. Astrue, forward, I think the Court will order a certified copy of the Original BC be provided to Taitz by the HI DoH. But that won’t help. Taitz wants to verify the document.

  44. avatar
    Scientist August 9, 2011 at 10:07 am #

    ShapeShipper: To move the case, Taitz v. Astrue, forward, I think the Court will order a certified copy of the Original BC be provided to Taitz by the HI DoH. But that won’t help. Taitz wants to verify the document.

    Since not a single one of your predictions has ever come true, that means the opposite will occur. As it should. The only place this case iis going is the dumpster.

    Let me ask you to respond to the following: What business is it of Orly what SSN someone other than herself has? Should I be allowed to sue to find out YOUR SSN? Come on, big boy, answer the questiion.

  45. avatar
    Bran Mak Morn August 9, 2011 at 10:24 am #

    The HI DoH hasn’t admitted Obama published his Original BC and probably won’t.

    He hasn’t published his original BC since he doesn’t hold it, and never will. He has, however, published a certified copy, which the DoH has verified. And showing a certified copy doesn’t give someone access to the original, just as much as my showing a certified birth certificate to a postal employee when applying for a passport doesn’t give them access to the state’s private records of my birth.

  46. avatar
    Thrifty August 9, 2011 at 10:24 am #

    D. Davis: Refusal to comply with a legal subpoena must, it would seem, have legal consequences.

    I will leave it to the guys better versed in the law than me to explain better, but as I understand it, compliance with this subpeona would have been illegal. You cannot use a subpeona to compel someone to break the law. It is directly contrary to your assertion, and in fact compliance with this subpeona (by breaking state law) would have legal consequences.

  47. avatar
    Ballantine August 9, 2011 at 10:24 am #

    Most likely, the Judge in US District Court of Hawaii will order Fuddy to provide a certified copy of the Original Long Form BC so the Taitz v. Astrue case can move forward. Of course, we all know the Original Long Form BC has been forged so a certified copy is useless. Back to Future.

    Way to help your credibility. So you claim the original long form, a document neither you nor any birther has examined, is forged sight unseen. Of course, it has to be because you can’t be wrong. Gee, we’ve been hearing for 3 months that the White House form was digitally altered in the scanning process. But, if Orly sees the original is the same as the one the WH released, you’ll admit that all the birthers and the WND fake experts saying it was altered were wrong and now we need to follow the new theory that the original was forged as some new fake experts will clearly say. Hard to understand why no one takes you seriously.

  48. avatar
    G August 9, 2011 at 10:25 am #

    ShapeShipper, don’t you get embarrassed by being so utterly and constantly wrong?

    Sorry, but privacy concerns are always a legitimate argument. Just because someone decides to scan and post a document online doesn’t change all the privacy rules and regulations for access to the source documents with the agencies that are entrusted with them. Orly does not meet any of the guidelines nor requirements in order to permit her access to ANY of the original documents she has requested. Sorry, but she and you are utterly wrong on this and on nothing but a fool’s errand.

    ShapeShipper: Taitz has stated Obama published his Original BC on the WH website. Consequently, privacy concerns are not a legitimate argument.

  49. avatar
    G August 9, 2011 at 10:29 am #

    ShapeShipper: The HI DoH hasn’t admitted Obama published his Original BC and probably won’t. The only argument the HI DoH can make is that Taitz hasn’t submitted evidence of Obama publishing his Original BC on the WH website.

    WRONG again. HI DOH has been as clear as day about confirming and validating his BC. Here is the proof from their own site and words:

    http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/News_Release_Birth_Certificate_042711.pdf
    Here, just some of those crystal clear excerpts that you seem to be willfully ignoring:

    “We hope that issuing certified copies of the original Certificate of Live Birth to President Obama will end the numerous inquiries related to his birth in Hawai„i,” Hawai„i Health Director Loretta Fuddy said. “I have seen the original records filed at the Department of Health and attest to the authenticity of the certified copies the department provided to the President that further prove the fact that he was born in Hawai„i.”

    On April 25, 2011, pursuant to President Obama’s request, Director Fuddy personally witnessed the copying of the original Certificate of Live Birth and attested to the authenticity of the two copies. Dr. Alvin Onaka, the State Registrar, certified the copies.

    In June 2008, President Obama released his Certification of Live Birth, which is sometimes referred to in the media as a “short form” birth certificate. Both documents are legally sufficient evidence of birth in the State of Hawai„i, and both provide the same fundamental information: President Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawai„i at 7:24 p.m. on August 4, 1961 , to mother Stanley Ann Dunham and father Barack Hussein Obama.

    State officials of both parties have verified that President Obama’s birth records show that he was born in Honolulu.

  50. avatar
    G August 9, 2011 at 10:32 am #

    Taitz is merely delusional and incompetent and acting like a spoiled child, demanding unicorns that fart rainbows. Sorry, never going to happen.

    If you are seriously banking on the Court supporting anything that Orly has requested, then you are just as delusional. Take a look at her past record and the history of all these birther cases. If that doesn’t give you a clue of how Taitz v Astrue will end up, then you are truly in denial. The case will easily fail, like all others before, as it is completely and utterly frivolous.

    ShapeShipper: To move the case, Taitz v. Astrue, forward, I think the Court will order a certified copy of the Original BC be provided to Taitz by the HI DoH. But that won’t help. Taitz wants to verify the document.

  51. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 9, 2011 at 10:40 am #

    It would be inappropriate for them to argue relevancy (although the Social Security Administration could argue that to great effect). The law in Hawaii simply says that the Department of Health is prohibited from releasing the document to anyone without a tangible interest. Period. End of story.

    ShapeShipper: I don’t think HI DoH is arguing relevancy. I think they are arguing Privilege.

  52. avatar
    JoZeppy August 9, 2011 at 11:25 am #

    ShapeShipper: I don’t think HI DoH is arguing relevancy. I think they are arguing Privilege.

    The original letter actually said that they don’t believe it’s a valid subpoena, and even if it was the law prohibits them from complying with the subpoena. All of which is quite irrelevant, as it doesn’t preclude them from arguing relevancy at the motion to compel.

    ShapeShipper: Taitz has stated Obama published his Original BC on the WH website. Consequently, privacy concerns are not a legitimate argument.

    And as usual, Taitz is wrong. The fact that the President has published the document does not change the limitations the State of Hawaii has on who can view or get a copy of the birth certificate. You’ll note there are no waiver provisions in the law, and the law is very clear who gets a copy. Orly argument is DOA, and she has no law to support it.

    ShapeShipper: To move the case, Taitz v. Astrue, forward, I think the Court will order a certified copy of the Original BC be provided to Taitz by the HI DoH. But that won’t help. Taitz wants to verify the document.

    And like Orly, you would be 100% wrong. First reason, is the subpoena isn’t valid. The case is not in discovery, and she had no right to subpoena the DOH. Second reason, the material she requests is not relevant to the case in DC. The only discovery that would possible be relevant would be evidence that SSN has not done sufficient research to find the documents she requested. As she does not even argue that, there is no possible discovery that would be warrented. There is nothing that the State of Hawaii could possibly have that would be relevant to a FOIA complaint. As such, a thrid party subpoena requesting materials not relevant to the case, is automatically unduly burdensome. Thirdly, the materials requested are exempt from subpoena as being materials protected from disclosure under law. Rule 45 specifically exempts privilged material from being subject of a subpoena. So there you have it. The Court will find Orly subpoena void, and have will order Orly to pay the State attorney fees for having them respond to a clearly frivolous motion, on a clearly void subpoena. That my friend, is most likely end result of this silly endevour.

    The next question is will the Judge Lamberth slap Orly with more sanctions, and put a pre-filing injunction on her.

  53. avatar
    The Magic M August 9, 2011 at 11:45 am #

    JoZeppy: The fact that the President has published the document does not change the limitations the State of Hawaii has on who can view or get a copy of the birth certificate. You’ll note there are no waiver provisions in the law, and the law is very clear who gets a copy.

    That’s the problem with birthers, they have once adopted a mantra (in this case “publication constitutes waiver”) and will never admit they’re wrong, even if the wording of the law clearly proves them wrong (they would, however, go to such lengths as claiming Hawaiian law is “unconstitutional” or “illegal”, no doubt).

    I see this with cranks-turned-vexatious-litigants in my country all the time. They have their preconceived opinion about what a certain law or ruling means and they will not question their own premises if their lives depended on it (in other words, they have elevated their own misinterpretation to the status of divine enlightenment).

    Since they (as laymen, and I would include Orly among them) cannot possibly be wrong, all real law experts and courts and … must be part of a conspiracy. And so it begins – people get one tiny thing wrong and are ready to consider 200+ years of history as a giant fake, a huge conspiracy, a vast array of “everyone else is wrong but me”.

  54. avatar
    The Magic M August 9, 2011 at 11:46 am #

    JoZeppy: The next question is will the Judge Lamberth slap Orly with more sanctions, and put a pre-filing injunction on her.

    As you can see, that won’t stop her as it wouldn’t preclude her from filing motions with other courts.

  55. avatar
    Sef August 9, 2011 at 11:49 am #

    JoZeppy: The next question is will the Judge Lamberth slap Orly with more sanctions, and put a pre-filing injunction on her.

    Since Judge Lamberth now has her Ruemmler nonsense he just might decide that enough is enough.

  56. avatar
    obsolete August 9, 2011 at 8:12 pm #

    Sef: Since Judge Lamberth now has her Ruemmler nonsense he just might decide that enough is enough.

    I see a convergence of lots of tiny hammers, into one great, big, large hammer. And it is heading Orly’s way…

    [note- Not a “death threat” :)]

  57. avatar
    Northland10 August 9, 2011 at 8:55 pm #

    Sef: Since Judge Lamberth now has her Ruemmler nonsense he just might decide that enough is enough.

    Though I hope the good Judge finally clamps down on this, we should probably be careful not to put too much expectation into a OMG moment by Judge Lamberth. We do have a tendency to get all hot and bothered by the possibility of sanctions or even discipline. We do not want to fall in the same trap of “any day now, any day now, sanctions..”

    As for me, I look forward to an enjoyable reading of his order. When it comes to various orders from the good Judge, his style has not disappointed.

  58. avatar
    GeorgetownJD August 10, 2011 at 12:11 am #

    Tarrant:
    Cha-Ching goes that WND PayPal button, keep soaking the birthers I guess by making up story after story out of whole cloth. A fool and his money and so forth.

    Not such a bad thing. It keeps those dollars from going to the coffers of Michele Bachmann’s campaign.

  59. avatar
    obsolete August 10, 2011 at 6:52 am #

    GeorgetownJD: Not such a bad thing.It keeps those dollars from going to the coffers of Michele Bachmann’s campaign.

    It also keeps Meth dealers a bit poorer…

  60. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 10, 2011 at 8:46 am #

    Ah grasshopper, you are on the path of true wisdom.

    Northland10: We do not want to fall in the same trap of “any day now, any day now, sanctions..”

  61. avatar
    JoZeppy August 10, 2011 at 10:00 am #

    Northland10: We do have a tendency to get all hot and bothered by the possibility of sanctions or even discipline. We do not want to fall in the same trap of “any day now, any day now, sanctions..”

    To be honest, I would be surprised if Lamberth sanctions Orly in DC. At least in the SSA case. He hinted at the possiblity, but I think he’ll just put a nail in this one and move onto the next (the FOIA suit against the White House might draw sanctions, because Orly quotes and cites the provision of FOIA that says White House central offices are exempt. She pretty much quotes the reasons why her suit is frivolous). If it comes to a hearing, I would give a greater than 50% chance that Orly will get sanctions on her Motion to Compel Hawaii DoH in the D. Hawaii, and even those would be nominal, in the form of attorney fees (a couple of thousand dollars). The reason I say that, is in my experience, the courts feel a little freer to slap a party with attorney fees when they drag innocent third parties in, and abuse discovery.

  62. avatar
    Keith August 11, 2011 at 3:46 am #

    obsolete: I see a convergence of lots of tiny hammers, into one great, big, large hammer. And it is heading Orly’s way…

    [note- Not a “death threat” ]

    Is that hammer silver, and who is Maxwell?

  63. avatar
    Keith August 11, 2011 at 3:48 am #

    JoZeppy: To be honest, I would be surprised if Lamberth sanctions Orly in DC.At least in the SSA case.He hinted at the possiblity, but I think he’ll just put a nail in this one and move onto the next (the FOIA suit against the White House might draw sanctions, because Orly quotes and cites the provision of FOIA that says White House central offices are exempt.She pretty much quotes the reasons why her suit is frivolous).If it comes to a hearing, I would give a greater than 50% chance that Orly will get sanctions on her Motion to Compel Hawaii DoH in the D. Hawaii, and even those would be nominal, in the form of attorney fees (a couple of thousand dollars).The reason I say that, is in my experience, the courts feel a little freer to slap a party with attorney fees when they drag innocent third parties in, and abuse discovery.

    What about the idea that the deceit and fraudulent misuse of a subpoena could be viewed as a contempt of court?

  64. avatar
    JoZeppy August 11, 2011 at 10:30 am #

    Keith: What about the idea that the deceit and fraudulent misuse of a subpoena could be viewed as a contempt of court?

    Now that is an interesting spin on it. For the current subpoena in Hawaii, I fully expect Judge Lamberth will leave that entirely in the hands of the D. Hawaii. However, the first subpoena was a DC subpoena, and if I recall, she filed a motion to compel in the DDC. My guess is J. Lamberth will still let that one slide, and just deny the motion with a line entry on the docket (point out that discovery is premature). If she keeps trying this B.S. with her latest suit against the White House, I think things may begin to change, and we may start seeing a less forgiving side of Lamberth.

  65. avatar
    Sef August 14, 2011 at 1:45 pm #

    I fully realize that Orly’s legal logic is sorely lacking or nonexistent, but why does she think that it is up to a state court to enforce a federal court subpoena. There’s no state case or controversy.. Shouldn’t she have gone to the federal court in HI? That’s where the “subpoena” supposedly came from.

  66. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 14, 2011 at 7:55 pm #

    There are two cases here.

    Orly did file a motion in federal court in Hawaii to enforce her subpoena.

    While she was there, she filed a state FOIA-like lawsuit to get the document (in Hawaii they call it UIPA). I haven’t read the suit, so I don’t know if she even asked for the document under UIPA before she sued, but it’s moot anyway. That lawsuit was already tried by Andy Martin who lost the case, and the appeal.

    Sef: I fully realize that Orly’s legal logic is sorely lacking or nonexistent, but why does she think that it is up to a state court to enforce a federal court subpoena. There’s no state case or controversy.. Shouldn’t she have gone to the federal court in HI? That’s where the “subpoena” supposedly came from.

  67. avatar

    Ex-Parte’ EMERGENCY MOTION and it won’t be Heard til 2011 Sept 15?
    What kind of Ex-parte’ is that? So much FOR EMERGENCY!!!

    The PIRATES of SLAVERY DEMOCRACY are too Entrenched and WE THE PEOPLE really have little to no recourse other than REPUBLIC RISING.
    www,RepublicForTheunitedStates.org JOIN US by a re-FOUNDER.
    SOCKOLAGER.

    Help restore the Original 13th Amendment and End the UNLAWFUL Lawyers’ Monopoly in DC

  68. avatar
    gorefan August 20, 2011 at 12:15 am #

    Portuguese Revolutionary War Hero - Peter Francisco: End the UNLAWFUL Lawyers’ Monopoly in DC

    To all you Esquires, the jig is up, they are on to you.

  69. avatar
    G August 20, 2011 at 12:36 am #

    LOL! Yeah…because it was NOT an emergency, get it?

    Of course you don’t. You’re some weird nut who rambles some sort of nonsense about pirates… Don’t you have a cardboard sign to draw up and a streetcorner to haunt? Off you go now.

    Portuguese Revolutionary War Hero - Peter Francisco: Ex-Parte’ EMERGENCY MOTION and it won’t be Heard til 2011 Sept 15?
    What kind of Ex-parte’ is that? So much FOR EMERGENCY!!!

  70. avatar
    Northland10 August 20, 2011 at 11:23 am #

    G: LOL! Yeah…because it was NOT an emergency, get it?

    But he used CAPS so it is now an EMERGENCY MOTION, declared by TROLL (see, now he really is a troll, as I used all caps).

  71. avatar
    joebanana August 20, 2011 at 6:45 pm #

    Not one knucklehead on here has mentioned that the document obama posted states right on it “fathers place of birth- Kenya”. That means “natural born citizen” is impossible.

  72. avatar
    Majority Will August 20, 2011 at 6:58 pm #

    joebanana:
    Not one knucklehead on here has mentioned that the document obama posted states right on it “fathers place of birth- Kenya”. That means “natural born citizen” is impossible.

    No, it doesn’t. It does mean you haven’t been paying attention which is not surprising.

    Born in the state of Hawaii, President Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States of America.

  73. avatar
    JoZeppy August 20, 2011 at 7:13 pm #

    joebanana: Not one knucklehead on here has mentioned that the document obama posted states right on it “fathers place of birth- Kenya”. That means “natural born citizen” is impossible.

    No, it only means you’re willing to believe a total line of b.s. no one ever herard of until it made up by a semi-pro poker player a few years ago.

    Natural born citizen=born on US soil to non-diplomat parents

  74. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 21, 2011 at 1:05 am #

    There’s nothing in the Constitution about fathers.

    joebanana: Not one knucklehead on here has mentioned that the document obama posted states right on it “fathers place of birth- Kenya”. That means “natural born citizen” is impossible.

  75. avatar
    Lupin August 21, 2011 at 3:27 am #

    Portuguese Revolutionary War Hero - Peter Francisco: Help restore the Original 13th Amendment and End the UNLAWFUL Lawyers’ Monopoly in DC

    Can someone clue me in on this new facet of American madness? “Esquire” is not an inherited title like Duke or Baron. Even if, that amendment would have zero effect on the legal profession. Or have I missed a lunatic angle somewhere?

  76. avatar
    aarrgghh August 21, 2011 at 4:52 am #

    if you really want to know, disengage your “caps lock” key and click softly, lest you dare wake the sleeper

    Lupin: Can someone clue me in on this new facet of American madness?“Esquire” is not an inherited title like Duke or Baron. Even if, that amendment would have zero effect on the legal profession. Or have I missed a lunatic angle somewhere?