Main Menu

Taitz watch

imageI’ve put Orly Taitz (pictured right) on a 24-hour watch starting at 4 PM EDT tomorrow in anticipation of some sort of grand implosion by Taitz as she executes Plan “B” (or Plan “C”) following the inevitable refusal by the Hawaii Department of Health to break Hawaiian law in response to her subpoena [link to Taitz web site] and let her peek at, photograph and scan Obama’s original birth certificate. According to Taitz, unqualified volunteers Douglas Vogt1 and Paul Irey2 will be serving as her “experts”, and a reporter from the New York Times will record the fiasco.

In a related story [link to Taitz web site], Orly Taitz is actually exhibiting some skepticism about Dr. Ron Polland’s assertion [link to Polland web site] that he forged Obama’s short-form birth certificate. When I read Polland’s claim that he had forged the certificate that resides on Obama’s Fight The Smears web site, I assumed that I had just misunderstood what he meant – and didn’t really care to waste the time to figure it out. Taitz, however, takes Polland literally and is demanding a sworn affidavit from him, which she says he refused to give, before she’ll accept it. After all, Lucas Smith provided a sworn affidavit associated with his birth certificate forgery, why shouldn’t Polland be held to the standard?

Back before Polland’s real name was revealed, he was willing to sign affidavits for Orly:


1I will concede that Douglas Vogt is expertly-qualified to operate a scanner. Of course, Vogt denies that there is any original to look at. If he should ever get a chance to look at the original document, his theory is shot to hell.

2I had the opportunity to talk directly with Paul Irey on the Reality Check radio program, and for all his odd views and biases, he is an honest and straight-shooting guy. If he should ever get a chance to look at the original document in person, he may well recant his analysis (or perhaps claim the White House copy wasn’t based on the original).

, , ,

215 Responses to Taitz watch

  1. avatar
    Sef August 7, 2011 at 2:17 pm #

    “She’ll have fun fun fun ’til her daddy takes the t-bird away”.

  2. avatar
    Sef August 7, 2011 at 2:32 pm #

    Wouldn’t it be fun if Orly got to the DOH and found a sign saying “Closed for inventory”? Maybe they could take a furlough day tomorrow. So Orly and Co would have to spend another day in paradise. Especially fun if they had already checked out of their hotel rooms. Just in time for the evening news. With a photo of President Obama watching the whole thing as it unfolds from the Situation Room.

  3. avatar
    misha August 7, 2011 at 2:39 pm #

    Sef:
    “She’ll have fun fun fun ’til her daddy takes the t-bird away”.

    She’ll have fun fun fun ’til her daddy takes the Tesla away.

  4. avatar
    Obsolete August 7, 2011 at 2:50 pm #

    Polland is yet another scam artist, wanting a paypal click of $8.95 to read his delusional claims of having forged Obama’s COLB. Or something.
    He has been losing his grip on sanity for a while now. It won’t be long before he claims to actually be Obama.

  5. avatar
    Sef August 7, 2011 at 3:07 pm #

    misha: She’ll have fun fun fun ’til her daddy takes the Tesla away.

    Thanks for the update.

  6. avatar
    GeorgetownJD August 7, 2011 at 4:44 pm #

    Watching the birthers get excited about this non-event is fun. They stand ready to give Orly advice bout how the handle the inevitable refusal of access to the original vital record. They are, of course, laboring under the misunderstanding that Orly can obtain same-day relief from the court if (when) she is shown the door at DOH.

    I’m marketing a new franchise for gourmet popcorn sales. The prospectus was ready to offer when, on April 27, the investment bankers pulled it back. However, with the Hawaii traveling circus, the announced FOIA suit against White House Counsel, and then that Third Circuit appeal by those Jersey ‘baggers, it was determined that the investment has even greater potential. PM me if you would like a copy of the Private Placement Memorandum. This investment shows very promising potential to pay dividends well through 2016.

  7. avatar
    richCares August 7, 2011 at 4:57 pm #

    my bet is that there will be or Orly in Hawaii tommorow, she can’t be that stupid.

  8. avatar
    richCares August 7, 2011 at 4:59 pm #

    Sorry, should have said:
    my bet is that there will be no Orly in Hawaii tommorow, she can’t be that stupid.

  9. avatar
    misha August 7, 2011 at 5:12 pm #

    GeorgetownJD: This investment shows very promising potential to pay dividends well through 2016.

    Awesome.

  10. avatar
    misha August 7, 2011 at 5:14 pm #

    richCares: my bet is that there will be no Orly in Hawaii tommorow, she can’t be that stupid.

    Silly you.

  11. avatar
    Daniel August 7, 2011 at 5:24 pm #

    richCares:
    Sorry, should have said:
    my bet is that there will be no Orly in Hawaii tommorow, she can’t be that stupid.

    I agree that it’s unlikely she’s that stupid…. but I do think she’ll show up to make a scene for the photo-op. I’d bet she realizes her “subpoena” isn’t worth the wasted ink, but what it is worth is lots more paypal donations, and lots more Orly love in Birtherstan.

  12. avatar
    Keith August 7, 2011 at 5:25 pm #

    GeorgetownJD:
    Watching the birthers get excited about this non-event is fun.They stand ready to give Orly advice bout how the handle the inevitable refusal of access to the original vital record.They are, of course, laboring under the misunderstanding that Orly can obtain same-day relief from the court if (when) she is shown the door at DOH.

    I’m marketing a new franchise for gourmet popcorn sales.The prospectus was ready to offer when, on April 27, the investment bankers pulled it back.However, with the Hawaii traveling circus, the announced FOIA suit against White House Counsel, and then that Third Circuit appeal by those Jersey baggers, it was determined that the investment has even greater potential.PM me if you would like a copy of the Private Placement Memorandum.This investment shows very promising potential to pay dividends well through 2016.

    Don’t forget the Esquire law suit.

    I’d bid for the Australian franchise, but I’m not sure we have any nuts pop up often enough to make it worthwhile. Maybe only once every couple of years do we get such epic fail.

  13. avatar
    Foggy August 7, 2011 at 5:40 pm #

    This is my first really off-topic comment here, so please forgive. We’re all just killing time until Orly makes her play anyway, right?

    I think I did something this afternoon that has never been done before. I spent 2 solid hours having a civil, frank, honest, factual and legal conversation with a birther, and it was all recorded and will be on BlogTalkRadio. He (Mark Gillar) and I got along great, and I think we created a milestone — the first really civil, really detailed debate between people on opposite sides of the fence, where nobody got in each other’s face. I didn’t do a perfect job. I’m not an encyclopedia. I don’t have the wealth of knowledge at my command that Dr. Conspiracy has. But I did show the birther world that an anti-birther doesn’t need “Alinsky tactics” to have a civil discussion.

    Then Gillar called me after the show and we talked ANOTHER 20 minutes about what a cool thing it was. I don’t think anything like that has happened before. He says he’ll have it on the air by tomorrow. When he does, I’ll put the link on Fogbow.

    Where we could agree on things, we agreed. Where we disagreed, we agreed to disagree. He’s not a Vattelite, which will cost him some goodwill in the birther community. But his views are honestly held, and I had no illusions about trying to convert him to my side.

    Dayum. That was WAY cool … magical, even!

  14. avatar
    john August 7, 2011 at 5:47 pm #

    I suggest to Orly that she hold her ground and refuse to leave Hawaii DOH if and only if the her supeona is carried out. Hawaii DOH can call the police but the police will state that Orly has a supeona and that the birth certificate will be accessed. If Hawaii has a problem, that is their problem. Orly has a supeona signed by the clerk of court….The birth certificate will be examined.

  15. avatar
    Tarrant August 7, 2011 at 5:53 pm #

    One of the things that baffles me is her insistence that the case HAS entered the discovery phase, and that is why she is allowed to do this. Despite being told this is not the case she is moving forward. Had she even read the scheduling order she misinterpreted she might have figured out that there is no discovery yet (nor will there likely ever be).

    It is a mystery to me that someone that continually misreads, misinterprets, ad misrepresents basic legal documents and orders could have managed to pass the Bar. Hell, it wouldn’t shock me if she couldn’t find the exit of the maze found on a McDonald’s tray liner.

  16. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 7, 2011 at 6:31 pm #

    Wonderful. Can you work on the deficit now?

    Foggy: Dayum. That was WAY cool … magical, even!

  17. avatar
    richCares August 7, 2011 at 6:43 pm #

    sure john, sure, you need to get back on your meds!

  18. avatar
    Northland10 August 7, 2011 at 6:55 pm #

    john: I suggest to Orly that she hold her ground and refuse to leave Hawaii DOH if and only if the her supeona is carried out. Hawaii DOH can call the police but the police will state that Orly has a supeona and that the birth certificate will be accessed. If Hawaii has a problem, that is their problem. Orly has a supeona signed by the clerk of court….The birth certificate will be examined.

    Silly John… Given various comments she has dropped from time to time, I am rather certain that she knows the subpoena is not valid and she will get nothing. I am also suspecting that you to know this but want to keep repeating birther points to make a spectacle of yourself, much like Orly.

    Wasn’t Orly supposed to be have some supposed hearing for Liberi v. Taitz on Monday?

  19. avatar
    Foggy August 7, 2011 at 7:27 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Wonderful. Can you work on the deficit now?

    Don’t I wish!

    Sorry, all I do is world peace. I actually have a degree in International Economics from Georgetown University. Sadly, half of what they taught me was wrong, and I forgot the other half.

  20. avatar
    Joey August 7, 2011 at 7:48 pm #

    You don’t need to have passed a bar examination to read the Hawaii Statute which clearly says that a confidential birth record can be inspected or a copy of it obtained by “a person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction.”
    A subpoena is not a court order. A search warrant is a court order; a temporary restraining order is a court order. Orly needs a judge’s signature on a court order. She doesn’t have it.

  21. avatar
    J. Potter August 7, 2011 at 8:25 pm #

    Doc, you don’t expect them to–in the unlikely event they are allowed to glimpse the original document–retrench and claim the original itself is a forgery?

    So after they get laughed at, what does this stunt prove? Beyond convincing the faithful that The System is hiding something, is against them, that They are all In On It?

  22. avatar
    J. Potter August 7, 2011 at 8:36 pm #

    This does not surprise, that Gillar was civil …. I’ve traded exchanged emails with him, and on any other topic he’s perfectly rational, civil, helpful. On topic, however, he has run a good cop, bad cop routine. Positively condescending to unreasonably demanding.

    He has insisted to me that he fully expects President Obama to be impeached any day now. Definitely in his first term.

    Will be an interesting show to hear, and to see how it is spun–er, presented.

    Foggy:
    This is my first really off-topic comment here, so please forgive. We’re all just killing time until Orly makes her play anyway, right?

    I think I did something this afternoon that has never been done before. I spent 2 solid hours having a civil, frank, honest, factual and legal conversation with a birther, and it was all recorded and will be on BlogTalkRadio. He (Mark Gillar) and I got along great, and I think we created a milestone — the first really civil, really detailed debate between people on opposite sides of the fence, where nobody got in each other’s face. I didn’t do a perfect job. I’m not an encyclopedia. I don’t have the wealth of knowledge at my command that Dr. Conspiracy has. But I did show the birther world that an anti-birther doesn’t need “Alinsky tactics” to have a civil discussion.

    Then Gillar called me after the show and we talked ANOTHER 20 minutes about what a cool thing it was. I don’t think anything like that has happened before. He says he’ll have it on the air by tomorrow. When he does, I’ll put the link on Fogbow.

    Where we could agree on things, we agreed. Where we disagreed, we agreed to disagree. He’s not a Vattelite, which will cost him some goodwill in the birther community. But his views are honestly held, and I had no illusions about trying to convert him to my side.

    Dayum. That was WAY cool … magical, even!

  23. avatar
    Sef August 7, 2011 at 8:53 pm #

    Foggy: Don’t I wish!

    Sorry, all I do is world peace. I actually have a degree in International Economics from Georgetown University. Sadly, half of what they taught me was wrong, and I forgot the other half.

    How about world hunger. You won’t need to solve it for me as I have enough crunchy granola to last me. Diamonds, sapphires and rubies, too.

  24. avatar
    GeorgetownJD August 7, 2011 at 9:10 pm #

    john:
    I suggest to Orly that she hold her ground and refuse to leave Hawaii DOH if and only if the her supeona is carried out.Hawaii DOH can call the police but the police will state that Orly has a supeona and that the birth certificate will be accessed.If Hawaii has a problem, that is their problem.Orly has a supeona signed by the clerk of court….The birth certificate will be examined.

    So tell us, John. When does Orly plan to actually serve that subpoena on Loretta Fuddy? Because she hasn’t done so yet. It’s going to be a long and expensive trip for the Queen Birther.

    And BTW, the police do not enforce subpoenas. Sorry, buddy.

  25. avatar
    misha August 7, 2011 at 9:21 pm #

    GeorgetownJD: And BTW, the police do not enforce subpoenas. Sorry, buddy.

    Snicker.

  26. avatar
    Reality Check August 7, 2011 at 9:53 pm #

    I pray that John is correct and Orly does exactly as he suggests. I beg to differ on the ultimate outcome, however.

  27. avatar
    john August 7, 2011 at 10:08 pm #

    “And BTW, the police do not enforce subpoenas.”

    I would guess that it would be true and if the police were called, the police could say it is out their juristication and Hawaii needs to take it up with the court. Perhaps the police might not interfere with court ordered supeona, it does have the signature of the clerk of the court.

  28. avatar
    brygenon August 7, 2011 at 10:34 pm #

    Northland10: Given various comments she has dropped from time to time, I am rather certain that she knows the subpoena is not valid and she will get nothing.

    I doubt she things her chances are good, but just in case, she’s taking unqualified cranks in place of document examiners. The last thing she wants is the truth.

  29. avatar
    US Citizen August 7, 2011 at 10:37 pm #

    The question is: Is she removed from the building forcibly (in cuffs) or not?
    I’m hoping for cuffs, whether arrested or just detained.
    It would make some great photos.

  30. avatar
    G August 7, 2011 at 11:16 pm #

    Personally, I vote for straight-jacket…

    US Citizen: The question is: Is she removed from the building forcibly (in cuffs) or not?I’m hoping for cuffs, whether arrested or just detained.It would make some great photos.

  31. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 7, 2011 at 11:22 pm #

    I hold out the possibility that Irey wouldn’t call it a forgery. He might maintain that it could be a forgery, but not that it is. The subpoena, of course, wouldn’t allow them to look at other certificates for comparison. Well, the subpoena actually doesn’t allow them to look at anything, but hypothetically….

    J. Potter: Doc, you don’t expect them to–in the unlikely event they are allowed to glimpse the original document–retrench and claim the original itself is a forgery?

  32. avatar
    Paul August 7, 2011 at 11:28 pm #

    Ok, wait a minute…

    I asked her this on her site, but I don’t expect to get an answer, or even have it posted.

    This “court order” or “subpoena” that she has… Is this actually a court decision stating that she has the right to inspect the BC? Or is this just a subpoena signed by some official that states that she has filed a subpoena?

    The law in Hawaii is that you have no right to see someone else’s BC. Period. So it seems to me that the only way around that is if she’s had a court decision in her favor. A subpoena — no matter WHO it’s signed by — is not a court decision, and does not in any way over-rule Hawaii state law.

    So, seriously… Just what makes her think she actually has the right to look at a private citizen’s birth certificate just because she convinced some yahoo to sign her request/ subpoena?!?!

  33. avatar
    Paul August 7, 2011 at 11:30 pm #

    richCares: my bet is that there will be no Orly in Hawaii tommorow, she can’t be that stupid.

    I think you over-estimate Oily’s intelligence.

  34. avatar
    J. Potter August 7, 2011 at 11:31 pm #

    And, of course, further hypothetically, if they were allowed to examine the archive to their heart’s content, this would be work for a document examiner or analyst, not a typesetter, or an “entrepreneur”. Or a mail-order lawyer/dentist.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I hold out the possibility that Irey wouldn’t call it a forgery. He might maintain that it could be a forgery, but not that it is. The subpoena, of course, wouldn’t allow them to look at other certificates for comparison. Well, the subpoena actually doesn’t allow them to look at anything, but hypothetically….

  35. avatar
    Paul August 7, 2011 at 11:31 pm #

    Foggy:
    This is my first really off-topic comment here, so please forgive. We’re all just killing time until Orly makes her play anyway, right?

    I think I did something this afternoon that has never been done before. I spent 2 solid hours having a civil, frank, honest, factual and legal conversation with a birther, and it was all recorded and will be on BlogTalkRadio. He (Mark Gillar) and I got along great, and I think we created a milestone — the first really civil, really detailed debate between people on opposite sides of the fence, where nobody got in each other’s face. I didn’t do a perfect job. I’m not an encyclopedia. I don’t have the wealth of knowledge at my command that Dr. Conspiracy has. But I did show the birther world that an anti-birther doesn’t need “Alinsky tactics” to have a civil discussion.

    Then Gillar called me after the show and we talked ANOTHER 20 minutes about what a cool thing it was. I don’t think anything like that has happened before. He says he’ll have it on the air by tomorrow. When he does, I’ll put the link on Fogbow.

    Where we could agree on things, we agreed. Where we disagreed, we agreed to disagree. He’s not a Vattelite, which will cost him some goodwill in the birther community. But his views are honestly held, and I had no illusions about trying to convert him to my side.

    Dayum. That was WAY cool … magical, even!

    That’s freakin awesome

  36. avatar
    Obsolete August 8, 2011 at 12:11 am #

    John,
    When Orly is refused, and told she cannot see any birth certificate, should she threaten to spank the Judges and Hawaiian officials as you have done in the past? As Orly is Jewish, she might not add the Nazi kick that you did.

  37. avatar
    richCares August 8, 2011 at 12:18 am #

    what a failure john is:
    how many OMG moments have you touted here that eventuially failed, as this one will
    which OMG failure will get you to stop touting them
    if you can’t afford an analyst contact your pastor or priest

  38. avatar
    misha August 8, 2011 at 1:02 am #

    Obsolete: As Orly is Jewish, she might not add the Nazi kick that you did.

    First, let me say Orly is a shande. What’s the female equivalent of a putz? Anyone?

    She already did use the Nazi reference. When interviewed by David Shuster, who is also Jewish, Orly called Shuster and the rest of the media “brownshirts”:

    David Shuster…hosted Orly Taitz, who is a walking Saturday Night Live character, possibly played by Chris Kattan, come to life. The resulting discussion was, as you might imagine, pretty special! Taitz came on, speaking as if in a panic…referring to David Shuster as a “brownshirt…”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/03/orly-taitz-melts-down-on_n_250441.html

  39. avatar
    misha August 8, 2011 at 1:07 am #

    richCares: if you can’t afford an analyst contact your pastor or priest

    Or call George Bush, who has a direct line: God told me to invade Iraq. Really.

  40. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 8, 2011 at 2:25 am #

    john:
    I suggest to Orly that she hold her ground and refuse to leave Hawaii DOH if and only if the her supeona is carried out.

    Then the Hawaii Department of Health will basically have the Security Guards escort Orly Taitz from the building.

    Hawaii DOH can call the police but the police will state that Orly has a supeona and that the birth certificate will be accessed.If Hawaii has a problem, that is their problem.

    The Police do not enforce subpoenas, courts do. If the Hawaii Department of Health refuses, Orly will then have to goto the court that issued the subpoena to get it enforced. However, if she does that, she’ll have to prove that the subpoena is valid in the first place. It’s much more likely that the court will just quash the subpoena.

    Orly has a supeona signed by the clerk of court….

    That doesn’t matter. The subpoena is not valid in the first place, because it has no relevance to the case at hand. The case is a FOIA case. No records from a State have any relevance in any FOIA case, since the entire thing is to force the FEDERAL government to produce documents. The fact that Orly Taitz doesn’t know this is not surprising.

    The birth certificate will be examined.

    You’re more than welcome to believe this. We’ll see. Orly’s subpoena isn’t valid, because it requests nothing that is actually relevant to the case. In a case about getting documents from the Federal Government, nothing held by the State Government is actually relevant to it.

  41. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 8, 2011 at 2:31 am #

    john:
    “And BTW, the police do not enforce subpoenas.”

    I would guess that it would be true and if the police were called, the police could say it is out their juristication and Hawaii needs to take it up with the court.Perhaps the police might not interfere with court ordered supeona, it does have the signature of the clerk of the court.

    You just don’t seem to get it…

    Here’s what Orly Taitz situation would go…

    Orly Taitz would present the subpoena and ask to see the record. The government of Hawaii would say “No.” Orly Taitz would then refuse to leave. Hawaii would have her “escorted” from the building, possibly having her arrested on a minor charge to get her out.

    Orly may try to have the Police try to enforce the subpeona. The police would tell Orly Taitz, not the State of Hawaii, that she’d have to take it up with the court that issued the Subpoena. So, Orly Taitz would still be escorted from the premesis, and still not get her viewing of the birth certificate. It would be up to her to bring it up before the court that her case is before, which would likely be quashed right there. You just don’t seem to get it. Orly Taitz would need to get the Subpoena enforced by the court. The Government of Hawaii, absent a direct court order (not just a Subpoena, but something that’s actually signed by a judge) is well within their rights to refuse the subpoena.

  42. avatar
    Daniel August 8, 2011 at 3:26 am #

    john: their juristication and Hawaii needs to take it up with the court. Perhaps the police might not interfere with court ordered supeona, it does have the signature of the clerk of the court.

    Of course the police would be within their jurisdiction to arrest someone who is refusing to leave the DOH offices and creating a public nuisance by waving a fake subpoena around and screaming “let me feeeeeeeeeeenish!!!”

    I too hope Orly stands her ground. A night in the slammer might do her a world of good.

  43. avatar
    Daniel August 8, 2011 at 3:29 am #

    dunstvangeet: The Government of Hawaii, absent a direct court order (not just a Subpoena, but something that’s actually signed by a judge) is well within their rights to refuse the subpoena.

    Not only entitled to refuse, but legally required to refuse. The subpoena is not only worthless, it is patently counter to privacy laws in Hawaii. No subpoena can be used to compel someone to break the law.

  44. avatar
    G August 8, 2011 at 4:56 am #

    It is not a court order nor a valid subpoena. Just another stupid non-legal trick being pulled by Orly that has no legal backing.

    Paul: This “court order” or “subpoena” that she has… Is this actually a court decision stating that she has the right to inspect the BC? Or is this just a subpoena signed by some official that states that she has filed a subpoena?

  45. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny August 8, 2011 at 5:29 am #

    Foggy: Don’t I wish!

    Sorry, all I do is world peace. I actually have a degree in International Economics from Georgetown University. Sadly, half of what they taught me was wrong, and I forgot the other half.

    Like one of my daughters. Only she still remembers everything, but does not have the foggiest (pun intended, no Freud) which half is wrong.

  46. avatar
    Tarrant August 8, 2011 at 7:58 am #

    john:
    I suggest to Orly that she hold her ground and refuse to leave Hawaii DOH if and only if the her supeona is carried out.Hawaii DOH can call the police but the police will state that Orly has a supeona and that the birth certificate will be accessed.If Hawaii has a problem, that is their problem.Orly has a supeona signed by the clerk of court….The birth certificate will be examined.

    If the subpoena is not valid (and it isn’t), no amount of standing in the DOH offices stamping one’s feet is going to make them act upon it. A subpoena is not a court order, and only a court order would get her access to the document (a court order she will not obtain as the birth certificate is irrelevant to her case).

    After she is denied, she could file with the court for a motion to compel, which again, she wouldn’t get (they’d likely deny the motion and/or quash the subpoena) but speaking hypothetically, if it was granted, *that* would be a court order, and might be able to get her access.

  47. avatar
    richCares August 8, 2011 at 11:01 am #

    the odds are that Orly will not show up is very high, so poor john won’t get his cookies
    .
    it never ceases to amaze me that birthers fall for every OMG moment, answer this bithers, how many OMG moment failures does it take before you stop touting them? that is so silly!

  48. avatar
    Rickey August 8, 2011 at 11:03 am #

    Does anyone know if Orly actually flew to Honolulu yesterday? There are no Monday morning flights from L.A. which would get her to Honolulu by 10:00 a.m., so she would have had to fly yesterday at the latest. The earliest non-stop leaves LAX at 8:12 a.m. and doesn’t arrive in Honolulu until 10:56 a.m.

  49. avatar
    thisoldhippie August 8, 2011 at 11:14 am #

    I love it when attorneys, (and there are many), think that a subpoena signed by the clerk of court or the issuing attorney, or a non-party request for production of documents is binding. It’s really not in the long run. You can file a motion to enforce if they fail to respond, but like others have said, you have to prove it is valid in the first place. Neither a subpoena or an RPD is a court order. An order to produce must be signed by the judge, which requires a motion and a brief in support of to convince the judge that the document requested is essential to the case at hand.

  50. avatar
    shapeshipper August 8, 2011 at 11:46 am #

    FRCP 45(e) Contempt.

    The issuing court may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena. A nonparty’s failure to obey must be excused if the subpoena purports to require the nonparty to attend or produce at a place outside the limits of Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(ii) …(travel more than 100 miles from residence, place of employment or place where regular business is transacted.)

    Put Fuddy in jail until she complies.

  51. avatar
    thisoldhippie August 8, 2011 at 11:55 am #

    shapeshipper: FRCP 45(e) Contempt.The issuing court may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena. A nonparty’s failure to obey must be excused if the subpoena purports to require the nonparty to attend or produce at a place outside the limits of Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(ii) …(travel more than 100 miles from residence, place of employment or place where regular business is transacted.)Put Fuddy in jail until she complies.

    the issuing court MAY hold in contempt – but you know how that happens? By Taitz filing a motion to compel and proving to a judge that it’s a valid subpoena. Law enforcement isn’t going to throw anyone in jail today, tomorrow, or next year over this POS.

  52. avatar
    JoZeppy August 8, 2011 at 12:04 pm #

    shapeshipper: FRCP 45(e) Contempt.The issuing court may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena. A nonparty’s failure to obey must be excused if the subpoena purports to require the nonparty to attend or produce at a place outside the limits of Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(ii) …(travel more than 100 miles from residence, place of employment or place where regular business is transacted.)Put Fuddy in jail until she complies.

    Reading is Fundamental.

    “The issuing court may hold in contempt.” That means Orly has to go back to the Dist. Court and file a motion for contempt. Good luck with that as the subpoena isn’t valid as the case is not in discovery, and as the earlier letter pointed out, she is asking for things that are protected from disclosure under law.

    “fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena” They do have an adequte excuse. 1) It is not a valid subpoena, as her case is not in discovery. 2) As they have pointed out in earlier correspondence, even it it was valid, it asks for material protected by law 3) it is unduly burdensome as it asks a thrid party to produce material that is not relevant to the case before the court.

    The only person who has a chance of ending up in jail is Orly.

  53. avatar
    BatGuano August 8, 2011 at 12:05 pm #

    shapeshipper:

    Put Fuddy in jail until she complies.

    i think i’ll wait a bit before i start printing [b]FREE FUDDY[/b] shirts.

  54. avatar
    Bob Stanley August 8, 2011 at 12:05 pm #

    Where’s the subpoena?

    Where’s the court order?

  55. avatar
    G August 8, 2011 at 12:08 pm #

    Yeah, the only person with any chance of ending up in jail over this charade is crazy Orly… and that is only if she actually shows up and then does some stupid spazz-out and refuses to leave when they tell her to and brings some sort of law enforcement action upon herself. She’s a total nut, so with her, anything is possible. But you can guarantee if Orly ever ends up in jail or in a nuthouse, it will be completely due to her own actions, incompetence and inability to react to situations like a sane person.

    Poor deluded “shapeshifter”. Hate to break it to him that Fuddy hasn’t anything at all to be concerned about and has ZERO chance of ending up in jail. Somebody break out some “sad trombone” music for all the gullible Birthers today, as their latest OMG moment follows all the previous ones into total failure.

    thisoldhippie: the issuing court MAY hold in contempt – but you know how that happens? By Taitz filing a motion to compel and proving to a judge that it’s a valid subpoena. Law enforcement isn’t going to throw anyone in jail today, tomorrow, or next year over this POS.

  56. avatar
    J.Potter August 8, 2011 at 12:24 pm #

    No posts on her site since Friday …. a hysterical comment chain building up on her last post there ….
    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=24498

  57. avatar
    thisoldhippie August 8, 2011 at 12:46 pm #

    LOVE this comment on Orly’s site:

    Nutmeg
    August 6th, 2011 @ 5:15 am
    Bob67 – you don’t understand the absolutely brilliant mind of Dr. Taitz. Once the BC is proven to be a forgery, then even if they say he is a natural born citizen, it won’t matter.

    You can rest assured that by the end of Monday the 8th of August, that Orly will have personally managed to have Obama frog marched out of out White House – complete with handcuffs and shackles.

    You don’t mess with Orly and you don’t produce proven forgerys. End of story.

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=24492#comments

  58. avatar
    Bob August 8, 2011 at 12:51 pm #

    After today, Taitz is the one responsible for producing the birth certificate.

    Where’s the birth certificate?

    ASK ORLY!

  59. avatar
    misha August 8, 2011 at 1:05 pm #

    G: Somebody break out some “sad trombone” music for all the gullible Birthers today,

    Here you go: [That’s all folks.]

  60. avatar
    misha August 8, 2011 at 1:07 pm #

    shapeshipper: Put Fuddy in jail until she complies.

    Put Orly in an institution, where she belongs.

  61. avatar
    Paul August 8, 2011 at 1:24 pm #

    She has a post up now saying “I was up since 2 am, please do not call or text me.”

    Boy, if that’s not in invitation for us all to hit the phones, i don’t know what is LOL

  62. avatar
    BlackSunshine84 August 8, 2011 at 1:38 pm #

    What makes Douglas Vogt and Paul Irey unqualified? and what expertise would one need to have to be qualified to examine a document for authenticity?

  63. avatar
    misha August 8, 2011 at 1:41 pm #

    Paul: Boy, if that’s not in invitation for us all to hit the phones, i don’t know what is

    Anyone have her text address, that could be sent from a computer?

  64. avatar
    J.Potter August 8, 2011 at 1:41 pm #

    She lets her worshippers have her direct line … ?

    Paul:
    She has a post up now saying “I was up since 2 am, please do not call or text me.”

    Boy, if that’s not in invitation for us all to hit the phones, i don’t know what is LOL

  65. avatar
    misha August 8, 2011 at 1:42 pm #

    BlackSunshine84: What makes Douglas Vogt and Paul Irey unqualified?

    Because they are cranks.

  66. avatar
    Scientist August 8, 2011 at 1:43 pm #

    BlackSunshine84: What makes Douglas Vogt and Paul Irey unqualified? and what expertise would one need to have to be qualified to examine a document for authenticity?

    What makes them qualiified? Besides, they haven’t examined any document at all. Think about that again-they have never set eyes or hands on any actual document.

  67. avatar
    Paul August 8, 2011 at 1:47 pm #

    misha: Anyone have her text address, that could be sent from a computer?

    “Oily Taint”

  68. avatar
    Paul August 8, 2011 at 1:48 pm #

    Oops…

    9496835411@tmomail.net

  69. avatar
    Paul August 8, 2011 at 1:50 pm #

    I’ve been sending her texts from my computer saying “WAKE UP! WAKE UP! WAKE UP! WAKE UP! WAKE UP! WAKE UP! WAKE UP!”

    So far none of them have bounced back.

  70. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 8, 2011 at 1:50 pm #

    BlackSunshine84:
    What makes Douglas Vogt and Paul Irey unqualified? and what expertise would one need to have to be qualified to examine a document for authenticity?

    Easy…

    One thing would actually be part of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners, which is basically the organization that regulates the field of Questioned Document Examiners. Is Douglas Vogt and Paul Irey members of this organization?

  71. avatar
    BatGuano August 8, 2011 at 1:55 pm #

    BlackSunshine84:
    ….and what expertise would one need to have to be qualified to examine a document for authenticity?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Questioned_document_examination

  72. avatar
    Obsolete August 8, 2011 at 2:11 pm #

    BlackSunshine84:
    “What makes Douglas Vogt and Paul Irey unqualified?”

    Well, if they hadn’t pronounced Obama’s birth certificate a forgery before they set eyes on it, that would make them less of a crank. But they would still be unqualified.
    I would trust a random kid at Best Buy’s opinion before theirs.

  73. avatar
    Sef August 8, 2011 at 2:15 pm #

    Obsolete: I would trust a random kid at Best Buy’s opinion before theirs.

    Ha ha!, Orly’s geek squad!

  74. avatar
    richCares August 8, 2011 at 2:23 pm #

    watch our birther posters disappear as this one fails, they will search for another OMG moment, I think it takes 175,090 OMG failures before they stop believing them (250,023 for john)

  75. avatar
    BatGuano August 8, 2011 at 2:28 pm #

    richCares:
    …, I think it takes 175,090 OMG failures before they stopbelieving them

    no, that’s just when they advance to the super-OMG level.

  76. avatar
    Daniel August 8, 2011 at 2:54 pm #

    Just to make sure I checked the time zone map. Looks like Hawaii is 3 hours behind me (no daylight savings time apparently).

    So that means that the event in question should be happening local 1:00pm PT, for 10:00am OFT*

    *Orly Fail Time

  77. avatar
    Sef August 8, 2011 at 3:00 pm #

    One hour until Armageddon,

  78. avatar
    BlackSunshine84 August 8, 2011 at 3:07 pm #

    If we are to believe Obama is eligible because he says so, then shouldn’t we believe Vogt and Irey are experts as they claim they are? There are several examined documents expert societies that one can join, but that does not mean that a person belonging to none is not considered an expert. Expertise comes from experience, not a certificate. Calling Vogt and Irey cranks makes you seem desperate. Calling Orly Taitz names, too, makes you seem as hysterical as she is.
    Anyways, we all know nothing is going to come of this, right? Fuddy will refuse to comply as she did previously. It isn’t really a victory for you if she does refuse, is it? Obama has posted 3 COLBs and one long form BC online already, so what is the big deal? Wouldn’t it be better to just let them look at it, get it over with?

  79. avatar
    Sef August 8, 2011 at 3:09 pm #

    There’s sort of a live update over at thefogbow with mikedunford

    http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=5421&sid=5947c3bb877479addfa662a6dc5f62ee&start=3600

  80. avatar
    Scientist August 8, 2011 at 3:14 pm #

    BlackSunshine84: If we are to believe Obama is eligible because he says so

    That’s actually how it worked for all of his predecessors.

    BlackSunshine84: Expertise comes from experience, not a certificate.

    What experience do Vogt and Irie have in forensic document analysis? Have they ever been accepted as expert witnesses in any case involving a conntested document?

    BlackSunshine84: Wouldn’t it be better to just let them look at it, get it over with?

    It is over and has been since Congress certified the election. Sorry you missed it.

  81. avatar
    J.Potter August 8, 2011 at 3:37 pm #

    “Wouldn’t it be better to just let them look at it, get it over with?”

    No. As Doc says, DON’T FEED THE TROLLS. In this case, don’t assist them in repositioning their goalposts. This isn’t a debate about reality, but about the utility of the refusal by some to accept reality. Their challenges have no worth. All that is left is to study the origins and motives of said parties and their challenges.

  82. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 8, 2011 at 3:46 pm #

    No, we are to believe Obama because Congress says so. He was born in Hawaii because the State of Hawaii says so.

    Irey and Vogt have expertise, but by their own testimony they are not experts in the areas in which they make assertions.

    We have certifications to keep junk science out of the discussion.

    BlackSunshine84: If we are to believe Obama is eligible because he says so, then shouldn’t we believe Vogt and Irey are experts as they claim they are?

  83. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 8, 2011 at 3:51 pm #

    Clearly, if we abandon the rule of law (which in this case would be ignoring Hawaiian statutes to let a nut case pursue a conspiracy theory) then the country loses.

    While birthers make tremendous noise about upholding the Constitution, their actual rhetoric shows that they would throw it all away just to get rid of Obama. They want jurisdictions to break their own laws, they want the courts to exceed their constitutional authority and in extreme cases, they want a lynch mob to drag the President out in chains.

    BlackSunshine84: Anyways, we all know nothing is going to come of this, right? Fuddy will refuse to comply as she did previously. It isn’t really a victory for you if she does refuse, is it? Obama has posted 3 COLBs and one long form BC online already, so what is the big deal? Wouldn’t it be better to just let them look at it, get it over with?

  84. avatar
    BlackSunshine84 August 8, 2011 at 4:00 pm #

    I didn’t say it isn’t over. I only said it’s odd for so many to spend so much of their time defending against her allegations since they are without merit. And not just defending Obama, but name-calling, like children.

    And it is not exactly true that Obama is the only presidential candidate to be questioned about his eligibility exactly. McCain’s eligibility was investigated. The result was Senate Resolution 511, co-authored and signed by Obama, recognizing that because McCain’s father was serving in the military when McCain was born in Panama and McCain’s parents were United States citizens that McCain is a natural born United States citizen.
    But anyways, this is just a distraction. We KNOW Obama was born in Hawaii. The real issue is his parentage. According to Chief Justice Waites syllabus on Minor v. Happersett, a natural born citizen is as Vattel defined it, born on the soil to parents who are its citizens. That it the precedent. It’s binding. It’s law.
    Not that this will ever see the light of of a courtroom. Liberals don’t care about law, our Constitution. They care about winning even if that means they must be unethical to do so.

  85. avatar
    thisoldhippie August 8, 2011 at 4:02 pm #

    I think Fogbow crashed.

  86. avatar
    Scientist August 8, 2011 at 4:04 pm #

    BlackSunshine84: Liberals don’t care about law, our Constitution.

    Under the 20th Amendment (whiich is part of the Constitution), all eligibility issues are to be resolved by Congress between the Electoral College vote and the Inauguration. By not acceptinng that, it is YOU who show contempt for the law and the Constitution.

  87. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 8, 2011 at 4:05 pm #

    BlackSunshine84:
    If we are to believe Obama is eligible because he says so, then shouldn’t we believe Vogt and Irey are experts as they claim they are?

    Okay, what education do they say that they have? How many cases have they testified as Questioned Document Examiners? I’m going off of what they say. All that we have are two people that say that they’ve scanned documents a bunch of times. As far as I know, there’s no scanner involved with an actual physical document.

    And we’re not taking Obama’s word for it. We’re taking Alvin T. Onaka’s word for it that said about the document that Obama has presented: “I certify this is a true copy or abstract of the document on file in the Hawaii Department of Health.” That means the entire State Government of Hawaii is behind that government. So, we’re not taking Obama’s word for it. We’re taking the State of Hawaii’s word for it.

    There are several examined documents expert societies that one can join, but that does not mean that a person belonging to none is not considered an expert.

    Actually, it does. If one does not belong to a well-established organization such as the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners, that means that they are not a Questioned Document Examiner. This is the premiere group regulating the forensic field of Questioned Document Examination. No court in the land would accept someone who isn’t recognized in the field to be an expert in the field. It would be like claiming to be a Lawyer without being a member of the State Bar. And no lawyer worth their salt would actually put someone who wasn’t a member of these societies to be a expert.

    Expertise comes from experience, not a certificate. Calling Vogt and Irey cranks makes you seem desperate.

    Okay, what is their education? Do they have degrees in Questioned Document Examination? How many cases have they testified in as Questioned Document Examiners? How many peer-reviewed articles have they published, and can you name these articles? No court in any land would actually accept them as experts just because they say that they would.

    On the other hand, we have seen a document from the State of Hawaii saying that Obama was born there. The State of Hawaii says Obama was born there.

    Anyways, we all know nothing is going to come of this, right? Fuddy will refuse to comply as she did previously.

    You’re right. Nothing will actually come of this. Not only will Fuddy ignore this subpoena, but she is legally required to refuse Orly Taitz’s request. Orly Taitz may go back and try to get a court to enforce it, but no court will actually enforce the subpoena, especially not a court that has a case that has absolutely nothing to do with the birth certificate (remember, the actual case is all about the FOIA request. Nothing held by a State government is relevant to whether or not the Federal Government is legally producing documents.)

    It isn’t really a victory for you if she does refuse, is it? Obama has posted 3 COLBs and one long form BC online already, so what is the big deal? Wouldn’t it be better to just let them look at it, get it over with?

    Still would not get it over with…

    Here’s the brief history of birtherism…

    Obama produces his “valid Hawaii State Birth Certificate” (words of Hawaii Department of Health Spokesman Janice Okubo) by scanning it and putting a image out on the Internet. He emails this image to various news organizations. Birthers call it a forgery, despite no actual evidence that it was forged. They then make false claims to try to discount that he might actually have a Hawaii Birth Certificate (by falsely concluding that he could get a birth certificate that says that he was born in Hawaii when he wasn’t, calling his mother and grandmother the masterminds of a 50-year plot to get him eligible to be President, etc.). They then say that it doesn’t matter anyways due to falsely concluding that Obama was ineligible due to the well-known fact that his father was not a citizen.

    Obama tries to dispel these rumors by allowing a well-known fact-checking organization with a history of being bi-partisan to come up and handle the birth certificate. They document it, report that it’s real, and photograph it showing their findings. The birther movement ignores it and calls the organization a plant for Obama.

    Obama then after a few years writes a letter to the Hawaii Department of Health in order to get a special exception in order for the Hawaii Department of Health to give him a copy of his long-form – the same long-form that the birthers have been saying that if he just released it, it would be all over. The Hawaii Department of Health gives this document an impeachable chain of custody, and he then shows this document in a press conference. He scans it, and puts it on the web, and gives photocopies to the press, who then scan the photocopy and puts it up on the web. The birthers claim that it’s a forgery, despite having absolutely no proof to it. They then come up with fantastic stories to discount the Hawaii Department of Health vouching for it. They then claim that it doesn’t matter anyways…

    So, if Orly Taitz somehow does get the actual document, why would she believe a document that she’s twice called a forgery, despite having absolutely no evidence for it. What makes you think that the Birthers will act completely contrary to the other times that they’ve gotten information and accept this document?

  88. avatar
    obsolete August 8, 2011 at 4:07 pm #

    BlackSunshine84: According to Chief Justice Waites syllabus on Minor v. Happersett, a natural born citizen is as Vattel defined it, born on the soil to parents who are its citizens. That it the precedent. It’s binding. It’s law.

    Wrong.
    Provide the quote. It seems you have been led down another wrong path by birthers such as Orly.

    At what point do you get mad at birthers for lying to you? At what point do you feel embarrassment for repeating their lies?

  89. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 8, 2011 at 4:07 pm #

    What I’m seeing at Fogbow looks like too many visitors are hitting it at the same time and they’re running out of memory. When that happens users hit the refresh button over and over making it worse.

    thisoldhippie: I think Fogbow crashed.

  90. avatar
    Daniel August 8, 2011 at 4:07 pm #

    BlackSunshine84:
    I didn’t say it isn’t over. I only said it’s odd for so many to spend so much of their time defending against her allegations since they are without merit.

    Mainly because sedition must be opposed.

    Too bad for you that M vs H doesn’t say what you really need it to say.

    But then what can one expect from a birther?

  91. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 8, 2011 at 4:09 pm #

    BlackSunshine84:
    I didn’t say it isn’t over. I only said it’s odd for so many to spend so much of their time defending against her allegations since they are without merit. And not just defending Obama, but name-calling, like children.

    And it is not exactly true that Obama is the only presidential candidate to be questioned about his eligibility exactly. McCain’s eligibility was investigated. The result was Senate Resolution 511, co-authored and signed by Obama, recognizing that because McCain’s father was serving in the military when McCain was born in Panama and McCain’s parents were United States citizens that McCain is a natural born United States citizen.
    But anyways, this is just a distraction. We KNOW Obama was born in Hawaii. The real issue is his parentage. According to Chief Justice Waites syllabus on Minor v. Happersett, a natural born citizen is as Vattel defined it, born on the soil to parents who are its citizens. That it the precedent. It’s binding. It’s law.
    Not that this will ever see the light of of a courtroom. Liberals don’t care about law, our Constitution. They care about winning even if that means they must be unethical to do so.

    Hate to tell you this. But Hawaii has passed resolutions saying that Obama was born in Hawaii. Yet, you want Orly Taitz to waste their entire time trying to investigate something that, according to your own definitions, Congress has already defined.

    As far as your “vattel” theory, it’s not born out. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark directly said that the citizenship of the United States has always been based upon English Common Law. Why would the founders of our country commit Constitutional Malpractice by using a term that had a 400 year history as a term of art in English Common Law, completely redefine it, not put the new definition in the Constitution (as they did with terms such as Treason), and then not tell anybody only to have it rediscovered 200 years later, not by any lawyer who actually specializes in the Constitution, but by a Dog-Bite Lawyer, and a Poker Player?

  92. avatar
    Tarrant August 8, 2011 at 4:10 pm #

    While I know it’s feeding the troll, but the precedent of minor says that the two parents definition definitely does create a natural born citizen, it specifically said there can be other definitions too! It was very clear on that point, that it was NOT excluding others from being natural born.

    That you quote the parts you like as binding an ignore the others is willful ignorance.

  93. avatar
    obsolete August 8, 2011 at 4:14 pm #

    BlackSunshine84: Liberals don’t care about law, our Constitution.

    We are not the ones calling for military coups or lynchings. We are not the ones asking the courts to overstep their bounds and usurp Congress’ authority.

    We are the ones who recognize that the correct process was followed, and respect the results of the last Presidential election. You would allow cranks to overturn the will of the people.

    Look at the quality of lawyers who are birthers- Mocking is almost too good for them. Why do you not have one, single, decent, conservative lawyer/scholar on your side? All you have are an online diploma attorney, DUI lawyers, ambulance chasers, and part-time poker players. No wonder birthers will never win a case.

  94. avatar
    DJW August 8, 2011 at 4:22 pm #

    Hey Doc, Fogbow isn’t working for me right now. Is it working for you? I’m keen to know what Orly’s up to.

  95. avatar
    JoZeppy August 8, 2011 at 4:23 pm #

    BlackSunshine84: If we are to believe Obama is eligible because he says so, then shouldn’t we believe Vogt and Irey are experts as they claim they are?

    Actually, we believe Obama is eligible because he says so, the State of Hawaii says so, the US Congress says so, and the electorial college says so (pretty much making it a legal fact)…not to mention, it defies all logic and very well may be near impossible for him to be born in Kenya or anywhere else outside of Hawaii. We don’t believe Vogt and Irey, because even their claimed expertise isn’t in document forensic examiniation, and even their purported expertise wouldn’t survive a Daubert hearing.

    BlackSunshine84: There are several examined documents expert societies that one can join, but that does not mean that a person belonging to none is not considered an expert. Expertise comes from experience, not a certificate. Calling Vogt and Irey cranks makes you seem desperate.

    And exactly how many documents have Voght and Irey examined in the past? I’ll give you a hint: Exactly zero. Neither one has any experience in forensic document examinaition. That is why they are cranks.

    BlackSunshine84: Calling Orly Taitz names, too, makes you seem as hysterical as she is.

    Orly is only called what she merits. She is an embarassment to the legal community, and she needs to be called out as such. To do less would be to accept that such behavoir as somehow within the spectrum of what permissible by the bar.

    BlackSunshine84: Anyways, we all know nothing is going to come of this, right? Fuddy will refuse to comply as she did previously. It isn’t really a victory for you if she does refuse, is it?

    Nothing will happen, and it is not a vocitory for us, bu rather the rule of law.

    BlackSunshine84: Obama has posted 3 COLBs and one long form BC online already, so what is the big deal? Wouldn’t it be better to just let them look at it, get it over with?

    First of all, it wouldn’t be over. They would just do what they have at every turn…called it a forgery based on pseudoscientific B.S. The big deal is that Hawaii would violate it’s very laws. When the government can pick and choose which laws it needs to comply with, we all lose.

  96. avatar
    Bovril August 8, 2011 at 4:27 pm #

    FB and FB chat are both dead in the water, my gruntle is dissed

  97. avatar
    obsolete August 8, 2011 at 4:32 pm #

    Bovril: my gruntle is dissed

    Make that two.

    Maybe Orly is now on top of the DOH building, having progressed to her Cagney “Top of the world, ma!” moment……

    Or, to borrow from another classic movie, perhaps she is ready for her close-up.

  98. avatar
    Daniel August 8, 2011 at 4:34 pm #

    Ms Taitz, smile for the camera please…. and hold the little sign straight

  99. avatar
    J.Potter August 8, 2011 at 4:37 pm #

    Unconfirmed report, Taitz already sent packing.

    Maybe, if this had been a serious endeavour, not a publicity stunt, sho shouldn’t have telegraphed it weeks in advance?

  100. avatar
    JoZeppy August 8, 2011 at 4:41 pm #

    BlackSunshine84: And it is not exactly true that Obama is the only presidential candidate to be questioned about his eligibility exactly. McCain’s eligibility was investigated.

    No. McCain was never really questioned, although there is an actual debate in the legal community as to if he is an NBC. There was no investigation either. In a pre-emptive move to prevent any question, the Senate had two actual Constitutional scholars right something to declare him an NBC, and they passed a resolution. There was no investigation.

    BlackSunshine84: The result was Senate Resolution 511, co-authored and signed by Obama, recognizing that because McCain’s father was serving in the military when McCain was born in Panama and McCain’s parents were United States citizens that McCain is a natural born United States citizen.

    See above. None of which has anything to do with President Obama, since he clearly is a NBC due to the location of his birth, which is unquestionably sufficient.

    BlackSunshine84: But anyways, this is just a distraction. We KNOW Obama was born in Hawaii.

    Then why do you care about having the birth certificate examined?

    BlackSunshine84: The real issue is his parentage. According to Chief Justice Waites syllabus on Minor v. Happersett, a natural born citizen is as Vattel defined it, born on the soil to parents who are its citizens.

    Actually no. Did you actually read the opinion? Of course not. Otherwise you wouldn’t say such foolish nonsense. The Court says flat out it doesn’t need to answer the question. So there is no definition there.

    BlackSunshine84: That it the precedent. It’s binding. It’s law.

    Me thinks you should not make statements about the law, when you’ve never studied the law. First off, as said above, the court did not define NBC. Secondly, the statements birthers love to quote isn’t precident. It is actually dicta, so even if it did say what you claim it did, it would not be binding. And even if it wasn’t dicta, and actually said what you claim it said, it would be considered overruled by WKA, that said only jus soli.

    BlackSunshine84: Not that this will ever see the light of of a courtroom.

    Actually it has. And it has been shot down. It’s rarely does get very far, because it’s a frivolous argument, and you can’t even drum up standing.

    BlackSunshine84: Liberals don’t care about law, our Constitution.

    Says the person who thinks we should ignore the law so Orly and her cadre of quack can look at a document that law prohibits them seeing? Says the person who latches on junk law arguments to attack and attempt to overthrow a legally elected presidnet?

    BlackSunshine84: They care about winning even if that means they must be unethical to do so.

    You mean like filing forged documents that you get from a convicted felon in court?

  101. avatar
    Bran Mak Morn August 8, 2011 at 4:49 pm #

    “I would have gotten away with it, if it wasn’t for my pesty right hand which has become an Obot and can’t write a proper subpoena.”

  102. avatar
    Judge Mental August 8, 2011 at 4:53 pm #

    Fogbow is working fine for me with the exception of chat which is still down.

  103. avatar
    Judge Mental August 8, 2011 at 4:57 pm #

    Apparently she turned up at 9.35, was met by two DOH reps who handed her a letter and advised her that this was all they were obliged to do. She left with her two ‘experts’ apparently heading for the court.

  104. avatar
    Judge Mental August 8, 2011 at 5:00 pm #

    What a shock eh?

  105. avatar
    chancery August 8, 2011 at 5:05 pm #

    Fogbow is back up, including chat, thanks to fast work (and, I gather, some extra expense) by Foggy.

  106. avatar
    Bovril August 8, 2011 at 5:08 pm #

    FB back on line

  107. avatar
    thisoldhippie August 8, 2011 at 5:54 pm #

    Chat done been kilt.

  108. avatar
    thisoldhippie August 8, 2011 at 5:55 pm #

    Um, did I say something to have moderation kick in?

  109. avatar
    Daniel August 8, 2011 at 6:27 pm #

    thisoldhippie:
    Um, did I say something to have moderation kick in?

    Why would you be asking us? πŸ˜‰

  110. avatar
    thisoldhippie August 8, 2011 at 6:30 pm #

    Because when I posted here a moment ago it was in moderation. Never had that happen before

  111. avatar
    Daniel August 8, 2011 at 6:40 pm #

    So here’s Orlys exparte emergency motion to compel, wherein she requests a hearing for tomorrow, aug 9th.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/61883778/TAITZ-v-ASTRUE-USDC-HAWAII-1-1-Attachments-1-RECAP-Emergency-Ex-Parte-Motion-for-Emergency-Order-to-Show-Cause-and-to-Compel-Attendance-for

    But it looks as though the soonest hearing she was able to get is Sept 1th

  112. avatar
    Daniel August 8, 2011 at 6:46 pm #

    thisoldhippie:
    Because when I posted here a moment ago it was in moderation. Never had that happen before

    Doc does it randomly just to keep us on our toes

  113. avatar
    Daniel August 8, 2011 at 6:47 pm #

    Daniel: But it looks as though the soonest hearing she was able to get is Sept 1th

    that should be sept 14th.

  114. avatar
    Tarrant August 8, 2011 at 6:51 pm #

    I’ll give Orly one thing – she actually did what a lawyer should for once. They refused, and she filed for a Motion to Compel. She won’t get it, because the birth certificate is irrelevant to her FOIA case, but it was proper procedure. She was told she needed a court order, and such an order if granted would be one. Rather than throwing a tantrum at the offices, she went to file for the order.

    So, partial credit, Orly!

  115. avatar
    obsolete August 8, 2011 at 6:54 pm #

    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…)

  116. avatar
    Daniel August 8, 2011 at 6:54 pm #

    Tarrant: I’ll give Orly one thing – she actually did what a lawyer should for once.

    Well other than lawyers are duty bound not to waste the court’s time by filing motions they know have no chance in hell of being granted.

  117. avatar
    misha August 8, 2011 at 6:57 pm #

    Daniel: So here’s Orlys exparte emergency motion to compel, wherein she requests a hearing for tomorrow, aug 9th.

    From:
    Case 1:11-mc-00158-SOM -RLP Document 1-1 Filed 08/08/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 4

    “Fuddy was subpoenaed to appear and produce documents and things”

    “and things”?! I talked that way until the 9th grade.

  118. avatar
    Daniel August 8, 2011 at 7:12 pm #

    Reported but unconfirmed

    08/08/2011 4 EO: The 1[RECAP] MOTION to Compel will be heard in the normal course. Plaintiff to provide notice of the hearing to be set to all interested parties. (JUDGE RICHARD L. PUGLISI)

    In other words….

    You’ll’ wait your bloody turn just like everyone else, Ms Taitz

  119. avatar
    Daniel August 8, 2011 at 7:21 pm #

    Has anyone seen a report on this morning from any birther blog yet?

  120. avatar
    Obsolete August 8, 2011 at 7:28 pm #

    I suppose the birther blogs are still anxiously watching Fox News, waiting to see Obama removed in handcuffs, as several said was certain to happen today.

  121. avatar
    BlackSunshine84 August 8, 2011 at 7:31 pm #

    Didn’t Hawaii already violate it’s own law when the governor was allowed to view Obama’s BC and disclose information about it? or are certain people above the law?

  122. avatar
    BlackSunshine84 August 8, 2011 at 7:33 pm #

    There was indeed a hearing on McCain’s eligibility and it was not pre-emptive, but in response to a lawsuit filed by Leo Donofrio against the New Jersey SoS for failing to properly vet McCain.

  123. avatar
    joyeagle August 8, 2011 at 7:33 pm #

    Hey … your back!! Thought we lost you for a while. πŸ˜‰

    BlackSunshine84:
    Didn’t Hawaii already violate it’s own law when the governor was allowed to view Obama’s BC and disclose information about it? or are certain people above the law?

  124. avatar
    Tarrant August 8, 2011 at 7:35 pm #

    I’m willing to put up $50 that Orly will not properly notify the other parties the first attempt. Anyone? Anyone?

  125. avatar
    BlackSunshine84 August 8, 2011 at 7:38 pm #

    I really don’t care if it’s ever examined. I’m more interested in the reactions of liberals. You folks go bonkers over it and I’m just wondering why a group of people so confident in Obama’s eligibility spends so much of time trying to discredit a person who believes differently. Surely you can understand that? It’s like, me thinks thou doth protest too much…

  126. avatar
    JoZeppy August 8, 2011 at 7:38 pm #

    BlackSunshine84: Didn’t Hawaii already violate it’s own law when the governor was allowed to view Obama’s BC and disclose information about it? or are certain people above the law?

    As far as I know, the governor never actually viewed the document, but rather requested that his head of DOH ensure that the document was on file (and as custodian of record, the head of DOH does have authority to view the records). All within the duties of the government to ensure proper record keeping. The governor did not reveal any information that is not included on the index, which is considered public information, so, no, there are no violations of law.

  127. avatar
    misha August 8, 2011 at 7:40 pm #

    BlackSunshine84: Didn’t Hawaii already violate it’s own law when the governor was allowed to view Obama’s BC and disclose information about it?

    I want to help you. I found a Kenya BC (Obama’s?) that’s right here!

    Hope this helps.

  128. avatar
    BlackSunshine84 August 8, 2011 at 7:43 pm #

    Oh no no no no no. Chief Justice Waites states quite clearly in his syllabus on Minor v. Happersett that there is no doubt that a natural born citizen is one born on the soil to parents who are its citizens. It’s the precedent. It’s the law. It’s binding. You can’t just say it isn’t out there. What you have to do is research and find a case where this precedent is overturned. That’s how it works in law.

  129. avatar
    BlackSunshine84 August 8, 2011 at 7:45 pm #

    The governor told MSNBC in an interview that she had viewed the document with her own eyes and it was half typed and half hand written.

  130. avatar
    BlackSunshine84 August 8, 2011 at 7:47 pm #

    FOX News doesn’t report on birther cases. As a matter of fact, Bill O’Reilly ran interference for Obama not long ago, said that Obama has a Connecticut SSN because his daddy lived there for several yrs.

  131. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 8, 2011 at 7:48 pm #

    BlackSunshine84:
    There was indeed a hearing on McCain’s eligibility and it was not pre-emptive, but in response to a lawsuit filed by Leo Donofrio against the New Jersey SoS for failing to properly vet McCain.

    Leo Donofrio didn’t actually file that lawsuit until well after the resolution was passed.

    Senate Resolution 511 was passed on April 30, 2008.

    Donofrio v. Wells was filed in October of 2008.

    How is something that happens before the filing a lawsuit, a direct response to that filing?

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-511

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_presidential_eligibility_litigation

    So, we have apparently a bunch of Time-Travelling Senators, who, after seeing Donofrio v. Wells being filed, went back in time 6 months, so that they could pre-empt the eventual filing of Donofrio v. Wells.

  132. avatar
    BlackSunshine84 August 8, 2011 at 7:49 pm #

    LoL You did lose me for awhile. I had to take my foster puppies for their vet check up.

  133. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 8, 2011 at 7:50 pm #

    BlackSunshine84: The governor told MSNBC in an interview that she had viewed the document with her own eyes and it was half typed and half hand written.

    He also said that the definition might be more broad to encompass anybody born here. However, he was not going to decide it because he didn’t need to for the purposes of the case. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark came along, and directly said that U.S. Citizenship Law comes from English Common Law, not a Swiss Philosopher.

    If you actually read the case, you might actually know that.

  134. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 8, 2011 at 7:51 pm #

    Sorry, wrong quote. That should be the Chief Justice Waite.

  135. avatar
    JoZeppy August 8, 2011 at 7:52 pm #

    BlackSunshine84: There was indeed a hearing on McCain’s eligibility and it was not pre-emptive, but in response to a lawsuit filed by Leo Donofrio against the New Jersey SoS for failing to properly vet McCain.

    There were no hearings. There was no investigation, and Donofrio never sued the secretary of state of NJ over McCain (You’re thinking of Berg filing in the Dist of NH. The case was quickly dismissed for lack of standing). If there was a Senate hearings and an investigation, you should be able to cite to the senate calendar for when those hearings were, and provide a senate report citation. You won’t, because it never happened. You might pull out the leahy/Chertoff quotes, but if you actually look at the congressional record, you’ll see that was one off question during a hearing on Homeland Security, not a hearing on McCain’s elibiglity.

  136. avatar
    BlackSunshine84 August 8, 2011 at 7:53 pm #

    Don’t you think she was kind of entitled to an emergency hearing? It’s the state of Hawaii who ignored the subpoena and it’s underhanded to stall just to cause Taitz a hardship.

  137. avatar
    Scientist August 8, 2011 at 7:53 pm #

    BlackSunshine84: Chief Justice Waites states quite clearly in his syllabus on Minor v. Happersett that there is no doubt that a natural born citizen is one born on the soil to parents who are its citizens.

    Citation? He said that those were natural born citiizens, not that those were the ONLY natural born citizens. If I say Labrador retrievers are definitelly dogs, that in no way says that Scottish terriers are not also dogs. Think, sir, think before you type.

    Anyway, you need to face the fact that the presidency is NOT a matter to be decided by judges. We tried that a few years ago and it didn’t work out so well. It is a matter for the voters and Congress and ONLY them. They can listen to learned judges, but theyy makke their own decisions.

  138. avatar
    JoZeppy August 8, 2011 at 7:53 pm #

    BlackSunshine84: I really don’t care if it’s ever examined. I’m more interested in the reactions of liberals. You folks go bonkers over it and I’m just wondering why a group of people so confident in Obama’s eligibility spends so much of time trying to discredit a person who believes differently. Surely you can understand that? It’s like, me thinks thou doth protest too much…

    Because it comes down to respect for the law, and the lack of it shown by birthers.

  139. avatar
    JoZeppy August 8, 2011 at 8:01 pm #

    BlackSunshine84: Oh no no no no no. Chief Justice Waites states quite clearly in his syllabus on Minor v. Happersett that there is no doubt that a natural born citizen is one born on the soil to parents who are its citizens. It’s the precedent. It’s the law. It’s binding. You can’t just say it isn’t out there. What you have to do is research and find a case where this precedent is overturned. That’s how it works in law.

    First off, a syllabus is not part of the opinion of the court, and is not precident (except for Ohio Supreme Court opinions).

    Secondly, you are correct, that the Court stated that there is no doubt one born to citizen parents is NBC, and some question if those born on soil not to citizen parents are NBC. The court also said that it does not need to resolve that question here, so they won’t address it. Therefore the court did not provide a definition, the statements are not required to resolve the question before the court, therefore it is dicta, and not binding. All of which doesn’t matter, because Wonk Kim Ark came afterwards, and did address the question, it was necessary to resolve the question before the court, and held that only jus soli is required. So even if the Court gave an opinion, as you claim, it would have been overturned by WKA. That is how the law works. I don’t need some novice on the internet who doesn’t know how to read judicial opinions to tell me how the law works, thank you very much.

  140. avatar
    BlackSunshine84 August 8, 2011 at 8:02 pm #

    You’re right! There should have been an investigation because McCain wasn’t born on a military base, but in a hospital in Panama. He wasn’t eligible, but they made him so on April 8, 2008 with SR 511. I don’t know the date of the hearing, but obviously there was one, right? Or there would not have been a resolution…I think maybe just 1 hearing. How many times would they have needed to look at his BC and write the 2 paragraph resolution?

    And you are wrong. Leo Donofrio did sue the NJ SoS for failing to vet McCain. I mean, come on. Why would I make that up? It’s a non-issue…He has a website. Google him and see for yourself.

  141. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 8, 2011 at 8:03 pm #

    BlackSunshine84:
    Don’t you think she was kind of entitled to an emergency hearing? It’s the state of Hawaii who ignored the subpoena and it’s underhanded to stall just to cause Taitz a hardship.

    No, I don’t think that she’s entitled to an emergency hearing, because her subpoena does not meet the qualifications. There is absolutely no harm to Orly Taitz for waiting until September 14th.

  142. avatar
    BlackSunshine84 August 8, 2011 at 8:06 pm #

    I beg to differ, zippy. A Supreme Court syllabus does set precedent according to a Constitutional attorney. Chief Justice Waite’s syllabus on Minor V. Happersett defines who is a natural born citizen. The Supreme Court says Vattel’s definition is the law.

  143. avatar
    BlackSunshine84 August 8, 2011 at 8:07 pm #

    What was wrong with her subpoena? Looked proper to me.

  144. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 8, 2011 at 8:08 pm #

    BlackSunshine84:
    You’re right! There should have been an investigation because McCain wasn’t born on a military base, but in a hospital in Panama. He wasn’t eligible, but they made him so on April 8, 2008 with SR 511. I don’t know the date of the hearing, but obviously there was one, right? Or there would not have been a resolution…I think maybe just 1 hearing. How many times would they have needed to look at his BC and write the 2 paragraph resolution?

    And you are wrong. Leo Donofrio did sue the NJ SoS for failing to vet McCain. I mean, come on. Why would I make that up? It’s a non-issue…He has a website. Google him and see for yourself.

    The case you’re talking about is Donofrio v. Wells, which was filed in October of 2008, a full 6 months after the Senate passed the resolution on John McCain. This is actually the timeline…

    April 8, 2008: Senate Resolution 511 is introduced into the U.S. Senate.
    October 2008: Donofrio files his lawsuit in Donofrio v. Wells.

    How can the Senate Resolution 511 be a reaction to Donofrio v. Wells, when it was passed a full 6 months before Donofrio v. Wells was even filed, BlackSunshine84?

  145. avatar
    JoZeppy August 8, 2011 at 8:09 pm #

    BlackSunshine84: Don’t you think she was kind of entitled to an emergency hearing? It’s the state of Hawaii who ignored the subpoena and it’s underhanded to stall just to cause Taitz a hardship.

    No, I do not. An ex parte hearing is extraordinary relief that is rarely granted. You pretty much have to show that you will suffer irreversible harm if not granted to get an ex-parte hearing. Orly’s subpoena is clearly invalid. There is no requirement under law, or the F.R. Civ. P. to respond to an invalid supoena. You do take the chance that on a motion to compel that a court will disagree and make you pay attorney costs to the party moving to compel, but that’s really about it. The first time she served an invalid subpoena on the state, they gave her the courtesy to tell her that they believe her subpoena is invalid, but even if it was valid, they would not comply because the law forbade them to. Orly’s “hardship” is a self inflicted wound that only she is responsible for. There is no need for a court to treat her motion any different from any other frivolous motion.

  146. avatar
    Scientist August 8, 2011 at 8:11 pm #

    BlackSunshine84: Chief Justice Waite’s syllabus on Minor V. Happersett defines who is a natural born citizen.

    Are you daft? It does no such thing. If a judge says a Labrador retreiver is a dog, does that mean a Scottish terrier is not? Answer the friggin question!!!

    BlackSunshine84: Leo Donofrio did sue the NJ SoS for failing to vet McCain

    Are you daft? It was 6 months AFTER the Senate voted on the resolution.

    BlackSunshine84: Looked proper to me.

    Who cares? Are you an expert on subpoenas?

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

    BlackSunshine84: Looked proper to me.

    Well, yeah, but you also think a Supreme Court syllabus is precedent. So it’s not surprising that you are wrong on the subpoena.

  148. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 8, 2011 at 8:12 pm #

    BlackSunshine84:
    What was wrong with her subpoena? Looked proper to me.

    1. No relevance to the case. The Subpoena was filed in a Federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case filed in the Federal Court. The reason for rejecting the FOIA application was that it contained information, which is specifically excluded from the FOIA act. FOIA deals with Federal Records. The information in the Birth Certificate has absolutely no relevance to whether or not the information is covered under FOIA or not. (In fact, I’d be hard-pressed to find a situation where any information held by an entity other than the Federal Government is actually relevant to whether the Federal Government is legally required to produce this information or that information).

    2. The case is not in the Discovery phase. Therefore, as any lawyer would know, subpoenas issued are not valid.

    These are just two of the most glaring issues with her subpoena.

  149. avatar
    BlackSunshine84 August 8, 2011 at 8:15 pm #

    This is Fogbow’s site? He’s kind of like famous, huh? I saw on WND and YOUTUBE a real photo of him, and he was the ex-CEO of Fannie Mae or something?

    If I could ask you a question, Mr. Fogbow, if Fannie Mae needs money, instead of asking for another bailout, why don’t they sell the patent on the system to trade residential carbon shares?

  150. avatar
    JoZeppy August 8, 2011 at 8:16 pm #

    BlackSunshine84: I beg to differ, zippy. A Supreme Court syllabus does set precedent according to a Constitutional attorney. Chief Justice Waite’s syllabus on Minor V. Happersett defines who is a natural born citizen. The Supreme Court says Vattel’s definition is the law.

    You can beg all you want, but it’s still wrong. Which Constitutional attorney said a SCOTUS syllabus sets precident? They taught me the exact opposite in law school, that it was the holding and rationale that set precident. Silly law school professors.

    And Minor if minor did say Vattel’s definition is law, why didn’t they cite him? And why did they say they didn’t need to address the question?

    There is no way, that a person can read Minor as providing a definition. The Court flat out says they don’t have to address the question….and again, WKA does give the definition as jus soli. WKA would have overturned Minor if it had given a definition (which it didn’t). So any of your claims about Minor are irrelevant because Wong Kim Ark came after, and clearly stated that NBC come from the common law, meaing jus soli.

  151. avatar
    BlackSunshine84 August 8, 2011 at 8:17 pm #

    I think Taitz believes they are in discovery phase because Hawaii didn’t respond to the subpoena, missed a deadline, so they are sup[posed to automatically proceed to the next step? idk…

  152. avatar
    Northland10 August 8, 2011 at 8:21 pm #

    BlackSunshine84: It’s the state of Hawaii who ignored the subpoena and it’s underhanded to stall just to cause Taitz a hardship.

    Many people, including some birthers, have said repeatedly that her subpoena was not valid and was not going to work. Why should the court rearrange the schedule because Orly refused to heed the advise. She may not like the advise she was given but that does not make it any less correct. In the hypothetical situation that there really was an issue with the SSN and/or birth certificate, her subpoena was still unenforceable.

    The courts are not going to bend over backward because Orly feels she can make up her own laws. I would think that, if birthers were really serious about their cause, they might find an attorney who was competent in legal manners.

  153. avatar
    BlackSunshine84 August 8, 2011 at 8:21 pm #

    Kim Wong Ark deals with citizenship, not who is a natural born citizen. Not once in Kim Wong Ark is the phrase natural born citizen. Come on. Let’s debate the issue with facts. If you’re right, you don’t need to distort the facts.

    Vattel is specifically mentioned in Justice Waite’s syllabus in Minor v. Happersett.

  154. avatar
    JoZeppy August 8, 2011 at 8:25 pm #

    BlackSunshine84: I think Taitz believes they are in discovery phase because Hawaii didn’t respond to the subpoena, missed a deadline, so they are sup[posed to automatically proceed to the next step? idk…

    Taitz believes they are in discovery because she is a horrible attorney, and doesn’t understand the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. She doesn’t understand that in a FOIA case you rarely even have discovery, and in those case you do, it only comes after dispositive motions. She thinks that because FOIA cases don’t require a pre-trial conference, that it automatically goes into discovery.

    It has nothing to do with not responding to the subpoena, because she doesn’t even have the right to issue the subpoena in the first place.

  155. avatar
    Scientist August 8, 2011 at 8:25 pm #

    BlackSunshine84: Come on. Let’s debate the issue with facts. If you’re right, you don’t need to distort the facts.

    Oh, the irony….

  156. avatar
    BlackSunshine84 August 8, 2011 at 8:29 pm #

    Sarcasm? really? Is that all you have? You know Kim Wong Ark says nothing about natural born citizens, but just plain ol’ citizenship. So get real, tell me why Minor v. Happersett isn’t the binding precedent?

  157. avatar
    BlackSunshine84 August 8, 2011 at 8:32 pm #

    You could be right. Sounds good to me. I’m not an attorney. The truth is it doesn’t matter if she is right or wrong. We all know she’s never going to see that BC, right? That’s the sad part about it. If you know the outcome of a case before it even begins, that means we don’t really have a judiciary anymore…

  158. avatar
    Scientist August 8, 2011 at 8:33 pm #

    It’s Wong Kim Ark, not Kim Wong Ark.

    Minor does not say that 2 citizen parents are required to be a natural born citizen. Never, You are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

    And finally, the decision lies wiith the voters and Congress, not coourts.

    I will just keep saying this until you acknowledge it.

  159. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 8, 2011 at 8:33 pm #

    BlackSunshine84:

    BlackSunshine, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark directly said that Citizenship came from English Common Law. This has always been the tradition, citing Smith v. Alabama which says that terms in the constitution were written in the language of English Common Law.

    “Natural Born” is a term with 600 years of history in English Common Law, all of which means jus soli (if you’re born on the soil, you’re Natural Born). You want us to believe that the founders took the term “Natural Born” and said that instead of it meaning what it did in the system that we’re all familiar with, they redefined it, didn’t put the new definition into the Constitution, and then didn’t tell anybody so that even early constitutional scholars such as Rowle and Kent, didn’t even know about the change.

    I’d call that constitutional malpractice.

  160. avatar
    BlackSunshine84 August 8, 2011 at 8:34 pm #

    I hate to be a party pooper, but I’m starving and I have True Blood recorded, so yall have fun! Was nice hanging out with the other side for a bit. πŸ™‚

  161. avatar
    Scientist August 8, 2011 at 8:34 pm #

    BlackSunshine84: I’m not an attorney.

    Really????

  162. avatar
    Daniel August 8, 2011 at 8:37 pm #

    BlackSunshine84:
    I beg to differ, zippy. A Supreme Court syllabus does set precedent according to a Constitutional attorney. Chief Justice Waite’s syllabus on Minor V. Happersett defines who is a natural born citizen. The Supreme Court says Vattel’s definition is the law.

    Waite confirmed ONE set of circumstances that result in an NBC, not the ONLY set.

    Waite further confirms that that set of circumstances are not the only ones possible.

    Are you intentionally missing those points?

  163. avatar
    JoZeppy August 8, 2011 at 8:37 pm #

    BlackSunshine84: Kim Wong Ark deals with citizenship, not who is a natural born citizen. Not once in Kim Wong Ark is the phrase natural born citizen. Come on. Let’s debate the issue with facts. If you’re right, you don’t need to distort the facts.Vattel is specifically mentioned in Justice Waite’s syllabus in Minor v. Happersett.

    You haven’t even read either opinion, have you?

    Minor was not about citizenship. It was about voting rights. It was uncontested that Virginia Minor was a citizen (thus the discussion about citizenship being dicta). And if Vattel is specifically mentioned, then you should have no trouble providing a quote. I’ll make it easy for you:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html

    And perhaps you should read Wong Kim Ark. There’s are quite a fiew references to natural born citizens. And the court makes pretty clear that the reference comes from the common law natural born subject, before the proceed to use that phase some 30 odd times.

    I can’t even call your comments a distortion. You’re either willfully ignorant or flat out being untruthful. Either way, it doesn’t lead to any possible discussion of any value.

  164. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 8, 2011 at 8:37 pm #

    BlackSunshine84:
    You could be right. Sounds good to me. I’m not an attorney. The truth is it doesn’t matter if she is right or wrong. We all know she’s never going to see that BC, right? That’s the sad part about it. If you know the outcome of a case before it even begins, that means we don’t really have a judiciary anymore…

    Actually, it just means that the case is so trivial that it shouldn’t have been filed in the first place. Most competent lawyers can basically know the outcome of the arguments and cases, because they are so trivial that there’s no real controversy about it.

    Just like if the Police used a battering ram to break down your front door, to enter your house without a warrant, it doesn’t take a judge to know that any evidence from that search is going to be thrown out. Does that mean that there is no judiciary anymore?

    Just like if someone kills someone in cold blood in front of 5 witnesses, all of which point the figure to him. It doesn’t take a genius to know the outcome of that case. Does that mean that there is no judiciary anymore?

  165. avatar
    Randy August 8, 2011 at 8:37 pm #

    You are mistaking jaw dropping for bonkers. When you see or hear something as idiotic as the De Vattelites not understanding our complete legal system. Ascribe super secret meanings to our Constitution. Completely stuck in the echo chambers of the birthers. I am astounded not bonkers. Respect and faith in our system is being an American, I have no idea what country you think you are in.

    Born In The USA

    BlackSunshine84:
    I really don’t care if it’s ever examined. I’m more interested in the reactions of liberals. You folks go bonkers over it and I’m just wondering why a group of people so confident in Obama’s eligibility spends so much of time trying to discredit a person who believes differently. Surely you can understand that? It’s like, me thinks thou doth protest too much…

  166. avatar
    JoZeppy August 8, 2011 at 8:39 pm #

    BlackSunshine84: You could be right. Sounds good to me. I’m not an attorney. The truth is it doesn’t matter if she is right or wrong. We all know she’s never going to see that BC, right? That’s the sad part about it. If you know the outcome of a case before it even begins, that means we don’t really have a judiciary anymore…

    No, it just means that she is filing a frivolous law suit and wasting the time of the court, and tax payer money.

  167. avatar
    Tarrant August 8, 2011 at 8:39 pm #

    BlackSunshine84:
    Sarcasm? really? Is that all you have? You know Kim Wong Ark says nothing about natural born citizens, but just plain ol’ citizenship. So get real, tell me why Minor v. Happersett isn’t the binding precedent?

    There is no citizenship at birth that is not natural born citizenship. There are only two types of citizens in this country – natural born and naturalized. The Court in Wong Kim Ark declared him a citizen at birth, thus he is natural born.

    That said, one should note that the lower court in Wong Kim Ark – whose ruling was AFFIRMED by the Supreme Court (not affirmed in part and reversed in part, which the Court could have done if they thought they were wrong on this issue) – did SPECIFICaLLY name him a natural born citizen. When the case was remanded to them, they again declared him natural born.

  168. avatar
    Northland10 August 8, 2011 at 8:43 pm #

    BlackSunshine84: We all know she’s never going to see that BC, right? That’s the sad part about it. If you know the outcome of a case before it even begins, that means we don’t really have a judiciary anymore…

    Well, if she is really, really nice to the President or his staff, maybe they will show her the copy that Hawaii sent him. The simple truth is, no she will not see the Hawaii original since, she, as a private citizen, does not have a right to it. To ensure a equitable and efficient system for vital records, that responsibility has been given to the states. Hawaii has stated the the President was born in Hawaii, and has confirmed that they sent him a birth certificate (short and long). Since our Constitution says that states shall be given “full faith and credit” on their records, the issue is closed.

    The only way, as far as I know, that a court would allow for an examination of a state’s vital record would be if there was exceptional evidence that he was born somewhere besides Hawaii. The birthers have not provided any exceptional, verifiable evidence beyond their “doubt.” Wishing it were so is not enough.

  169. avatar
    JoZeppy August 8, 2011 at 8:46 pm #

    BlackSunshine84: You know Kim Wong Ark says nothing about natural born citizens, but just plain ol’ citizenship.

    Again, did you even ready Wonk Kim Ark? Did you miss those several pages of the rationale where they extensively speak about the origins of the term “natural born.”

    BlackSunshine84: So get real, tell me why Minor v. Happersett isn’t the binding precedent?

    It is, but not for the point you claim. The only part of the opinion that is legally binding is that which is required to make the decision. The rest is dicta, and merely presuasive. The issue of Minor’s citizenship was not questioned, therefore a discussion about citizenship is merely dicta. Additionally, the court specifically punted on the question. “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.” The Court says flat out they are not addressing the if those born to non-citizen parents are NBC. It is not a full definition. You can’t make a definition out of something where the Court says they’re not resolving the question.

  170. avatar
    gorefan August 8, 2011 at 8:47 pm #

    JoZeppy: Which Constitutional attorney said a SCOTUS syllabus sets precident?

    I was under the impression that the syllabus is not even wrtten by the Justices, is that right?

  171. avatar
    Northland10 August 8, 2011 at 8:50 pm #

    Question for attorneys (or others):

    Rule 45( c)(1) states:

    ( c) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena.
    (1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions.

    A party or attorney responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. The issuing court must enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction — which may include lost earnings and reasonable attorney’s fees — on a party or attorney who fails to comply.

    Since the Hawaii AG may have to respond or go to Court in September, and very possible argue undue burden, could this result in the court sanctioning Orly?

  172. avatar
    Sef August 8, 2011 at 9:06 pm #

    Tarrant: There is no citizenship at birth that is not natural born citizenship.

    Unfortunately, SCOTUS is not in total agreement. You need to peruse Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971) IOW, if citizenship-at-birth is due to a Congressional Act, then it is not Constitutionally protected, hence not NBC.

  173. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 8, 2011 at 9:22 pm #

    Sef, the court never ruled that they weren’t Natural Born Citizens, just that their citizenship wasn’t protected by the Constitution, since they were not born in the United States. There has never been a ruling that would prevent them from running for President, and significant precedent saying the exact opposite (such as Vice President Charles Curtis, and Presidential Nominees Barry Goldwater and John McCain, all of which were born outside the United States). Charles Curtis was born in the Territory of Kansas. Barry Goldwater was born in the Territory of Arizona. John McCain was born in Panama. Only States, and the District of Columbia count for “born in the United States”. Otherwise, why would Puerto Rico, Guam, and the other territories need specific provisions in the 8 USC 1101-1108 to define their citizenship?

  174. avatar
    RetiredLawyer August 8, 2011 at 9:34 pm #

    One thing that I noticed in Orley’s motion is that she somehow neglects to mention the two or three letters she received from HI informing her that the subpoena was invalid. Not informing the court of something like that can result in the court denying even a valid subpoena.

  175. avatar
    Sef August 8, 2011 at 9:41 pm #

    dunstvangeet: he court never ruled that they weren’t Natural Born Citizens, just that their citizenship wasn’t protected by the Constitution,

    To my admittedly limited view, I think that is one of the cornerstones of the NBC requirement. If a Congressional act can give or take away citizenship then they could willy-nilly define who could or could not be President. Others may think otherwise. Of the examples you cite only Curtis is relevant as he actually attained the office. His service was before 1971, so it loses some of its relevance to the argument. But all this is outside the scope of the current topic.

  176. avatar
    Hawaiiborn August 8, 2011 at 9:56 pm #

    BlackSunshine84:
    The governor told MSNBC in an interview that she had viewed the document with her own eyes and it was half typed and half hand written.

    Wrong, that was on a Anderson Cooper 360 report where they talked to Fukino. You can’t even keep your information straight.

  177. avatar
    Hawaiiborn August 8, 2011 at 9:57 pm #

    Sorry, not AC360, it was reported in a newspaper (by Fukino). But AC360 did talk to Fukino. The Governor, Linda Lingle never stated that it was “half typed / half hand written”

  178. avatar
    Rickey August 8, 2011 at 10:03 pm #

    BlackSunshine84:

    Vattel is specifically mentioned in Justice Waite’s syllabus in Minor v. Happersett.

    Here is a link to the syllabus. Please point out where Vattel is “specifically mentioned.”

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZS.html

  179. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 8, 2011 at 10:07 pm #

    Sef: To my admittedly limited view, I think that is one of the cornerstones of the NBC requirement. If a Congressional act can give or take away citizenship then they could willy-nilly define who could or could not be President. Others may think otherwise. Of the examples you cite only Curtis is relevant as he actually attained the office. His service was before 1971, so it loses some of its relevance to the argument.But all this is outside the scope of the current topic.

    However, you’re forgetting that the U.S. Senate passed a resolution calling someone who was born outside the United States to be a Natural Born Citizen. The more probable definition is that anybody born a citizen is a Natural Born Citizen.

  180. avatar
    dunstvangeet August 8, 2011 at 10:09 pm #

    Hawaiiborn:You can’t even keep your information straight.

    That’s been apparent. He was claiming that Senate Resolution 511, which was passed in April of 2008 was in reaction to a lawsuit that was filed in October of 2008.

  181. avatar
    Rickey August 8, 2011 at 10:13 pm #

    BlackSunshine84:
    There should have been an investigation because McCain wasn’t born on a military base, but in a hospital in Panama. He wasn’t eligible, but they made him so on April 8, 2008 with SR 511. I don’t know the date of the hearing, but obviously there was one, right? Or there would not have been a resolution…I think maybe just 1 hearing. How many times would they have needed to look at his BC and write the 2 paragraph resolution?

    There was no hearing. No witnesses were questioned, no documents were produced. The Senators never asked for and did not view McCain’s birth certificate.

    By the way, he was not born in a civilian hospital in Panama. He was born at the Navy Hospital on the Coco Solo Naval Base. This is confirmed by a Washington Post reporter who was allowed to view McCain’s birth certificate; further confirmed by a contemporaneous English-language newspaper in Panama which said that McCain was born at the base hospital; further confirmed by McCain’s mother; and further confirmed by common sense, which dictates that no wife of a Navy officer would choose to give birth in a civilian hospital staffed by foreign doctors when she was entitled to free maternity care by U.S. doctors at the base hospital.

  182. avatar
    gorefan August 8, 2011 at 10:15 pm #

    BlackSunshine84: it was half typed and half hand written.

    This has been explained a number of times.

    WND had an article in which they included a 1955 Hawaii Medical Journal article.

    http://www.wnd.com/files/CHARLESBENNETT.pdf

    In that Journal, it says the following,

    “A nurse or clerk in the hospital fills in the certificate form and gets the mother to sign it. Then the attending physician enters certain medical data and affixes his signature. Finally, the hospital sends the completed certificate to the local registrar.”

    See the steps:

    1) Nurse/clerk fills out BC (typed?);
    2) Mother signs BC;
    3) Doctor fills out medical info on BC (handwritten?);
    4) Doctor signs BC;
    5) BC sent to DOH.

    Now, here is the CDC 1962 Vital Statistics for 1962,

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/vsus_1962_1.pdf

    Go to Section 4 – Technical Appendix, then to page 4-4 and look at figure 4-A (1956 Revision of the Standard Certificate).

    This is the BC Standard used by most states, includng Hawaii in 1962. At the bottom of the form you will see a section,

    FOR MEDICAL AND HEALTH USE ONLY
    (This section MUST be filled out)

    There are three boxes – 22a Length of Pregnancy, 22b Weight at Birth, 23 Legimate.

    These boxes do not appear on the BC given to the parents (look at the Nordyke’s).

    There is also a notation (SPACE FOR ADDITION OF MEDICAL AND HEALTH ITEMS BY INDIVIDUAL STATES).

    This is what the CDC report says about the Standard Certificate of Live Birth,

    “It has been modified in each State to the extent necessitated by the particular needs of the State or by special provisions of the State vital statistics law. However,the certificates of most States conform closely in content and arrangement to the standard certificate.”

    So there may be additional boxes on a Hawaiian original, vaulted BC. Things such as baby/mother vital signs. These items along with boxes 22a, 22b and 23 are considered private medical records and will not be revealed to anyone.

  183. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 8, 2011 at 10:59 pm #

    I hate to break this to you, but if you rely on birther web sites instead of going to the source material, you’ll continue to make embarrassing mistakes like that. Natural-born citizen is mentioned in US v Wong Kim Ark at least 13 times, such as in this citation from Justice Curtis:

    “The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, ‘a natural-born citizen.’ It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.”

    And here’s another:

    The argument is, that, although the Constitution prior to that amendment nowhere attempted to define the words “citizens of the United States” and “natural-born citizen” as used therein, yet that it must be interpreted in the light of the English common law rule which made the place of birth the criterion of nationality; that that rule “was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established;”

    and if that is not sufficient then this:

    The nationality of his parents had no bearing on his nationality. Though born during a temporary stay of a few days, the child was irretrievably a British subject. Hall on Foreign Jurisdiction, etc., § 1.

    The rule was the outcome of the connection in feudalism between the individual and the soil on which he lived, and the allegiance due was that of liegemen to their liege lord. It was not local and temporary, as was the obedience to the laws owed by aliens within the dominions of the Crown, but permanent and indissoluble, and not to be cancelled by any change of time or place or circumstances.

    And it is this rule, pure and simple, which it is asserted determined citizenship of the United States during the entire period prior to the passage of the act of April 9, 1866, and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, and governed the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen” used in the Constitution as originally framed and adopted. I submit that no such rule obtained during the period referred to, and that those words bore no such construction; that the act of April 9, 1866, expressed the contrary rule; that the Fourteenth Amendment prescribed the same rule as the act, and that, if that amendment bears the construction now put upon it, it imposed the English common law rule on this country for the first time, and made it “absolute and unbending” just as Great Britain was being relieved from its inconveniences.

    http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html

    BlackSunshine84: Not once in Kim Wong Ark is the phrase natural born citizen.

  184. avatar
    gorefan August 8, 2011 at 11:10 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I don’t know about Kim Wong Ark, but in Wong Kim Ark it’s mentioned 13 times. Such this citation from Justice Curtis:

    And only mentioned four times in Minor v. Happersett. In fact, it appears to me that the critial sentence that the birthers point to, could be removed from the opinion and it would not change the decision.

  185. avatar
    G August 8, 2011 at 11:11 pm #

    Wow. What a thread I’ve missed. I see most of your questions have been answered, so I’ll only address those that haven’t fully been responded to so far.

    Well, you were right in the first half of your statement here. What you are failing to realize in the second half is the very simple truth – it is easy to predict failure for frivolous and utterly incompetent cases. It doesn’t require any talent other than bare common sense.

    BlackSunshine84: You could be right. Sounds good to me. I’m not an attorney. The truth is it doesn’t matter if she is right or wrong. We all know she’s never going to see that BC, right? That’s the sad part about it. If you know the outcome of a case before it even begins, that means we don’t really have a judiciary anymore…

  186. avatar
    G August 8, 2011 at 11:25 pm #

    Crazy Orly “believes” a lot of things. The woman has to be one of the most incompetent and delusional people to ever obtain a law license. If you would objectively look at her history of repeated misfilings and piss poor mistakes, you would understand that the only thing she seems to be good at is being wrong.

    If you haven’t figured it out by now there is no legit subpoena here. What she filed did not come from the judge. Furthermore, it was a failed endeavor in the first place, as her whole court case here is a FOIA, which only applies to federal records, not personal ones. What she is requesting is personal info. She has been given several written notices directly telling her this from Social Security admin. She refuses to deal with reality and is nothing but a sad, blind fool. Hence why it is so easy and entertaining to mock her.

    BlackSunshine84: I think Taitz believes they are in discovery phase because Hawaii didn’t respond to the subpoena, missed a deadline, so they are sup[posed to automatically proceed to the next step? idk…

  187. avatar
    G August 8, 2011 at 11:32 pm #

    Your problem is that you have a bad habit of foot-in-mouth disease via keyboard and just make yourself look bad by constantly saying such easily wrong things without thinking. You only harm yourself and your own credibility by doing so.

    This is obviously NOT Fogbow. Nor does this site have anything to do with Foggy.

    I mean really, is it that hard for you to even look at the URL you are typing in? The main page and the About page (basic functions of any website) quickly tell you who the site owner is and what this site is about. *duh*

    The rest of your Fannie Mae rambling makes no sense…as there is no connection between Fannie Mae and either this site nor Fogbow, Foggy, birtherims, etc. You really come across like a crazy person when you just start stringing random disconnected things together.

    Try to think before you type and do a little homework before you spout off. You only harm yourself by coming across foolish and you only have yourself to blame for that.

    BlackSunshine84: This is Fogbow’s site? He’s kind of like famous, huh? I saw on WND and YOUTUBE a real photo of him, and he was the ex-CEO of Fannie Mae or something? If I could ask you a question, Mr. Fogbow, if Fannie Mae needs money, instead of asking for another bailout, why don’t they sell the patent on the system to trade residential carbon shares?

  188. avatar
    G August 8, 2011 at 11:34 pm #

    No. She is not.

    Why would you think she is “entitled”?

    Are you one of those lazy people with an “entitlement” mentality that doesn’t respect the law nor understand the concept of personal responsibility? “Entitlement” is for spoiled children and irresponsible mooches.

    BlackSunshine84: Don’t you think she was kind of entitled to an emergency hearing? It’s the state of Hawaii who ignored the subpoena and it’s underhanded to stall just to cause Taitz a hardship.

  189. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 8, 2011 at 11:42 pm #

    One of the mentions in Wong is a citation from Minor.

    gorefan: And only mentioned four times in Minor v. Happersett. In fact, it appears to me that the critial sentence that the birthers point to, could be removed from the opinion and it would not change the decision.

  190. avatar
    John Reilly August 8, 2011 at 11:46 pm #

    There is nothing wrong with asserting an objection to a subpoena and asking a judge to rule. If your objection is frivolous perhaps the court can assess sanctions, but given Hawaii law, it’s tough to say the objection is frivolous.

    Courts are constantly confronted with motions where someone asserts that some emergency exists. There is no emergency here. Soon enough the court will rule whether Ms. Dr. Taitz gets to see the birth certificate which as surely as the sun rising tomorrow she will announce is a fraud and a forgery.

  191. avatar
    GeorgetownJD August 8, 2011 at 11:58 pm #

    BlackSunshine84:

    The syllabus is neither written by the Justice or the Court, nor is it part of the opinion.

  192. avatar
    Obsolete August 9, 2011 at 12:01 am #

    Blacksunshine84 also believes:
    1-This is the Fogbow.
    2- He is somehow in a discussion with Foggy.
    3- Foggy is accused of being the head of Fanny or Freddie.

    And all completely wrong.

    (Someone else at Fogbow was accused, wrongly, of being the head of Fannie Mae- not Foggy. Even your wrong information is polluted by wrong information, BlackSunshine84)

  193. avatar
    John Reilly August 9, 2011 at 12:34 am #

    Most opinions from the Supreme Court I have seen have a summary at the beginning, which I think is what you call the syllabus. Here is what the Court says at the beginning of each case with a syllabus:

    “NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.”

  194. avatar
    Ballantine August 9, 2011 at 8:02 am #

    The entire discussion of citizenship in Minor is dicta and not precedent. The holding of the case is that citizenship is irrelevant to the right to vote. Hence, it was completely unnecessary to discuss citizenship at all. And, of course, the court actually says it is unnecessary to examine the status of children of aliens and it doesn’t. A court would not be amused by a claim that such is precedent. On the issues of children of aliens, the only issue relevant to Obama, birthers are citing a case that expressly declined to address such issue.

    Wong’s discussion of natural born citizenship, on the other hand, is not dicta, as the court determined that whether one was a citizen by birth under the 14th Amendment was determined by whether one a citizen by birth under the original constitution, thet 14th amendment being simply declaratory of pre-existing law. Citing Minor rather than Wong as precedent is a good way to get sanctioned.

  195. avatar
    JoZeppy August 9, 2011 at 12:34 pm #

    Northland10: Question for attorneys (or others):Rule 45( c)(1) states:Since the Hawaii AG may have to respond or go to Court in September, and very possible argue undue burden, could this result in the court sanctioning Orly?

    I don’t know what the tendencies of the D. Hawaii are, but other districts treat a third party subpoena that requests irrelevant materials as de facto unduly burdensome, and pretty much give fees as a matter of practice. So yes, it is very possible that Orly will be hit with the state’s attorney fees.

  196. avatar
    Sef August 9, 2011 at 2:13 pm #

    Did Orly get the clerk to sign a blank subpoena form under false pretenses? Are we talking criminal stuff here?

  197. avatar
    Sef August 9, 2011 at 2:18 pm #

    john:
    I suggest to Orly that she hold her ground and refuse to leave Hawaii DOH if and only if the her supeona is carried out.Hawaii DOH can call the police but the police will state that Orly has a supeona and that the birth certificate will be accessed.If Hawaii has a problem, that is their problem.Orly has a supeona signed by the clerk of court….The birth certificate will be examined.

    How did that work out for you, John?

  198. avatar
    Daniel August 9, 2011 at 2:24 pm #

    Sef:
    Did Orly get the clerk to sign a blank subpoena form under false pretenses? Are we talking criminal stuff here?

    As I understand it….

    The clerk isn’t responsible for making sure the subpoena is valid. Lawyers are expected to do their homework and follow the rules. After all, what kind of an idiot lawyer would write a subpoena that wasn’t valid, knowing full well that even if they did fool the subject into complying, that any information obtained would be inadmissible?

    The clerk signs it to confirm it has been entered into the file

  199. avatar
    Daniel August 9, 2011 at 2:29 pm #

    Anyone figure out what happened to the apocalyptic, earth shattering, gamechanging, shake the core of reality, announcement that the birfer summit was supposed to be making right after Orly stormed the battlements and wrested defeat from the jaws of victory?

  200. avatar
    G August 9, 2011 at 2:43 pm #

    From what I gather, it turned out to be nothing but a whiny letter they wrote to Colin Powell, demanding that he come and sit and listen to them spew birtherism talking points…

    See badfiction for the latest coverage on this issue in yesterday’s report, and go down to the entry for Aug 8th, where he talks about Haskins:

    http://badfiction.typepad.com/badfiction/2011/08/dispatches-from-birtherstan-6-8-august-2011.html

    Daniel: Anyone figure out what happened to the apocalyptic, earth shattering, gamechanging, shake the core of reality, announcement that the birfer summit was supposed to be making right after Orly stormed the battlements and wrested defeat from the jaws of victory?

  201. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy August 9, 2011 at 3:03 pm #

    Of course Orly isn’t an attorney licensed to practice in DC. She is a pro se plaintiff in this case. Given that fact and the fact that there’s no discovery going on, I think the clerk should have exercised some restraint in this situation.

    Daniel: The clerk isn’t responsible for making sure the subpoena is valid. Lawyers are expected to do their homework and follow the rules.

  202. avatar
    Reality Check August 9, 2011 at 3:13 pm #

    If found this on the Fogbow http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=5712&p=229370&hilit=msnbc+half+typed+written#p229370

    The Fukino quote was from a story by Michael Isikoff in this article on the MSNBC site on April 11: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42519951#.TkGFIYIt1Bk

    She made have made the same statement on the AC360 shows that aired later in the month but I am sure the Isikoff article was first.

    Hawaiiborn:
    Sorry, not AC360, it was reported in a newspaper (by Fukino). But AC360 did talk to Fukino. The Governor, Linda Lingle never stated that it was “half typed / half hand written”

  203. avatar
    Daniel August 9, 2011 at 3:37 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Of course Orly isn’t an attorney licensed to practice in DC. She is a pro se plaintiff in this case. Given that fact and the fact that there’s no discovery going on, I think the clerk should have exercised some restraint in this situation.

    You’re probably correct that said clerk should have….. and I’d be willing to bet likely will from now on… exercised more restraint.

  204. avatar
    G August 9, 2011 at 3:57 pm #

    Considering Orly’s pattern of behavior, she probably misled the clerk about both her status on the case and the case itself and was pushy and demanding. This is probably some poor harassed clerk who mistakingly figured he’d just give her what she wants so she’d go away.

    Dr. Conspiracy: Of course Orly isn’t an attorney licensed to practice in DC. She is a pro se plaintiff in this case. Given that fact and the fact that there’s no discovery going on, I think the clerk should have exercised some restraint in this situation.

  205. avatar
    Thrifty August 9, 2011 at 4:12 pm #

    BlackSunshine84: I really don’t care if it’s ever examined. I’m more interested in the reactions of liberals. You folks go bonkers over it and I’m just wondering why a group of people so confident in Obama’s eligibility spends so much of time trying to discredit a person who believes differently. Surely you can understand that? It’s like, me thinks thou doth protest too much…

    That’s like asking why someone who lives in the United States takes the time to learn to speak French.

    Or why somebody would collect stamps.

    Or why somebody would buy a telescope and gaze through it into the heavens on a clear sky.

    The reason is obvious, people are indulging in a hobby.

    There’s also the fact that if your lies are unchallenged, they will fool some other, undecided, and honest third party.

  206. avatar
    Sef August 9, 2011 at 4:14 pm #

    G:
    Considering Orly’s pattern of behavior, she probably misled the clerk about both her status on the case and the case itself and was pushy and demanding.This is probably some poor harassed clerk who mistakingly figured he’d just give her what she wants so she’d go away.

    I think it’s fairly clear that Orly somehow got a blank subpoena form to be signed by the clerk. She subsequently filled in the details of her quest. The date in the clerk signature area and the service area are written in by the same hand. This is probably Lila Dubert in Orly’s office. There is no way that a form could be signed in HI on 07/05 and also in CA on the same day to be sent back to HI. I certainly am not implying anything illegal on the clerk’s part. Also since the form was blank the clerk could not enter it into the HI records. Very hokey!

  207. avatar
    Daniel August 9, 2011 at 4:25 pm #

    G:
    From what I gather, it turned out to be nothing but a whiny letter they wrote to Colin Powell, demanding that he come and sit and listen to them spew birtherism talking points…

    See badfiction for the latest coverage on this issue in yesterday’s report, and go down to the entry for Aug 8th, where he talks about Haskins:

    http://badfiction.typepad.com/badfiction/2011/08/dispatches-from-birtherstan-6-8-august-2011.html

    You’re joking….

    THAT was the apocalyptic, earth shattering, gamechanging, shake the core of reality, announcement?

    The birther equivalent of the Pepsi challenge?

    Really?

    /facepalm

    I thought I had finally become immune to any sort of disappointment regarding OMG moments by birthers, but apparently I was wrong.

  208. avatar
    G August 9, 2011 at 4:47 pm #

    I’m not joking.. You should definitely read Patrick’s writeup about it at BadFiction, as he covers the Birtherverse’s reaction… which has quite a bit of comically disappointed folks…

    Daniel: You’re joking….
    THAT was the apocalyptic, earth shattering, gamechanging, shake the core of reality, announcement?
    The birther equivalent of the Pepsi challenge?
    Really?
    /facepalm
    I thought I had finally become immune to any sort of disappointment regarding OMG moments by birthers, but apparently I was wrong.

  209. avatar
    JoZeppy August 9, 2011 at 4:53 pm #

    Sef: I think it’s fairly clear that Orly somehow got a blank subpoena form to be signed by the clerk. She subsequently filled in the details of her quest. The date in the clerk signature area and the service area are written in by the same hand. This is probably Lila Dubert in Orly’s office. There is no way that a form could be signed in HI on 07/05 and also in CA on the same day to be sent back to HI. I certainly am not implying anything illegal on the clerk’s part. Also since the form was blank the clerk could not enter it into the HI records. Very hokey!

    It’s really not difficult to get a clerk to sign a subpoena. The clerk isn’t going to research to see how valid it is. She walks in, and says, “Hi, I’m Orly. I have a case I filed in DC and need a subpoena issued in Hawaii.” That’s pretty much it. As far as I know, the court wouldn’t even keep a copy of the subpoena. Why would they?

    The “honor system” usually works pretty well with subpoenas. Part of the reason is the rules allow a third party to simply object to the subpoena, putting the burden on the party issuing the subpoena to get an order to compel. On top of that, the courts are also pretty liberal in terms of making a party pay costs in defending against subpoena abuses. Part of the reason why I’d be willing to wager Orly has a better than 50% chance of paying monetary sanctions to Hawaii.

  210. avatar
    J.Potter August 9, 2011 at 5:14 pm #

    Well, it did lead to another string of foul, libelous, racist rants at WND, and one assumes elsewhere in orther birther dens. Sooooo, yes, more of the same.

    Daniel: You’re joking….

    THAT was the apocalyptic, earth shattering, gamechanging, shake the core of reality, announcement?

    The birther equivalent of the Pepsi challenge?

    Really?

    /facepalm

    I thought I had finally become immune to any sort of disappointment regarding OMG moments by birthers, but apparently I was wrong.

  211. avatar
    Sef August 9, 2011 at 6:23 pm #

    JoZeppy: It’s really not difficult to get a clerk to sign a subpoena.The clerk isn’t going to research to see how valid it is.She walks in, and says, “Hi, I’m Orly.I have a case I filed in DC and need a subpoena issued in Hawaii.”That’s pretty much it.As far as I know, the court wouldn’t even keep a copy of the subpoena.Why would they?

    The “honor system” usually works pretty well with subpoenas.Part of the reason is the rules allow a third party to simply object to the subpoena, putting the burden on the party issuing the subpoena to get an order to compel.On top of that, the courts are also pretty liberal in terms of making a party pay costs in defending against subpoena abuses.Part of the reason why I’d be willing to wager Orly has a better than 50% chance of paying monetary sanctions to Hawaii.

    What you say is fine. Maybe you missed my point that I think it’s clear that what the clerk signed was the blank form and she filled it out later. Orly was not in HI to give a filled-in form to the clerk. It couldn’t have been signed by the clerk on 7/5, sent back to CA, signed by Lila as having sent it on 7/5. Something is not right here.

  212. avatar
    Expelliarmus August 9, 2011 at 7:41 pm #

    I am not familiar with the practices of the local US District Court in Hawaii, but in general clerks issue subpoenas in blank, with the clerk’s signature already affixed. So basically if an attorney from California sends a letter to the clerk in Hawaii on their attorney letterhead, requesting issuance of a subpoena for purposes of discovery in an action pending in another jurisdiction, the clerk is likely to do so.

    Orly is pro se in the DC action, but there is no reason to assume that she brought the clerk’s attention to that fact. The clerk would have seen a rather routine request and handled it like other routine requests.

    Clerks are not supposed to do behind the scenes research — that is, the clerk isn’t supposed to think, “Orly Taitz, that name sounds weird” and then go online to read up about her on the Fogbow forum. The clerk’s duties are ministerial, not discretionary — so for the most part the clerk is going to simply give a lawyer the paperwork requested, assuming that the request was made in accordance with whatever the proper procedure is for that court.

  213. avatar
    obsolete August 9, 2011 at 7:48 pm #

    Oh, no! I’m going to take the birthers approach and accuse the poor clerk of aiding and abetting treason against the U.S. for signing the blank subpoena form. She must have been bought off, or threatened by the birthers. We should start harassing her fellow co-workers, children, school, etc. She may even be a Tea Party plant into the court to subvert justice.

  214. avatar
    Northland10 August 9, 2011 at 9:05 pm #

    Sef: It couldn’t have been signed by the clerk on 7/5, sent back to CA, signed by Lila as having sent it on 7/5. Something is not right here.

    I thought this when she first showed her signed subpoena, but after a little research, I figured that it was likely appropriate as Expelliarmus mentions above. Unfortunately, I cannot find the rule that convinced me at the time. I would figure that the clerk was thinking that the attorney would be asking for a valid reason as is usually the case.

  215. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny August 10, 2011 at 11:58 am #

    Thrifty: That’s like asking why someone who lives in the United States takes the time to learn to speak French.

    Well, it might help some of these poor birthers to understand the French text they have been quoting so often., ie to know that in French, a plural pronoun does not always mean a plural, and that the word “parent” in French does not mean 100% exactly what it means in English.

    That may stop De Vattel from turning in his grave, as he must have done for three years now.

    For birther lurkers who do not know what that is about, there was no mention of “natural born” in any English translation of De Vattel before the writing of the Constitution, so any legal attempt to involve Vattel, would have to be based on the French original.

    Good luck with that, since Vattel always used “parent” with the meaning “relative by blood” in his entire work.