I don’t have a PhD from Harvard like Jerome Corsi (pictured right with Confederate flag pin), but even I know that there is a difference between a plaintiff’s legal motion and a court order. Motions asking the court to issue an order usually include a copy of the proposed order and such is the case in Orly Taitz’s recent motion filed in the US District Court in Hawaii yesterday in the case of Taitz v Astrue. Corsi apparently doesn’t understand any of this as displayed in his bizarre new article, Court tells Hawaii officials to explain Obama’s birth records: ‘Show cause’ hearing will determine why subpoena rejected in WorldNetDaily saying, among other things:
California attorney Orly Taitz today secured an order from United States District Court Magistrate Judge Richard L. Puglisi demanding representatives of the Hawaii Department of Health appear in federal court Sept. 14 to show why Taitz should be prevented from seeing whatever original 1961 documents the agency has on record regarding Barack Obama’s birth.
That’s an utter and complete falsehood!
Taitz, rebuffed by the State of Hawaii, filed a motion with the US District Court in Hawaii, asking the court to issue an order such as Corsi describes, and a hearing is scheduled for September 14 on the question of whether the court should issue such an order.
Dr. Conspiracy to Corsi: “Unlike Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so,” United States District Judge Clay D Land.
The Court has told Hawaii NOTHING. One hopes that Judge Lamberth will dismiss Taitz v Astrue before the 14th and save Orly the expense of a wasted trip to Hawaii.