Let me present to you a very unsettling sentence:
Orly Taitz is an officer of the court.
It’s true in California, but not in the District of Columbia where she issued a “subpoena” in the case of Taitz v Astrue, to Hawaii Department of Health Director Loretta Fuddy, commanding her to give a deposition at the Health Department offices in Hawaii on June 27, produce the original of Barack Obama’s long-form birth certificate and allow a copy to be made. Here is how Taitz filled out the subpoena:
So what’s wrong with this picture? Commenter JoZeppy explains:
There are limitations, of course, and Orly’s screws everything up. First off, you have to be authorized to practice either where the deposition is to take place, or where the case is pending. Orly is neither. Secondly, a valid subpoena must be issued under the court where the production and deposition are to take place. Orly issues a DC subpoena for a deposition to take place in Hawaii. Not a valid subpoena. Finally, you cannot require the disclosure of privileged or other protected material, which is what she is requesting.
Commenter John Reilly adds:
Ms. Dr. Taitz’s subpoena fails for an entirely different reason. In a Federal case, absent a court order, discovery may not be taken before the Rule 26 conference. Rule 26(d). The Rule 26 conference does not occur until the pleadings are finalized. It certainly has not happened yet….
One also wonders what the relevance of the material sought is to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Social Security Administration.
Speaking of errors on the part of Orly Taitz, the government has moved that her complaint be stricken from the record because:
Those filings contain numerous social-security numbers, along with Plaintiff’s allegations as to the individuals to whom those numbers are assigned. “Unless the court orders otherwise, in an electronic or paper filing with the court that contains an individual’s social-security number . . . a party or nonparty making the filing may include only . . . the last four digits of the social-security number.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a)(1). Defendant accordingly moves the Court to strike Plaintiff’s Complaint, First Amended Complaint, and all attached exhibits, and to order Plaintiff to refile the documents under seal or with properly redacted social-security numbers.
I must say it’s pretty stupid of Taitz to serve the Government with an exhibit documenting the illegal use of the Social Security Number Verification System by a certain birther. In any case, the exhibit is all over the Internet now.
- Documents in Taitz v Astrue – Scribd.com