The State of Hawaii has refused to comply with the “subpoena” issued by erstwhile attorney Orly Taitz in the DC Freedom of Information Act case of Taitz v Astrue. In a letter to Taitz, Jill Nagamine, Deputy Attorney General of Hawaii, informed her that the State would not and could not comply with the subpoena.
Nagamine stated that the subpoena was not properly served and not valid under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 45, but focused on the fact that the laws of Hawaii prohibit the disclosure of Barack Obama’s birth certificate (citing HRS §338-18) to Taitz.
When a non-party to a lawsuit responds a subpoena, there are a number of options including: filing a motion with the court to quash the subpoena, objecting to the subpoena, and seeking a protective order from the court. The State of Hawaii chose the second option, which is the simplest, and would require a subsequent action by a court to enforce the subpoena, which obviously they would not do for many reasons already discussed here. If Taitz is serious about the subpoena, I would think her next move would be to file a motion with some court somewhere, to enforce the subpoena.