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.
And if Hawaii fails to show up for the hearing, Loretta Fuddy will most likely be arrested. Yes, Corsi is right. Fuddy is required to show up in court on 09/14/2011 and explain why the supeona should not be followed.
Hey now, the WND headline confirmed what Corsi said in the article, so Orly is winning because the headline tells me so!
on john “Guess again.”
he has two more to go
is that wishes or strikes
Crazy Orly’s filing yesterday will get dismissed by the Judge on 9/14/11, just like all of her previous frivolous and failed efforts. Orly will probably pull her usual stunt of just filing more nonsense in response, but the end result is clear – her case will go nowhere & Fuddy has nothing to worry about.
Or Fuddy shows up at the hearing and tells the Judge complying with the subpoena would embarrass the POTUS and she will not embarrass him citing an obscure exception to HHS 338-18.
Then the Judge will find Fuddy in contempt and order the bailiff to arrest Fuddy.
This isn’t getting to a hearing. It’ll be chucked before that. Hawaii isn’t going to allow some nitwit to paw through their records without an order issued by a Judge. And no Judge has or is going to issue such an order for this nitwit or anyone much like her. That’s the law.
First, Orly Taitz will have to prove that the subpoena is actually valid. She’ll have to prove that there is a reasonable belief (read, REASONABLE) that the subpoena will provide information relating to whether or not the Federal Government is rightfully denying the FOIA that she filed with the Social Security Administration. Nothing that the Government of Hawaii has is relevant to whether or not the Social Security Administration was right in deny Orly’s FOIA because she requested personal information that is specifically excluded by FOIA.
Just because Orly Taitz actually issues a subpoena doesn’t mean that the Hawaii Department of Health is required to give her anything. She’s not entitled to look at personal records, no matter what document she issues.
First john says:
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.
When that failed john says:
And if Hawaii fails to show up for the hearing, Loretta Fuddy will most likely be arrested.Yes, Corsi is right.Fuddy is required to show up in court on 09/14/2011 and explain why the supeona [sic] should not be followed.
Thanks for the laughs john, you are a funny guy, but keep on trying, maybe one day you will get one right (unlikely)
Poor John and Shape Shipper
Here’s what will happen,
The date of 14 Sept is where the case will be looked at for MERIT of which there is none.
Orly has been told 3 times that her fake “sub-poena’s” have no validity
Orly has been told multiple times that posting a scrap of paper with “sub-poena” on it is NOT legal service
No legal service = no sub poena served
The DoH has, in each of her FOAD letters been told WHY, specifically the law says they can’t give her the access she is demanding. Not You, Not Anyone, Not Ever.
Even IF Mad Old Orly had by some miracle gotten a real sub-poena and served it correctly the DoH would simply say exactly what the have in the FOAD letters, a sub-poena does not and cannot force an individual to break the law.
The sub-poena, even of valid and served correctly would never be honored by the court as the information demanded is IRRELEVANT to the case in hand which is about the Presidents SSN.
There are more items but the above are a good start
LMAO! Wow, how is life in pretend fantasy land? You truly have no tether to reality, do you…
HI DoH is not a defendant in Taitz v Astrue. They are a non-Party responder and can only argue their position, i.e. Obama’s BC is privileged.
Any other arguments will have to be presented by the USDOJ representing Astrue.
Orly Taitz will not lose any credibility over this — for the simple reason that she has none left to lose. Not after having fallen so hard for that obviously fake Australian “Kenyan” birth certificate (“Punkin’ the Birthers: Priceless!”).
Shapeshipper, Taitz will first have to prove how the original birth certificate is relevant to whether or not the Social Security Administration properly denied her FOIA. Tell me how it’s relevant. How Obama’s birth certificate modifies one thing in whether or not the Social Security Administration properly denied Taitz’s FOIA.
Only way I can see it being relevant is whether or not Obama had a SSN. But the outcome is ultimately the same.
If Obama doesn’t have a SSN (something that has been disproven), then the SSA would have denied Orly’s FOIA.
If Obama does have a SSN (something that has actually been proven), then the SSA would have denied Orly’s FOIA.
It doesn’t affect one ounce the outcome of the case. It’s the Terry Lakin case all over again. Obama’s birth certificate is not relevant to the case.
This is a great play for WND, it achieves their main goal, keeping the faithful roped in for another month. Much better result than had the court squeezed her in and bounced her today.
Although I am not happy that it provides more fuel for stupid, I take solace in that it wastes 5 weeks of the birthers time, and however much money they choose to waste on this.
Actually, no, Loretta Fuddy will not be arrested, and she is not required to show up at the hearing. However, the judge has required Orly to notify the State of Hawaii of her filing. There is a good chance that if Orly does properly serve the State, they may file an Opposition to her motion prior to the hearing. And I’m sure there will be a State Attorney at the hearing (no need for Fuddy to be there), who will simply repeat what they have already told Orly. The subpoena is not valid, and even if it was valid, they do not have to comply with it. The court will agree, and Orly will be slapped with attorney fees. I assure you, the odds of Fuddy being arrested are on par with Orly prediction of 1) having discovery, 2) having Obama out of office in 2 months, or 3) going to trial against President Obama.
Both Taitz and Corsi know they have lost. All they have left is pretending this issue hasn’t been resolved.
First off, you are showing your clear ignorance, and confusing legal terms. The state will appear and simply say, the subpoena is not valid, and even if it was, the law prohibits our providing the information, there for it is exempt from subpoena, as we have already explained on two occassions. The court will agree as there is nothing obscure about HHS 338-18’s provisions as to who records may be disclosed to.
Secondly, you statements regarding “embarrassment” to the POTUS reinforces that you really have no clue what you are talking about. The term “embarrassment” that birthers like to drag out simply shows their ignornace of the law. Embarrassment as has been used in this context does not imply that there is something they are hiding that would make the President look bad. Embarrassment in this instance is a term of art in the context of the Political Question Doctrine. It comes from Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962). It merely states that where a certain task is delegated to a particular branch in the Constitution, other branches, including the judiciary, are prohibited from making determinations on that subject. Encroachment on those areas would lead to conflicting determinations, and embarassment on the branches of government at home and abroad. That is why you have seen the word “embarassment” in the context of the Political Question Doctrine. But hey, feel free to “embarrass” yourself by spouting off in ignorance.
This is a classic:
1. Taitz files ex parte motion (i.e. motion without notice to other side) seeking order compelling Fuddy to produce requested document.
2. Court does NOT grant motion.
3. Instead, the Court
(a) orders a hearing on her motion (declining to issue order on motion, as she requested*); and
(b) orders that the hearing take place a month from now, in the “normal course” (declining to treat Taitz’s motion as emergency motion); and
(c) orders Taitz to provide notice to Fuddy and to all interested parties (declining to permit any sort of ex parte hearing)/.
4. Taitz declares VICTORY. Others applaud, agreeing with her.
This is, indeed, a classic Birther Victory.
(*It’s worth noting that Taitz did not request any hearing of any sort in her motion. She did reference to a “show cause” hearing — if, after production order issued, Fuddy refused to comply with court order — in her “proposed order.” However, she failed to request any hearing whatsoever in her motion.)
Can you actually read what people post?
Answer the point I posted not make up some asinine point without relevance, there’s a good birther.
I cannot follow this at all. Is it convoluted or am I just stupid? It’s like those teenage gossip chains where they’re like “Tina told Becky that Sarah S. heard Lisa telling Sarah J. that Kaitlin K. was making out with Jane’s boyfriend Bill.”
Actually everything listed is directly related position, and they are free to argue any of them. It all directly relates to a service of a subpoena they are being asked to comply with. You really shouldn’t try to make legal arguments when you don’t have the first clue what the law is. It really makes you look quite silly.
Have a look at my post above it lays out the points, but to summarise, for Mad Old Orly……..
No legal sub-poena
No legal sub-poena and not legally served
No legal sub-poena and not legally served and information demanded not relevant to the Taitz v Astrue case
No legal sub-poena and not legally served and information demanded not relevant to the Taitz v Astrue case and the information cannot be shared with Orly by law.
There is no following the logic of birthers.
Here’s the fact of the case…
Orly Taitz filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, requesting Barack Obama’s Social Security information. The Social Security Administration, citing the fact that Social Security Applications contain personal information, and therefore are exempt from the FOIA. The only issue in the case is whether or not the Social Security Administration turned over the proper documents.
She then filed a subpoena with the Federal District Court for the District of Hawaii requesting Obama’s birth certificate, citing that in order for her to determine whether the SS Application was fraudlent, she needed to see the original birth certificate. There, of course, is absolutely no issue of fraud in the FOIA case, but that doesn’t stop her. The Hawaii Department of Health (DOH) issued a letter that said that her document was invalid and that they were not going to comply, citing privacy concerns. She then travels across the ocean to Hawaii to enact her Subpoena, which the Hawaii Department of Health issues her largely the same letter when she shows up and sees it. She then files a motion to have the District Court issue a court order enforcing her subpoena. Of course, her subpoena isn’t valid in the first place for a few reasons including relevance. But the birthers actually think that the district court will enforce the subpoena.
“But the birthers actually think that the district court will enforce the subpoena.”
they converted it into another OMG moment, and when it fails they wiill search high and low for another OMG moment. crazy guys, huh?
So, once again, birfers are ignoring Orly’s complete incompetence as a lawyer, portraying her failure as a victory, and looking forward to her next battle because that is the one where she has an iron-clad case that the courts will not deny or dismiss. I truly don’t understand this level of stupidity.
The Birther comments on WND are so stupid and so absurd as to be downright repulsive.
They are using stupidity as a blunt object.
No, they are giving stupidity a bad name.
But I like that most have pictures and they look as stupid as they post.
Obama has scheduled a family vacation to Honduras to start Sept. 13th! It seems he knows the gig is up and Orly finally caught the “tiger” by the toe!
(I am completely making this up in order to get the birthers hopes up higher so they crash even harder, Doc C. I’ve used the “secret” php tag, so birthers won’t be able to see this part in parenthesis.)
You all seem to forget one rather important thing: there is a Motion for Summary Judgment pending in the FOIA/Astrue case (remember, her 3 attempt at responding when Judge Lamberth issued his famous “toying with the court/showing her own stupidity” order? I believe that, since Taitz failed to show there is any issue of material fact in this case, Lamberth will GRANT the Defendant’s MSJ. Then, this silliness on the Hawaii docket will read “Case dismissed, Motion Moot” 🙂
I’m sure your right, I just hope he waits until Sept. 13th after she has flown to Hawaii again.
I didn’t forget. I visit the court web site often to see if an order has been posted.
I am curious, though, as to whether the fact that Taitz has filed another facially-frivolous FOIA lawsuit that is before Lamberth will have any effect on how soon the first one is dealt with.
I don’t think we’re forgetting it as such. I also made the same point on another thread. Having pretty much figured that, it’s interesting to speculate on the birthers whining. Good catch on your part though, although as a lawyer yourself, you have to admit it’s pretty obvious haw the fail is likely to play out.
Brings up an interesting question that I’d like to put to any lawyers reading….
Considering that both FOIA demands are effectually for the same thing, albeit against different defendants, is it possible that the defendants could request to combine the cases?
I could see that being no disadvantage for the Hawaii DOH, and a serious advantage for the White House Counsel.
My uneducated gut feeling is that it’s not possible to do so, but I wanted to ask anyways.
Oh please no… It would seriously destroy the trilogy of Lamberth orders. First there was “tilting at windmills,” followed by “toying with the court,” and the eventual dismissal. To lose the last one in the 3 volume set would leave a gaping hole on my bookshelf.
Actually, they’re not for the same thing. The Astrue FOIA is for records maintained by the SSA — i.e., the SSA-related documents she requested and the SSA refused to produce. (Sure, she separately seeks the birth certificate but, as others have noted, it’s not relevant to her claims for disclosure of SSA-related docs.) In contrast, the Ruemmler FOIA case for for records allegedly maintained by the White House (i.e., the birth certificate).
Second, even if they were seeking the “same thing,” the legal standards are different. There are specific regulations regarding SSA-related docs – which would not apply to docs held by the White House. Likewise, there are specific regulations governing release of docs maintained WH under FOIA.
So, the cases are different both in terms of what they request and the standards that will be applied when they’re dismissed…………
Actually FOIA doesn’t even apply to the White House. FOIA only applies to government agencies, and the White House isn’t an agency (there is clear case law on this point). So this suit is even more frivolous than the others.
Actually, as stated above, the FOIA requests actually ask for very different things. In Astrue she requested Social Security information that is exempt from disclosure under the law. It’s a fairly frivolous suit in that the case law is pretty clear that information on living individuals will not be released in a FOIA request. But at least she’s asking government documents. While her subpoena of HI DoH asks for the birth certificate, Hawaii is not actually a party to the case, and the subpoena isn’t even valid (primarily because generally there is no discovery in FOIA cases, and certianly nothing a third party can produce that would be relevant to a FOIA case).
Her latest misadvernture against the White House is frivolous for a whole host of different reasons. First, as mentioned before, FOIA does not apply to the White House. FOIA only applies to government agencies. Orly even acknowledges this in her complaint. She tries to argue that since she’s not asking for White House documents, but a birth certificate created by a state, that it makes everything ok (so I guess the argument is that since FOIA neither applies to the office she makes to request to, nor the type of documents she is requesting, personal, not government, two negatives make a positive, and they have to respond? Then she throws in some totally irrelevent case law regarding the White House’s requirement to respond to a prosecutorial subpoena).
So in relaity, the only thint the two cases have in common is that they are both frivolous, and filed by the same nutty incompetent excuse for an attorney
Hmmm. I just checked Westlaw and regulations governing production of records under FOIA by at least one office in the White House is still reported as valid and applicable….
So maybe it depends on how you define White House. ….
That wouldn’t be the office of administration? (there are regulations for OA, but the DC Cir found they were exempt in Citizens for Responsiblity and Ethics)
I seriously doubt that Ms. Fuddy is “worried” whether the case goes anywhere or not.
While it is highly doubtful that the Nitrous Queen will prevail; on the off chance that she does, Ms. Fuddy has followed the law and has hidden nothing.
There is nothing to hide, for starters.
She (Ms. Fuddy) isn’t part of the vast conspiracy Birthers would like to paint her into. I don’t think that you think she is, but want to clarify for the Birther brigade who jump on every turn of phrase to spin more and bigger lies.
Of course I don’t think she is involved in any conspiracy at all, which is why I said she had nothing to worry about. I was never implying that she was worried in the first place.
My statement was in response to crazy Birther John, who had stated in the first comment on here his ludicrous position that “Loretta Fuddy will most likely be arrested”.
By the way – how much does one what to wager that even if Taitz v Astrue was dismissed before the 14th, Orly will still return to Hawaii and try to argue for her motion to compel on an otherwise moot subpoena?
You are completely delusional!
Another one that is completely delusional.
Not one of you birthers has been able to show STANDING in ANY of your attempts to use the courts.
Could someone explain the standing in regards to this Plan B. Certainly the Federal Judge in Honolulu has personal jurisdiction over Fuddy, but there’s no case in his Court. The case is in DC. I doubt her “subpoena” was even recorded by the HI clerk. Will he just say “What the H is this doing in my Court?”
Had Orly a legitimate subpoena, she would be following the proper procedure. If you have a case in any federal court, you have the ability to subpoena third parties that may have relevant information. If they are not in the jurisdiction that your case is, you have to issue the subpoena under the jurisdiction that the third party is located (the court you have your case in does not have jurisdiction over the third party, so that is why you have to go to their local District Court which does have jurisdiction over them). That third party can either comply with your subpoena, file a motion for a protective order in their local federal district court, give you a letter objecting to their subpoena, or merely ignore you. The last two shifts the burden on the subpoena’ing party to file a motion to compel complaince. The last one also creates the possiblity that you may be sanctioned for not responding to a subpoena (provided it is valid). Just as your federal district court where you litigation is pending did not have jurisdiciton to issue the subpoena over the third party, it does not have jurisdiction over them to make them comply with it. That is why you go back to the court issuing the subpoena that has jurisidction over the third party. You will file you motion to compel, the court will give you a misc docket number, and it will hear your motion to compel, and that motion only.
And I also would like to add, this “Plan B” is not some great new legal strategy Orly pulled out of her great legal mind. This is a pretty routine motion to compel. There are probably over 100 filed every day across the country. The fact that it is so routine is what makes her attempt to get an ex-parte emergency hearing so laughable.
I agree that the DC District Court judge in Citizens found that OA is exempt from FOIA. I think even the OA recognizes that that one, lower court opinion, does not “equal” well-settled law. Hence, the statement on its website that “does not concede that it is Federal agency for purposes of the FOIA. OA has processed FOIA requests as a matter of administrative discretion.”
The FOIA statute clearly includes, in the definition of “agency,” “…establishment in the executive branch of the Government (including the Executive Office of the President)….” Thus, as I read the cases, the issue quite often is whether a particular component of the EOP (or White House) — a task force, council, committee, etc. — is an “agency” under the statute/regs. And, the courts undergo an extensive analysis to make that determination. And — in at least a couple reported DC cases, courts have ruled that certain “entities” or “components” in the White House/EOP are, indeed, subject to FOIA.
So my point, which I should have more simply stated was – and still is after further research – merely that I believe that a statement that “The White House is not subject to FOIA” is too broad a statement to be accurate.
I’d agree there may be some wiggle room for a straight faced argument on the edges. Perhaps I should rephrase to central offices of the White House are exempt from FOIA. However, in the case of Orly sending a FOIA request to the office of counsel of the White House, I think we can rest easily that we are dealing with “the President’s immediate personal staff” or those “whose sole function is to advise and assist the President.” Meyer v. Bush, 981 F.2d 1288, 1291 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 1993). I don’t think we really need to concern ourselves with the gray areas.
I agree that the Office of Counsel to the President is not an agency subject to FOIA, although I’d cite to National Sec. Archive v. Archivist of the U.S., 909 F.2d 541, 545 (D.C.Cir.1990), affirmed, 909 F.2d 541 (C.A.D.C.1990) as precedent because (a) this case contains the actual holding on the issue and (b) the holding was affirmed by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, so it has more precedential value.
Well, I think it’s always helpful to be as precise and accurate as possible – most especially when dealing with a group of people who consistently and continually grossly misstate facts and laws. Provides a good contrast (imho) …. 🙂 I fail at that far too often, I know, but I try …
Oops – bad citation errr… inprecision on my part! … National Sec. Archive v. Archivist of the U.S., 688 F.Supp. 29 (D.D.C. 1988), affirmed, 909 F.2d 541 (C.A.D.C.1990)
And of course we don’t even know for sure that the Office of Counsel to the President has custody of the two certified copies of Obama’s birth certificate. Doesn’t a FOIA request have to be directed to the actual custodian of the records being sought?
Since Orly’s gullible donors are the ones who paid for Orly’s Hawai’ian vacation, and probably that of Vogt and Irey as well (Alice in Blunderland with Tweedledum and Tweedle-just-as-dumb), I doubt she objects to having to stay in Hawai’i.
Maybe she’ll bring them back Obama bobble-head dolls.
Or cans of SPAM.
I was just talking to Ms. Conspiracy about getting a Chia Obama.
Anyone else suspect that the correlation between fundamentalist / evangelical religion and birtherism isn’t an accident? It always seems nuts to me that anyone would actually donate to deez nuts, but then I remind myself of the target audience. Trained at the offering plate. Pony up those love offerings.
I don’t think it’s fair to tag this on Fundamentalist/Evangelicals. After all the vast majority of F/Es are not birthers.
I think the problem is that the kind of mindset that causes a birther, needs absolutism in order to function. F/Rs are a absolutist/exclusivist denomination. Now there’s nothing wrong with that in and of itself, although I don’t agree with it theologically. The thing is that non-absolutist denominations and religions do not readily lend themselves to delusional thinking, of the sort that birtherism manifests.Birtherism also requires a type of absolutism and exclusivism.
Again that is not to say that F/E causes birtherism, not by any stretch. It’s just that when the type of person who becomes a birther goes shopping for a religion, he’s more apt to choose “this is the only way to God” over “all paths lead to God”.
Daniel, it’d be silly to say one causes the other, not at all what I meant, as you said there is a certain mindset amenable to both. I’d be more surprised by an ecumenical birther than an atheist birther!