Nero, helps if you can read before you try to make a pointless point. The law says a “court of competent jurisdiction.” IOW, the HI DOH can ignore any court that it doesn’t think is a court of competent jurisdiction. And how do you divine a congressional committee as a court of competent jurisdiction?? Congress is not a court.
Also, you’ve already shown in another thread how the DOH has gone out of its way to fight lawsuits that try to take advantage of one of Hawaii’s sunshine laws. I’m not seeing how Texas law would make them behave any differently.
Edge919 conveniently omits that a CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA carries the same force of law as a court order from a court of competent jurisdiction.
“Congress can subpoena witnesses, or force them to testify under oath, before its committees. This authority comes from the Constitution’s grant to Congress of “all legislative powers” (Article 1, Section 1). Witnesses are subpoenaed to provide information that will assist committees in preparing legislation. In the case of Mc-Grain v. Daugherty (1927), the Supreme Court recognized that Congress could subpoena even private citizens to testify. The Court noted that since not everyone would volunteer needed information, “some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed.” Witnesses who refuse to respond to a congressional subpoena, or refuse to give information (unless they invoke their 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination) may be found in contempt of Congress and sent to prison.
The most famous use of the congressional subpoena occurred in 1973, when the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities (popularly known as the Watergate Committee) subpoenaed the tape recordings that President Richard M. Nixon had secretly made of White House conversations. This was the first time that Congress had ever subpoenaed a President. Nixon tried to withhold the tapes, claiming executive privilege (the right of the President not to release internal documents of the administration to the Congress). The courts ruled that the President could not use executive privilege as blanket protection, but the White House then released only a heavily edited version of the tapes. In June 1974, in United States v. Nixon, the Supreme Court ruled that executive privilege was a limited power and that the President must turn over all of the requested tapes to a special prosecutor investigating the Watergate incident. The opening of these tapes led Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against the President, causing Nixon to resign.”—Oxford Guide to the U.S. government
http://www.answers.com/topic/subpoena-power-of-congress#ixzz2bJ1ScXd4
Has there ever been a congressional investigation into Obama’s eligibility?
Imagine that, the Attorneys General of Hawaii, who is the attorney for HDOH (both the previous Republican A.G. and the current Democrat A.G.) defending the laws of the state of Hawaii and finding that judges of state courts, state appeals courts, the state Supreme Court and the U.S. District Court all agree with their position that privacy/tangible interest provisions of Hawaii Revised Statute 338-18 take precedence over UIPA requests for OPEN records.
“The state of Hawaii has stated that the President was born there, that’s good enough for me.”—John Boehner (R-OH) on Meet The Press.
Edge919 says: “Nero, helps if you can read before you try to make a pointless point. The law says a “court of competent jurisdiction.” IOW, the HI DOH can ignore any court that it doesn’t think is a court of competent jurisdiction. And how do you divine a congressional committee as a court of competent jurisdiction?? Congress is not a court.”
It is never a good idea to ignore ANY court, and back here in the real world, HDOH has responded to every legal challenge concerning Barack Obama’s vital records and they have responded, IN COURT.
Judges tend to get upset when they are ignored and they issue Contempt of Court citations which allow them to imprison anyone who defies their authority until the court is no longer ignored.
There have been twelve Obama birth certificate-related lawsuits filed against officials of the state government in Hawaii. Not all of them involved HDOH and not all of them were based on UIPA.
Constitution Party v. Governor Lingle. State of Hawaii Supreme Court: complaint contesting 2008 Presidential election results and contending that the Governor’s administration failed to require proof that candidate Barack Obama was qualified to be a candidate for President of the United States. Dismissed; reconsideration, Dismissed. 12/2008.
Hamrick v. Health Director Fukino. US District Court, Hawaii: seeking a copy of Obama’s certified birth certificate to determine whether he is natural born citizen); Dismissed, 5/2009.
Justice v. Health Director Fuddy. Hawaii state Circuit Court: seeking access to records relevant to Obama’s eligibility, Dismissed; Dismissal affirmed, Hawaii Court of Appeals. 10/2009 & 4/2011.
Martin v. Governor Lingle. Hawaii state District Court: seeking to compel disclosure of Obama’s birth records based on challenge to his eligibility. Dismissed; Hawaii Court of Appeals, Dismissed; Hawaii Supreme Court, Writ Denied. 1/2009 & 8/2009.
Martin v. Attorney General Bennett. Hawaii state District Court: seeking to compel disclosure of Obama’s birth records based on challenge to his eligibility; Dismissed; 9/2010.
Sunahara v. Hawaii Department of Health. Hawaii state District Court: complaint seeking access to birth/death records of Virginia Sunahara based on connection to Obama’s eligibility; Dismissed, Appeal pending. 3/2012.
Taitz v Astrue. U.S. District Court, Hawaii: ex parte application to compel discovery regarding Obama’s eligibility in a related case in the District of Columbia; 10/2011.
Taitz v. Health Director Fuddy (Freedom of Information Act). Hawaii state Circuit Court: appeal of agency refusal to grant access to documents allegedly related to Obama’s eligibility; Dismissed; Rehearing Denied; petition for reciprocal subpoena enforcement, Denied; Ex-Parte Amended Motion for Reconsideration, Denied. 11/2011 & 2/2012
Taitz v Obama. Hawaii Office of Elections: petition seeking to challenge Obama’s eligibility to be on 2012 ballot and demand for an emergency hearing on this challenge; Petition rejected. 12/2011.
Taitz v Judge Rhonda A. Nishimura. Hawaii Supreme Court; petition for a Writ of Mandamus to force Circuit Court Judge Nishimura to issue a court order forcing the Hawaii Department of Health to grant access to birth vital records related to Obama’s eligibility. Petition Denied. 1/2012.
Thomas v Hosemann. US District Court, Hawaii; action seeking to compel Hawaii Dept. of Health to provide access to documents related to Obama’s eligibility; Dismissed. 12/2008.
Wolf v Health Director Fuddy. Hawaii state Circuit Court; seeking to compel disclosure of documents allegedly related to Obama’s eligibility; Dismissed. 9/2011. Appeal to Hawaii Court of Appeals, Summary Disposition Order Affirmed by Intermediate Court of Appeals, 5/31/13.