Hawaii claims Obama 'birth certificate' is 'confidential'Refuses subpoena...

World Net Daily ^ | 6/14/11 | Bob Unruh

[bvw]

You drew the conclusion, on what did you base the conclusion you drew?

[BuckeyeTexan]

I didn’t draw a conclusion. You did.

[bvw]

Oh boy. You are a case, aren't you?

Here's the conclusion you drew from accepting Obama's words as a honest take on Hawaiian law:

[I]t is a legitimate argument that his LFBC can no longer be considered confidential by Hawaii.

[butterdezillion]

If he was adopted by Soetoro, then Obama needed a court order to get the original BC, and all the communication between Obama’s lawyers and Loretta Fuddy are a fabrication. Is that legal? Wouldn’t the communication have to refer to the judge’s order, if that was the legal justification for releasing a sealed record?

And if the original record was what was finally released, then why did Obama have to fabricate the long-form? Because the evidence is quite clear that it is a fabrication. And that would be forgery.

Unless a judge ordered the HDOH to fabricate a document rather than use what they actually have. That would be a travesty. Totally possible, given that it’s Hawaii government we’re dealing with.

That scenario would also mean that the HDOH altered their public 1960-64 birth index to get rid of the Barry Soetoro name and to put in the Barack Hussein Obama II name. Which is actually believable because the HDOH HAS altered their 1960-64 birth index so that it includes legally non-valid records.

[BuckeyeTexan]

One has nothing to do with other. I made no assertion that an exception was required by law. I asserted that Obama requested an exception and that Hawaii claims to have granted one.

You can cobble together word games until you are blue in the face. I’m not explaining your confusion to you again.

[Right Wing Assault]

The state remains bound by its own laws.

OK, I see that it comes down to that.

[butterdezillion]

So she needs to get somebody else to issue it for her. Is that what you’re saying?

[BuckeyeTexan]

Yes. The judge or the clerk of the court.

[Right Wing Assault]

If they do not give me a copy, then we can know that both you and your state are involved in some kind of cover-up to conceal the facts surrounding your birth.

No, I'm not claiming a conspiracy. I just didn't see that forfeiting your own right to privacy still does not allow the state to do the same.

[butterdezillion]

That doesn’t make sense to me. The judge or clerk is supposed to carry out the discovery? Or they just have to sign off on it, or what? It doesn’t make sense that the only people in an entire circuit who could issue subpoenas are the judge and the clerk.

[BuckeyeTexan]

They just have to sign it. (i.e. approve it.) Read the FRCP about subpoenas. It’s not that long, really, and is pretty easy to understand.

[masadaman]

On Wilson and the Sixteenth Amendment, IIRC, Wilson was not yet sworn but certainly an advocate. A Virginian, Wilson, prejudiced like most Southern Democrats of his time, had little respect for blacks, his 'Negroes'. Commentators note that once in office, he arranged to fire the few remnants holding federal office from the tail end of Reconstruction. But more importantly, it was Wilson who after almost 50 years of no Amendments except for XVI, set the stage for Amendments XVII, XVIII and XIX in short succession dramatically changing America forever, certainly as much as our entry into WWI.

Of course XVII provided for the direct election of Senators, diluting the difference between a democracy of the great unwashed and the republic envisioned by the founders.

Amendment XVIII was Prohibition and Amendment XIX was Woman's Suffrage. It is said that the latter could never have been passed without the former i.e., no booze was a function of the local temperance ladies and those same gals vowed to withhold their charms from their now sober spouses unless they were also given the vote. (Women apparently preferred the order of passage as they feared refusing the drunk at home.)

[Jeff Winston]

Thanks for the detailed reply!

[expatpat]

Thank you for clarifying the issue with facts.

[Red Steel]

Nagamine responded with an objection to the subpoena under the rule 45. There would be no need to object to an invalid subpoena. She didn’t object that the subpoena was invalid. She said it wasn’t served properly (without explaining how) and based her objection on a separate issue, claiming,

I haven't gone over rule 45 yet, but if that's the case

Taitz may have to use Honolulu City and County, Hawaii Process Servers.

[Red Steel]

"Taking a quick look at Rule 45. Taitz is a practicing attorney in the DC Federal court so she can issued subpoenas. See 3 (A)(B) below.

- - - - -

"

(3) Issued by Whom.

The clerk must issue a subpoena, signed but otherwise in blank, to a party who requests it. That party must complete it before service. An attorney also may issue and sign a subpoena as an officer of:

(A) a court in which the attorney is authorized to practice; or

(B) a court for a district where a deposition is to be taken or production is to be made, if the attorney is authorized to practice in the court where the action is pending.

(b) Service.

(1) By Whom; Tendering Fees; Serving a Copy of Certain Subpoenas.

Any person who is at least 18 years old and not a party may serve a subpoena. Serving a subpoena requires delivering a copy to the named person and, if the subpoena requires that person's attendance, tendering the fees for 1 day's attendance and the mileage allowed by law. Fees and mileage need not be tendered when the subpoena issues on behalf of the United States or any of its officers or agencies. If the subpoena commands the production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things or the inspection of premises before trial, then before it is served, a notice must be served on each party.

(2) Service in the United States.

Subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(ii), a subpoena may be served at any place:

(A) within the district of the issuing court;

(B) outside that district but within 100 miles of the place specified for the deposition, hearing, trial, production, or inspection;

(C) within the state of the issuing court if a state statute or court rule allows service at that place of a subpoena issued by a state court of general jurisdiction sitting in the place specified for the deposition, hearing, trial, production, or inspection; or

(D) that the court authorizes on motion and for good cause, if a federal statute so provides."...

-End snip-

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule45.htm

Taitz should use a process server (See (B) service above) for Hawaii to dot the "I"s and cross her "T"s or Hawaii will just keep on throwing up road blocks. ...I expect Hawaii is going whine and cry about anything to get out of it even for nonsense reasons.

[edge919]

I suggest you read the FRCP.

I'm supposed to go fishing for something because you can't defend your argument??

[Natufian]

“Fukino royally screwed up when she made the July 2009 statement that Obama’s BC claims a Hawaii birth. If the records were required to be confidential then she broke confidentiality by giving that statement. Once she did that, the record became public.”

If all she released was information that was already public such as that contained in the Birth Index then that would mean that the BC itself would remain confidential wouldn’t it?

[ilovesarah2012]

Everyone is wasting their time on this issue. There is no way to prove Obama was not born in Hawaii. Even if it could be proved he wasn’t, who would do anything? By the time anything would happen, his term would be up.

It is time to find a candidate who can beat him.

[butterdezillion]

The birth index includes non-valid records so somebody’s name being in the birth index means absolutely nothing. What she stated was that the original birth record claims he was born in Hawaii; if the birth index includes all the records the HDOH has, without regard to the legal status of the record (as seems indicated by the fact that they have the birth names listed for adopted children who no longer exist under that name and whose BC under that name is no longer legally valid), that would/could include certificates of foreign birth as well.

So what she announced depended on the birth certificate itself, as even she stated in her announcement. That makes the birth certificate a public record.