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

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

[westcoastwillieg]

The state of Hawaii claims that the "birth certificate" for Barack Obama in its files – presumably the document that was copied and distributed by the White House – remains confidential.

The image released April 27 by the White House was described by administration officials as "proof positive" of Obama's Hawaiian birth.

At that time, officials in Hawaii's health department and governor's office refused to provide confirmation to WND that the image released by the White House accurately represented the birth documentation in the state's custody.

Now, officials have refused to respond to a subpoena requesting the birth record, citing confidentiality...

[DiogenesLamp]

The way I see it is the executive branch has too much unchecked power. Obama answers to no one - not the judiciary (and his criticism during the State of the Union address), not Congress (screw War Powers Act), certainly not the “people”. I just don’t see any way to stop his agenda. We needed Kucinich to try to stop him! Until Congress decides they are an equal branch of government and will put the brakes on him, nothing will stop Obama. Certainly not any laws.

The reason the Executive has too much unchecked power is entirely because the MEDIA is in the hands of Liberal Democrats. If it were a Republican in Power, the media would be investigating him till the indictments flowed. The Media truly is the Fourth Estate of Government, and the Fifth Column of Socialism. Till we take them apart, they will always wield too much influence in support of Anti-Republican causes. We need to degrade Liberal Media as much as possible while we continue to construct our own Media Forces to offset their huge "air power" advantage.

[DiogenesLamp]

So tell us again how he proved he is eligible? Posting a phony BC to back up that statement is certainly a crime.

One of my major arguing points. His proof of eligibility? He said so! EVERY SINGLE STATE'S election officials fell down on the Job and didn't do their DUTY to verify that what he swore was true? Why did they fall down on the Job? For two hundred years they never had a candidate about which there was any question. The FIRST TIME (excluding Chester Arther who lied about his father) they had someone of which there was serious doubt, they blew it. They didn't verify. This is why laws requiring verification are so important. Had he known that he would be facing REAL scrutiny, he likely never would have ran for President in the first place.

[GregNH]

Like I have said many times;

"The Constitution was written by honorable men for honorable men."

[butterdezillion]

You’d have to ask the HDOH that. Good luck on getting an answer, and it may or may not be true if/when they answer it.

Welcome to my world. lol

[El Sordo]

Sorry, I was being a wisenhiemer.

I agree with your perspective, it seems.

[Natufian]

So it could be a simple listing of all births regardless of what happened to that person subsequently - either administratively or in real life?

[edge919]

Your statements and assumptions indicate to me that you haven’t read or don’t understand the FRCP on subpoenas.

You need to do more than just accuse somebody of not understanding something. This is a lazy "birther" style of response, as I believe you had complained about earlier. The AG in Hawaii responded with an objection to Taitz's subpoena, which would be unnecessary if what you had stated earlier were accurate.

[butterdezillion]

On a note related to your little side-issue, if Roe v Wade is correct and the word “person” in the 14th Amendment refers only to a LEGAL person and not a BIOLOGICAL one, then it has never applied to Blacks, who were decided in the Dred Scott decision to have the legal status of livestock - that is, they are biological but not legal “persons”. If the 14th Amendment didn’t refer to biological persons then it had no effect on Blacks at all - any more than it has an effect on other “livestock” - and did not overturn Dred Scott, which then still stands since there has never been a court case overturning Dred Scott and granting legal personhood to Blacks, nor has there been any Constitutional amendment granting legal personhood to Blacks.

If fetuses are not protected by the 14th Amendment because they are only mere biological persons rather than “legal persons”, then Blacks are not protected by the 14th Amendment either, for the exact same reason.

Susan B Anthony apparently understood the connection.

So do Germans. As I understand it, elective abortion has been illegal in Germany since the Holocaust. They know what happens when there is a legal distinction between biological v legal “personhood” - that is, when one group of humans gets to vote another group of humans off the personhood island. Almost like they thought they were God...

[edge919]

At one point, the birth index data included file numbers, so this would suggest the index is based on filed birth certificates, although maybe it’s possible some births were included without file numbers??

[butterdezillion]

Yes. We need to have laws that clearly spell out a lot of stuff that seems like a no-brainer.

One of the things we need to have laws specifically state is that any citizen has legal standing to sue government officials over laws broken. It IS our business if our government is lawless. This is OUR country, darn it!

[bvw]

Was Alexander lazy when he stopped playing with the details of the Gordian Knot and cut it in two with a single sword stroke?

Was Tom sawyer lazy with he charged neighborhood kids to paint the fence he had been given as a chore to paint?

Laziness of a shrewd and effective sort is the among the greatest of virtues in dealing with difficult issues.

[Right Wing Assault]

No problem. I wasn’t sure, so I went with the serious answer.

[butterdezillion]

At this point it *could* be Obama’s wet dream or anything else. It means nothing.

You get the HDOH to tell you what it is. Get them to explain to you why the person born as Norman Asing, Jr is listed in that list as just plain Norman Asing. That is not a reflection of who he was born as OR who he became later. It’s not an accurate representation of EITHER the legally-valid OR the legally non-valid BC that they have for him.

So what IS it? You get them to tell you. They’re no longer talking to me; Okubo told me (paraphrased. lol) that on their priority list I’m right behind trimming the toenails of the centipedes in their office - even though the law gives them a deadline of 10 business days to give me the public records I am entitled to receive - a copy of 4 different pages from their birth index book, which would take approximately 5 minutes. It’s been decreed (by the HDOH) that I can’t even contact them again about the request I made until it is 6 months since I originally made the request.

IOW, they have told me flat-out that they don’t have to obey no stinkin’ law just because some peon like me expects them to do, so I better get outta their face right now.

Lovely, eh? So much for the rule of law...

[GregNH]

All those involved have committed fraud and one day will be brought to justice.

We have concluded that the WH PDF is a computer creation. We can speculate why but that really moot.

Let's look at the chain of events and who is involved.

Friday April 22nd Barack Obama, not the POTUS, sends a letter, delivery method unknown, to Fuddy and presumably

CC to Perkins & Coie as there is no mention on the letter if anyone else is cc'd, delivery method unknown.

There is no Presidential seal and typed by initials....just strange.

Note that Friday the 22nd of April was a holiday in Hawaii.

Judy Corley of Perkins and Coie sends a letter to Fuddy on April 22nd, delivery method unknown, on behalf of President

Barack Obama requesting two certified copies of LFBC.

And oh by the way, I'll pick them up at your offices.

Fuddy responds on April 25th by letter, delivery method unknown, to P&C stating that the "enclosed" are two certified

copies that she personally witnessed the copies being made and can attest to their

authenticity, meaning someone else made the copies and certified by ATO.

Seems pretty strange to spend all that money to go all the way to Hawaii to pick up a PDF doesn't it?

Because we agree that the PDF is a creation then that is the egg and copies printed from it are what was held by a

reporter and given to AP, not what was picked up in HI.

That trip never took place and would have been unnecessary to begin with which make all of the documents above a cover.

[BuckeyeTexan]

So you don’t know the difference between a Court Order and a Subpoena.

A subpoena is a court order.

If a Judge issues a Subpoena they would have to be a party to the action.

That's horsesh*t. See the FRCP. A subpoena issued by a judge is commonly referred to as a judicial subpoena.

I have never seen a subpoena issued by a judge.

Then you have never looked for one or don't have as much experience as you claim to have with subpoenas.

Where would the judge put their name. The judge is neither a Plaintiff or a Defendant. There is no place on a subpoena form for a judge.

When a judge issues a subpoena, it is signed by the judge, usually at the bottom of the subpoena, as "so ordered." Sometimes it's stamped:

The only mention of a judge, in every single case, is the Judge’s name and courtroom location for the person or subpoena items to be delivered.

Horsesh*t.

Post a link to any standard form for a judge to issue a subpoena. It is impossible.

Local rules usually dictate the forms to be used for subpoenas. Here's a civil subpoena form for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

[BuckeyeTexan]

You need to do more than just accuse somebody of not understanding something. This is a lazy "birther" style of response, as I believe you had complained about earlier.

I spend a lot of time explaining things to FR birthers. Sometimes, when they simply do not understand basic details, I refer them to documentation. That's why I suggested you read the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) regarding subpoenas. If you understood the basics, you would not make statements such as the following.

The AG in Hawaii responded with an objection to Taitz's subpoena, which would be unnecessary if what you had stated earlier were accurate.

The subpoena was improperly served and is therefore invalid. Loretta Fuddy has no duty under the FRCP to respond or comply. She can simply ignore the invalid subpoena. Nagamine tells Orly exactly that in her written response. However, for clarification to Orly, Nagamine outlines what the objections are under the FRCP. She didn't have to do that. If Nagamine recognized the subpoena as valid, she would have filed an official objection with Lamberth's court. She didn't do that.

As to why the subpoena was improperly served, there are likely multiple reasons. First would be jurisdiction as Hawaii is not under the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Second would be that Orly is not an officer of the court from which she attempted to issue the subpoena.

[ilovesarah2012]

When was the last time a president went to president? You are living in a dream world if you think Obama or any of his minions will ever see a prison cell. I would love it if they all went to prison, but it won’t happen.

[ilovesarah2012]

There is very little investigative reporting these days, unless you count going through Sarah’s e-mails.

[Red Steel]

Being a practicing attorney does not make Orly an officer of Judge Lamberth’s court. She has to be an officer of that court in order to issue a subpoena from the court.

Lets look up the legal definition of "officer of the court"

"officer of the court n. any person who has an obligation to promote justice and effective operation of the judicial system, including judges, the attorneys who appear in court, bailiffs, clerks, and other personnel. As officers of the court lawyers have an absolute ethical duty to tell judges the truth, including avoiding dishonesty or evasion about reasons the attorney or his/her client is not appearing, the location of documents and other matters related to conduct of the courts. (See: judge, attorney, bailiff, clerk)"

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/officer+of+the+court

We clearly see that Taitz, according to the legal definition, is an 'officer of the court' for Judge Lamberth's DC Federal court in Taitz v. Astrue.

[Natufian]

How do you know Norman Aising wasn’t registered as plain Norman without the Jr at birth?