Posted on 06/15/2011 8:52:24 AM PDT by 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...
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Orly's subpoena is signed pro se. She doesn't indicate that she is pro hac vice. As far as I tell, she is not a member of the bar of that court (no records for her) and she she has not joined of record (on her paperwork) another attorney who is a member of the bar of that court. Therefore, she is not an officer of that court.
And then had his name changed to Norman Asing Jr within a couple years, while his mom was suffering unbearable hardship from being married to his dad? Or did his mother give his name wrong in the divorce affidavit? I guess moms are notoriously bad for not knowing the name of their own kid. lol.
If his name was amended that BC# and computer record would be under his amended name. The whole thing comes down to whether his mother correctly stated his name in the divorce affidavit.
You should show us something specific instead of having to wade through your hyperlink, to other hyperlinks and PDFs about "local rules" to back up your statement.
Show us something that is specific in the local rules were Taitz is not allowed to issue subpoenas as an officer of the court.
Parsing words isn’t winning your argument. Saying Horsesh*t is saying “I don’t have any facts to back up my position”.
You did make one point although it was for my position, not yours. Your link to a civil subpoena is perfect. The issuing party is required to sign same. It asks the question
“Is the Issuing Party the Attorney for Plaintiff or Defendant?” The word Judge is not there. It never would be. What part of that don’t you understand.
You provided a stamp which would have one believe it is used on a Subpoena. It is used on a Judge’s COURT ORDER. I guess we can’t get around that because you provided a substantive arguement “A subpoena issued by a judge is commonly referred to as a judical subpoena. I guess that makes it game set Match because of your use of the word “commonly” without any fact to back up your position.
It what I call Horsesh*t!
No default judgment has been order
We do know however that the Obama government is in default with the federal court.
Is the guy called Norman Jr in the later documentation you have that you refer to in your blog?
No, she is not. Look it up yourself. She is not a member of the bar of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which is required per the local rules.
Attorneys who are in good standing from any state are are allowed to practice law in federal court cases, as in the DC fed court, since there is no bar exam for federal practice.
Not according to the local rules for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Specifically, you can read LCvR 83.2 PRACTICE BY ATTORNEYS on pages 74 - 76.
You should show us something specific instead of having to wade through your hyperlink, to other hyperlinks and PDFs about "local rules" to back up your statement.
I pointed to you the local rules for the court from which Orly attempted to issue a subpoena so you could read them for yourself because you clearly don't understand who an officer of the court is.
Show us something that is specific in the local rules were Taitz is not allowed to issue subpoenas as an officer of the court.
Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) dictates who may issue a subpoena.
(3) Issued by Whom.Orly is not authorized to practice in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and she is not authorized to practice in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, where the deposition and production of documents were to take place. Therefore, she may not issue a subpoena under the FRCP.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.
Further, I believe there are also FRCP for when discovery may take place and that Taitz v. Astrue has not yet reached that point. (IANAL)
No, she is not. Look it up yourself. She is not a member of the bar of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which is required per the local rules.
Attorneys who are in good standing from any state are are allowed to practice law in federal court cases, as in the DC fed court, since there is no bar exam for federal practice.
Not according to the local rules for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Specifically, you can read LCvR 83.2 PRACTICE BY ATTORNEYS on pages 74 - 76.
You should show us something specific instead of having to wade through your hyperlink, to other hyperlinks and PDFs about "local rules" to back up your statement.
I pointed to you the local rules for the court from which Orly attempted to issue a subpoena so you could read them for yourself because you clearly don't understand who an officer of the court is.
Show us something that is specific in the local rules were Taitz is not allowed to issue subpoenas as an officer of the court.
Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) dictates who may issue a subpoena.
(3) Issued by Whom.Orly is not authorized to practice in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and she is not authorized to practice in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, where the deposition and production of documents were to take place. Therefore, she may not issue a subpoena under the FRCP.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.
Further, I believe there are also FRCP for when discovery may take place and that Taitz v. Astrue has not yet reached that point. (IANAL)
The word "judge" doesn't have to be there, genius. A judge is an officer of the court. "Officer of the court" is on the sample civil subpoena I provided for you.
Instead of arguing with me about whether or not a judge has ever in the history of law signed a subpoena, why don't you spend 5 minutes to look it up? I'll even give you two, easy search terms: so-ordered subpoena and judicial subpoena.
You clearly don't have any idea what you're talking about. Until you do, don't bother arguing from a point of complete ignorance.
It's simply amazing that anyone carries on about this subpoena. It's obvious to any sane adult with a functioning brain stem that Orly's subpoena is invalid, which is how Hawaii correctly responded. Since Orly is so cosmically out of her depth, the state also noted that, even if she had a valid subpoena, state law would present a problem.
There's nothing controversial about this. No lawyer doing something as brain dead and dysfunctional as what Orly is attempting here would meet with success.
What an idiot. Do you believe your own BS? Your wrong , wrong and wrong again.
And I’m not even a lawyer ...
... but you are. So your opinion carries way more weight than any rules I can quote.
I can’t decide if Orly’s completely ignorant of the law, doing this to get attention, or both.
Oh, but she is authorized to practice in the DC federal court. The defendant works in DC so that is the appropriate place for this case. Judge Lamberth doesn't seem to have a problem with her practicing law in his federal court. Any US attorney, generally speaking, who is part of a bar of any US state, is allowed to practice in federal court.
What you posted about Rule 45 supports that Taitz is allowed to issue subpoenas as I already posted and explained in post 216 of this thread.
Here again,
- - - -
"(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. ..."
-End snip-
She's comparable to a basketball player who only understands that you're supposed to get the ball in the basket, but doesn't comprehend any of the rules about dribbling, traveling, charging, in-and-out-of-bounds, etc. It's just a freak show.
If you think that, just sit back and wait for Orly to produce a result of merit. You’ll be waiting a very long time (as in until heck freezes over).
You’re the idiot for claiming “A judge has never issued a Subpoena in any court-ever.”
The statement is preposterous. When a judge signs a subpoena, he is issuing/ordering it. It’s called a “so-ordered subpoena” or a “judicial subpoena.”
Not according to the records for the bar of that court, to which I provided you with a link to look up her name yourself. And not according to the local rules for Judge Lamberth's court, to which I referred you to pages 74 -76.
The defendant works in DC so that is the appropriate place for this case.
But it's not even remotely the appropriate court from which to issue a subpoena for the HDoH, according to the FRCP. The D.C. court doesn't have jurisdiction over Hawaii.
In the end, the subpoena Orly attempted to issue is invalid. (The Deputy AG of Hawaii agrees.) You can aruge that until you're blue in the face. It isn't going to change.
The AZ statement you quote I was not aware of.
It's pretty obvious that Taitz is an accepted practicing attorney in DC federal court. If not Taitz, who is the lawyer for Taitz in her court case in Taitz v. Astrue? Of course she is the acting attorney. Furthermore, Taitz had a prior court case before this one where she was the attorney in Judge Lamberth's DC federal court.
I looked and Taitz does qualify. Here it is:
- - - - - - -
(a) PRACTICE BY MEMBERS OF THE BAR OF THIS COURT.
An attorney who is a member in good standing of the Bar of this Court may appear, file papers and practice in this Court, provided that the attorney complies with section (b) of this Rule.
-snip-
(b) APPEARANCE AS SOLE OR LEAD COUNSEL IN A CONTESTED EVIDENTIARY HEARING OR TRIAL ON THE MERITS.
Each attorney who acts as sole or lead counsel in any contested evidentiary hearing or trial on the merits, civil or criminal, must have on file with the Clerk's Office a certificate, in a form prescribed by the Clerk, that the attorney (1) has previously acted as sole or lead counsel in a federal district court or the Superior Court of the District of Columbia or a state trial court of general jurisdiction in a contested jury or bench trial or other contested evidentiary hearing in which testimony was taken in open court and an order or other appealable judgment was entered; or (2) has participated in a junior capacity in an entire contested jury or bench trial in a federal district court or the Superior Court of the District of Columbia or a state trial court of general jurisdiction; or
(3) has satisfactorily completed a continuing legal education trial advocacy course of at least 30 hours sponsored by the District of Columbia Bar or accredited by a state bar.
(c) PRACTICE BY NON-MEMBERS OF THE BAR OF THIS COURT.
(1) An attorney who is a member in good standing of the bar of any United States Court or of the highest court of any State, but who is not a member of the Bar of this Court, may file papers in this Court only if such attorney joins of record a member in good standing of the Bar of this Court. All papers submitted by non-members of the Bar of this Court must be signed by such counsel and by a member of the Bar of this Court joined in compliance with this Rule.
(2) Paragraph (1) above is not applicable to an attorney who engages in the practice of law from an office located in the District of Columbia. An attorney who engages in the practice of law from an office located in the District of Columbia must be a member of the District of Columbia Bar and the Bar of this Court to file papers in this Court.
(d) PARTICIPATION BY NON-MEMBERS OF THIS COURT'S BAR IN COURT PROCEEDINGS. An attorney who is not a member of the Bar of this Court may be heard in open court only by permission of the judge to whom the case is assigned. Any attorney seeking to appear pro hac vice must file a motion signed by a sponsoring member of the Bar of this Court, accompanied by a declaration by the non-member that sets forth: (1) the full name of the attorney; (2) the attorney's office address and telephone number; (3) a list of all bars to which the attorney has been admitted; (4) a certification that the attorney either has or has not been disciplined by any bar, and if the attorney has been disciplined by any bar, the circumstances and details of the discipline; (5) the number of times the attorney has been admitted pro hac vice in this Court within the last two years; and (6) whether the attorney, if the attorney engages in the practice of law from an office located in the District of Columbia, is a member of the District of Columbia Bar or has an application for membership pending."
-end snip-
In short, "Nearly all district courts have a Local Rule 11.1 or 83.1 that describes the appropriate state judicial institution which admits attorneys to practice (either the state bar association or an office or committee of the state supreme court)." ... As it is written here.
In the end, the subpoena Orly attempted to issue is invalid. (The Deputy AG of Hawaii agrees.) You can aruge that until you're blue in the face. It isn't going to change.
Hawaii did not specify which part of Rule 45 they believed that Taitz did not comply with. Rule 45 has more in it than who can sign subpoenas.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.