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 ...
Does a raised seal on a physical paper legal document contain text that is readable on the raised side of the document, i.e. not mirror imaged from standard English?
No; he doesn’t use the Jr any more because he has a different last name now.
He is referred to in the divorce affidavit as Norman Asing, Jr. The divorce record includes the mother trying to get child support for both boys (Norman Jr and his younger brother, Nathan). The last entry in the file is the note of a meeting where Norman Sr’s lawyer asked that the child support requirement be dropped because Norman Sr had given consent for the boys to be adopted by Charlotte’s current husband. The judge allowed the requirement to be dropped, with the stipulation that it would be reinstated if the adoption wasn’t successful. That was the last entry so the adoption appears from that record to have been successful.
I double-checked that by locating Norman under his adoptive name. Charlotte had signed the request for child support enforcement using her new married name, and both boys (Norman and Nathan) now have records using that last name. I have a certified driver’s abstract for Norman using his adoptive name. So the only Norman Asing who exists right now is Norman Sr - the biological father of Norman xxxxxx, whose only legally valid BC is under Norman xxxxxx and lists Axxxxx and Charlotte xxxxxx as his parents.
Interestingly enough, there are two other adoptions associated with this extended family, with the adoptions listed in the divorce record, so there is proof that adoptive names are also used in the 1960-64 birth index.
How does Nagamine’s FALSE assertion that Obama’s BC is “confidential” make sense with the claim that the subpoena wasn’t properly served?
That makes no sense to me. Both Obama and the Social Security Administration are in Washington DC. The HDOH is brought into this because one way to know what’s really going on with the defendant in Washington DC is by checking all the citizenship records - some of which are alleged to be in Hawaii, some of which are alleged to be in Washington DC, some of which are alleged to be in Indonesia, etc.
Are you claiming that the only discovery that can be obtained in a case is what is actually physically located in the district where the case is being tried? If that is so, then what the heck do we even have the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution for? Nobody would need another state’s records in court because if the evidence was physically in a different state it couldn’t be compelled by the court of the state in which the trial is being held. Even federal court cases would be limited to evidence from only one federal circuit. So as long as the defendant made sure to spread out the evidence over several geographic locations, no single court would ever be able to get all the needed evidence, if one court can’t compel evidence from another geographic location.
That makes no sense to me. That would be totally unworkable.
How so? Because she filed paperwork with the court? That doesn't make her an accepted, practicing attorney in D.C. federal court.
Orly submitted her original complaint pro se and it was filed by the clerk of the court, which means she was granted permission to file her complaint. She did not include a D.C. bar number on her complaint as required by local rules because she is not a member of that bar. That is confirmed by the fact that there is no record for her as a member of the bar of the court.
I looked and Taitz does qualify.
That she may qualify doesn't mean she's been accepted. She doesn't qualify under (a) because she's not a member of the bar of that court as documented above. So she needs to qualify under (c) or (d).
She doesn't qualify under (c) because she didn't join an attorney who is a member of the bar of that court. She filed pro se. She doesn't list any other attorney on her paperwork and no other attorney signed her paperwork.
She doesn't qualify under (d) because she hasn't filed a motion to appear pro hac vice that was sponsored by a member of the bar of that court.
So she's representing herself (pro se.) As such, she is not an officer of the court and may not issue a subpoena under the authority of the court. Essentially, the clerk or the judge must sign any subpoena that Orly intends to issue. That didn't happen.
Thus far, Orly hasn't properly filed anything in Taitz v. Astrue. The judge directed her to refile her original complaint and even that hasn't been docketed (filed) by the clerk. Everything she's submitted to the court since her original complaint as been received by the mail room but not filed by the clerk.
That also makes no sense to me. How could there be any action on this case - how could there even BE a case - if there had not been any paperwork properly filed?
(2) Issued from Which Court.Orly would need to have the subpoena issued from the court in Hawaii not in D.C.A subpoena must issue as follows:
(A) for attendance at a hearing or trial, from the court for the district where the hearing or trial is to be held;
(B) for attendance at a deposition, from the court for the district where the deposition is to be taken; and
(C) for production or inspection, if separate from a subpoena commanding a person's attendance, from the court for the district where the production or inspection is to be made.
See this document for the answers to your questions about interstate subpoenas.
Nagamine begins her letter by noting that the subpoena is not legally proper and therefore Hawaii has no legal obligation to respond. That's true. Anyone who claims otherwise either has no idea how subpoenas work or is simply irrational on this subject.
Nagamine then moves beyond the procedural defects to a separate subject. She explains to Dr. Taitz that even if the subpoena had been properly served, which it was not, the state of Hawaii believes there would be other legal issues precluding compliance.
She concludes by noting that this letter constitutes written objection to the subpoena.
There's nothing unusual in that type of response. It's actually more detailed and polite than it needs to be for an idiotic subpoena. Like all of its many predecessors, nothing will come of Orly's latest procedural misunderstandings.
Has Red Steel ever been right on any court or procedural outcome? I don’t keep track of all these threads, but I can’t recall one.
Orly filed her original complaint. The defendant filed a motion to stike her complaint. The judge granted it in part and denied it in part, which is why he then directed Orly to amend her complaint and refile it. She amended her complaint and submitted it again. It has been received but not accepted (filed.) She has submitted a few other documents, including a motion for default judgment, but they have not been filed either.
This case has not yet met the requirements for obtaining discovery. There is just no way that Orly can subpoena anything from the HDoH at this point.
I’m not sure a birther has ever been right on any procedural matter. I don’t recall one either.
Has any court case personally concerning Obama in the last 2 1/2 years ever been heard on the merits?
What’s stunning is that Orly passed the CA bar. I didn’t and probably couldn’t. I could still get more procedural stuff right than she has by reading the dang rules.
Yes, she is acting as her own lawyer and that's the point. She has the authority of the court and she can issue subpoenas as rule 45 states. There is no half measured litigation as an officer of the court being an attorney as you seem to think, even if she was acting as ' pro hac vice' but that is not the case here.
That she may qualify doesn't mean she's been accepted. She doesn't qualify under (a) because she's not a member of the bar of that court as documented above. So she needs to qualify under (c) or (d).
There is no federal bar as there is no federal bar exam. Taitz has litigated in federal court in the past on a few occasions, and as I've told you before that she has litigated in DC Federal Court in the past, specifically in judge Lamberth's court.
"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...."
It's obvious that Taitz is allow to practice law in judge Lamberth's court. Now, judge Lamberth could let Taitz file a witness list for permission to subpeana, but as a general rule, she can issue subpeanas as stated above. How much free reign the court gives her is open to question.
subpeanas = subpoenas
No one is talking about a freaking bar exam. There is a bar for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to which attorneys must be admitted. That doesn't mean they must take a bar exam. It means the attorney must be accepted by the bar of that court in order to be a practicing attorney in that specific court, not all federal courts.
2011 Attorney Admission closing and ceremony dates
Orly is not an officer of that court unless she has been admitted to practice in the court by the bar of the court. She hasn't. Have you bothered to look up her admission record with that court? It doesn't exist.
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.