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...

[tired_old_conservative]

I’ll take that as a no. If you had one to cite, you would have done so.

And one last time: The ability to make a coherent procedural filing that defines a legally actionable issue is part of a case’s merit. BS by morons gets dismissed all the time without making it to trial.

And the subpoena issue you’re hung up on now is purely procedural. One either knows how to do it properly, then does so, or one doesn’t. Orly doesn’t. No amount of amateur pleadings on your part will change that.

[EDINVA]

Is the Amended Complaint and/or motion(s) available anywhere? I went upthread and saw it was received by the Clerk but not yet filed, with no link to the document(s). It could be that they hasn’t been filed if mailed to the Clerk rather than filed electronically, and the Clerk’s Office would have to scan in the document(s).

BTW, you know how I hate agreeing with you but you’ve been correct on what I’ve read on this page of the thread. To date there has been no discovery authorized, Dr. Taitz is not a member of the USDC-DC court, has not engaged local counsel and/or been moved in pro hac vice. She is not an officer of THIS court, nor authorized to issue subpoenas. Given that Dr. Taitz is not a member of the bar of this court, she would not have authorization to file electronically. Did I leave anything out?

I have noted in other threads that the govt is not in default as I’ve read Dr. Taitz is claiming. The subpoena filed with the Complaint clearly stated that the US Govt, unlike mere mortals, has sixty (60) days to answer a complaint or file any motion, i.e., to dismiss.

[Red Steel]

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.

I don't have to look it up that Taitz is an officer the court in DC. She is practicing law in DC federal court regardless if she is on that list or not. It's a fact that she is allowed to be an attorney in federal court.

[Red Steel]

I’m not hung up on nothing here. It is a fact that attorneys can subpoena witnesses according to rule 45.

[bvw]

Good analysis. What was that all about? We can guess, but LIBERTY and the future of this Nation beg to have a energetic grand jury (or legit hearing board) and subpoenas to find out what all the furious blustering was about.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Yes, all the documents are here: http://www.scribd.com/collections/2874577/TAITZ-v-ASTRUE

Please do clarify any confusion on what’s been received, filed, and docketed.

Yes, I know how you hate to agree with me. That you do when you feel you must shows your true character. No, you didn’t leave anything out that I can think of, but IANAL either.

[Red Steel]

"(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."

Just the fact alone that the Lamberth allows Taitz to practice law in his court should tell you that she is qualified as seen above in the local rules.

[BuckeyeTexan]

(b) is only applicable if she can meet (a). She can’t or hasn’t thus far.

Granting Orly leave to file paperwork is not the equivalent of allowing her to practice in his court.

[Red Steel]

She obviously does meet the criteria as it is only a formality as seen in the local rules above.

"Orly Taitz - #223433
Current Status: Active

This member is active and may practice law in California."

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member_detail.aspx?x=223433

[EDINVA]

Followed the link. At P.2, there’s a document that appears to have been filed/docketed 6/14/11 as #17 that is an Amended Complaint. Tried to upload, but wouldn’t work for me.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Yes, she can practice in CA, but she can’t practice in D.C.

[Red Steel]

I have noted in other threads that the govt is not in default as I’ve read Dr. Taitz is claiming. The subpoena filed with the Complaint clearly stated that the US Govt, unlike mere mortals, has sixty (60) days to answer a complaint or file any motion, i.e., to dismiss.

Well, here's a "bright boy" Fogbower the "Realist" stating that the SSA is in default

"verbie, this case at this point is different than all the past birther cases. It's been the normal procedure when a birther case was filed that a Motion to Dismiss was the initial action taken by the government. In this case they filed an Answer rather than a Motion to Dismiss. The problem with that is that it was filed late and the SSA is in technical default, therefore a Motion to Dismiss at this time would be moot. "

" A technical default? A default is a default.

And from P&E:

"The Post & Email then asked if Lamberth’s decision took the place of the default judgment which Taitz had requested in May based on the government’s failure to respond within 30 days, and she said that by law, she believes she should have received a default judgment. “The government had 30 days to file a response to my complaint by May 5, but they didn’t respond until May 23, so I should have been entitled to a default judgment."

[Red Steel]

Yes, she can practice in CA, but she can’t practice in D.C.

In about a New York minute she would be able to "practice law" in DC federal court. Nothing stands in her way just fill out the form and pay a fee.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Fine, but as of right now, she’s not a practicing attorney for the D.C. District Court and as such can’t issue subpoenas on her own.

[Red Steel]

Only a simple formality. And when she is “ that DC practicing attorney” after paying off the court, she may get that ability to file subpoenas in accordance with rule 45.

[edge919]

I spend a lot of time explaining things to FR birthers.

I'm sure you think you do. 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.

You need to be specific. You haven't raised an actual objection to anything I've posted other than pretending you know something, but are unable to articulate whatever you think that is. A proper response is to specify what part to read and/or to simply cite the relevant text and explain the relevance. An ambiguous command to go read something is nothing more than a deflection.

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.

This is complete and utter nonsense. Her so-called clarification is completely unrelated to how the subpoena was served and it assumes the subpoena was valid in order for the objection to be meaningful.

If Nagamine recognized the subpoena as valid, she would have filed an official objection with Lamberth's court. She didn't do that.

If you read the rule, you would understand this is absolute hogwash, buckeye. Here's what it says, "A person commanded to produce documents or tangible things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated in the subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing or sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting the premises ..." Nagamine's letter to Taitz was the written objection. It's obvious you don't understand this subject material very well and you would do better not posting until you do understand it better.

[tired_old_conservative]

Nagamine doesn't acknowledge Taitz’s subpoena as legitimate.

Second paragraph: “Neither subpoena was issued or served upon my client in accordance with the requirements of federal Rules of Civil Procedure (”FCRP”, Rule 45, thus it is our position that we have no duty to to respond, however, to avoid confusion, our objections to these subpoenas, pursuant to Rule 45, FCRP, are noted below.”

That's clear. It means they do not acknowledge the subpoenas as procedurally legitimate. They then simply inform Ms. Taitz of additional objections that will arise in the event she is able to proffer a procedurally legitimate subpoena.

[EDINVA]

OK, this is where I have major “issues” with Dr. Taitz. I know nothing about Fogbower, so will leave his/her comments aside. The P&E quotes Dr. Taitz as saying “The government had 30 days to file a response ... so I should have been entitled to a default judgment.”

The problem with that is that the Summons in a federal civil case that must be filed with the Complaint by the plaintiff or his/her attorney states clearly on its face:

“Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”

http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/FormsAndFees/Forms/AO440.pdf

What is there about the US government and 60 days that she doesn’t get?

Before responding to your post, I downloaded every document in this case I could find. The initial documents, per the June 2, 2011 Order, are not available.

However, the U.S. Attorney’s Summons and Complaint was sent to the wrong address, and the clock doesn’t start running until that Office is properly served. (See Judge Lamberth’s hand-written notation at Document #4, April 8, 2011). Two more service attempts were made (Documents #5,6). On May 17, 2011 (Document #7) Judge Lambert hand-wrote on the Dr Taitz Request for Default “Request DENIED. No proof of service has been filed; only proof of mailing” A lawyer (or process server) is charged with filing the signed/dated ‘green card’ that is returned with certified mail, not the USPS receipt of sending it. But that’s what was done.

This is so elementary it boggles the mind that so much could go wrong so early in the game. I would not get my hopes up that this is going anywhere. In fact, I’ve already spent too much time on it and give up!!!

[edge919]

Sorry, but you’re falling for nonsense. Nagamine’s objections neither clarify nor pertain to how the subpoena was issued nor its validity. Her objection contradicts itself by citing the part of Hawaiian law that acknowledges that Taitz would have a direct and tangible interest in obtaining a copy of the record.

[tired_old_conservative]

I would assume you have little experience with legal communications. This type of “no, but” communication is anything but nonsense. It's very common. I wrote one much like it last week.

I know you folks will never admit that anything pertaining to an Obama suit represents an error on the part of the birther attorney, but the outcome of Orly's nonsense will speak for itself. And it won't be her getting access to anything with this kindergarten stab at a subpoena.