Replies

Court Order:

“A court order is an official proclamation by a judge (or panel of judges) that defines the legal relationships between the parties to a hearing, a trial, an appeal or other court proceedings. Such ruling requires or authorizes the carrying out of certain steps by one or more parties to a case. A court order must be signed by a judge; some jurisdictions may require it to be notarized.
The content and provisions of a court order depend on the type of proceeding, the phase of the proceedings in which they are issued, and the procedural and evidentiary rules that govern the proceedings.
An order can be as simple as setting a date for trial or as complex as restructuring contractual relationships by and between many corporations in a multi-jurisdictional dispute. It may be a final order (one that concludes the court action), or an interim order (one during the action). Most orders are written, and are signed by the judge. Some orders, however, are spoken orally by the judge in open court, and are only reduced to writing in the transcript of the proceedings.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_order

Has any court order from anybody seeking access to the Obama birth record, judge or not, been upheld? No, no court order by anybody judge or not a judge, has been upheld as valid.

What a hoot! Wikipedia?? Really??? Try to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on subpoenas. Notice the clerk, not the judge, is in charge of signing such court orders:

(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.

Again, your claim fails because Hawaii did NOT challenge Orly's subpoena on the basis of who signed the order, but how that order was served and THEN it challenged that the jurisdiction of the court from which Orly was filing her order. I've shown explicitly how the DOH did NOT honor a court order. Why should they fight it when the Uniform Information Practices Act and their own disclosure laws would allow them to comply with the subpoena?? What possible motive does it serve anyone not to comply with something that has allegedly already been made public??