Andy Martin asks Hawai'i court to reconsider flawed Obama ruling

PR Inside ^ | November 26, 2008 | Andy Martin

[Red Steel]

Martin says the Hawai'i court ignored Hawai'i law and misconstrued the plain language in a lawsuit seeking access to Barack Obama's birth certificate. Martin is prepared to proceed with an appeal to Hawai'i's Intermediate Court of Appeals.

CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF HAWAII

CIVIL NUMBER: 08-1-2147-10-BIA (Declaratory Judgment)

ANDY MARTIN, Plaintiff,

vs.

LINDA LINGLE, in her Official capacity as Governor Of the State of Hawai'i, DR. CHIYOME FUKINO, in her official capacity as Director of the Department of Health,

Defendants. _

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF COURT'S ORDER OF NOVEMBER 19, 2008

Preliminary Statement

The Court managed to take what is at its core a simple and straightforward case seeking review of denial of access to a Hawai'i record, and to add layers of confusion and complexity that were totally unwarranted by the record made in open court on November 18th. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff moves the Court to reconsider, vacate and rehear the matters decided on November 19th using the correct procedures and standards of law. Plaintiff initially thought that he would appeal the order to the Intermediate Court of Appeals, but it would be a disservice to that Court to appeal such a mangled and needlessly confused record from the trial forum. Thus, the Rule 59 motion (see below) stays any appeal until a decision on this motion.

1. Procedural basis for reconsideration

Plaintiff is not aware if a judgment has been entered since he has not been served with any such document. Prior to entry of a judgment a Court has plenary power to review and reconsider an order. This motion is also filed under H.R.Civ.P. 59.

2. The Court applied an imaginary standard to plaintiff's motion

Plaintiff's motion is attached as exhibit A. Plaintiff sought access to a birth certificate after denial by the defendants. In no place did the Plaintiff ever mention the word "injunction" and nothing in Plaintiff's motion constituted a request for a temporary injunction. A temporary injunction is a remedy usually entered to preserve the status quo. Plaintiff was not seeking the preservation of any status quo. He was seeking review of denial of access to a historic public record, and asked the Court to expedite the matter based on both a lack of a factual dispute and intense national interest in the document. Neither of these issues converted a review proceeding into an injunction matter. Despite the lack of any pleading seeking injunctive relief, the Court mischaracterized plaintiff's motion for review of denial of access as an "injunction" and then applied the heightened standard applicable to injunctive proceedings as a pretext to dismiss the action. This was clear error and a serious abuse of discretion. For the court to create an imaginary request for an injunction and then deny that imaginary request deprived Plaintiff of due process of law. Thus, the entirety of the Court's order is void for want of due process and must be reheard under a correct standard of review. The Court's behavior clearly "exceeded the bounds of reason [and] disregard rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant." Amfac v. Waikiki Beachcomber, 74 Haw. 85, 839 P.2d. 10, 26 (Haw. 1992).

3. The Court decided a nonexistent standing issue

Plaintiff sought access to a historic document on two grounds: (i) a Health statute vesting as court with authority to direct release, and (ii) the Hawai'i UIPA. Both the statute, which vests the court with discretion to hear requests for access, and the UIPA, provide for review by this Court. There is thus a statutory grant of standing to seek review of a denial of access. There is no "standing" issue in this lawsuit. Plaintiff does not need to show "injury" to seek access to a historic Hawai'i record. The AG's claim was complete nonsense. Why the Attorney General sought to garbage-up the record with bogus standing claims is a question that should concern the court. Why the Court threw in standing as an afterthought as a basis for dismissal, when there is no such issue, is bizarre.

4. Service of process was timely made

This lawsuit was filed in mid-October. Plaintiff sought to expedite the proceedings because of the intense national interest. He lives in Chicago. He is based in New York, some 8,000 miles from the forum. The Court entered an order to show cause why the relief sought should not be granted. Defendants claimed they had not been served (which has no bearing on an order to show cause, which they admitted had been served; at hearing they admitted they had also been served with the original pleadings on October 17th). After defendants objected and demanded service a second time, Plaintiff served the defendants and filed his proof of service on November 19th. Thus, there was not the remotest basis for dismissal on the basis of failure to serve the defendants. The Court's apparent attempt to impose thirty days as a basis for dismissal is an unreasonable period to impose on Plaintiff to serve defendants a second time when he is an out of state litigant. Plaintiff was well within the applicable time limits when he served the defendants and no reasonable person could argue to the contrary.

5. The court ignored the state of the record

Plaintiff was seeking review of a denial of access to a historic public record. As Plaintiff set forth, there was a serious waiver issue, since the parties themselves had discussed the document openly, and the "document" has falsely been portrayed as already being disclosed. The Court ignored the waiver issue. Based on the lack of any response by the defendants, waiver mandated release of the document.

Conclusion

At a certain point, the comulatative errors in this proceeding raise an inference of harassment of an out-of-state litigant. Under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, a non-Hawai'i resident should obtain the same due process that a native or resident receives. Hawai'i is not a private club that is maintained for the benefit of insiders. Plaintiff came before the Court in good faith seeking access to a historic document. There is not a shred of evidence in the record to defeat his claim. The court's constant mischaracterization of his claims and misapplication of the rules constitute a breach of judicial decorum. The dismissal should be vacated and the matter should be heard before a judge who will faithfully and fairly apply the law. If this Court honestly disagrees with Plaintiff's arguments, it should simply say so and send a clean record to the ICA, and not try to create cobwebs to conceal legerdemain and prevarication based on an attempt to evade the obviously applicable facts and principles of law.

Dated: New York, NY October 25, 2008 Respectfully submitted, ANDY MARTIN Plaintiff Pro se

[hoe_cake]

“If this Court honestly disagrees with Plaintiff’s arguments, it should simply say so and send a clean record to the ICA, and not try to create cobwebs to conceal legerdemain and prevarication based on an attempt to evade the obviously applicable facts and principles of law.”

Obama could just set the record straight and provide his birth certificate.

I bet for $16 the Hawaiian government could send him a replacement in case he’s lost his.

Tack on another $15 charge for overnight delivery.

[AU72]

Time is of the essence now.

[dascallie]

It just occurred to me...the brazen ignoring of this story by almost every news outlet has a precedent.

They forged a “model” in how to quell any widespread exposure. It was the Larry Sinclair scandal.

The mainstream media was successful in quashing the Larry Sinclair story—even with his June 18 National Press Club appearance by just SIMPLY NOT REPORTING ON IT. That, and the dispatching of 1000+ bloggers to infiltrate and blow smoke and lies over any mention of it.

They played the odds that the conspiracy of silence would hold together—no outlet would put a light in it —not even the National Enquirer— and so far it has worked.

I”m sure they feel..ok, we have a a modus operandus now that has proven out...let’s use this same tactic on the BC story.

[ThisLittleLightofMine]

Mr. Obama, should be ashamed of himself and his advisors should release his birth certificate. I am disgusted when I think of the time, cash and energy being wasted, not to mention tying up our court system dealing with this issue. Shame on him for not just releasing it and addressing it in an honest fashion.

[LongIslandConservative]

Can’t Martin appeal directly to the Hawaii Supreme Court?

[dianed]

Wow! Sounds like there will be another case of judicial misconduct in the works.

Add it to the pile on top of the New Jersey Appellate Judge who obstructed Leo Donofrio’s case.

My guess is that the stack will be quite high before the Messiah capitulates.

[freeplancer]

What happens when a messiah goes up against an internet powerhouse?

[FrankR]

"I bet for $16 the Hawaiian government could send him a replacement in case he’s lost his.

Tack on another $15 charge for overnight delivery."

Heck, I'll even pay those fees for him...I know how he must be strapped for cash. /sarc

Remember when all the left were yelling that Bush "stole the presidency"? Well, at least in the final count that was provend to be untrue.

But, if it turns out that nobama is NOT a natural born citizen, then we have actual, certifiable proof that obama DID steal the election.

The left is yelling that McLame was not a "natural born citizen" either, even though he was born to Americans in the miltary (no use trying to explain that one to liberals, they're wayyyyy to stupid to see the difference).

But I can assure you, that if McLame had won, it wouldn't show us proof he's a citizen, I'd be calling for his head also.

This question is rapidly moving out of the realm of partisanship, and moving into the realm of Americanism and the Constitution. The "one" can't claim he didn't know, insofar as he claims to be a "Constitutional Lawyer".

So, if true...it's fraud, pure and simple. Maybe even treason.

If it's not true...then simply show it to us, and we'll shut up and get back to something else that IS partisan.

"Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity."- Lord Acton

[missnry]

It just occurred to me...the brazen ignoring of this story by almost every news outlet has a precedent.

Yeah... here is FOXNEWS "Fair and Balanced" BS:

http://www.foxnews.com/national/supremecourt/index.html

NOT A PEEP ....

The link for "Barack Obama and the Supreme Court" yields how Hussein will shape the court!

The Docket:... there is nothing on the docket concerning Obama.

[Welcome2thejungle]

Did the State of Hawaii under the direction of Gov. Lingle seal BHO’s birth records?

[missnry]

http://www.foxnews.com/national/supremecourt/index.html

[missnry]

Did the State of Hawaii under the direction of Gov. Lingle seal BHO’s birth records?

NO. That's a rumor that was put out there.

[Welcome2thejungle]

Would it be possible to obtain any birth records from the Coastal Hospital in Mombassa, Kenya going back to 1961?

[Paige]

FOX News has become a major disappointment.

[danamco]

Here is another interesting angle???

From all the many lawsuits filed with Jumbo Mumbo legal "language", I feel this is the most compelling and logical to push forward:!!!

A more important lawsuit, however, may be the New Jersey case filed by Leo C. Donofrio. See http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/ Donofrio is presently seeking emergency stay relief in the US Supreme Court, and what's intriguing about his action is a new legal theory not asserted (as yet) in any of the earlier cases. Donofrio argues that the "birth certificate" and "Indonesia" issues are irrelevant to Obama's eligibility to serve as President. Donofrio points out that Obama spokesmen have admitted (at least on websites) that his father was a Kenyan native at the time of Obama's birth, and was thereby a British subject (Kenya, at the time, was a British colony). Obama spokesmen acknowledge (on websites) that British law governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children, but the spokesmen also assert that Obama held dual Kenya/US citizenship at birth, and his Kenyan citizenship expired on August 4, 1981. The Obama assertion is that he was in fact born in Hawaii, and that he has never renounced the US citizenship status that arises as a result of his Hawaiian birth.

Donofrio argues that these facts admitted by Obama spokesmen establish WITHOUT MORE that Obama is not eligible for the presidency. Donofrio looks to the full clause in Article 2. Section 1. of the Constitution, which provides:

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Donofrio asserts that the words ". . . or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution . . ." have been overlooked in earlier lawsuits about Obama's eligibility, and that these words provide the key to a proper understanding of the eligibility issue. The Donofrio argument goes to original intent of the framers as expressed through these words-- he points out that most, if not all, of the framers of the Constitution were, at birth, born as British subjects. So the Donofrio "original intent" argument goes like this:

The chosen wording of the framers makes clear that they had drawn a distinction between themselves-- persons born subject to British jurisdiction-- and "natural born citizens" who would NOT be born subject to British jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction other than the United States. The framers grandfathered themselves into the Constitution as being eligible to be President, but the grandfather clause ONLY applies to any person who was a "Citizen . . . at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution." Obama (obviously) was not a Citizen at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, so he is not subject to the grandfather clause.

Here's where the Donofrio argument becomes quite interesting. The framers recognized that EVEN THEY were not "natural born citizens." That's why they included a grandfather clause to allow any of them to become President. The framers did not want citizens with divided loyalty to become President in the future-- particularly citizens with loyalty to the hated British Empire. Donofrio argues that the word "born" constitutes proof positive that the framers intended that status as a "citizen" must be present at birth, since if this was not the intent there would have been no need for the grandfather clause. Dual citizenship at time of birth (British/US) was allowed for the framers themselves under the grandfather clause, but for no one else. Hence, argues Donofrio, Obama is not a natural born citizen, and even if he produces an original birth certificate proving he was born in Hawaii it will not change the fact that he was a British citizen at birth.

[Beckwith]

Sharp-eyed Lexie made this observation.  Obama's signatures are different on his counterfeit Selective Service Registration and his Statement of Candidacy.  Imagine that?

Selective Service Registration

Candidacy Form

Alright boys and girls -- check any document you see with Obama's signature on it and send me a link to the form using FReepMail.  You can send the page link or the document image link.  Please be sure to identify the document.

If the Selective Service Registration form contains a forged signature, then Obama is in violation of the Selective Service Act.  Penalties for Failure to Register for the Draft:

1. Men who do not register could be prosecuted and, if convicted, fined up to $250,000 and/or serve up to five years in prison.  In addition, men who fail to register with Selective Service before turning age 26, even if not prosecuted, will become ineligible for:

2. Student Financial Aid -- including Pell Grants, College Work Study, Guaranteed Student/Plus Loans, and National Direct Student Loans.

3. U.S. Citizenship -- if the man first arrived in the U.S. before his 26th birthday.

4. Federal Job Training -- The Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) offers programs that can train young men for jobs in auto mechanics and other skills. This program is only open to those men who register with Selective Service.

5. Federal Jobs -- men born after December 31, 1959 must be registered to be eligible for jobs in the Executive Branch* of the Federal government and the U.S. Postal Service.

In addition, several states have added additional penalties for those who fail to register.

*  Last time I checked, the President is a member of the Executive Branch, and Obama was definitely born after 12/31/1959.

Then again, what if the Candidacy Form contains the forgery -- what would that mean?

The Obama File -- Latest News

[SerafinQ]

i would defer to a handwritting expert to determine if one of those is a fake. they look close enough for me. over time signatures can change..mine has..especially over 20 or 25 years.

I’m not saying one is not a fake, but I can;t tell from those two...maybe seeing other samples would be a big help.

[garyb]

My signature has changed considerably since I was 18 as well. Actually, it was more legible then, than now.

[ridesthemiles]

This question is rapidly moving out of the realm of partisanship, and moving into the realm of Americanism and the Constitution. The “one” can’t claim he didn’t know, insofar as he claims to be a “Constitutional Lawyer”.

So, if true...it’s fraud, pure and simple. Maybe even treason.””

IMO, NObama has known all along that he is not Constitutionally qualified to be President. He isn’t even qualified to be senator from Illinois to the Congress.

DNC was responsible for vetting him.

They didn’t...
or they did and Howard Dean also knows that this has been a giant HOAX.

I like the idea of some sort of treason charges—as far as I am concerned- it can be charged against both Howard Dean and NObama.