Court tells Hawaii officials to explain Obama's birth records

WND ^ | August 8, 2011 | By Jerome R. Corsi

[Islander7]

California attorney Orly Taitz today secured an order from United States District Court Magistrate Judge Richard L. Puglisi demanding representatives of the Hawaii Department of Health appear in federal court Sept. 14 to show why Taitz should be prevented from seeing whatever original 1961 documents the agency has on record regarding Barack Obama's birth.

Taitz returned to federal court in Honolulu today after Hawaii DOH officials presented her with a letter refusing to comply with her subpoena on grounds that Hawaii privacy laws prevented officials from releasing Obama birth records to the public.

"It's ridiculous," Taitz told WND.

She had argued previously – without getting a response from the state – that Obama had waived all privacy rights by releasing his long-form birth certificate to the American public at a White House press conference April 27.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Agreed.

[curiosity]

1. One of the litigants, most often Orly, comes up with some hair-brained court submittal whose inevitable failure any competent attorney can predict and explain.

I wonder how much taxpayer money Orly has wasted on her nonsense. I also wonder how many cases with merit have been delayed because of the court's time she has wasted.

Orly's experience seems to be a pretty good indication that the hurdle for getting cases heard in court is waaaaay too low, and that the system lacks sufficient ability to just throw nonsense cases out. Or perhaps the sanctions and penalties for wasting the court's time with nonsense are too low.

Your thoughts?

[tired_old_conservative]

It's always unfortunate to have a court's time wasted. As you note, there are people with actual cases that need attending. Unfortunately, it's hard to set thresholds for “get the heck out of here” that don't in practice become subject to whim and abuse. All processes, legal or otherwise, struggle with this issue, basically the tyranny of the lowest common denominator.

That said, Orly's conduct is simply unbelievable. It's not only incompetent; it's staggeringly unprofessional. She basically has tantrums in court. Or verbally in her filings. Anyone who thinks that kind of behavior is doing anything to advance their cause is simply deluded.

The most appropriate way to handle that is more use of sanctions and penalties from the stat bar. The fact that we haven't seen more of that is probably a testament to the fact that she was seen as some freak of nature that would surely just fade out. And, to be fair, she has faded out in terms of meaningful legal issues. It's all just a show for the rubes now. That and wall-to-wall tantrums.

[curiosity]

The most appropriate way to handle that is more use of sanctions and penalties from the stat bar. The fact that we haven't seen more of that is probably a testament to the fact that she was seen as some freak of nature that would surely just fade out.

As a non-lawyer, I find it unbelieveable that someone like her would ever get admitted to the bar, or allowed to continue as a member given her displays of gross incompetence.

Surely there must be something among her antics that would merit disbarrment, no?

[dsc]

“The court didn’t tell the DoH to do anything and certainly isn’t telling them to explain birth records at the upcoming hearing.”

Ah. So, a motion to compel them to produce said records, against which I would think they would argue, has absolutely nothing to do with explaining those records.

Not with explaining why they shouldn’t be ordered to produce them, nor with demonstrating that the “birthers” are nutty by producing the documents, nor with explaining why they can’t produce them if they are ordered to...

No connection to any of those things.

Got it.

[BuckeyeTexan]

You simply don’t get it. The purpose of the hearing is for Orly to demonstrate why she’s entitled to the documents not for the DoH to demonstrate why she isn’t entitled to them. There is no legal assumption that she is entitled to them. Orly has to prove her case. (She can’t.) The DoH doesn’t have to prove anything.

[dsc]

“The purpose of the hearing is for Orly to demonstrate why she’s entitled to the documents not for the DoH to demonstrate why she isn’t entitled to them.”

You a lawyer? If so, would you advise a client to ignore such a hearing?

Whether you are or not, I think it would be pretty dumb for anyone not to show up for a hearing that could ultimately result in them going down in history as the nastiest traitors since Benedict Arnold.