Wrong.
The judge did not issue an order to show cause. In fact, he didn’t issue any order. He set a hearing to consider Orly’s Motion to Compel.
“The judge did not issue an order to show cause.”
I didn’t say he did.
Based on this: “Orly didn’t secure an order from Judge Puglisi. She filed a motion to show cause and to compel production of documents,” it looks to me like the Judge will be considering whether to compel production of documents at the Sept 14th hearing.
“The judge did not issue an order to show cause. In fact, he didn’t issue any order. He set a hearing to consider Orly’s Motion to Compel.”
That’s correct, with one quibble: The two docket entries of 08/08/2011 both direct the plaintiff to provide notice of hearing to other parties. That is a court order. The Court ordered Orly Taitz to notify Loretta Fuddy and all interested parties.
There’s an interesting difference between the two orders to provide notice. The first docket entry orders Taitz, “to provide notice of the hearing to Loretta Fuddy, Health Department, State of Hawaii”. The second orders her, “to provide notice of the hearing to be set to all interested parties”. Courts take a dim view of excluding interested parties.