Thanks. So two things: do we know that on anything other than Orly's say-so? 'Cause like I said, I haven't found a posted document with a Sept 14 date on it. And second, does Fuddy have to appear at that hearing, or is it just between Orly and the judge?
Her subpoena wasn't valid to compel anything. She was told that and showed up anyway. Lacking any legal standing, she got nothing.
Taitz then filed a motion asking the court to issue an order requiring Hawaii to explain why it didn't let Taitz see the birth certificate. That has already been explained to her, but she doesn't understand the legal issues involved. The hearing scheduled for September 14 is simply a hearing to determine if the court will issue the order Taitz requested. You can bet your mortgage they will not. It's a complete waste of time that has nothing to do with Fuddy or any other Hawaii official.
I haven’t seen any official confirmation of the hearing being set. As I understand it, the plaintiff (Taitz) must provide notice of the hearing to the defendant (Fuddy) and any other interested parties. I’ve seen no official order “demanding” Fuddy’s attendance. It’s in her best interest to attend, but the hearing (if it is scheduled) will go on with or without Fuddy.
Orly has lead everyone to believe that the judge is demanding that Fuddy appear to explain why she hasn’t complied with the subpoena. In actuality, the hearing is to consider why the judge should grant Orly’s motion to compel. In his consideration the judge will probably try to determine if the production of Obama’s LFBC is necessary. Since Taitz v. Astrue is a FOIA case in D.C., it’s unlikely he’ll grant her motion. IIRC, Taitz v. Astrue hasn’t progressed to the stage of discovery in D.C. Orly has mis-filed, mis-re-filed, and re-filed her complaint in D.C. but that’s it.