Just How Far Will the Hawaii Department of Health Go to Cover for Obama…and Themselves?

the Post & Email ^ | Aug. 13, 2011 | Sharon Rondeau

[STJPII]

“Orly tries to issue a subpoena as an officer of the court, but she isn’t admitted to practice before the court”

Orly is not a member of the Federal bar?

“she tries to engage in discovery before the mandatory Rule 26 (d)(1) hearing has been held”

This is why I asked if a scheduling order has been issued because that creates and exception under 26(d)(1) stating discovery may proceed “by court order.” Obviously the parties aren’t going to agree to a “stipulation” under 26 (d).

Candidly, I know NOTHING about Orly. People say she is crazy and her voice grates on them etc. Orly’s legal skills are not the issue. Full disclosure and transparency are the only issues.

[Fantasywriter]

That’s what I notice about your posts. You talk like somebody who has quite a bit of personal experience, AND like an American who hasn’t self-lobotomized his brain. Some others—I’m not naming names—come across not as people who want the truth to come out but as people in love with the Byzantine mindlessness of bureaucracy and the braindead stupidity of legalistic minutia.

Iow, they come across as gloating over every impediment in the way of resolving the lingering questions and contradictions about and in Obama’s birth narrative. I have yet to see certain posters say anything remotely like, ‘This is the law, and it’s ridiculous. The people paying for Obama’s lavish, over-the-top lifestyle have every right to see his most basic records. Let’s hope sanity prevails, and the lid comes off at least some of these closely guarded secrets.’

No, they just mock anybody who tries to dig deeper. I guess to them if Obama said it, it must be true. Or if a legislator wrote a law, it must be good, rational and worth defending. Whatever. I really like and appreciate your posts. You bring a much needed note of sanity to these discussions—thank you!

[Mr. Lucky]

She's not admitted to practice before the United States District Court in DC, whence she tried to issue her 1st subpoena in this case, and she's not admitted to practice before the United States District Court in Hawaii, where at least she knew that she needed the Clerk's signature.

Again, my point is that the incompetence of this woman has completely overshadowed whatever underlying merit her argument may have originally had. Her various pleadings are probably available on the PACER system and can be found on line with a simple Google search. These are not the work of a serious advocate.

[BladeBryan]

STJPII wrote: “MAY move for a protective order” seems dispositive here and corroborates my point, which was that while the state may have the legal right to object, they seldom do in my experience.

If that was your point why did you write, “The opposing party may do that but not the State”? Both parties may do so, according the the rule I cited. As Mr. Lucky aptly points out, a non-party may also serve objections to the subpoena on the issuer, without moving to quash or seeking a protective order.

STJPII wrote: “In other words, the state ususally doesn’t have a dog in the fight and absent and overriding policy consideration will not object. The Hawaii’s sandbagging here is politically motivated and suspicious, IMHO.”

You mix an interesting issue with a ludicrous conspiracy theory. You are correct that the state of Hawaii has no interest in whether Orly Taitz is entitled to a court order granting her access to Barack Obama’s birth records, and I note that their response takes no stand on that point.

As of now Taitz has no such order, so the HDoH applies state law and denies Taitz access to the personal record. They have no choice. Even if they agree that Obama waived any privacy interest, the law grants them no discretion, no authority to make that call.

Your point, STJPII, that Hawaii “doesn’t have a dog in the fight” is significant, but you don’t seem to realize on which side it plays.

[edge919]

You are correct that the state of Hawaii has no interest in whether Orly Taitz is entitled to a court order granting her access to Barack Obama’s birth records, and I note that their response takes no stand on that point.

This is false. The state DID take a position by saying Orly does not fit the direct and tangible interest requirement, which is nonsense, because anyone with a legitimate court order meets that requirement. The law doesn't put any further stipulations on who can and can't request records through a court order. The DOH's job is to disclose records that are legally requested. There's no compelling reason for them not to comply with Orly's subpoena(s).