Subpoena for Loretta Fuddy, director of HI Health Department (vanity transcript from Orly blog)

Orly's blog | May 24, 2011 | Orly Taitz

[Seizethecarp]

Anyone have legal comments on this latest Orly effort? TO: Loretta Fuddy, Director of Health, HI Health Department YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear (for deposition) at 1250 Punchbowl str, room 325, Honolulu HI 96813 (on) 6/27/2011 10:00 am YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce and permit inspection and copying of…Original 1961 typewritten birth certificate # 10641 for Barack Hussein Obama II, issued 08.08.1961, signed by Dr. David A. Sinclair, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama and registrar Lee, stored in the Health Department of the state of HI from 08.08.1961 until now

[DiogenesLamp]

You people with your "abstract" BS need to disappear. The registrar stamp says "true copy or abstract." The Obama BC purports to be a true copy. Its format is identical to the format of the Nordyke BCs. It has (supposed) signatures. It is not an abstract.

The BS comes from the people that put the word "Abstract" on the document. Not from the people who point out that it shouldn't be there.

[DiogenesLamp]

Teach me. Do you think the Nordyke BCs are abstracts too?

I'll teach you. Look up the phrase "tu quoque." That's what your are trying to do with your "Well the Nordyke certificate is blah blah blah..."

[DiogenesLamp]

According to the official certification stamp on the White House certificate the certificate is a “TRUE COPY OR ABSTRACT OF THE RECORD ON FILE”.

The wording of the official certification stamp on the Nordyke twin’s long form certificates certifies that those certificates are “TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL RECORD ON FILE”

The Salient point. The document does not assert that it's valid. "Records" are amended whenever a judge says so, and in whatever manner a judge decrees.

We do not want the truth filtered through Hawaiian State government officials. We want the real actual truth. The fact that they are unwilling to unequivocally state that we are seeing a real true and original copy unfiltered by THEM, means their word cannot be trusted.

I am NEVER going to accept a "You don't need to see the original, you need to take our word for it" document.

[DiogenesLamp]

From what I can see of them through digital images I would consider them to be "True and Correct Copy of the Original Record."

That statement leaves no doubt as to their having been manipulated or tampered with. A state official that certifies a document fraudulently can be convicted of perjury among other crimes.

The fact that Obama's pdf document contains weasel words is the only thing anyone needs to know about it's truthfulness.

[ml/nj]

From what I can see of them through digital images I would consider them to be "True and Correct Copy of the Original Record."

And from what I can see the Obama document purports to contain exactly the same data in the same format as the Nordyke BCs. Only the certification is different.

Note that I am not the creator of this morph. When I saw it, I saved a copy for myself. I tried to find the place on the internet from where I obtained it but was unable to do so.

Also note that this morph utilizes the AP image of Bamie BC II, rather than the one we usually discuss here which come from whitehouse.gov.

Finally I would point out that the supposed Obama form is not merely information transferred to a newer form. You can tell this from the 'M' in 'PM' where the time of birth is recorded. It is part of the printed form. This is how the forms were in 1961. They are not that way any longer.

None of this means that I think that the Obama form is legitimate. I think it is a forgery. But if I were wrong then this would be exactly the sort of document I would expect to see.

ML/NJ

[ml/nj]

I'll teach you. Look up the phrase "tu quoque." That's what your are trying to do with your "Well the Nordyke certificate is blah blah blah..."

Listen Pal, I don't know what your problem is. Your use of a Latin ID for a fallacious type of argument doesn't impress me and it doesn't apply at all here. (My guess is that I took logic before you were born, and also got an analytical reasoning SAT score quite above yours, even allowing for the dumbing down of the tests since I took them.)

The fact is that the April 27, Bamie BC II is not an abstract, your prattling notwithstanding. English is my mother tongue.

Thinking that declaring it an abstract is anything but a diversion is inane.

ML/NJ

[ml/nj]

I'll teach you.

And BTW, welcome to FR. Enjoy it while you can. With an attitude like yours, you aren't likely to last too long here.

ML/NJ

[allmendream]

There is no analytical reasoning section of the SAT. Historically there was a Math section (worth 800 points) and an English section (worth 800 points).

Recently they added a reading comprehension/essay part, it is called a critical reading or verbal reasoning (but has little to do with analytical reasoning) - but if you took logic “before” someone “was born” - it stands to reason the SAT you took only had a Math and English section.

So bragging about your analytical reasoning SAT score strikes me as HILARIOUS!

Do you wish to correct or amend your remark?

[allmendream]

Not that I disagree with the points you are otherwise making......

[rolling_stone]

....I suspect that the forgery file already had a cut and paste Onaka signature with the “TXE” and a faint seal impression. Was this a screw-up or intentional to keep birthers agitated? I think it was a screw-up.....

Divine intervention!

[El Sordo]

Some day Orly needs to get professional help. Legal or psychological. Either would be good.

It's sad, really.

Has there been any attempt to quash the subpoena? Or is Ms. Fuddy just ignoring it because it doesn't seem to be a valid subpoena?

[rolling_stone]

what is not valid about it?

[DiogenesLamp]

And BTW, welcome to FR. Enjoy it while you can. With an attitude like yours, you aren't likely to last too long here.

What, is the first thing everyone does is to check WHEN someone registered? I've been reading this site (off and on) for a couple of years, and I finally decided to say something.

Are they gonna kick me off or what? Is everyone going to gang up on me and SHAME me into submission? (good luck with that. :) ) If so, i'll live with it.

I noticed your response did not address my point. (Anything wrong with the Nordyke birth certificate does not excuse what is glaringly wrong with the "Obama certificate." )

[Seizethecarp]

“Has there been any attempt to quash the subpoena? Or is Ms. Fuddy just ignoring it because it doesn't seem to be a valid subpoena?”

Not a lawyer, but having spent five years in court in a custody “death match” it is generally not wise to ignore filings by the other side. It is best, in my experience, to point out to the court that the filing by the opposition is invalid and why.

[DiogenesLamp]

None of this means that I think that the Obama form is legitimate. I think it is a forgery. But if I were wrong then this would be exactly the sort of document I would expect to see.

It is also exactly the sort of document *I* would expect to see except for one glaring omission. The lack of this verbiage.

"A true and correct copy of the Original record..."

If that exact phrase (or a legally equivalent phrase) is not on the document, then as far as i'm concerned, someone is trying to play a game of some sort.

All you need to tell when a Hawaiian bureaucrat is deceiving, is to have them tell you that you don't need to see the original, you can take their word for what is on it. The "record" can be changed. The original cannot.

[ml/nj]

Do you wish to correct or amend your remark?

No.

I took the tests in 1963. I believe the section popularly referred to as the "math section" was officially called the "Analytical Reasoning" section back then.

ML/NJ

[DiogenesLamp]

My objection is not to the word "abstract", it is to the words "Record on file."

I am adopted. I have TWO records on file. I have an ORIGINAL birth certificate listing the TRUTH, and I have an AMENDED birth certificate with mostly false information on it.

Until someone produces something that is legally certified as ORIGINAL, I will not grant it any credibility. I'm not interested in whatever has been put into the record after the fact.

And yes, tu quoque does apply. Your argument that any fault contained in the Nordyke certificate has no bearing whatsoever with what is wrong with the Obama certificate. The "You're another" fallacy is false reasoning.

[ml/nj]

And BTW, I think the "English" section was called the "Verbal" section.

ML/NJ

[DiogenesLamp]

Recently they added a reading comprehension/essay part, it is called a critical reading or verbal reasoning (but has little to do with analytical reasoning) - but if you took logic “before” someone “was born” - it stands to reason the SAT you took only had a Math and English section.

It also presumes that you can know WHEN someone was born by their anonymous name tag on a blog. Mine ought to imply that i'm 2,400 years old, and while I feel that old from time to time, that is most assuredly not my correct age. (At least not the age of my mind. The matter of which my body is made is easily 13 billion years old. :) )

[allmendream]

Yes, it still is. Verbal and Math. My apologies for calling it the “English” section.

I have yet to see any source that called the Math portion “Analytical Reasoning”.

I know the GRE had that section. Verbal, Math, and Analytical Reasoning (IQ type problems).

Math is not usually referred to as analytical reasoning. Maybe things were different in 1967 - but I have yet to see a source that says so.