Skip to comments.Subpoena Issued for Loretta Fuddy, Director of Hawaii Department of Health
Posted on 05/24/2011 12:54:31 PM PDT by RobinMasters
Breaking News: Attorney Orly Taitz is reporting a subpoena was issued for Loretta Fuddy, the Director of Hawaii Health Department. The purported subpoena embedded below states Health Director Fuddy is to bring for inspection the original 1961 typewritten birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama, II, on June 27th, 2011 at 10 am.
This is related to the Taitz v. Astrue lawsuit in regards to Obama's Social Security number reserved for Connecticut applicants.
(Excerpt) Read more at obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com ...
Normally that would be a good thing, but she is in the tin foil hat club. She believes in the FEMA concentration camps and that Big Pharma is going to poison us with Avian Flu among other gems. This mindless, worthless subpoena just adds to the list of odd things she's done. The good Doctor make the Birth issue look looney.
guess again...attorneys issue subpoenas all the time..it of course can be quashed for good reason...
..and the letter on the first page says clearly the request is denied.
a subpoena is not a request...check the dates
Yep, and hereby Subpoena Orly to present herself here so I can take her out to dinner.
Don’t mean anything by it, I just think she would be very interesting to spend a night with.
no...no! evening! to spend an evening with...
Such dirty minds..
this is GREAT NEWS!
The subpoena is coming from the court where this case is being heard...
Thanks for clarifying that, HM. It sounds like the real deal—go Orly!
Usually the attorney requesting the person to appear issues the subpoena. The person subpoenaed can file a motion to quash.
Court rules may permit lawyers to issue subpoenas themselves in their capacity as officers of the court. Typically subpoenas are issued "in blank" and it is the responsibility of the lawyer representing the plaintiff or defendant on whose behalf the testimony is to be given to serve the subpoena on the witness.
What I love most about this is if a motion to quash is filed after the information ‘supposedly’ (Obama’s LGBC) has already been released, its a huge red flag.
Why quash something that is already public information if the public information is truthful? If Obama’s LGBC is in fact genuine there should be no problems complying with the subpoena.
However, if the LGBC is fraudulent, there is every reason in the world to file a motion to quash. You would start to see panic like cockroaches caught in the light.
Therefore, if a motion to quash is filed it is highly likely the LGBC is in fact fake and the birthers have been right all along. This will be obvious to everyone except for the most ardent koolaid drinker who will never be convinced.
Forgot to add a Thanks for compelling me to look up the correct info!
I worked for attorneys for over 25 years but please don’t hold that against me! LOL
Wow! Another Israeli slapping the Won!
That lunatic cow can't even spell subpoena.
An objection from fuddy within 14 days on the basis of the HIPAA restrictions on releasing information could only be valid if the Hawaii DOH records are different from the WH disclosed LFBC. How could she make that case in a Federal court without admitting the WH LFBC is a forgery?
Squealing about the non redacted SSN may cause a delay, but if the judge is honest he will begin to suspect the extent of the corruption. A fraudulently used SSN belonging to a dead person is not protected - and a Connecticut prefix is impossible for Obama.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.