Posted on 08/27/2011 6:30:12 AM PDT by urtax$@work
The reaction of Dr. Taitz to being scolded by the court for wasting it's time in the Social Security numbers being misused, points to the reality that she knew she submitted the court papers correctly, as she went tooth and claw after a courtroom deputy over this issue.
from blog link
Blasphemy!
Didn’t he give up that privacy that they are so vehemently clinging to when he put forth the birth cerificate..twice?
They should allow a bunch of media people, led by worthless Riveria to the vault and let them look at and video tape the golden birth certificate.
I agree with you that they will use some excuse that they can’t, but why? It is fishy. Obviously, Obama changed something on that document that was released, otherwise, why not do this?
It is a huge coverup and I hope it some day blows up in the DNC faces.
Say you showed your employer a copy of your BC. Would you them have waived privacy rights and your employer could now request copies of your BC from the sate govt.?
“Fraudulently obtaining and using an SSN that was originally assigned to another individual is not a birther issue, it is a CRIMINAL MATTER.”
Thus Taitz, not being a prosecutor, has no tangible interest.
FOIA = Freedom of Information Act =. filed with SSA, failed to abide, thus facing lawsuit in Federal Court
Can’t get any more tangible than that...
“...’someone’ altered documents submitted by Attorney Taitz.”
Most of the documents at issue also appeared on Taitz’ own web site.
“The reaction of Dr. Taitz to being scolded by the court for wasting it’s time in the Social Security numbers being misused, points to the reality that she knew she submitted the court papers correctly, as she went tooth and claw after a courtroom deputy over this issue.”
Taitz making somewhat hysterical accusations against the Court and its staff is the rule, not the exception. She went after one of Judge David O. Carter’s clerks when she lost Barnett v. Obama. After losing Rhodes v. MacDonald, and being sanctioned, she alleged that Judge Clay D. Land had a secret ex parte meeting with the Attorney General, her evidence being that someone reported seeing a shorter version of Eric Holder in a nearby coffee shop. She confronted the Chief Justice of the United States about a couple of her cases, ex parte, ranting about criminal activity going on within the Supreme Court.
“Just what makes that little old ant
Think he'll move that rubber tree plant
Anyone knows an ant, can't
Move a rubber tree plant
But he's got high hopes, he's got high hopes
He's got high apple pie, in the sky hopes
So any time you're gettin’ low
‘stead of lettin’ go
Just remember that ant
Oops there goes another rubber tree plant”
From Cahn/Van Heusen, sang by Frank Sinatra, Debbie Reynolds and others.
Ms. Taitz is so persistent that eventually she may succeed. Regardless of your position I feel you have to admire someone who just will not give up despite the other side holding basically all of the cards. How can someone facing an opponent with unlimited resources who has been relentlessly ridiculed keep going on and on? So I am not going to rule her out. I think she is a thorn in Obama's side regardless of how she is portrayed by you or the media.
The HI response seems pretty desperate. They are really taking issue that the subpoena wasn’t personally served (even though they admit they filed an objection and that Orly did show in person reference to the subpoena). Second, they ignore that Orly fits their direct and tangible interest requirement under part 9. Third, they ignore that Obama asked them to release his vital record by waiving confidentiality, which they agreed to. Not sure how they hide behind a confidentiality law when they’ve already waived it.
Desperate and pathetic that a govt. agency argues minutia. I think i read Taitz’s statement about “waiting for HI to file response” about a month ago, so she did expect this from HI and is not a surprise to her.
Right, under Part 9, the DOH’s job is to disclose certified copies of vital records when requested under court orders, with no stipulations over who is requesting the records. Other parts of the law allow for legal verifications to be issued to private attorneys WITHOUT a court order. They really don’t have a compelling legal reason not to comply with Orly’s subpoenas.
Does the law say it doesn’t?
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.