Skip to comments.State court case launched to retrieve birth records
Posted on 08/12/2011 4:48:05 AM PDT by RobinMasters
California attorney Orly Taitz has filed in Hawaii state court a Petition for Writ of Mandamus, which if granted would require the Department of Health to turn over to her the original 1961 Obama birth records that the agency has kept from the American public.
A mandamus action is something to compel an official or government officer to perform a duty demanded by the petitioner. And in this situation, the case is in support of her subpoena for the birth records for the president.
In submitting the Writ of Mandamus, Taitz filed 48 pages of pleadings and exhibits before Circuit Court Judge Rhonda Nishimura.
This represents a separate legal action from the court order Taitz obtained from U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Richard L. Puglisi which will require representatives of the Hawaii Department of Health appear in federal court Sept. 14 to show why Taitz should be prevented from seeing whatever original documents the agency has on record regarding Barack Obama's birth, as authorized by subpoena.
Taitz pursued action in both state and federal courts after officials from the Hawaii attorney general's office presented her on Monday with a letter refusing to comply with her subpoena on grounds that Hawaii privacy law prevents Hawaii Department of Health officials from releasing Obama birth records to the public.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Sorry, Hawaii. He waved what he claimed was his bc in front of the cameras. Everyone around the world with a tv has seen it. It’s hardly private. But then again, Hawaii makes their own rules depending on the day of the week and the bc was bogus.
This reminds me of the kicking the can down the road analogy with the Debt ceiling and economy.
“They” are just postponing the day of reckoning. And each time they do, the pressure just keeps building up. When this thing finally does explode what could have been an easily cleaned up mess will be a horrendous one instead.
The new Republican president will make two Supreme Court appointments immediately thereafter, and a host of judicial appointments that will help move the country back to the original intent of the founders.
The Democrat party will be effectively destroyed as the investigations and probes drill downward and ferret out all the co-conspirators.
Well, we all know how this is going to end. She can’t compel Hawaii officials to do anything they aren’t legally obligated to do. Obama’s birth records are no more open to the public now than the Nordyke twins’.
Well, we all know how this is going to end. She cant compel Hawaii officials to do anything they arent legally obligated to do.
Obamas birth records are no more open to the public now than the Nordyke twins.
But if the Nordyke twins give Taitz permission to look at their original 1961 birth certificates, wouldn’t Hawaii officials be required to allow Taitz to examine the Nordyke twins’ birth certificates?
And so if President Obama gave Taitz and reporters permission to look at his 1961 birth certificate-—a copy of which President Obama already showed the world a few weeks ago on April 27,2011-—wouldn’t Hawaii officials be obligated to let Taitz and reporters examine President Obama’s 1961 birth certificate, if it exists?
Obamas birth records are no more open to the public now than the Nordyke twins.
But if the Nordyke twins give Taitz permission to look at their original 1961 birth certificates, wouldnt Hawaii officials be required to allow Taitz to examine the Nordyke twins birth certificates?
And so if President Obama gave Taitz and reporters permission to look at his 1961 birth certificate-a copy of which President Obama already showed the world a few weeks ago on April 27,2011-wouldnt Hawaii officials be obligated to let Taitz and reporters examine President Obamas 1961 birth certificate, if it exists?
Come to think about it, this is what Taitz should do: She should get the Nordyke twins' written permission to let her examine their 1961 long form birth certificates, and then Taitz should visit the Hawaii Department of Health with the Nordyke permission in hand and request to look at the Nordyke twins' 1961 long form birth certificates.
Let's see how Hawaii officials respond to the Taitz request.
As I see it, Hawaii officials would have no choice but to allow Taitz to examine the Nordyke twins' 1961 long form birth certificates.
I sure would like to see that. I don’t think I will, but I surely would like to see that very scenario come to life.
I love America, I’ve been to other countries and I’ve seen how the people live there and how their governments operate. Nothing and I mean NOTHING compared. But now? Sadly that isn’t true anymore. Our internal enemies used our own strengths and weaknesses in our system of Government to bring us to the edge of destruction.
To save the country I grew up in and love means we need to do a complete house-cleaning of Government and the Bureaucracy, (technically “Government by Desks”), that lives, breeds and grows ever bigger and stronger.
A good analogy are parasitic blood sucking worms, Strongyles in particular. A few in an animal are survivable but too many will kill their host in a remarkably short time. The Host literally bleeds out from within.
We need a good wormer and right now! We’re bleeding from the gut and are getting ready to fall over and just lay there and die.
People are routinely ordered to appear and to answer questions as part of jury selection. You don't get to claim that relevant questions are protected by privacy concerns.
Similarly, the courts have the power to compel production of documents, regardless of privacy concerns, if the documents are relevant to court proceedings.
A "show cause" hearing should transform a subpoena from Taitz into a subpoena ordered by the court, assuming that the court agrees that the material is relevant.
Does anybody have the text of the law which Hawaii is supposedly hiding behind? I can't believe that the law includes a prohibition on producing documents to a court of proper jurisdiction.
The law says that a person with a court order fits the direct and tangible interest requirement. Hawaii is denying that Taitz fits this requirement even though she has a valid court order.
“The law says that a person with a court order fits the direct and tangible interest requirement. Hawaii is denying that Taitz fits this requirement even though she has a valid court order.”
That’s myth. Taitz had no court order. She got a routine subpoena signed by a clerk. According to the HDoH, Taitz had failed to properly serve her subpoena, so she got a letter explaining the defects rather than a motion to quash.
That would be relevant if Orly had a court order.
It sure looks like a "court order" to me. It is signed by the deputy clerk on behalf of the court. It says, "You are commanded ...". Who do you think is doing the commanding here?
Do you have a link to that?
William Tell asked: “Do you have a link to that?”
William Tell wrote: “It sure looks like a ‘court order’ to me. It is signed by the deputy clerk on behalf of the court.”
Did you check the rules before determining how it looks to you? In particular, see Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(a)(3): “The clerk must issue a subpoena, signed but otherwise in blank, to a party who requests it. That party must complete it before service.”
Still impressed with that “valid court order” you thought Taitz to have?
A subpoena IS a court order.
No, the formal reply was an objection under Rule 45 that they couldn't comply because of the privacy. The stuff about failing to properly serve the subpoena was smoke. If it was improperly served, they had no need to respond at all.
edge919: “No, the formal reply was an objection under Rule 45 that they couldn’t comply because of the privacy. The stuff about failing to properly serve the subpoena was smoke. If it was improperly served, they had no need to respond at all.”
Look, I already cited all this. The position of the HDoH director was that they did not need to respond at all, but wrote the letter to avoid confusion. I don’t see where in the rules you get that a letter to party issuing the subpoena is a formal response to subpoena. FRCP 45(c)(3) is clear on the proper form by which get a subpoena quashed or modified: a timely motion.
A subpoena is not the equivalent of a court order. A court order is issued directly by the judge and can be used to request documents that aren't public, while a subpoena cannot.
The disclosure law only says it needs an order from a court of competent jurisdiction. It doesn't say that the order has to be specifically signed by a judge, so sorry, in the eyes of the law, a subpoena is sufficient. Hawaii did not object to the order being insufficient for not being signed by a judge.
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.