Thursday, July 28, 2011

The birth certificate please! Subpoena to be delivered
Attorney, doc experts to show up at Hawaii Department of Health with court document
Jerome Corsi

Computer scanning expert Doug Vogt and typesetting expert Paul Irey say they will accompany attorney Orly Taitz when she presents to the Hawaii Department of Health a subpoena that should allow her to examine Barack Obama's original 1961 typewritten birth certificate.

Vogt and Irey both told WND they are making travel plans to join Taitz in Honolulu when she goes to the state agency at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, Aug. 8, to present the subpoena in person.

"We will plan to hold a press conference late in the day of Aug. 8," Vogt said, "and if the document we see varies from the birth certificate documents the White House released, we plan to file criminal charges in Hawaii immediately." 

Get the New York Times best-seller "Where's the Birth Certificate? The Case that Barack Obama Is Not Eligible to be President," by Jerome Corsi.

Vogt shared with WND a copy of a letter he has written to Hawaii Attorney General David Louie, putting Louie on notice regarding the reasons he believes the birth certificate released by the White House is fraudulent.

WND previously reported on Vogt's decision to file a 22-page criminal complaint with the FBI.

Irey says it won't take long to evaluate the original birth record, if it exists.

"Over the years of my career, I've seen everything that can be put on paper," he said. "Now that I'm thoroughly familiar with what the White House released, I will be able to tell you within a few minutes, if what the Hawaii DOH has matches what the White House has released, or not.

"I will expect to see the same differences in typeface that are on the White House version, otherwise I will know immediately that what the Hawaii DOH is showing us is a forgery."


Vogt and Irey plan to bring a laptop computer and a portable scanner to the Hawaii DOH for the inspection.

"We will scan the document to compare it to the White House electronic version and the Xerox copies they handed out in the press room," he said. "We will immediately make our scan available to the public over the Internet, so the American public can see for themselves."

Irey told WND he expects the Hawaii DOH at the last minute will do everything possible to prevent Taitz from getting access to the 1961 original Obama birth certificate, if it exists.

"Quite frankly, I doubt the Hawaii DOH has anything to show us," Irey said skeptically, "and if we do see a document, my guess is that it will have been forged for the purpose of showing us something."

Vogt and Irey repeatedly have told WND that if the Hawaii DOH had an original 1961 Obama birth certificate, the most credible thing to have done on April 27 would have been to release that document to the public for professional forensic examination by qualified independent professionals.

As displayed on her website, the July 5 subpoena granted Taitz by the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii allows her to examine the original 1961 Obama birth certificate on Aug. 8 at 10 a.m.:
Taitz v. Asrtue - Subpoena Issued to Loretta Fuddy of HDOH - Obama's Original Vital Records on File

Taitz's subpoena was served upon Loretta Fuddy, directory of the Hawaii Department of Health. Hawaii Deputy Attorney General Jill Nagamine is representing Fuddy.

Because Fuddy neglected to file opposition to the court-issued subpoena within the 14 days specified, the Hawaii DOH appears to have little recourse but to comply with the subpoena by producing the Obama original birth certificate for Taitz's examination.

Taitz is planning to travel to the state agency, despite receiving no answer from Fuddy as to whether or not she intends to comply with the subpoena. Taitz put the question to Fuddy in a July 27 letter. MORE HERE http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=327373
We Have a Criminal and Forger in the White House! 20110627 issue Wash Times Natl Wkly pg 5

81 comments:

  1. This rocks my world! Woohoooo! Go Orly!

    ReplyDelete
  2. This will be a complete waste of time other then for the publicity for Orly. After the DOH employees stop laughing, they will politely have them escorted from the building.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This stuff is good. Taitz and the rest of the travelers have worked so hard. Waiting for results on aug. 8 is more difficult a wait than when I waited for Christmas to arrive. Here is wishing for a successful and safe journey for them. Thank you patriots.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't see how this is important anymore seeing which the nation is getting ready to vote Obama out anyway. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for seeking out the truth, but if you find out the birth certificate is fake, who's to actually believe Obama sent in our troops to kill Bin Laden, and that Bin Laden didn't die from natural causes while Bush was in office talking about finding him? There's a lot I don't believe... So, why not spend the trip to Hawaii in a more relaxing way by sipping on a few of those fresh fruit drinks and calling a cab to get a ride back to the hotel? See some pineapple trees or something?
    Just a thought.

    ReplyDelete
  5. pineapples don't grow on trees

    ReplyDelete
  6. I suggest that they let Walter Fitzpatrick come with them. Just in case a citizen-arrest should be necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  7. http://presscore.ca/2011/?p=2929 Occidental College transcripts provides concrete evidence to annul Obama presidency.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Wishing all the Best of Luck...
    Hopefully will be able see barry's BC and examine it .
    Will be looking forward to The Charges being brought against the worthless,lying pos iilegal Bastad in the WH.

    ReplyDelete
  9. If we want to see Obama's Passport records, kindergarten records, middle and high School records, College records, theses, articles, Medical records, marriage licenses, divorce documents, name changes, Adoption records, military records, tax records, long-form Certificate of Live Birth, etc. I suggest first posting a list of all this information of our own houses as well online for people to search. To prove we are American and that we should vote and all that jazz.

    ReplyDelete
  10. when losers like al sharpton and other racist blacks start riots and unrest its time for americans to clean house. lock n load America its clean up time. extra cash to anyone who brings us the heads of soros van jones trumpka andy stern and any other high value left wing losers.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @Anonymous

    July 28, 2011 10:47 PM

    "I don't see how this is important anymore seeing which the nation is getting ready to vote Obama out anyway."

    ===================================

    Your statement appears to have the singular focus of "eligibility". What is on display is a pattern of CRIMINALITY including forging government documents, identity fraud, fraudulent use of a stolen SSN, conspiracy to commit such actions, election fraud.

    And if you believe there has not been any "financial enrichment programs" being undertaken for Obama and family you are burying your head in the sand.

    These people are even capable of murder...

    'Obama Larry Sinclair Donald Young, Washington DC gathering, Presidents Park White House Sidewalk, Who murdered Donald Young?'


    http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/07/28/obama-larry-sinclair-donald-young-washington-dc-gathering-presidents-park-white-house-sidewalk-who-murdered-donald-young/#comments

    ReplyDelete
  12. The idea of just waiting for the usurper to be voted out in 2012 is absurd.

    We are supposed to accept a lying constitutionally ineligible bastard with a fake birth certificate and apparently stolen SS number, just for starters, to continue to destroy America while we wait for an election that will be rigged in his favor, if it happens at all?

    I think not.

    Allowing the people who pulled off the biggest fraud in American history to just quietly go away and receive taxpayer perks for the rest of their sorry lives is anything but acceptable. So is leaving the pretend president a legacy of actually being president, along with the two Marxist Supreme Court appointees who are in a position to continue to damage our nation for the next 30 years or so.
    Everything possible must be done to have Barry and Company arrested for the crimes they have committed. Never give up.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous above said: "This will be a complete waste of time other then for the publicity for Orly. After the DOH employees stop laughing, they will politely have them escorted from the building."

    At which point the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the District of Hawaii would have the fiduciary duty to find/hold/rule those HDOH employees in Contempt of Court, have them politely arrested and escorted into the District jailhouse, and retain them there until they agree to comply with Dr. Orly Taitz's Court issued subpoena.

    He/she who laughs last laughs loudest. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  14. They should request the birth certificates either side oh BHO's to compare if all three are similar .......

    ReplyDelete
  15. @Anonymous

    They should request the birth certificates either side oh BHO's to compare if all three are similar .......

    July 29, 2011 7:25 AM


    ==================================

    Seeing that the document they provided on April 27th appears to have been scanned from an image contained in a binder, the HDOH should provided the original still contained in the binder.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Well this looks highly promising but since you have tipped your hand by releasing this information to the world the conspirators will have time put together a "defense" to counter these efforts.

    Here's something we practice in the military: LOOSE LIPS SINK SHIPS!!!

    Try to keep things quiet from now or we'll never get anywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Perhaps all these people should fly separately to Oahu in the event a "Ron Brown" accident were to take place they don't all go down together.

    And in advance of departure having signed a Power of Attorney for either of these document experts to execute the subpoena without the presence of the attorney in the unfortunate event she was "unable" to participate.

    This government and justice department are not to be trusted.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Obama waived any right to confidentiality when he released a copy online. Attorney General in hawaii knows this and if her dilatorily files a motion to quash subpena Ms. Taitz should seek sanctions against him LETS STOP THE GAMES

    ReplyDelete
  19. @Anonymous

    No District Court will enforce this subpoena because it has not yet been properly served.

    In any event, the way to sek enfircement is via a motion to compel. Each party gets to brief the issue and then there is usually a hearing on the motion. DOH can respond with a motion for protective order, and has a right to a hearing on that. Finally, there has to be noncompliance with an order compelling DOH to produce the BC for inspection and then a hearing on contempt before the court starts turning the thumbscrews.

    So marching Fuddy off to jail is not gonna happen except in your fantasies.

    ReplyDelete
  20. @Hotlanta Mike

    A Power of Attorney? Haha, you are so funny when you spout pseudo law.

    Only the party to the litigation has the discovery right. It is nondelegable. Either Orly shows or it diesn't happen.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @Anonymous

    The right of confidentiality belongs to the State of Hawaii. The record is the state's. By statute the state has provided for 13 instances in which the confidential vital records will be shared. Obama cannot waive Hawaii's law.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I really don't get why the hdoh is being so road blocky. They are just state workers. Just do your job and comply with the law. Why try to stop the truth from coming out seems like alot of wasted energy to me. If hawaii just shows what they have without a fight, then they will be looked at in a good light instead of being stupid obots. Here's my toast to all ----- may the truth prevail.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Tweeter Obama And Ask Him For His Birth Certificate

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iWdK-wPGLY

    Rob

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hey OBRYR have u seen this before? http://presscore.ca/2011/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/kenyan_born_Obama.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  25. heres the full article http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm

    ReplyDelete
  26. Here is a partial list of the people that went to prison for Watergate:

    John Dean
    John Ehrlichman
    H. R. Haldeman
    E. Howard Hunt
    Egil Krogh
    G. Gordon Liddy
    Jeb Magruder
    John N. Mitchell

    These worked for the WH and were friends of Nixon. Don't fool yourself into thinking that it couldn't happen again.

    ReplyDelete
  27. It appears the obots are out in full force to protect the illegal alien in office...


    Tweeter Obama And Ask Him For His Birth Certificate

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iWdK-wPGLY&feature=player_embedded

    ReplyDelete
  28. The nation can argue the merits of the birth certificate, place of birth, the SSN, natural citizen, etc., but the final proof may be determined by the English in their transgenetic engineering of hybreds, cybrids and chimeras used for developing embryonic stem cells, which must be distroyed within 15 days. Should one get out and mature to resemble the president, then we will know that he is not one of us.

    ReplyDelete
  29. When is ORYR coming back

    ReplyDelete
  30. @Anonymous

    "Here is a partial list of the people that went to prison for Watergate"

    Funny you bring that up.

    Orly needs to file a judical notice of the following:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43946712/ns/politics-more_politics/

    "Lamberth ruled in the 15-page opinion that the special circumstances, especially the undisputed historical interest in Nixon's testimony, far outweighed the need to keep the records secret. Grand jury proceedings typically remain secret."

    ReplyDelete
  31. Go get that birth certificate, so we can start rounding up all of the criminals!

    ReplyDelete
  32. @Anonymous

    "They should request the birth certificates either side oh BHO's to compare if all three are similar ......."

    That was not specified in the subpoena. Can't do.

    ReplyDelete
  33. @Anonymous

    "I really don't get why the hdoh is being so road blocky."

    There is a state law that prohibits disclosure except to the person named on the BC and certain relatives. They aren't being "road blocky" as you put it, they are complying with state law.


    "They are just state workers."

    Orly still has not served the subpoena on Ms. Fuddy, so she has no obligation to do anything other than perform her state job because, well, she is a state worker.

    " Just do your job and comply with the law. ..."

    They are doing their job, and complying with H.R.S. 338-18 -- the law.

    ReplyDelete
  34. @Anonymous

    "Lamberth ruled in the 15-page opinion that the special circumstances, especially the undisputed historical interest in Nixon's testimony, far outweighed the need to keep the records secret. Grand jury proceedings typically remain secret."

    Funny you should bring that up. The testimony was 36 years ago. Maybe you can see Obama's BC in 2047.

    And that release was in response to a FOIA request that was litigated. FOIA, as you should know, governs federal agencies, not the State of Hawaii. So the ruling has zero precedential value to this situation.

    ReplyDelete
  35. @Anonymous7:47AM, I was thinking the same thing! I know we all want to share good news, but maybe some things could be kept under wraps until they are in motion or afterwards.

    My question now is, what if they just print off the WH copy & say that's all they have?? What then? Too much funny business has gone in Hawaii for me to believe anything they do or say. Will this nightmare ever end?!

    ReplyDelete
  36. @Anonymous

    Nothing to do with Hawaii, but maybe with the SSA.

    ReplyDelete
  37. HIS WHOLE LIFE IS A LIE

    WATCH U.S. MARSHALS ENTER THE WHITE HOUSE AND ESCORT HIM OUT IN CHAINS INTO A PADDY WAGON TO BE ARRAIGNED IN 9TH DC FEDERAL COURT FOR FORGERY, TAMPERING WITH GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS, MAKING A FALSE STATEMENT, SSN FRAUD, FILING FALSE INCOME TAX RETURNS, WIRE FRAUD, AND IDENTITY THEFT.


    LIAR
    FORGER
    IMPOSTER
    COMMUNIST
    M U S L I M
    KENYAN
    INDONESIAN
    ILLEGAL ALIEN
    M U J A H A D E E N
    USA HATER
    ISRAEL HATER
    BARRY S O E B A K R A H
    BARRY S O E T O R O
    B. S O E T E R O
    H A R R I S O N J. B O U R N E L
    MULTIPLE ADDRESSES
    SSN FRAUD AND PHONY BIRTH CERTIFICATE
    POS
    HUMAN GARBAGE

    HE CAN GO STRAIGHT TO H E L L AND HAVE A REALLY BAD DAY

    ENEMY OF USA

    THE DESTROYER!!!

    TIME IS RUNNING OUT

    THIS IS ALL THAT MATTERS.

    THE FREE WORLD AND ECONOMY HAS NO CONFIDENCE IN HIM SO THE FREE WORLD IS
    COLLAPSING. IT'S ALL ABOUT CONFIDENCE IN LEADERSHIP.

    GET READY

    END OF DISCUSSION

    ReplyDelete
  38. California birther/dualer/doubterJuly 29, 2011 at 11:39 PM

    Who will be there to say "Aloha" to the Taitz posse if Fuddy Duddy should again have "left the island"? Will it be good ol' Tattoo? I can imagine him exclaiming "Zee Oily! Zee Oily!" before being yanked by the hair up to the Russian giant's glaring mascara-soaked eyes and being told: "For the last time, where's Barry's frickin' birth certificate?"

    ReplyDelete
  39. Some one on this site made the comment, "what if they just hand them the same BC they handed out before". Now let me see if I have this correct. The one they handed out before had so many layers it resembled a wedding cake. So we have an attorney with a subpoena and two experts holding a lap top standing there and I am going to hand them the same BC. I don't think so scooter. Wake up dude, if they do that then it means Obama does not have a LFBC. Lord give me a break.

    ReplyDelete
  40. @Anonymous

    When the revolution starts, count me in.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Soetoro and co. have never been concerned about any legal proceedings filed against them. They already know that 1- the media has it's marching orders not to cover it. 2- Soetoro and co. already know the outcome of any court hearing, trial, deposition, subpeona, investigations, testimony, decision, ruling. In other words, nothing will become of this in Hawaii. Any idiot can see this. I am convinced, beyond a doubt, only a Blood-letting Revolution can resolve this. This is a full blown constitutional crises and criminal cover-up. This is bigger then 1776, 1812, and 1861. This makes Watergate look like choir practice. The entire government on all levels is complicit and guilty. We've never seen this before.

    ReplyDelete
  42. @Anonymous

    "Nothing to do with Hawaii, but maybe with the SSA."

    No, it doesn't. Settled law that SSN info is exempt.

    Can you point to FOIA law that exempts the Nixon testimony? No, I didn't think so. So there is no analogy.

    ReplyDelete
  43. @California birther/dualer/doubter

    "Who will be there to say "Aloha" to the Taitz posse ..."

    Most likely the state police, to escort Orly and her merry band out of the building. Orly did not serve the subpoena on Ms. Fuddy. There is no subpoena to enforce.

    ReplyDelete
  44. @Anonymous

    "No District Court will enforce this subpoena because it has not yet been properly served."

    Really? The UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the District of Hawaii which issued the subpoena which was properly served "Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested" won't enforce its own subpoena? Here, have a big KOOL-AID.

    "In any event, the way to sek enfircement is via a motion to compel. Each party gets to brief the issue and then there is usually a hearing on the motion. DOH can respond with a motion for protective order, and has a right to a hearing on that. Finally, there has to be noncompliance with an order compelling DOH to produce the BC for inspection and then a hearing on contempt before the court starts turning the thumbscrews."

    Really? According to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (e), which the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the District of Hawaii referenced on the subpoena it issued and attached thereto, "Contempt: The issuing court may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena."
    Here, have a Big KOOL-AID.

    "So marching Fuddy off to jail is not gonna happen except in your fantasies."

    Really? Since you're sure about that why don't you demand that Fuddy and/or the subpoena issuing Court grant/issue you Power of Attorney over Fuddy re this matter for a day, then either not show up on August 8th or refuse to produce Obama's original BC for inspection?

    Here, have a BIG KOOL-AID.

    ReplyDelete
  45. The trip to Hawaii is the most important event in the struggle against this tyrannical junta. It must yield real results. Nothing short of the future of the free world is at stake. It must not fail.

    Congress cannot and will not be successful in overthrowing this illegal junta. They simply will not commit political suicide, even though hearings would reveal all of the dirty laundry.

    The only option is to throw him out, but it cannot be for light and transient purposes. You must deliver the bona fides as soon as possible. The very existence of our republic depends on it.

    Failure is no longer an option.

    Get it done, for God’s sake, get it done!

    ReplyDelete
  46. @Anonymous


    "No District Court will enforce this subpoena because it has not yet been properly served."

    "Really? The UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the District of Hawaii which issued the subpoena which was properly served "Certified Mail - Return Receipt Requested" won't enforce its own subpoena? Here, have a big KOOL-AID."

    **************

    Yes, really. Here, have a drink of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, amateur.

    The subpoena was never served on the person named in the subpoena. Orly's amateur "process server" mailed it to another person.

    You see, there's this American concept called "due process of law." A person does not have to comply with a subpoena that was "served" on someone else.

    And let's not even get into the errors on the subpoean itself, shall we? Well, okay, one error. It calls for DOH to allow access to the birth record of "Barack Hussein Obama III." Whoever that is, he wasn't the one whose BC is in Hawaii's vault. And that's just one of several errors.

    ReplyDelete
  47. @Anonymous

    "In any event, the way to sek enfircement is via a motion to compel. Each party gets to brief the issue and then there is usually a hearing on the motion. DOH can respond with a motion for protective order, and has a right to a hearing on that. Finally, there has to be noncompliance with an order compelling DOH to produce the BC for inspection and then a hearing on contempt before the court starts turning the thumbscrews."

    Really? According to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (e), which the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the District of Hawaii referenced on the subpoena it issued and attached thereto, "Contempt: The issuing court may hold in contempt a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena."
    Here, have a Big KOOL-AID.

    ***********

    So tell us, how long have you been a lawyer? Yeah, I didn't think you were. You might spout Rule 45, but are clueless about the logistics of actually going about implementing it. That "excuse" part of the rule is determined in a hearing, after notice to the party against who enforcement is sought. And enforcement is sought via a motion to compel.

    So much for your armchair lawyerin'. You just flunked the internet bar exam.

    ReplyDelete
  48. @Anonymous

    "So marching Fuddy off to jail is not gonna happen except in your fantasies."

    Really? Since you're sure about that why don't you demand that Fuddy and/or the subpoena issuing Court grant/issue you Power of Attorney over Fuddy re this matter for a day, then either not show up on August 8th or refuse to produce Obama's original BC for inspection?

    Here, have a BIG KOOL-AID.

    ****************

    LOLOLOL. You like to throw around legalistic terms don't you? Power of Attorney. HAAHAHAHA. A POA authorizes one to act for another in PRIVATE business dealings. Fuddy is a public employee. Her duties are nondelegable. Besides, she has the benefit of legal counsel, who, BTW, has previously informed the distance-learning dentist that the subpoena is ineffective to grant access under H.R.S. 338-18.

    Say, what's the flavor of that Kool Aid you're slurping down, amateur? Grape? Cherry? Pink lemonade?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Do we know if Vogt and Irey will actually be able to accompany Orly into the room where they will show her the document? If not, or we are not sure, would it be advisable for Vogt and Irey to give Orly some training on how to check for forgery and/or how to properly scan or photograph the document?

    ReplyDelete
  50. @Texoma

    Tex, no need to ponder such mysteries. The subpoena was never served properly so Hawaii will be letting no one -- neither Orly nor her crank "expert" -- into any room where the BC can be viewed.

    ReplyDelete
  51. In other news from the Judge Lamberth's Federal Court:


    "Judge Orders Release of Nixon’s Watergate Testimony

    A federal judge in Washington has ordered the release of hundreds of pages of President Richard M. Nixon’s 1975 testimony about Watergate. The judge, Royce C. Lamberth III of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, wrote in a decision issued Friday that “nearly 40 years later, Watergate continues to capture both scholarly and public interest.” The Obama administration objected to the release, citing the privacy of people mentioned in the testimony. But Judge Lamberth wrote that the “undisputed historical interest” in the testimony, among other factors, far outweighed “the need to maintain the secrecy of the records.” The transcripts will not be released right away; the government can appeal the decision. Stanley I. Kutler, a leading Watergate historian who filed suit to get the documents last year, said that Nixon’s grand jury testimony was “a rare opportunity to hear him — what should I say? — unplugged. There are no aides, there are no lawyers, there are no spin doctors.” With the possible penalty of perjury over his head, Professor Kutler said, “My guess is he told those people the truth.” A spokesman for the Department of Justice, Charles S. Miller, said the agency was reviewing the judge’s decision and had not determined its next step. "

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/30/us/30brfs-JUDGEORDERSR_BRF.html?_r=1

    Obama's CONn social security card and his so-called "released" Birth Certificate is more relevant now the huge portion of the public than Watergate tapes of 40 years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  52. @RS

    Not at all applicable. If you disagree, please describe how the SSN FOIA case falls with the “special circumstances” test articulated by the Second Circuit in In re Petition of Craig, 131 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 1997) -- which is about grand jury testimony, not SSNs.

    ReplyDelete
  53. @Anonymous 2:37"Some one on this site made the comment, "what if they just hand them the same BC they handed out before". Now let me see if I have this correct. The one they handed out before had so many layers it resembled a wedding cake. So we have an attorney with a subpoena and two experts holding a lap top standing there and I am going to hand them the same BC. I don't think so scooter. Wake up dude, if they do that then it means Obama does not have a LFBC. Lord give me a break."

    Excuse me, but that's not what I asked. I asked what if they print out the one on the WH website & say that's all they have? And YES I'm a birther & have been for almost 3 years! There's a difference in printing out a paper copy & one that's on the computer with layers "scooter". They can then say they gave her what she asked for, is my point. You can't arrest someone just because it suits your fancy dude. Too much has gone wrong in Hawaii so far for me to get excited about this now. I was at first until I started thinking about ways they could "wiggle" out of it. Lets just pray they'll see the light and tell the truth for a change.

    ReplyDelete
  54. @Anonymous

    Well OBot, I was specifically making the point that there is a huge public interest in Obama's social security number because it certianly looks like it was obtained by fraudulent means.

    Any honest reading of the DOJ FOIA Guidlines will tell you silly OBots that Obama is on the short end of the stick. The public interest in this case completely outweighs any private expectations that Obama has in his social security number, and because Taitz is asking for a redacted SS-5 social security application that should cover any "privacy complaints" for the government. The government's position is stupid if they are acting in good faith with nothing to hide. Redact the social security number per federal court rules like XXX-XX-4425 on the SS-5 application.

    ReplyDelete
  55. @Anonymous

    @Anonymous @9:330 PM

    You don't have to sugar-coat it on our accounts; tell us how you really feel! ;)

    Stop messing around and start stamping/annotating cash with the message that "Obama's birth certificate is fake" and spend them. Do it NOW. The distribution models indicate that they'll be seen by MILLIONS in a short period of time. Place flyers under windshields. Leave "business" cards with the message in conspicuous, public locations. Write "Obama's birth certificate is fake: Google It!" on receipts, other bills and any other place you can think of to get the message seen by our fellow citizens, bypassing the mainstream media at every opportunity. We CAN win this thing. It just requires the ground-level, grassroots, everyday action on the part of the people who are awake, aware, and ticked off about this violation of our founding document weighing in constantly in as many asymmetrical ways as possible to wake up the larger American voting public. Don't just gripe about it online: *DO SOMETHING* in the real, live world. Stay legal though.

    If not you, who? If not now, when?

    ReplyDelete
  56. @Anonymous

    Legalese blah blah blah blah blah. Do you or do you not agree that the American public has a right to know whether or not "Obama" is fraudulently using a Social Security Number not lawfully assigned to him? It's a simple question. To answer any other way than "Yes, of course!" to this simple posit automatically renders you and any that follow with the same line of reasoning/argument vacuous at best, and treasonous at the inevitable other end of the spectrum. Which is it, Obot? Say hello to Lenin, Stalin and Mao for me. Your political invective has much in common with those "august" Marxist personages, namely that they, like your ideology, is DEAD.

    ReplyDelete
  57. I see on the subpoena that it appears they refer to Obama as "Barrack Obama III." I thought he was "II." I hope that they clarify this if it is an error BEFORE they go to Hawaii. I don't want anything to spoil the potential celebration on August 8th!!!

    ReplyDelete
  58. God speed be with you Dr Taitz. God's Angels surround you, and the White Light of the Holy Spirit will protect you. God Bless You

    ReplyDelete
  59. @RS

    Well, amateur, I know the point you were trying to make. Problem is, your analogy does not apply. The release of the Nixon testimony before a grand jury has been protected under a completely different set of rules and laws -- those applying to criminal procedure and grand jury secrecy. Under a string of court cases there is some precedent for opening up the sealed record of a gran jury investigation, but specific criteria have to be met. Public desire to peek into it is not sufficient, although public interest may play a role, although it is not an exclusive factor.

    However, under FOIA the case law -- you know, precedent -- holds that SSNs are not disclosable no matter how much public interest there is. As in NEVER. As in SETTLED LAW. As in, NO BALANCING TEST APPLIES to the SSNs of living individuals.

    Your argument will go nowhere in a court, Red.

    ReplyDelete
  60. @Anonymous

    "I see on the subpoena that it appears they refer to Obama as "Barrack Obama III." I thought he was "II." I hope that they clarify this if it is an error BEFORE they go to Hawaii. I don't want anything to spoil the potential celebration on August 8th!!!"

    *************

    It's too late to correct that "Barrack Obama III" error by August 8. Hawaii can properly respond that it has no document responsive to the subpoena, and no court can compel the state to produce for inspection what does not exist.

    Orly will have to do a re-do, and that will take another 30 days. Let's hope her airline tickets are refundable.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Please important**************Have Dr Taitz make sure a correction is made ASAP on the Court Order.......It does have Barak III on it....I will try to contact her by email and let her know. I have been waiting a long time for the day she has the chance to prove him the Fraud, and Kenyan Liar he is.........

    ReplyDelete
  62. I have called Dr Taitz myself, and spoke to her. I told her to make the changes to the Barak Hussien III to II. I have also sent, her an email informing her of this VITAL MISTAKE....She had better heed my warning or Obama will have her Court Order thrown out. Please go to her website, and email or call her to let her know this..........................ASAP

    ReplyDelete
  63. @Anonymous


    "I see on the subpoena that it appears they refer to Obama as "Barrack Obama III." I thought he was "II." I hope that they clarify this if it is an error BEFORE they go to Hawaii. I don't want anything to spoil the potential celebration on August 8th!!!"


    If Fuddy duddy whines about this, then all Taitz has to do is walk over to the Hawaiian Federal District Court for another signed court subpoena to re-serve the DoH clowns likely on the same day.

    ReplyDelete
  64. @Anonymous

    "However, under FOIA the case law -- you know, precedent -- holds that SSNs are not disclosable no matter how much public interest there is. As in NEVER. As in SETTLED LAW. As in, NO BALANCING TEST APPLIES to the SSNs of living individuals. "


    Oh please Obots such nonsense.

    If you have read some of the past court FOIA cases, any public interest outweighs a considerable amount private expectation, and Obama should expect virtually no expectation of privacy being the "president" in this matter since he is the MOST public figure in the county.

    The military for about 30 years or more used social security numbers as the military service identification for tens of millions of service members. They published them for all to see from their orders to discharge papers to every other conceivable document that was produced, and so did many public and private companies who published people's social security numbers.

    It only has been recently in the last decade that SSNs are being protected from identity thieves,
    and Obama does not need any protection from them - LoL - if it really is a legit SSN CONnecticut number that he is using.

    As we all see, the stupid OBot argument is just full of BS.

    Furthermore, The FOIA suit against the SSA is asking for a redacted SS-5 application that may not belong to Obama. ... So it's OK to redact the SSN in federal court documents displayed before the public, BUT the same court cannot redact the SSN on some SSA form that is so ordered? LoL.

    When it comes to logic, you OBots are an Epic Failure.

    ReplyDelete
  65. "If Fuddy duddy whines about this, then all Taitz has to do is walk over to the Hawaiian Federal District Court for another signed court subpoena to re-serve the DoH clowns likely on the same day."

    And if she does (and she certainly can) it will still be as fatally flawed as this one and would simply be ignored or, if they wanted to waste the time doing so they could explain to Orly why they are not going to comply to the newly-served one as well.

    Orly just doesn't bother to learn the rules and apply them. It's really that simple.

    ReplyDelete
  66. "I have called Dr Taitz myself, and spoke to her. I told her to make the changes to the Barak Hussien III to II. I have also sent, her an email informing her of this VITAL MISTAKE....She had better heed my warning or Obama will have her Court Order thrown out. Please go to her website, and email or call her to let her know this..........................ASAP"

    The III to II will not make this subpoena valid.

    And what part of there is NO COURT ORDER for this subpoena do you not get? There is no court order nor is this a court-ordered subpoena, no matter how many times one says there is.

    ReplyDelete
  67. @Anonymous

    OBot - "And what part of there is NO COURT ORDER for this subpoena do you not get? There is no court order nor is this a court-ordered subpoena, no matter how many times one says there is."



    You OBot clowns are puzzling [not really] group of nutcases.

    The first subpoena that Orly tried did not have a court sign off on her subpoena. You OBots pissed and moaned that a court did not sign her subpoena, and in fact the Hawaii DOJ office cited Federal Rule 45. Fine, Orly this time gets a court to sign the subpoena in accordance with rule 45.

    As it states here verbatim in Fed rule 45:

    "(3) Issued by Whom.

    The clerk MUST issue a subpoena, signed but otherwise in blank, to a party who requests it. That party must complete it before service. An attorney also may issue and sign a subpoena as an officer of:

    (A) a court in which the attorney is authorized to practice; or

    (B) a court for a district where a deposition is to be taken or production is to be made, if the attorney is authorized to practice in the court where the action is pending. "

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule45.htm


    For thoroughness OBots, lets look at Hawaiian court law (here family court) too also under rule 45:

    "Rule 45. SUBPOENA.

    (a) For attendance of witnesses; form; issuance. Every subpoena SHALL be issued by the clerk of the circuit court of the circuit in which the action is pending under the seal of the court, shall state the name of the court and the title of the action, and shall command each person to whom it is directed to attend and give testimony at a time and place therein specified. The clerk shall issue a subpoena, or a subpoena for the production of documentary evidence, signed and sealed but otherwise blank, to a party requesting it, who shall fill it in before service.

    (b) For production of documentary evidence. A subpoena may also command the person to whom it is directed to produce the books, papers, documents, or tangible things designated therein..."

    http://www.state.hi.us/jud/ctrules/hfcr.htm

    And if that's not enough you silly OBots, you can read it here too per Hawaiian law in district court. It says the same things as above.

    "Rule 45. SUBPOENA.

    (a) For attendance of witnesses; form; issuance. Every subpoena SHALL be issued by the clerk of the district court of the circuit in which the action is pending ...."


    Hello OBots is anyone home? You do see EVERY subpoena SHALL be ISSUED, or MUST be ISSUED by the the court clerk whether in federal or state court?

    http://hawaii.gov/jud/ctrules/dcrcp.htm


    All this begs the obvious question OBots that your argument is another misdirection and lie that ONLY a judge has to sign the subpoena to get Hawaii to comply with a subpoena issued by the court. There is no doubt that a judge can sign a subpoena in his own court; however, you illogical clowns, in accordance with rule 45 above, it states that a subpoena MUST or SHALL be signed by a clerk of the court.

    You village OBots understand the court rules don't you? Yeah guys do - hypocrites. But do you silly buffoons understand the concept of 'delegated authority' where the courts have clearly delegated their authority to the clerks when issuing subpoenas.

    What you stupid OBots are saying to the world that the court clerk has no authority to sign subpoenas that has any legal bite under law for persons or institutions to comply with the order, but we clearly see above that they do have the authority of the courts of law.

    As I said above, when it comes to logic from OBots and particularity FogBow OBots, you clowns clearly have Epic Failures. We can always count on Illogical thought from you Commies.

    ReplyDelete
  68. RS... as usual you miss the entire point.

    One of the many things Orly did not do in her first two tries was have a court of competent jurisdiction issue the subpoena.

    She finally figured out that was what the rules stated and indeed obtained a blank subpoena from the clerk of the court in HI.

    What you don't seem to get is that in no way, shape or form makes it a "court-ordered" subpoena. No judge has ordered the subpoena be issued nor that it be complied with. Issuing a subpoena by the clerk is a ministerial duty and carries no "court order" enforcement with it.

    I've not heard anyone state (who knew what they were talking about) that the clerk has no authority to sign a subpoena, in fact it is one of their duties. It still does not constitute a "court order."

    And just because (as you seem to imply but I may be misunderstanding your post) it is signed by the clerk does not mean it has to be complied with. And it won't be.

    Subpoenas also must be served on the party being subpoenaed to produce documents and/or be deposed or to appear. This one was not. Nor was notice given to the defendants... also a requirement.

    Your pseudo law practice is seriously lacking.

    So to repeat, there is NO COURT ORDER nor is this a COURT-ORDERED subpoena, period. You can continue to misinterpret what the rules state all you wish but it won't make you correct.

    And I'm no Obot lawyer, but they've yet to be wrong on anything related to any of these so-called eligibility suits. What's your record? Thought so.

    ReplyDelete
  69. from an OBot above - "What you don't seem to get is that in no way, shape or form makes it a "court-ordered" subpoena. No judge has ordered the subpoena be issued nor that it be complied with. Issuing a subpoena by the clerk is a ministerial duty and carries no "court order" enforcement with it."

    There's that FogButt talking point I've seen spouted - "ministerial". It wasn't long ago, you silly OBots were arguing that since the court didn't sign the subpoena, without qualifying who signed the subpoena, that the subpoena was invalid. Then Taitz gets a subpoena signed by per the court rules that are seen in triplicate above that the clerk has the authority of the court to sign subpoenas. The clerk must have had some idea what the subpoena was for. Why even have court rule 45 for clerks to issue subpoenas if it is not enforceable? If clerk signed court subpoenas have no power of the court, they shouldn't be signed or issued in the first place.

    However, you Fogbutt clowns have been soooo fixated HRS 338-18, (b)(9) below,

    " A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;"

    that you Fogbums have overlooked the rest of the Hawaiian law.

    And if you OBots are correct that court rule 45 is worth less than the paper it is written on, you silly OBots are intentionally or stupidly ignoring the rest of "HRS §338-18 Disclosure of records" where it states,

    "(g) The department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record, or any part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is:

    ...

    (4) A private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during the course of or for purposes of legal proceedings; or"

    There it is under Hawaiian HRS §338-18 that Hawaii has to comply IAW their law, and since we all clearly know that Orly Taitz is the attorney in a legal federal court "proceeding" who will be in Hawaii to obtain "a vital record" in accordance with HRS 338-18 (g)(4). Hawaii needs to comply with their law as prescribed - period OBots.


    Obot - "And I'm no Obot lawyer, but they've yet to be wrong on anything related to any of these so-called eligibility suits. What's your record? Thought so."

    But certainly an OBot. Silly OBots don't get anything wrong? That silly OBot ButtFly Bilderberg who is only "brilliant" in her own deluded mind said the Gooberment would motion for dismissal in this case because Orly Taitz once before argued that Obama had a stolen SSN in Lamberth's court where that case was dismissed where it cannot be argued twice the same in another court proceeding. The government did not do or take the Buttfly's advice. You know why OBots?

    They are two entirely different types of cases. The first one was a Quo Warranto and this one is an FOIA case. Any clown would see the obvious differences between the two cases, but not the delusional and blinded OBot Buttfly.


    Oh BTW OBots, you may not have heard but Taitz is in communications with local attorney(s) in Hawaii. LoL.

    ReplyDelete
  70. God's Karma will catch up with this Sociopath, and he better look around for Carrion Angels

    ReplyDelete
  71. @RS

    Oh, puhleez yourself. If you understood those cases you would know that they were applying a balancing test under Exemption 7. The SSN is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 6.

    ReplyDelete
  72. @RS

    Courts regularly uphold the nondisclosure of date of birth and social security numbers, see, e.g., Sherman v. United States Dep't of the Army, 244 F.3d 357, 365-66 (5th Cir. 2001); Norwood v. FAA, 993 F.2d 570, 575 (6th Cir. 1993); Dayton Newspapers, Inc. v. United States Dep't of the Navy, No. C-3-95-328, slip op. at 31-38 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 12, 1996); Kuffel v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 882 F. Supp. 1116, 1122 (D.D.C. 1995).

    Redaction might not adequately protect privacy interests. When a FOIA request is focused on records concerning an identifiable individual then the courts will not require the agency to produce even a redacted record if the fragments of unredacted information might be able to be pieced together to identify the individual. See, e.g., McLeod v. Peña, No. 94-1924, slip op. at 6 (D.D.C. Feb. 9, 1996); Alirez v. NLRB, 676 F.2d 423, 428 (10th Cir. 1982).

    Quit yer amateur lawyerin.

    ReplyDelete
  73. @RS

    In issuing a subpoena duces tecum, the clerk performs a purely ministerial act, involving no exercise of discretion. Lewis v. National Labor Relations Board, 357 U.S. 10 (1958).

    ReplyDelete
  74. @Anonymous

    What's wrong OBumbs? You guys afraid that the court may make the SSA show Obama's faux SS-5 application? If not, then why are you silly OBOts blogging here for? LoL. Rhetorical question... as the answer is obvious.

    So OBots, how much do your puppet masters pay you clowns to blog here? I promise I won't tell. Ha.

    Lets see OBOts, we all can play cut and paste of dueling court opinions about Exemption 6.


    "Multi Ag, 515 F.3d at 1229 ("The balancing analysis for FOIA Exemption 6 requires that we first determine whether disclosure of the files 'would compromise a substantial, as opposed to de minimis, privacy interest[.]''' (quoting Nat'l Ass'n of Retired Fed. Employees v. Horner, 879 F.2d 873, 874 (D.C. Cir. 1989))).

    information at issue must be disclosed.

    On the other hand, if a privacy interest is found to exist, the public interest in disclosure, if any, must be weighed against the privacy interest in nondisclosure.13 If no public interest exists, the information should be protected; [not the case with Obama] as the D.C. Circuit has observed, "something, even a modest privacy interest, outweighs nothing every time."14
    [Sorry Obots, but there is something here - as in a HUGE public interest]
    If there is a public interest in disclosure that outweighs the privacy interest, the information should be disclosed;"

    And


    "See Forest Serv. Employees for Envtl. Ethics, 524 F.3d at 1025 (noting that "while the privacy interests of public officials are 'somewhat reduced' when compared to those of private citizens,"

    We see the courts state Obama has less to any expectation of privacy than a regular citizen. If the public interest in Obama's SSN was the measured how hard a pinball machine got tilted, the tilt would break the machine into pieces!


    A redacted SSN number written on a SS-5 application of the most public man in the country who is at no risk to his privacy of ID theft or harassment. The guy has an army SS protecting him. Obama is plenty safe - that's not an issue here OBots.

    So what's wrong OBots, you dingbats think the Conneticut SSN number is stolen too? Sure you guys do! LoL.

    Some more:

    "(Exemptions 6 and 7(C)); Holland v. CIA, No. 91-1233, 1992 WL 233820, at *16 (D.D.C. Aug. 31, 1992) (stating that information must be disclosed when there is no significant privacy interest, even if public interest is also de minimis). "

    "...Schoenman v. FBI, 573 F. Supp. 2d 119, 148 (D.D.C. 2008); Schoenman v. FBI, 575 F. Supp. 2d 136, 160 (D.D.C. 2008).
    426 Exemption 6
    the public interest in disclosure outweighs the individual privacy concerns.'"39 Thus, as the D.C. Circuit has held, "a privacy interest may be substantial -- more than de minimis -- and yet be insufficient to overcome the public interest in disclosure."

    Again clowns, there is a substantial public interest in Obama and his Social Security Number. It's why you silly OBots are here trolling.


    The above court opinion was good! Lets repeat this again for you OBots!


    "a privacy interest may be substantial -- more than de minimis -- and yet be insufficient to overcome the public interest in disclosure."


    Quit yer amateur lawyerin.

    As soon as you silly clowns quit...I'll think about it.

    ReplyDelete
  75. This shows the view of people towards OBAMA.

    ReplyDelete
  76. @RS

    Yo, Red, what part of "a clerk's issuance of a subpoeana duces tecum is a purely ministerial act" (Lewis v. NLRB) do YOU not get?

    And what part of the fact that Rule 45(b)(4) has not been satisfied that you cannot grasp? A subpoena never served commands absolutely zilch. Orly NEVER SERVED THE SUBPOENA ON MS. FUDDY, so you can copy-paste Rule 45 all you want, but that does not address the procedural deficiencies in this POS subpoena.

    ReplyDelete
  77. @RS

    This is nor a subpoena for attendance of any witness. Read it S L O W L Y and you might see that it is a subpoena duces tecum. Now go find some case law about the legal effect of issuance of a subpoena duces tecum.

    ReplyDelete
  78. @RS

    Notice that you did not describe the nature of the agency documents at issue in those cases. Tell us, Red, which one of the cases you cited required disclosure of SSN info?

    Answer: None. The courts have ruled that any info re a living person's SSN info is protected by Exemption 6.

    ReplyDelete
  79. "And what part of the fact that Rule 45(b)(4) has not been satisfied that you cannot grasp? A subpoena never served commands absolutely zilch. Orly NEVER SERVED THE SUBPOENA ON MS. FUDDY, so you can copy-paste Rule 45 all you want, but that does not address the procedural deficiencies in this POS subpoena."

    Nor did she give notice to the defense. Yet another fatal flaw.

    ReplyDelete
  80. "Answer: None. The courts have ruled that any info re a living person's SSN info is protected by Exemption 6."


    You OBots think you can shoehorn the same outcome. No, the circumstances are different, and the court may not do the same this time. As you clowns already know, numerous filed court documents already have the redacted XXX-XX-4425 CONnecticut social security number plastered all over the place. It's a logical conclusion and obvious that the court would do the same by redacting the SSN on the SS-5 application. Only the obtuse and FogButt Commie group think would think otherwise.

    Here's another court opinion excerpted that you clowns at Fogbow la la land can chew on.


    "As the Tenth Circuit has held, "[t]he public interest in learning of a government employee's misconduct increases as one moves up an agency's hierarchical ladder."167 a general rule, demonstrated wrongdoing of a serious and intentional nature by a high-level government official is of sufficient public interest to outweigh almost any privacy interest of that official."

    Ponder this again OBots ... the last part of sentence for emphasis:

    "...sufficient public interest to outweigh almost any privacy interest of that official"


    You clowns understand what the 10th Circuit is saying here? LoL. No one is higher in the public food-chain than Barack Hussein Obama, and the higher a goobermint official is in the government pyramid, the less privacy that official can expect. Those people who got to keep their SSNs private were ordinary workers or military persons as in low level.

    And besides clowns, the plaintiff is asking ONLY for a redacted SS-5 application for SSN XXX-XX-4425. The plaintiff has a very good chance of getting the court to go along despite all the silly lamentations from the OBot clowns.

    ReplyDelete
  81. @Anonymous


    "And what part of the fact that Rule 45(b)(4) has not been satisfied that you cannot grasp? A subpoena never served commands absolutely zilch. Orly NEVER SERVED THE SUBPOENA ON MS. FUDDY, so you can copy-paste Rule 45 all you want, but that does not address the procedural deficiencies in this POS subpoena."

    You village OBots should read up thread as I have addressed this to you clowns. We see that you scofflaws expect the Hawaiian goobers to act irresponsible by finding ways to avoid the suit. Typical behavior from OBots.

    ReplyDelete

“As long as I am an American citizen and American blood runs in these veins I shall hold myself at liberty to speak, to write, and to publish whatever I please on any subject.” - Elijah Parish Lovejoy(1802-1837)

Comments posted here do not necessarily reflect the views of BirtherReport.com. Readers are solely responsible for the content of the comments they post on this web site.