Thursday, July 7, 2011


Motion to Compel Subpoena filed in the Taitz v. Astrue FOIA law suit regarding Obama's social security number reserved for Connecticut applicants. Relevant filing including the Subpoena to Hawaii's Director of the Department of Health Loretta Fuddy embedded below...

Motion to Compel: Plaintiff Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ moves this court for an order compelling compliance with a subpoena, forwarded to Ms. Loretta Fuddy, director of Health in the state of Hawaii, which would aid in resolution of the case at hand. Plaintiff asks the court to rule on this motion based on the memorandum of points and authorities attached herein and oral argument, if the court deems oral argument to be necessary.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES... -SNIP-

~ CLICK TO ENLARGE ~

...Continued in Scribd documents below including the complete subpoena issued to Loretta FUDDY...
Taitz v. Asrtue - Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Subpoena - Obama Social Security Number CASE # 1:11-cv-00402
Taitz v. Asrtue - Subpoena Issued to Loretta Fuddy - Obama Social Security Number CASE # 1:11-cv-00402

Confirmed: Democratic Party of Hawaii would not certify in 2008 that Obama was constitutionally and legally eligible for the Office of President -Details here. 

Notre Dame Professor Charles Rice: Obama's eligibility could be biggest political fraud in the history of the world; time for a new approach -Details here. 

Attorney Mario Apuzzo: All presidents born after 1787, except for Chester Arthur and Barack Obama, met the “natural born Citizen” criteria. -Details here. 

Commander Charles Kerchner: List of U.S. Presidents - Eligibility under Article II Grandfather Clause (GFC) or Natural Born Citizen (NBC) Clause or Seated due to Election Fraud -Details here. 

Jack Cashill Discusses Obama's Fraudulent Social Security Number Reserved for Connecticut Applicants -Video here. 

Detailed reports on Obama's SS# can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. Visit the Birther Vault for the long list of evidence against Hawaii officials and all of the people questioning Obama's eligibility; [http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/08/video-ltc-terry-lakins-attorney-on-cnn.html].
We Have a Criminal and Forger in the White House! 20110627 issue Wash Times Natl Wkly pg 5

47 comments:

  1. Plaintiff filed a rule 45 subpoena with the director of Health of the state of Hawaii, seeking access to the original document. Plaintiff received a response fromthe office of the Attorney General of Hawaii. June 13, 2011 response from theoffice of Attorney General of Hawaii (Exhibit 6), representing the director of Health, stated, that according to rule HRS §338-18 inspection of public healthstatistics records is allowed only in a number instances, among them §338-18(b)(9)"A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record isestablished by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction."

    ----------------------------------

    Cue the whiny trolls and fantasy league lawyers 3-2-1...

    ReplyDelete
  2. its time for obama to hang for his act of treason!

    ReplyDelete
  3. In other news...

    Father spoke of having Obama adopted

    US immigration files from ’61 reveal Kenyan student’s plan

    http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2011/07/07/father_spoke_of_having_obama_adopted/

    ReplyDelete
  4. The relevance for Hawaii to comply.


    "Mr. Obama is using this social security number,(Exhibit 1) however Social security administration states, that this number was never issued(Exhibit 2). Typically, individuals, who do not have valid birth certificates resort to using invalid social security numbers, therefore the birth certificate is at issue."


    No expectation of privacy:


    "Mr. Alvin Onaka, stating that he and Ms. Loretta Fuddy, Director of Health, will not provide access to the original, due to considerations of privacy. Plaintiff filed an appeal, stating, that there cannot be a consideration of privacy, as Mr. Obama already released the document in question, and it is available to the public at large on the web site WhiteHouse.gov. There is no genuine issue of privacy, as all the information in the document in question is public, but there is an issue of forgery,"

    Hawaii disregards their own rules and laws.


    "Plaintiff filed a rule 45 subpoena with the director of Health of the state of Hawaii, seeking access to the original document. Plaintiff received a response from the office of the Attorney General of Hawaii. June 13, 2011 response from the office of Attorney General of Hawaii (Exhibit 6), representing the director of Health, stated, that according to rule HRS §338-18 inspection of public health statistics records is allowed only in a number instances, among them §338-18(b)(9) “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.” "

    And 'stare decisis': citing previous rulings.


    "US District court is a competent jurisdiction. Federal court under Rule 45, along with all applicable privilege rules, provide sufficient “tools” with which this court can adequately protect both the litigant’s right to receive evidence and the government’s interest in protecting its processes and resources. See Exxon shipping, 482 F 3d at 416, 417 (holding that “an agency’s Touhy regulations do not relieve the district courts of the responsibility to analyze privilege or undue burden assertions under Rule 45″ and concluding that that the federal discovery rules give district courts adequate tools to balance all competing interests); Connaught Laboratories, 7 F. Supp.2d at 480(recognizing “the district court’s ability to balance the government’s concerns with the private litigant’s interest in obtaining evidence by applying the limitations and protections contained in the federal rules of Civil Procedure. As such this court is a competent jurisdiction to grant the subpoena in question"

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Typically, people who don’t have a valid birth certificate resort to using fraudulent social security numbers. That’s why this is relevant, and that’s why I issued that subpoena to compel them."

    Atty. Orly Taitz Files Motion to Compel in Social Security Case

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/07/07/atty-orly-taitz-files-motion-to-compel-in-social-security-case/

    ReplyDelete
  6. From Fogbutt Bob

    "ATTENTION: REDD (and other birther lurkers)

    We at the Fogbow guarantee, with 100% confidence, that Taitz's latest debacle will fail. Miserably."


    What you village OBots rely on is for heads in the sand mentality and on state corruption.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I guess we will soon find out what this Judge is made of. Will he allow the HI Dept of Health to continue to defraud and disrespect the American People, or will he throw the gavel down and put a stop to this non-sense once and for all? I hope he plans to be on the right side of history, as well as the right side of the law.

    ReplyDelete
  8. BREAKING...

    CBS NEWS: DNC using Barry's B.C. to raise $$$$$.

    LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  9. @Anonymous

    "I guess we will soon find out what this Judge is made of. "

    What you will find is that he'll rule based on the law and deny the motion.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Greetings fellow patriots,

    I have been experiencing difficulty posting of late, as in my comments simply do not appear. Will give it another go.

    Re Stanley Ann Dunham's SSA application (and I think this warrants looking into to by experts):

    Notice that her signature in its entirety is written straight as an arrow across, that is in a perfectly even line without resting on the line but above it. I have not magnified it or used any tools to examine it, but in IMO it appears just too perfect. Has anyone else here at ORYR noticed this? One poster at Give Us Liberty 1776 did, but so far that is all I can find on the matter. To me it was as noticeable as a spider on an angel food cake.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @RS

    "Mr. Obama already released the document in question, and it is available to the public at large on the web site"

    Andy Martin made this same argument in regards to the COLB and the courts rejected it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Breaking! ORYR imprisoned in Kenya, tried to bribe a hospital administrator!

    ReplyDelete
  13. I am pleased with what I see regarding this 3 day Birther Summit that is going to take place in Washington.

    I guess my rant and plea was heard?
    I am still continuing spreading the word and now will include Give us Liberty Assignments in passing along the Birther Summit!
    Happy Stamping! ; )

    ReplyDelete
  14. Was Obama Sr.’s “U.S. Citizen Wife in the Philippines” Stanley Ann Dunham?

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/07/07/was-obama-sr-s-u-s-citizen-wife-in-the-philippines-stanley-ann-dunham/

    ReplyDelete
  15. Someone please tell me why am I reading about Obama's adoption in the Boston Globe today
    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2011/07/07/father_spoke_of_having_obama_adopted/

    Anyone who's read Corsi's book knows about this but why this and why today? What is dripping out there?

    ReplyDelete
  16. @RS

    Did you actually read those previous rulings? I did, but I don't think Orly did. RS, how about you explain those two cases to us.

    ReplyDelete
  17. ORYR, over the past several days none of my comments have appeared here. Why?

    ReplyDelete
  18. @Anonymous

    It looks like the media is testing the waters and looking for an angle when all hell breaks loose. They know this is close, now. EVERYONE knows this in getting close, now.

    You will notice the sympathetic-to-obama slant: "offers a glimpse into the fragile relation with a father he would barely know." Boo hoo. Cry me a river the next time Obama gives his political opponent the finger on the campaign trail. Dick.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Did anyone else notice that Stanley Ann Dunham's signature on the SSN application is written perfectly straight? It is not touching the line, and yet is perfectly aligned in its entirety. Will someone please get back to me on this?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Taitz's subpoena was prima facie invalid for a laundry list of reasons:

    1) Taitz's assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, no discovery has been ordered in Taitz v. Astrue. In FOIA cases, discovery doesn't happen until after the court has ruled on a dispositive motion. At the time Taitz issued the subpoena, no such motion had been filed, let alone ruled on.

    2) Under FRCP 45, Taitz was not authorized to issue the subpoena (she is not licensed to practice in DC, and is therefore not an officer of the court).

    3) Obama's birth certificate is neither relevant to the case at hand, nor can it be reasonably construed to lead to relevant discoverable information.

    4) Taitz is seeking protected information. Protected information is immune from subpoena.

    5) Taitz requested deposition take place in Hawaii. The DC District Court is not a court of competent authority in Hawaii.

    6) Points 4 and 5 make the subpoena automatically unduly burdensome.

    For any (and all) of the above reasons, the state of Hawaii has no obligation to reply to, let alone comply with, the subpoena.

    Now Taitz has filed a motion to compel. Because the original subpoena was invalid, the motion to compel will could well be be construed by the court as frivolous, opening Taitz to sanctions, should the court choose to impose them.

    ReplyDelete
  21. http://logisticsmonster.com/2011/07/02/look-for-the-coverup-and-see-the-lie-eliminating-the-natural-born-clause/

    I think this is all orly would need.

    ReplyDelete
  22. @Nathanael

    Dude, stop pointing out the reality. You're killing the buzz.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Nathanael:...Your 6 points are nonsense. This is very typical of the 'baloney' tactic. Throw out a laundry list of legalistic sounding objections and hope that even one will pass the smell test. None of these pass.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Unfortunately, Orly Taitz, Esq. needs to get a competent law clerk to proof her pleadings. In the SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS.. O.whodat's birth date and name are incorrect. She has written 08.08.1961 and has designated him as a III. He was supposedly downloaded 08.06,1961 and he is a Jr. I understand the confusion, because on O.whodat's forged nativity record he claims a debatable date, place, baby-daddy and refers to himself as a II. He is a turd, not a IIIrd. Was reported to be around 7 months old when a babysitter took care of him while his slut-Mom attended Washington U "two weeks" after his birth. Putting his mystery history nativity date back to February would have given Stanley enough time to get to Kenya and download Baby Barry, and would explain the need to make her pre-1965 passport documentation to "disappear". Of course then Baby Barry would be a /British citizen at birth, (instead of a dual citizen and not a natural born one if born in HI) because Stanley was too young to pass on her citizenship and Obama, Sr.(baby daddy maybe)would have made him a foreign born British citizen. I understand how hard it is to pin down this slippery fraud that has slithered into the office of POTUS, but I would think being a criminal forger would get the ball rolling on the usurper.

    ReplyDelete
  25. @C.A. Holly
    The signature is actually 2 different pdf layers, and several of the letters touch an invisible minimum line. This would indicate that the signature was generated using a computer program, where signatures often appear perfectly aligned. WND has an article about it.

    ReplyDelete
  26. @C.A. Holly
    WND did an article on it. The signature is actually two layers in the pdf. Since several of the letters touch an invisible minimum line, and appear perfectly aligned, it is likely this was generated using a computer program where such a thing is common (nearly impossible for a human being to do, much less one that is recovering in a hospital bed).

    ReplyDelete
  27. The patriots here are great, but why are we still discussing the details? THE BC IS PROVEN FAKE. We KNOW it. There is no question. It isn't as though any of these additional questions are necessary to make the case.

    After 3 years we have fallen into the habit of analyzing the evidence to make the case. That ceased being necessary once the forgery was almost immediately identified by experts (and a million other people) as a fake.

    We're in the end game, now. It is time to learn a new habit quickly: talking about how to get the word out and comparing notes. Get into a new daily routine of stamping or writing the message (ala "Where's George") on the money you are going to spend anyway and talking about THAT here.

    Instead of analyzing the evidence of each new blog entry, let's use it as a springboard for getting the word out about the fake. For example, this is about the motion to compel disclosure. Well, I *disclosed* the message several times today on US currency - HOW ABOUT YOU?

    This has to be about the end-game, now. I hope ORYR can also frame some of the blog commentary accordingly.

    PLEASE, FOLKS. We have the evidence for sure, now, there is no question. None. Get the word out, and use this board to inspire others. Have contests. Exchange pics.: stamped bills, balloon launches, a snapshot of a flyer at your local supermarket to inspire others to do the same. We have a lot more we can do - there is no such thing as doing too much.

    The next time we should talk for the sake of conversation is when we all discuss our victory and what comes next. In the meantime, there's work to do. Use this site to keeping the momentum going. We're so close to winning, now. This is no time to rehash analysis. It's time to win.

    ReplyDelete
  28. @Anonymous

    "Andy Martin made this same argument in regards to the COLB and the courts rejected it."

    Is that right. As I recall, Ano-Bot that was in a Hawaiian state court and not a federal court.

    And when Martin sued the HI state back in 2008, Obama had not released his LFCOLB for public display on a government website as he has now. Obama has no expectation to any privacy as that little and fake fig-leaf is long gone.

    Furthermore, Hawaii has a history of not following their own laws that pertain to Obama as we see here below:

    "Barack Obama and State of Hawaii on the ropes - According to law, the State of Hawaii must now disclose how it came to the decision that is found in Director Fukino’s July 27th [2009] Press Release that was approved by the State’s Attorney General. Haw. Rev. Stat. 28-4 states very clearly that formal opinions of the Attorney General must be made public."

    -end snip-

    Sunday, August 29, 2010 ObamaRelease YourRecords on 2:36 AM
    Hawaii DOH Exposed: Hawaii Department of Health labels The Post & Email a “vexatious requester” for asking a question.




    Janice Okubo confirmed for us that Hawaiian AG Mark Bennett "approved" Fukino's statement that Obama is a "natural born American citizen" that she released in 2009...



    "From: Okubo, Janice S.. Date: Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:20 PM To: Justin Riggs [email address redacted]…

    Aloha Justin,

    The statement was reviewed and approved by our Attorney General Mark Bennett. I am unable to provide further comment.

    Janice Okubo Communications Office Hawaii State Department of Health… "


    Obama, especially now, has no right to expect any privacy in this matter.

    ReplyDelete
  29. @RS: Obama, especially now, has no right to expect any privacy in this matter.

    It's amazing how every time Orly comes up with a new argument suddenly the birther blogsphere is echoing it like it's true.

    Taitz is (not surprisingly) dead wrong here in every respect, and so is everyone who repeats her argument.

    Privacy has nothing to do with the BC. At all. HRS 338-18 only allows access to the thirteen categories of persons listed. Period. Unless Taitz can demonstrate she falls into one of those categories (to date, she hasn't even claimed to) she doesn't get to see the BC.

    As to Obama "waiving" privacy, again, it's irrelevant. First, the state of Hawaii is on record (specifically in, IIRC, a letter to Taitz) as stating that there is information on the original BC that doesn't appear even on the LFBC. So yes, there is still unreleased information to be protected. And second, the original BC is property of the state of Hawaii, not Obama. Obama has no legal standing to waive privacy to the original because it does not belong to him.

    Even if Obama wrote a letter directly to Fuddy, signed and notarized, explicitly waiving all rights to privacy, and directing Fuddy to allow Taitz to see the original, Hawaii still could not comply, because Taitz has not demonstrated she has tangible interest as specified in HRS 338-18.

    ReplyDelete
  30. @RS

    Red, Red, Red. You're reliance on the views of a Nebraska housewife as support for a legal argument does not serve your argument well. You need to look at how the courts have ruled. The state court in Hawaii has said the statute is quite clear in not allowing anyone who is not listed in the statute to obtain access to a certified copy of the COLB. The court specifically rejected the waiver argument. Now, you don't understand law enough to know this, so I'll educate you. When a FEDERAL court is called upon to render a decision that hinges upon STATE law, the FEDERAL court looks to the decisions of STATE courts to determine how the STATE's highest court would decide.

    So, in this case, the FEDERAL court will look at that STATE court decision that told Andy Martin to take a hike because there was no waiver, and the FEDERAL court will decide on Orly's motion that STATE law does not allow her access because there cannot be waiver.

    Get it?

    Jeeezh, stop practicing law. You are not authorized.

    ReplyDelete
  31. @Anonymous

    Why is anyone debating this? For the fun of it? What Orly does is what Orly does. You could have stamped 50 bills in the time it took you to write those responses. That would have been time spent in which results were guaranteed. What did you get for the time you debated those points? I'll tell you: nothing.

    OBAMA'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS A FAKE. Get the word out.

    ReplyDelete
  32. cashed my check got it all in ones 985 of them baby's are now out there i think i need more red ink though it was getting a bit light at the end but they are readable....

    ReplyDelete
  33. @Anonymous

    "When a FEDERAL court is called upon to render a decision that hinges upon STATE law, the FEDERAL court looks to the decisions of STATE courts to determine how the STATE's highest court would decide."

    Didn't that just happen when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court how it would rule in allowing the proponents of Propositon 8 (anti-gay marriage proposition)to file an appeal since the State of California refused to appeal the case?

    ReplyDelete
  34. @RS

    "Obama has no expectation to any privacy as that little and fake fig-leaf is long gone."

    No, I'm afraid that is not how the courts will see it.

    From Andy Martin's Emergency Petition Writ of Mandamus to the Hawaii Supreme Court:

    "b. The waiver and admission issues
    Obama claims that he has posted a conformed copy of his birth certificate on a web site. It is impossible to say whether this assertion is true, because Petitioner has no official copy to compare to the Internet version. Obama has not posted any of the source information or supporting data. If Obama has posted a version of his birth certificate, it would appear he has waived any privacy issues and the statutory restrictions on issuance of a copy to Petitioner no longer apply."
    October 20th, 2008

    The Hawaii Supreme Court denied the petition.

    ReplyDelete
  35. @RS

    "Haw. Rev. Stat. 28-4 states very clearly that formal opinions of the Attorney General must be made public."


    It does?

    "§28-4 Advises public officers. The attorney general shall, without charge, at all times when called upon, give advice and counsel to the heads of departments, district judges, and other public officers, in all matters connected with their public duties, and otherwise aid and assist them in every way requisite to enable them to perform their duties faithfully. [L 1866, p 17; RL 1925, §1489; RL 1935, §503; RL 1945, §1504; RL 1955, §30-4; am L 1963, c 85, §3; HRS §28-4; am L 1970, c 188, §39; gen ch 1993]"

    ReplyDelete
  36. @Anonymous and you FoGBlowing smoke Nathanael

    "When a FEDERAL court is called upon to render a decision that hinges upon STATE law, the FEDERAL court looks to the decisions of STATE courts to determine how the STATE's highest court would decide."


    Is that right OBama-bot? Then the FEDERAL courts should hold this STATE court ruling back in 2004 in Ryan v. Chicago Tribune where the newspaper working for Obama got a judge to unseal court ordered and private records of Ryan's divorce.

    The Tribune was an obvious stalking horse for David Axelrod/Obama. Commie Axelrod once worked for the Chicago Tribune before working for Obama.

    Here's snippets of the judge's comments in the Tribune article - flashback to June 18, 2004:


    "LOS ANGELES - Dealing a blow to the U.S. Senate candidacy of Republican Jack Ryan, a California judge ruled that several sealed divorce records likely to embarrass the candidate and his ex-wife should be opened to the public.

    Ruling on a request brought by attorneys for the Tribune and WLS-TV, Superior Court Judge Robert Schnider acknowledged that the resulting publicity from the disclosure would be harmful to the couple's son, a key argument Ryan had raised in seeking to keep the documents from public view.

    But Schnider said he had weighed the public interest of disclosure against the private interests of the Ryans and their child. "In the end," Schnider found, "the balance tips slightly to the public."

    "They were aware they were in a public court system and protection from embarrassment cannot be a basis for keeping from the public what's put in public courts," said Schnider, referring to Ryan and his ex-wife, actress Jeri Lynn Ryan. Additionally, Schnider said, "the openness of court files must be maintained, so that the public ... can be assured that there is no favoritism shown to the rich and the powerful."

    -snip-

    Ryan is facing Democrat Barack Obama for the Senate seat being vacated by one-term Republican Sen. Peter Fitzgerald."

    -end snip-

    Chicago Tribune - Court sets release of Ryan's divorce file. Judge admits son will be harmed

    So Obama can be the direct beneficiary of unsealing records, but no one can see his sealed records even after Obama allegedly showed it to the public on his White House and public website??

    You do believe that Obama showed his genuine birth record to the public without alteration? Then you should obviously have NO PROBLEM with Obama presenting his genuine birth certificate to a court of law, but somehow you do have problem with that.


    Moreover, the bar is very low for the courts to unseal Obama's birth records ...a much much lower bar than Ryan had as Obama has no expectation for privacy here. Jack Ryan got no favoritism or privacy from the court. ... What you spew is all BS. As I said before, OBots and Obama rely on government corruption, obfuscation, and heads in the sand mentality for you guys to get away with lying and other nonsense. You get it now? I doubt it.



    "Jeeezh, stop practicing law. You are not authorized."

    Take your own advice OBot.

    ReplyDelete
  37. @RS

    "They were aware they were in a public court system and protection from embarrassment cannot be a basis for keeping from the public what's put in public courts,"

    This is the part that you should have highlighted.

    Vital Records are not in the public domain. They contain privledge information.

    ReplyDelete
  38. @Anonymous

    "This is the part that you should have highlighted.

    Vital Records are not in the public domain. They contain privileged information."


    I agree, I should've also highlighted the below quote from the judge:

    Superior Court Judge Robert Schnider - "They were aware they were in a public court system and protection from embarrassment cannot be a basis for keeping from the public what's put in public courts,"

    ReplyDelete
  39. @Anonymous

    "Haw. Rev. Stat. 28-4 states very clearly that formal opinions of the Attorney General must be made public."

    "It does?"


    Yeah it does OBot...and you "forgot" something.

    Have some more of these apples.


    "ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION LETTERS CANNOT BE A SWORD AND A SHIELD.

    Haw. Rev. Stat. 28-3 imposes an affirmative duty upon the Attorney General to document and make public all opinions he gives upon a question of law submitted by the head of an agency:

    §28-3 Gives opinions. The attorney general shall, when requested, give opinions upon questions of law submitted by the governor, the legislature, or its members, or the head of any department. The attorney general shall file a copy of each opinion with the lieutenant governor, the public archives, the supreme court library, and the legislative reference bureau within three days of the date it is issued. Opinions on file with the lieutenant governor, the public archives, and the supreme court library shall be available for public inspection."

    -snip-

    " "THE ATTORNEY GENERAL LETTER MUST BE DISCLOSED.

    -snip-

    Pursuant to HRS § 28-3, the Attorney General’s duty to disclose legal opinions in response to questions of law posed by any head of department is not discretionary. If the head of any department poses a question of law, the Attorney General’s response must be filed in accordance with HRS § 28-3 absent other considerations set out in HRS §§ 92F-13 and 14. [FN] 3.

    Footnote 3 from that opinion states:

    § 28-3 provides that the “attorney general shall file a copy of each opinion.., within three days of the date it is issued” (emphasis added). Generally, the legislature uses the word “shall” to Indicate its intention to make the provision mandatory and not discretionary. State v. Shannon, 118 Haw. 15, 25 (2008)."

    Source


    That's plenty clear enough even for obtuse and lying OBots.

    ReplyDelete
  40. @RS

    Hey, Red, I told ya to stop malpracticing law. Illinois law -- ya know, the law that applied in the Ryan case? -- has zero application in Hawaii. A Hawaiian statute, HRS 338-18, is at issue. That means cases interpreting that specific statute are the only ones with precedential value.

    You fail. Again. Good thing you don't have real clients.

    ReplyDelete
  41. @RS

    Hey Red, that statute applies only to formal advisory opinions on QUESTIONS OF LAW. But you haven't shown that the AG (1) rendered an opinion on a QUESTION OF LAW when reviewing the press release, and (2) gave FORMAL written advice. As counsel to the state agencies, the AG's office also provides informal advice, sometimes orally.

    Better take down that shingle before you get sued for malpractice.

    ReplyDelete
  42. @Anonymous

    "Hey, Red, I told ya to stop malpracticing law. Illinois law -- ya know, the law that applied in the Ryan case? -- has zero application in Hawaii. "


    Hey OBot, you should quit while you're far behind Sherlock.

    Ryan was sued by the Illinois Chicago Tribune in a CALIFORNIA state court and not in Illinois. You're the fool who brought up that Federal courts look at state law. They only do that for Hawaiian state law? LoL.

    ReplyDelete
  43. @Anonymous

    "Hey Red, that statute applies only to formal advisory opinions on QUESTIONS OF LAW. But you haven't shown that the AG (1) rendered an opinion on a QUESTION OF LAW when reviewing the press release, and (2) gave FORMAL written advice. As counsel to the state agencies, the AG's office also provides informal advice, sometimes orally."


    Hey OBot FogBlower, How do you know the Hawaiian AG didn't put it down in writing? Answer -- you don't know. However, we do know that Bennett did give his opinion to the Hawaiian Department of Health before Director Fukino published her statement. So as usual, you OBots look for loop holes to skirt the spirit and intent of the law.

    The fact according to the Hawaiian DOH:

    Janice Okubo, "The statement was reviewed and approved by our Attorney General Mark Bennett."


    Fact - AG Bennet gave his opinion concerning Fukino's July 27, 2009 statement where she said Obama was a "natural born American citizen"

    Again, from my post above,

    "§28-3 Gives opinions. The attorney general SHALL, when requested, give opinions upon questions of law submitted by the governor, the legislature, or its members, or the head of any department. The attorney general shall file a copy of each opinion with the lieutenant governor, the public archives..."

    You see the word "SHALL"? That is not a request in accordance with Hawaiian state law, that is a command.

    However, we do know that Hawaii does not follow their own state laws when they find them to be inCONvenient as they are corrupt.

    ReplyDelete
  44. For all of those readers who want to do something now: meet me for the BIRFDAY PARTY beginning at the SCOTUS on AUGUST 4, 2011 at high noon!!! Look for the INVERTED AMERICAN flag(s). We will speak, shout, sing, throw water balloons, stamp dollars, and march to the White House where we will do it again!!!
    Contact me, tojo, at collingswoodbirther@yahoo.com

    ReplyDelete
  45. Now all you need to to is prove it was an opinion on a question of law.

    See how that works?

    ReplyDelete
  46. @Anonymous

    Prove it? That's quite a come down for a know-it-all Foggybutt on this thread. LoL.

    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.