Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The
latest
chapter
in
the
still-not-yet-dead
Hawaiian
antics
of
Dr.
Orly
Taitz,
Esq
Dr.
Orly
Taitz,
Esq
v.
Loretta
Fuddy
and
Dr.
Alvin
Onaka
Circuit
Court
for
the
First
Circuit,
State
of
Hawaii
Civil
Case
11-1-1731
Petition
for
a
Writ
of
Mandamus
and
Request
for
Inspection
of
Records
Under
United
Information
Practices
Act,
Statute
92F,
State
of
Hawaii
I:
Background
1.
10
August
2011:
Orly
Taitz
filed
suit
against
Hawaii
Director
of
Health
Loretta
Fuddy
and
Hawaii
Registrar
Alvin
Onaka.
Taitz
alleged
that
the
Department
of
Health
had
failed
to
comply
with
Hawaiis
Uniform
Information
Practices
Act
(UIPA)
by
denying
Taitz
access
to
President
Barack
Obamas
original
long
form
birth
certificate.1
2.
12
October
2011:
A
hearing
is
held
on
the
State
of
Hawaiis
Motion
to
Dismiss.
The
Motion
to
Dismiss
is
granted
at
the
conclusion
of
the
hearing.
The
State
is
instructed
to
prepare
the
order.2
3.
10
November
2011:
The
order
dismissing
Taitz
v
Fuddy
is
signed
and
filed.
The
court
docket
reflects
that
the
case
was
terminated
on
10
November
2011.3
4.
30
November
2011:
A
hearing
is
due
to
be
held
on
Taitzs
Motion
for
Rehearing.
Unfortunately,
Taitz
is
under
the
impression
that
the
hearing
is
being
held
on
her
Amended
Motion
for
Rehearing.
Judge
Rhonda
Nishimura
spends
a
great
deal
of
time
patiently
explaining
to
Taitz
that
a
new
motion
cannot
be
substituted
for
an
older
one
without
setting
a
new
hearing
date.
Taitz
attempts
to
argue
her
original
motion.
This
attempt
is
marred
by
the
fact
that
Taitz
does
not
have
a
copy
of
the
original
motion
with
her,
and
is
unable
to
recall
what
was
actually
in
the
original
motion.
Taitz
ultimately
withdraws
the
original
motion
in
order
to
re-submit
the
amended
motion
as
a
new
motion.4
5.
Various
Dates
in
December,
2011:
Taitz
fills
out
subpoenas
pre-printed
with
a
facsimile
of
the
signature
of
Deputy
Chief
Judge
Michael
Malihi
of
the
Georgia
Office
of
Administrative
Hearings.5,6
At
that
time,
a
blank
copy
of
the
subpoena
form,
complete
with
the
facsimile
signature
of
Judge
Malihi,
was
available
on
the
website
of
the
Georgia
Office
of
Administrative Hearings.7 Taitz has a case scheduled for the later part of January in front of Judge Malihi in a Georgia ballot challenge. 6. 29 December 2011: Taitz posts a Motion Reciprocal Subpoena Enforcement/Motion to hear in conjunction with the scheduled motion on January 6,2012 [sic] on her website. This motion appears to be an attempt to have Judge Nishimura enforce the alleged subpoenas from the Georgia Office of Administrative Hearings case as part of the already dismissed Taitz v Fuddy case. 7. 5 January 2012: Taitz, apparently failing to comprehend the legal lesson that Judge Nishimura had so generously provided during the 30 November hearing, files an Amended Motion Reciprocal Subpoena Enforcement/Motion to hear in conjunction with the scheduled motion on January 6,2012/Request for Judicial Notice of Order Denying Motion to Dismiss by Deft Obama in Ballot Challenge By Attorney Taitz.8 7. 6 January 2012: Another hearing is held in the dismissed Taitz v Fuddy case. (This is the second hearing since the case was dismissed.) Judge Nishimura informs Taitz that the Motion Reciprocal Subpoena Enforcement has been scheduled for a 26 January hearing. Taitz is also informed that, while there is in fact a procedure for having a motion heard faster than would normally be the case, that procedure actually involves more than merely including the word emergency somewhere in the title of the motion. Taitz is also informed that this rule does apply to her. The Motion Reciprocal Subpoena Enforcement is not argued. The motion for rehearing is argued, and denied. The Taitz v Fuddy case remains dismissed.9 8. 6 January 2012: Taitz submits an EX PARTE AMENDED Motion Reciprocal Subpoena Enforcement/Request for judicial notice of order Denying motion to dismiss by defendant Obama in ballot challenge by attorney Taitz [sic]. In her proposed order, Taitz has Judge Nishimura ordering immediate compliance with the alleged Georgia subpoenas, without the bother of actually holding a hearing. 10 9. 9 January 2012: The Court grants the portion of Taitzs ex parte motion that requests that the hearing on the Motion Reciprocal Subpoena Enforcement be held prior to the scheduled date. The new hearing date is 13 January 2012.11
IV:
Apparent
and/or
Potential
Major
Problem
Areas
in
the
Motion
Scheduled
for
Argument:
1:
Service.
In
addition
to
whatever
problems
may
exist
with
the
service
of
the
underlying
subpoena
and
the
original
service
of
the
Motion
Reciprocal
Subpoena
Enforcement,
there
may
be
problems
with
the
order
moving
the
hearing.
Taitz
was
ordered
to
serve
the
Defendants
no
later
than
Wednesday,
11
January.
Presumably,
that
refers
to
Drs.
Fuddy
and
Onaka,
as
they
are
the
defendants
in
the
case
that
Taitz
is
misusing
to
bring
the
subpoenas
to
court,
and
not
President
Obama,
who
is
the
defendant
in
the
Georgia
case
that
served
as
the
case
that
Taitz
is
misusing
to
issue
the
subpoenas
in
the
first
place.
It
is
unknown
if
service
has
occurred.
This
is
a
perpetual
problem
area
for
Taitz,
so
it
would
not
be
a
surprise
if
the
Order
was
not
served
properly
(or
possibly
at
all).
2.
What
do
the
subpoenas
have
to
do
with
Taitz
v
Fuddy?
The
question
speaks
for
itself,
really.
Taitz
v
Fuddy
is
dead
and
buried.
The
subpoenas
are
not
issued
as
a
part
of
Taitz
v
Fuddy.
The
subpoenas
were
not
issued
until
weeks
after
Taitz
v
Fuddy
was
dismissed.
The
subpoenas represent a totally different attempt to get the relief that was denied to Taitz as a result of the rulings in Taitz v Fuddy, Taitz v Astrue (DC District), Taitz v Astrue (HI District), and Drake et al v Obama. 3. Unauthorized Practice of Law. In the Motion Reciprocal Subpoena Enforcement, Taitz states that the subpoena was issued in a Georgia case, and that Taitz is representing clients in that case. Taitz has not been admitted to the bar in Hawaii. Attempting to attach the Georgia subpoenas to the unrelated Hawaii case where Taitz is a pro se plaintiff appears to be nothing more than a transparent effort to slip around Hawaiis unauthorized practice of law statutes. 4. Materially False Statements. In the Motion Reciprocal Subpoena Enforcement, Taitz states that the subpoena was signed by Judge Michael Malihi. This statement is false, and Taitz knows it to be false. Taitz obtained the blank subpoena online, with a facsimile of the Judges signature already printed on the blank form. The completed subpoena was not signed by Judge Malihi. Taitz simply filled in the blanks and mailed them. Similarly, Taitz implies that these subpoenas are an order from a court of competent jurisdiction. Taitz filled the subpoenas out and sent them herself. She knows that the court issued no orders regarding these subpoenas.
Endnotes:
1
http://www.scribd.com/doc/64159273/TAITZ-v-FUDDY-et-al-HI-CIR-CT-COMPLAINT- TRANSCRIPT-OF-HEARING-10-12-11-Taitz101211
3
http://www.scribd.com/doc/77566820/Taitz-v-Fuddy-Dism-Order
4
http://www.scribd.com/doc/76186157/TAITZ-v-FUDDY-HI-Cir-Ct-Certified-Transcript- Hearing-Held-Nov-30-2011-tfb
5
http://www.scribd.com/doc/75515549/Loretta-Fuddy-Hawaii-DOH-Subpoena-For- Obama-Birth-Certificate-and-1961-Microfiche-Roll
6
WARNING:
Site
at
following
link
may
contain
malware:
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=29459
7
http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=6845&start=475#p316316
8
A
copy
of
this
document
is
not
yet
available.
9
A
copy
of
this
transcript
is
not
yet
available.
10
http://www.scribd.com/doc/77851743/TAITZ-v-FUDDY-HI-CIR-CT-Amended-Ex-Parte- Motion-Reciprocal-Subpoena-Enforcement
11
http://www.scribd.com/doc/77844663/TAITZ-v-FUDDY-HI-CIR-CT-Order-to-Expedite- Hearing
12
Given
that
the
hearing
will
take
place
on
13
January
2012,
argument
on
this
point
will
logically
not
be
heard.
But
its
Taitz.
2
http://www.scribd.com/doc/71613967/TAITZ-v-FUDDY-HI-CIR-CT-CERTIFIED-