Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
18Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Crib Notes for 13 January Hearing in Taitz v Fuddy

Crib Notes for 13 January Hearing in Taitz v Fuddy

Ratings:

5.0

(1)
|Views: 199|Likes:
Published by Mike Dunford
An relatively brief brief on the issues for the 13 January hearing where Taitz is demanding that a Hawaii Court enforce subpoenas from an unrelated Georgia case.
An relatively brief brief on the issues for the 13 January hearing where Taitz is demanding that a Hawaii Court enforce subpoenas from an unrelated Georgia case.

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Mike Dunford on Jan 12, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/03/2015

pdf

text

original

 
WhattheHellDoesOrlyThinkShe’sDoinginHawaii:
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HawaiiCivil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”
Part3:TheCribNotesforthe13January2012Hearing
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Hawaii’sUniformInformationPracticesAct(UIPA)bydenyingTaitzaccesstoPresidentBarackObama’soriginallongformbirthcertificate.
1

2.12October2011:
AhearingisheldontheStateofHawaii’s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Taitz’s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JudgeNishimura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SubpoenaEnforcement/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Taitz’s
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

 
II:MattersBeforetheCourton13January:
AccordingtotheCourtMinutes,themotionthatisscheduledtobeheardon13January2012isthe“MotionReciprocalSubpoenaEnforcement/Motiontohearinconjunction”.AcopyofthismotionwasattachedtotheOrderreschedulingthehearingfrom26Januaryto13January.Thisistheoriginalmotion,nottheAmendedoneTaitzattemptedtosubmiton5January.Therearethreeissuesraisedinthismotion:1.Can/ShouldTaitz’sallegedGeorgiaSubpoenabeenforcedbytheHawaiicourt?2.DoesasubpoenaissuedinanunrelatedcaseaftertheTaitzvFuddycasewasdismissed(ifvalid)createareasontoreconsiderthatdismissal?3.Can/Shouldthemotionbeheardon6January2012?
12
III:MattersNotBeforetheCourton13January:
1.Taitz’s“AmendedMotionReciprocal…”.On30November2011,Taitzwasrepeatedlyinformedthatthereisnoprovisionforamendingamotion.On5January,Taitzapparentlyattemptedtoamendamotion.Itislikelythatshewillattempttoarguetheamendedmotion.2.TherequestforjudicialnoticeofthedenialofthemotiontodismissintheGeorgiacase.Thiswassubmittedaspartoftheamendedmotion.3.SocialSecurityNumbers,PDFfiles,layersinelectronicimages,thequestionabletestimonyofallegedexperts,Indonesia,Kenya,birthcertificatesingeneral,Obama’sbirthcertificateinparticular,fraud,forgery,oranyoftheotherpartsofthenormallitanyofTatziancomplaints,noneofwhichwerementionedinthemotionthatisscheduledtobeheardon13January2012.
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

Activity (18)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
silverbull8 added this note
Aren't attorneys officers of the court who may issue subpoena?
silverbull8 added this note
If Obama wins, then you lose too. You won't win anything if the "birthers" lose against Obama. Think about it. You got suckered into blind devotion to Obama, but he got through the 2008 election by fooling you. If he wins, then you lose, but I can see where you are being blinded. You are stuck in denial, and I am trying to help you through it. Good luck.
funnyhaha71 added this note
This is amazingly helpful. Taitz v Fuddy is a chaotic case. Without this crib sheet, I would haven't even tried to keep track of everything Orly's insanity!
silverbull8 added this note
Orly needs to bring true evidence into court. Obama's vault copy original long form birth certificate originated in the Hawaii Department of Health, but the document of origin can be challenged, by any attorney so wishing to make a challenge, thereby proofing the chain of evidence, and removing any cloud of doubt.
silverbull8 liked this
silverbull8 liked this
funnyhaha71 liked this
funnyhaha71 liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->