This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
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”
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 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 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
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
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.
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 Hawaii’s 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 Judge’s 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.
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 it’s Taitz.