Honolulu US Court Subpoena's for Obama's Birth Certificate

Looks to be official. I didn't see anyone post this. But, I know most of you maybe interested in it. It would be interesting to see the outcome on this and what steps they plan to take if it is forged.

U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN HONOLULU SUBPOENAS LORETTA J. FUDDY, HAWAII HEALTH DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR

by Sharon Rondeau

The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii issued and served a subpoena on July 5, 2011 to the director of the Hawaii Health Department for Obama's original birth certificate

(Jul. 5, 2011) — A process server has delivered a Hawaii court-issued subpoena to Loretta J. Fuddy, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, commanding her “to produce at the time, date, and place set forth below the following documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and permit their inspection, copying testing, or sampling of the material:”

http:// www.thepostemail.com/2011/07/05/exclusive-court-subpoena-for-obamas-original-birth-certificate-served-to-hawaii-health-department/

S + F!
This is great news. I really hope nothing gets in the way of this actually going down.

I guess Hawaii ain't buying dat #

Originally posted by mb2591
I guess Hawaii ain't buying dat #

So the governor, the dept. of health are not the state of Hawaii.
A court clerk in one court in Hawaii is the state of Hawaii?

The server’s signature appears in cursive writing and is printed on the line below. It is stamped with the following below the process server’s signature and printed name:

Law Offices of Orly Taitz, Esq.
29639 Santa Margarita Pkwy. Ste 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
:

I haven't followed this too closely, but this name seems to bring up accusations of profit motives

wassup ?

Originally posted by Kitilani
S + F!
This is great news. I really hope nothing gets in the way of this actually going down.

What's S + F mean? Thanks.

Originally posted by Manhater

Originally posted by Kitilani
S + F!
This is great news. I really hope nothing gets in the way of this actually going down.

What's S + F mean? Thanks.

silly and frivolous

j/k star and flag

reply to post by Manhater


Star
and
Flag

She's requiring disclosure of protected documents.

The last subpoena she issued was clearly bogus as explained here, and was ignored by Fuddy. In this new subpoena, Orly included a letter (and sent a copy to several congressmen, Eric Holder and the Director of the FBI) that states the following...

…we have an individual with a forged birth certificate and an invalid Social Security number usurping the position of the US president and Commander in Chief of the whole US military. Your and Ms. Fuddy’s refusal to provide access to the original birth certificate can be viewed as aiding and abetting to uttering of a forged document and elections fraud. Based on all of the above, I am respectfully requesting an administrative review of my appeal and granting access to the original document in question. If the appeal is not granted within 30 days, I will be taking further action.

She has determined that the BC is forged and she's requesting proof that she's wrong. This subpoena will be quashed, just like the last one.

Federal Subpoena Rules

(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena.

(A) When Required. On timely motion, the issuing court must quash or modify a subpoena that:

(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;

(ii) requires a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer to travel more than 100 miles from where that person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person — except that, subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(iii), the person may be commanded to attend a trial by traveling from any such place within the state where the trial is held;

(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies;

If this turns up inconclusive of any fabrication, "birthers" will really start to look crazy

I, for the record, am very skeptical of Obama's birth place. I'm afraid if they don't uncover anything, assuming further that even the requested information was fake would cause a portion of this community to be labled paranoid Obama haters.

Do we rest on this and settle after the fact? I believe so

EDIT*

(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena.

(A) When Required. On timely motion, the issuing court must quash or modify a subpoena that:

(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;

(ii) requires a person who is neither a party nor a party's officer to travel more than 100 miles from where that person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person — except that, subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(iii), the person may be commanded to attend a trial by traveling from any such place within the state where the trial is held;

(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies;

Shouldn't the birth certificate of the President of the United States be disclosed in any and all forms? I don't consider this to be privileged or protected material myself but I could be wrong.

What's wrong is that when I apply for a job, I can be expected to produce a legitimate birth certificate from the get go, not something like "I have the privilege to withhold that information", well I could but I wouldn't be hired

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Oh, ok, thanks. Be interesting to see if it doesn't get squashed.

Originally posted by Manhater
It would be interesting to see the outcome on this

We already know the outcome, it will be rejected

and what steps they plan to take if it is forged.

Why do you think the records held by the Hawaiin Department of health are forged?

Originally posted by Manhater

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Oh, ok, thanks. Be interesting to see if it doesn't get squashed.

That pesky constitution and laws are all going to conspire to have it quashed but personally I am sick of privacy protections for US citizens and think it is about time that any that wants to can accuse others of a crime and then demand proof they did not in the form of private documents that are legally protected.

I see great potential in that for me.

reply to post by Manhater


If this is true that's one federal judge that will soon join the ranks of the unemployed. I hope this is true and I hope it works out.

reply to post by OptimusSubprime


What judge?

Yeah, but don't they say that both parents have to be natural born US Citizens in order to be a US President? His father is not a natural born US Citizen so, that would still disqualify him to be a President. Wouldn't it?

Not sure anything except the upcoming election will remove him from office. This is a waste of time and money. It was "too late" 2 years ago.

Originally posted by Manhater
Yeah, but don't they say that both parents have to be natural born US Citizens in order to be a US President? His father is not a natural born US Citizen so, that would still disqualify him to be a President. Wouldn't it?

edit on 6-7-2011 by Manhater because: (no reason given)

No, birthers say that.
Unfortunately it is not true.

Originally posted by Artanis667
Shouldn't the birth certificate of the President of the United States be disclosed in any and all forms? I don't consider this to be privileged or protected material myself but I could be wrong.

Sorry, but the President is entitled to the same measures of personal privacy by law any other US citizen is.

What's wrong is that when I apply for a job, I can be expected to produce a legitimate birth certificate from the get go, not something like "I have the privilege to withhold that information", well I could but I wouldn't be hired

edit on 6-7-2011 by Artanis667 because: (no reason given)

The requirement to provide that data comes from the I-9 form you have to fill out. If you pull up a copy of an I-9, you'll see that there are many options to providing a BC available.

Originally posted by Artanis667
What's wrong is that when I apply for a job, I can be expected to produce a legitimate birth certificate from the get go, not something like "I have the privilege to withhold that information", well I could but I wouldn't be hired

edit on 6-7-2011 by Artanis667 because: (no reason given)

Who do you have to show it to? Your boss? The head of HR? Everyone in the building? All the rest of us?