It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Magistrate Judge Orders Hawaii Health Officials to Appear in Court to Explain Obama's Birth Records

page: 4
34
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by caladonea
I really don't think that anything will come of all of this....there are people in (very high places)......that have the President covered.....and if there are any discrepancies in his birth certificate...by the time... the September court date arrives....(all the birth certificate ducks will be in a row) so to speak. They will find ...nothing.



I just wanted to repeat this...




posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Caji316
reply to post by yoesse
 


You are exactly right....The place where the real BC is stored is due for a fire one night, real, real soon......Sorry that it got to happen, but it does......The nation is not ready for the truth that is on his BC at this time....


Wow you sure seem to know a lot of stuff.
So when is this fire going to happen?
Where is the location of the "real" birth certificate?
What do you mean by "real?"
What would be on the "real" one that is different from the ones we have seen?



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by caladonea
I really don't think that anything will come of all of this....there are people in (very high places)......that have the President covered.....and if there are any discrepancies in his birth certificate...by the time... the September court date arrives....(all the birth certificate ducks will be in a row) so to speak. They will find ...nothing.



Ok...I am repeating my message for a second time....what I wrote is. what is going to happen...wake up people!



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by caladonea
 


Maybe you need to repeat it a few more times.
Are you upset you did not get a response or more stars or what? It is not like you are posting louder in case someone failed to hear it.

Besides, what makes you believe your opinion is so valid and important that it needs to be the only thing you post and you post it 3 times? We all have them and without any reason to believe yours is any more valid than mine, repeating it is not going to help.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Undertough
 


Perhaps you are somewhat right.....and I apologize to those that are annoyed.....I guess that was my way of ranting ..a bit..(lol) as for the stars....I don't care about all of that....take care...peace out.
edit on 9-8-2011 by caladonea because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Undertough
 


Just sounds like your opinion vs my opinion.

Unless you want to find some source that says you are right and I am wrong, you have proven nothing except that you dis-agree with me. lol... I already knew that... didn't require a response from you.

I was just giving you my opinion. Say it with me "O---PIN---ION"

So do you have any sources for your supposed expert legal knowledge or are you going to just keep spouting baseless opinion as fact?

Seeing how you are asserting that your opinion is based on legal facts?

I never asserted as much, I even went so far as to outright say "I feel" not "I know for a fact". Though common sense and logic tell me I am right.

ETA: this is what I was saying to you... suppose somebody decides to put a copy of Obamas birth certificate on their website, then out of the blue, Obama says "Hey, I don't want it there". If he tried to sue the person to take it off, in my OPINION he would not win because he has entered his BC into the public domain.

How can a document that has been made public by the owner be protected by privacy laws? Once the document has been made public, by the owner, it is no longer private BY DEFINITION. Privacy laws DO NOT apply to a public document. Privacy laws DO pertain to private documents.

Can you really not understand that Obama made his birth certificate public? He had a press conference and supplied it to the media? Can you really not concede that it is no longer private information? Does that sound like something someone would do to protect the privacy of their birth certificate? Giving it to the media?

I am not sure there is much point in talking with you as you seem more concerned with supporting your position than having a rational, objective thought.
edit on 9-8-2011 by sageofmonticello because: ETA



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
reply to post by Undertough
 


Just sounds like your opinion vs my opinion.


No. You were specifically talking about "legally" this and "legally" that. These things are not things up for debate. If you do not know if something is against the law or not, you do not get to just decide for yourself and call it a difference of opinion.


Unless you want to find some source that says you are right and I am wrong, you have proven nothing except that you dis-agree with me. lol... I already knew that... didn't require a response from you.


You are the one making specific claims about privacy law so why do you not need to prove your claims are even remotely correct?


I was just giving you my opinion. Say it with me "O---PIN---ION"


Your opinion is of what privacy laws actually are. Say it with me "PRIVACY LAWS." They do not care what your opinion is and I was just pointing that out to you.


So do you have any sources for your supposed expert legal knowledge or are you going to just keep spouting baseless opinion as fact?


Do you?

I know how privacy laws work with regard to myself and that I can show you anything I want and that does not mean you can then demand to see it again. I do not waive my rights by showing private documents on my own terms. You need to show anything that would prove otherwise in order to validate your opinion of what real laws actually are. Get that?


Seeing how you are asserting that your opinion is based on legal facts?


Yes. Try HIPPA for one. There is nothing I can do to waive my right to medical privacy even if I want to.


I never asserted as much, I even went so far as to outright say "I feel" not "I know for a fact". Though common sense and logic tell me I am right.


You did indeed assert as much. You flat out stated it.


ETA: this is what I was saying to you... suppose somebody decides to put a copy of Obamas birth certificate on their website, then out of the blue, Obama says "Hey, I don't want it there". If he tried to sue the person to take it off, in my OPINION he would not win because he has entered his BC into the public domain.


That is not at all what you said though. You are making up a whole new scenario. You can look at that all you want. What does that have to do with waiving his privacy rights? Doesn't that have to do with you wanting to see something else? Otherwise your entire argument is moot. You think he gave up the right to privacy with his BC? OK fine, you can look at it all you want.

What is the problem there?


How can a document that has been made public by the owner be protected by privacy laws? Once the document has been made public, by the owner, it is no longer private BY DEFINITION. Privacy laws no longer apply to a public document.


There you go asserting it again. Please show me the legal basis for this statement that privacy laws no longer apply. Then explain to me what you are even trying to say here because it is lost.


I am not sure there is much point in talking with you as you seem more concerned with supporting your position than having a rational, objective thought.
edit on 9-8-2011 by sageofmonticello because: ETA


I find rational and objective thought rather lacking in these types of threads. Just because I do not agree with your "opinion" of how laws should work in your mind, I am not being rational? How rational are you being?

Maybe we need to just start over. This time, not stating things as fact about laws if you do not actually know, ok?
What privacy are you concerned with here? Is there something you are not being allowed to see that you want to?
edit on 9-8-2011 by Undertough because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Undertough
 


I don't care enough about you to do your research for you. Let alone read your entire response. What you type just doesn't mean enough to me. Winning an "internet argument" for fictional "rep" doesn't really interest me.

Having a rational discussion with objective intelligent people does though.

From my very first post I made it clear that I was giving you my opinion.

You can keep trying to argue in circles. I will keep viewing you as irrational and subjective.

To put it more simply...

I don't care.

I have made my point, I don't have to clarify. You simply keep acting more irrational and subjective. I don't need to say anything else to you as you don't seem to understand any of it. Maybe your thoughts are being clouded by emotions? Just guessing cause I assume in "real life" you act with a little more thought? Maybe not, who knows? You have proven yourself to be acting quite crazy in my OPINION and that does not lead to a productive conversation in my experience.


edit on 9-8-2011 by sageofmonticello because: I felt I was being too mean....



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
reply to post by Undertough
 


I don't care enough about you to do your research for you.


What research did I ever ask you to do for me?

Let alone read your entire response. What you type just doesn't mean enough to me.

[snip] Of course you do not care what I have to say. You are only posting on this forum because you only care about what you have to say. That seems logical.

Winning an "internet argument" for fictional "rep" doesn't really interest me.

Is that all it is now? Here I thought it was some grand conspiracy involving a foreign born president that would be decided in court. But if it really does not matter to you...cool.


Having a rational discussion with objective intelligent people does though.


When do we get to do that? So far all you did was make some claims about privacy laws and completely ignore my more than polite request to just start over. Your argument is not making any sense at all to me.


From my very first post I made it clear that I was giving you my opinion.


You can say that a million times if you like but unfortunately your post is still there for all to read where you state what you believe the law is. Laws do not work that way.


You can keep trying to argue in circles. I will keep viewing you as irrational and subjective.

To put it more simply...

I don't care.


You mean you do not really have an argument. How about just answering my simple question. What are you even complaining about? So what if it is still legally private, you can view it all you want. What is your problem exactly?


I have made my point and you simply act more irrational and subjective. I don't need to say anything else to you as you don't seem to understand any of it. Maybe your thoughts are being clouded by emotions? Just guessing cause I assume in "real life" you act with a little more thought? Maybe not, who knows? You have proven yourself quite crazy in my OPINION and that does not lead to a productive conversation in my experience.

I really have nothing else to say about anything you wrote.
edit on 9-8-2011 by sageofmonticello because: ETA


You are the one just making up things about privacy law and then talking in circles. I asked you a very simple and logical question. Like a typical birther, you could only supply an off topic rant in return.

Why can't you just explain yourself? Do you think you are making sense? You are upset that something is legally private because you think it should not be just because it has been posted online. So...since it has been posted online, why do you care about the privacy law? None of that is preventing you from seeing it.
edit on 10/8/11 by masqua because: Edited personal attack



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Undertough
 


Blah Blah Blah... now you are contradicting what you wrote earlier. I attempted to read your response but couldn't get past your first line.

Sorry. I stand by my above statement. Last you will be hearing from me.

ETA: I am not a birther, LOL just caught that at the bottom of your post. In fact the very first words I typed to you were

"I am not an Obama Hater"

work on your reading comprehension and get back to me...

Whatever. I tried....
edit on 9-8-2011 by sageofmonticello because: ETA



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by sageofmonticello
 


Since all my words are way too much for you, let me make this simple.

What?

Seriously. What is your issue with privacy vs. public anyway? Is there something that you feel is now public, no longer private, that you would like to see but cannot?



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Undertough
 


I truly have no idea what you are talking about. This is seriously getting old and you are just acting more and more childish. I am done, nothing else to say to you, if you have any more questions refer to my previous post.



edit on 9-8-2011 by sageofmonticello because: grammar is important



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
reply to post by Undertough
 


I truly have no idea what you are talking about. This is seriously getting old and you are just acting more and more childish. I am done, nothing else to say to you, if you have any more questions refer to my previous post.



edit on 9-8-2011 by sageofmonticello because: grammar is important


The only thing worse than a birther that cannot explain the things they themselves said, is one that takes the time TWICE to say nothing other than "im not talking to you."

Cool. Sit there believing you are right without any regard to how true it is or if anyone other than you cares. Let me know how that works out.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by sageofmonticello
 



How do you not understand my question. You are suggesting things about privacy law. Why? Specifically with regard to what? I do not understand you at all. If it has been made public, then what is your problem? Do you need to see it more?



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Undertough
 

you can believe whatever you choose, i am not a professional researcher however, i certainly do research subjects of interest

i never addressed the signature claim until you asked.
perhaps you are asking the wrong poster. i looked at the 7/5 subpoena after you asked and found it illegible, but then again, i wasn't there (were you?).
also, i don't know the Deputy Clerk and have no interest in verifying his/her signature ... the subpoena has already been accepted and acted upon.

why would you doubt the credibility of a filed motion? isn't that the job of the Clerk?

hmmm, considering we are viewing the same document (dated 7/5/2011 - to Loretta Fuddy) the DC signature is located at the bottom of the subpoena where it is indicated "Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk" and the phrase Deputy Clerk is underlined. The space for an attorney signature (IF applicable) remains empty.
So, are you claiming Orly fraudulently signed the name of the Deputy Clerk OR that the signature is some other than the DCs?

my apology, someone else claimed a procedural problem ... 4nsicphd

however, you requested confirmation of the signature ...

Could you kindly name the clerk of the court that signed that? That seems to be the only thing I am having trouble with.
and, you don't even identify to which document you refer.

so, you ask the name of the clerk who signed "what" exactly?
apparently you didn't look at ALL of the court documents so please specify to which you refer.
secondly ... you presume fraudulent behavior to gain what? in some circles, this could be considered slander ...

Didn't she already try to issue a faulty subpena once before that was ignored because the issuing clerk was her? I swear we tried this one before.
just cause you "swear it" doesn't mean it's true.

then you went further and addressed me directly with ...

She is still the one that signed it though, right?
Simple yes or no.
me thinks you are addressing the wrong person unless you care to specify which document and then maybe we can arrive at an answer.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Undertough
 


I do not waive my rights by showing private documents on my own terms.
in and of itself, this statement is correct, however, if you post that document for PUBLIC viewing (as Obama did), you have waived your privacy, period.
If you really need a law to understand reality, research dear friend, some of us rely on experience.

and HIPPA, you are joking, right ???
tell that to the people who regularly find their medical records in a ditch alongside a road somewhere



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Undertough
 


I do not waive my rights by showing private documents on my own terms.
in and of itself, this statement is correct, however, if you post that document for PUBLIC viewing (as Obama did), you have waived your privacy, period.

So my statement is correct, but wrong. Um...sure. You are going to need to provide the legal basis for that statement.


If you really need a law to understand reality, research dear friend, some of us rely on experience.

When discussing privacy law the law seems rather important. How do you even attempt to suggest there is a difference between the law and reality? I did not know laws were not real.


and HIPPA, you are joking, right ???
tell that to the people who regularly find their medical records in a ditch alongside a road somewhere


Show me those people.

I notice you failed to dispute what I said about HIPPA.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Undertough
 

you can believe whatever you choose, i am not a professional researcher however, i certainly do research subjects of interest


Am I really getting your permission to believe whatever I choose? Gosh, thanks.


i never addressed the signature claim until you asked.
perhaps you are asking the wrong poster.

I asked the thread in general. Anyone that wanted to answer took it upon themself to do so.

i looked at the 7/5 subpoena after you asked and found it illegible, but then again, i wasn't there (were you?).
also, i don't know the Deputy Clerk and have no interest in verifying his/her signature ... the subpoena has already been accepted and acted upon.

What was that action?


why would you doubt the credibility of a filed motion? isn't that the job of the Clerk?


Because Orly has done it before.


hmmm, considering we are viewing the same document (dated 7/5/2011 - to Loretta Fuddy) the DC signature is located at the bottom of the subpoena where it is indicated "Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk" and the phrase Deputy Clerk is underlined. The space for an attorney signature (IF applicable) remains empty.
So, are you claiming Orly fraudulently signed the name of the Deputy Clerk OR that the signature is some other than the DCs?


You already said that. I know what the line where the signature is says. I only asked what the signature says. Why are you purposely trying to confuse those two issues?


my apology, someone else claimed a procedural problem ... 4nsicphd

however, you requested confirmation of the signature ...

Could you kindly name the clerk of the court that signed that? That seems to be the only thing I am having trouble with.
and, you don't even identify to which document you refer.


Actually that was in specific reference to the subpoena. All you have to do is read.


so, you ask the name of the clerk who signed "what" exactly?
apparently you didn't look at ALL of the court documents so please specify to which you refer.
secondly ... you presume fraudulent behavior to gain what? in some circles, this could be considered slander ...

Didn't she already try to issue a faulty subpena once before that was ignored because the issuing clerk was her? I swear we tried this one before.
just cause you "swear it" doesn't mean it's true.


But she has done this stuff before. She has been fined, sanctioned, and threatened with disbarment. These are not things that are done because of how well you follow the rules. Let's take a look at that last subpoena she issued again.


then you went further and addressed me directly with ...

She is still the one that signed it though, right?
Simple yes or no.
me thinks you are addressing the wrong person unless you care to specify which document and then maybe we can arrive at an answer.


We already went over this. You already brought this exact thing up and I already responded to it. This post makes me doubt your research very much. If you cannot figure out a simple detail like which document I am talking about when I was specific about it leaves me wondering.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Sorry Orly, but your subpoena isn’t valid, and even if it was valid on its face, the Court would have to quash it upon motion of Hawaii. Did you even check the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure before sending this off?

Discovery has not started yet. You cannot take any discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1).

You issued a Dist. DC subpoena for a deposition/production to take place in Hawaii. A subpoena has to be issued under the District Court for where the deposition/production is to take place. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(2).

Your subpoena was not issued by the court. You are not admitted to practice before either the D.D.C. nor D. Hawaii, therfore you cannot sign a subpoena. An attorney can only sign a subpoena when they are admitted to practice in that district where the deposition/production are to occur, or in the court with the underlying matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(3).

Your subpoena is unduly burdensome and can expose you to sanctions, including Hawaii’s attorney fees related to quashing your subpoena. A third party subpoena that requests information that is not relevant to the trial, or reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable evidence is considered unduly burdensome. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1). Your case in DC is over a FOIA request from SSA. Hawaii has nothing to do with social security. Birth certificates are unrelated to request to SSA, because SSA has nothing to do with birth certificates. Your subpoena is not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable information.

Upon request from Hawaii, the Court is required to quash your subpoena. A court is required to quash a subpoena when the documents requested are privileged or protected. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(C)(3)(iii). Hawaii law prohibits the release of birther certificates to people who do not have a direct tangible interest. That means the documents are “otherwise protected.” The subpoena will be quashed.


Educating Orly



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Undertough

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Undertough
 


I do not waive my rights by showing private documents on my own terms.
in and of itself, this statement is correct, however, if you post that document for PUBLIC viewing (as Obama did), you have waived your privacy, period.

So my statement is correct, but wrong. Um...sure. You are going to need to provide the legal basis for that statement.

If you really need a law to understand reality, research dear friend, some of us rely on experience.

When discussing privacy law the law seems rather important. How do you even attempt to suggest there is a difference between the law and reality? I did not know laws were not real.

and HIPPA, you are joking, right ???
tell that to the people who regularly find their medical records in a ditch alongside a road somewhere

Show me those people.
I notice you failed to dispute what I said about HIPPA.

hahahaha, your statement is both right and wrong for one simple reason ... in the USA, there is no such thing as Privacy Laws ... not Constitutionally, not implied and not specifically protected.

While it is true that one can 'expect' a certain level of privacy regarding their personal information, there are no guarantees ... including HIPAA, been there, done that and have picked up others pieces ... it is only protected so long as those in control honor such a commitment. the 'law' does no such thing.

why you would have a desire to waste time and energy discussing NON-existent laws is beyond me. do have a good day ... and btw, i ignored what you say about 'HIPPA' cause you are clueless.

ex: source
IF for some reason the above link doesn't work, just google "medical records dump" and you'll find stories from nearly every state in the country ... some protection there eh?

and, psssst: for the record, it's HIPAA and i worked that industry B4 the change and quite frankly, most info was safeguarded much better then then now.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join