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: 5
34
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by spoorWhen did obama waive privacy rights?


He waived them the first time he accepted a PUBLIC funded paycheck.

He can't have it both ways.




posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


You sure do use a lot of words to say very little. Let me distill it down and make it really easy for you.

If I show you all my medical records, does that mean you can go and get them from my doctor?
Yes or no?



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by VforVendettea

Originally posted by spoorWhen did obama waive privacy rights?


He waived them the first time he accepted a PUBLIC funded paycheck.

He can't have it both ways.


Says who? You?
We just going to make up new rules with each president?



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Undertough
 

hmmmm, specific about a document you say??
even though clarification was requested more than twice ???
ohhhhh, u must be one of the Obama clan ... right??
divert, disect and dismiss ... ok, i got it now


kinda like those imaginary privacy laws you keep alluding to right?
yeah ok whatever, your circular conversation provides nothing more than entertainment.

what Orly may or may not have done previously, has no impact on the subpoenas filed recently ... and yes, i said subpoenaS ... which is exactly why i asked you to identify the one you seem to question.

as for the currently filed documents, they appear proper ... regardless if the DCs signature is legible.
i'm relatively sure you couldn't read mine either. and in light of that, what difference does it make?

IF there is a filing error, it will be discovered (probably not by you)
but in the meantime, his faithful followers sure are losing ground quickly and that makes me feel warm and fuzzy all over



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Undertough
reply to post by Honor93
 


You sure do use a lot of words to say very little. Let me distill it down and make it really easy for you.

If I show you all my medical records, does that mean you can go and get them from my doctor?
Yes or no?

poor analogy cause I could ... as a matter of fact, i could get your diagnosis BEFORE you ... how ya like that one?
how is irrelevant. less words, more to the point for ya, eh?

btw, you sure use a lot of nonsense to disprove other nonsense ... interesting tactic.
and also, if you post your med records in a public forum, i have the 'right' to do with them whatever i choose and you have -0- recourse.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American
Big sigh.

Birthers. I'll have to give it to 'em, they won't give up. The sad thing is, even if proven 100% wrong, they probably still won't give up.

/TOA


If it was own father, my own child, or Jesus Christ himself. If there was the glaring appearance of inpropriety as in this case, I would stand on the side of the truth to the death. If I was wrong, I would apologize openly but warn the prior suspected party to demonstrate better communications skills to prevent future misunderstandings.

Yes, I am a prick. I've worked for the military for 40 years and 7 days as of 08/09/2011.



posted on Aug, 9 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   

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


Yeah, you kinda can. All it takes is your signature on the right form and your medical records can be released to whoever you want them released to. If you were to sign that form indicating that your local news could have access, and they decided to air them, you could in effect release your medical records to the world. Presidents have done similar things in the past which is what leads to sites like this, which as you can see includes presidents elected after HIPPA became law. That information is no longer protected by HIPPA because they released it themselves. Kinda irrelevant to the topic overall, but figured I'd throw it out there.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by VforVendettea

Originally posted by spoorWhen did obama waive privacy rights?


He waived them the first time he accepted a PUBLIC funded paycheck.


So you claim every public service, or anyone that acceps a public funder paycheck, including those on Social Security, have waived their rights to privacy....

every day the birthers keep getting sillier and sillier!



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

California attorney Orly Taitz today secured an order from United States District Court Magistrate Judge Richard L. Puglisi demanding representatives of the Hawaii Department of Health appear in federal court Sept. 14 to show why Taitz should be prevented from seeing whatever original 1961 documents the agency has on record regarding Barack Obama's birth.
.


Can you show the document where Judge Richard Puglisi stated the above?



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 

perhaps, once the paper version of the order is received and/or posted.

the motion on record can be found here: docs
[motion to show cause 8/8/2011]

the docket scheduling is confirmation that the above mentioned "motion" has been entered, accepted and is scheduled to be heard (Sept whatever)



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
the docket scheduling is confirmation that the above mentioned "motion" has been entered, accepted and is scheduled to be heard (Sept whatever)


Actually, there is no date in September in that document, and no Judges name,



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by VforVendettea

Originally posted by spoorWhen did obama waive privacy rights?


He waived them the first time he accepted a PUBLIC funded paycheck.


So you claim every public service, or anyone that acceps a public funder paycheck, including those on Social Security, have waived their rights to privacy....

every day the birthers keep getting sillier and sillier!

truth be told, for the most part, Yes.
and it goes like this ... SS = social security
SS representative/desk jockey (state/feds) requests personal info from a SS recipient - for fun, let's say a certified copy of my birth certificate. - [same as the fraudulent one Bo permitted to be posted online]

Now, the SS recipient (in this example, me) provides info upon request and yes, i lose ALL claim to said information and its eventual disposition.
Should it be mishandled and 'accidentally' be made publicly available (in any number of ways), i have -0- recourse.

Of course there are exceptions ... if the info exchanged for $$ (and caught of course), owner has recourse and perpetrator would likely be prosecuted.
if info was obtained illegally or fraudulently, more than one person could be in trouble.
if the info was used (identity theft), the owner has eventual recourse ... but, this does take quite the effort and great amounts of time to resolve, ask anyone who has been there.

it personally took me 4yrs to convince the FL VA hospital/bureaucracy that a man was officially dead, since 2006.
that's truly a questionable thing that 'privacy'.
And, more often than not, the owner has no recourse and much difficulty correcting any wrongdoings along the way.

If this seems confusing, look at it this way ... Anonymous & Sony
Anonymous could only be 'charged'
with tampering type charges.
They did not profit, or intentionally violate the 'perceived' privacy of Sony customers.

However, since the rule of 'finders keepers' often applies ~~ should an unscrupulous member get away with using that information for other nefarious purposes, the owner of that info (you/me) has -0- recourse, unless it's something foolish like Id theft.

Those who possess it, possess it, period. they are under no rule other than gentlemanly consideration as to what they do with it.

If you are a state employee with an injury, surprise, you just waived many of your 'guaranteed' HIPAA rights.
Should you choose to use an OON (out of network) specialist and your records have to be transferred, you must first sign a waiver ... ring any bells?

this argument of privacy is as much a misnomer as Bo is.
edit on 10-8-2011 by Honor93 because: add txt



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by Honor93
the docket scheduling is confirmation that the above mentioned "motion" has been entered, accepted and is scheduled to be heard (Sept whatever)


Actually, there is no date in September in that document, and no Judges name,

Really ??? no kidding? there isn't supposed to be in that document.
it isn't the 'order' he signed and Orly doesn't get to take it home like some kind of trophy.
The order is processed, entered, filed and served ... it's a process
(dang, that sentence made me hungry
)

i would safely surmise that the moment it is received, it will be posted and available for inquiring minds like yours

edit on 10-8-2011 by Honor93 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 

nice attempt to obfuscate the obvious.
this subpoena is for an appearance ... and reason to show cause of non-compliance.

when the next step is taken, then you can 'assume' such things but since this isn't that far, why bother?

No, the subpoena is for a Production of documents under FRCP 34. The request for an appearance is in a different Motion to Compel/Show Cause under FRCP 37.
Taitz, who obviously can't make up her mind whether she wants to be a lawyer or dentist or real estate agent or Corsi babe, is now zero for about fifteen.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Undertough
 

so, your sticking to a declaration of a procedural error submitted by 'someone' to a blog, back in May, 2011 -- ok
apparently, the subpoena was Not quashed but addressed (that's some procedural error)
and subsequently docketed for further action.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 

nice attempt to obfuscate the obvious.
this subpoena is for an appearance ... and reason to show cause of non-compliance.

when the next step is taken, then you can 'assume' such things but since this isn't that far, why bother?

No, the subpoena is for a Production of documents under FRCP 34. The request for an appearance is in a different Motion to Compel/Show Cause under FRCP 37.
Taitz, who obviously can't make up her mind whether she wants to be a lawyer or dentist or real estate agent or Corsi babe, is now zero for about fifteen.

so you say but it has been accepted, processed and scheduled
if you are so sure of her procedural errors, why don't you offer some assistance ?
oh that's right ... you prefer to sling mudd instead.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Only one item needs to be explained. On its face this item is a prima facie evidence of forgery.
The word "African" is used on the document for "Father's Race"?

This is impossible for any official government document issued in 1961 from any state of the United States.
The official designation for anyone from the Negroid race in 1961 was either "colored" or "Negro".

The word "African" proves it's a forgery! Not only did they fake the document they gave the world the finger by clinging to their politically correct racial designations as they did it!



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 

nice attempt to obfuscate the obvious.
this subpoena is for an appearance ... and reason to show cause of non-compliance.

when the next step is taken, then you can 'assume' such things but since this isn't that far, why bother?

No, the subpoena is for a Production of documents under FRCP 34. The request for an appearance is in a different Motion to Compel/Show Cause under FRCP 37.
Taitz, who obviously can't make up her mind whether she wants to be a lawyer or dentist or real estate agent or Corsi babe, is now zero for about fifteen.

so you say but it has been accepted, processed and scheduled
if you are so sure of her procedural errors, why don't you offer some assistance ?
oh that's right ... you prefer to sling mudd instead.


A subpoena is not "accepted." Nor is one "processed" except insofar as someone might fill one out. If you go down to your local U S District Court Clerk's Office, you will find pads and pads of them, often pre-stamped with the Clerk's stamp. And you don't "schedule" a subpoena. A court might schedule a hearing on a Motion to Show Cause, which is when the procedural errors would be brought up. A Judge in the District of Columbia lacks the jurisdiction to order any discovery, like a Production of Documents, in Hawaii. And why on earth would I want to assist Orly? Her bumblings provide far to much entertainment.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 


A subpoena is not "accepted." Nor is one "processed" except insofar as someone might fill one out. If you go down to your local U S District Court Clerk's Office, you will find pads and pads of them, often pre-stamped with the Clerk's stamp. And you don't "schedule" a subpoena. A court might schedule a hearing on a Motion to Show Cause, which is when the procedural errors would be brought up. A Judge in the District of Columbia lacks the jurisdiction to order any discovery, like a Production of Documents, in Hawaii. And why on earth would I want to assist Orly? Her bumblings provide far to much entertainment.

oh please ... this thread is not about a subpoena !!
this is about the ExParte MOTION filed 8/8 which was scheduled to be heard in Sept 2011
(not quashed) ... see previously provided links

subpoenas (been there done that) are most certainly processed.
pre-stamped?? not in any clerks office i've ever entered.
no, you or i don't 'schedule' a subpoena (for delivery) but the court does via a process server.

The motion that was filed and scheduled to be heard in September confuses you how?
As for procedural issues, that's up to the court to decide, not you or me.
Instructions are often mis-interpreted and lawyers frequently make mistakes ... it's all part of the game and i thoroughly agree this whole event is entertaining.

yeah, i guess i should have known better than to suggest you assist ... ridicule, critique and condemnation seem to be more your style.
edit on 10-8-2011 by Honor93 because: format



posted on Aug, 11 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 



no, you or i don't 'schedule' a subpoena (for delivery) but the court does via a process server.



Even the use of the term "process server" indicates an unfamiliarity with Federal Court practice. Process Servers are not used for subpoenas in US District Courts. FRCP 45 (b)(1) provides that, "Any person who is at least 18 years old and not a party may serve a subpoena." Process Servers are used for Summons and for papers in state courts.The same Rule requires personal delivery of a subpoena. Orly's office mailed this one to Hawaii.
And you referred to an "ex parte" motion. This means that the person filing it is trying to get a hearing without representation of the other side. All motions, regardless of the merits of the motion, are scheduled for a hearing either before the judge, or a Magistrate, who is not a "real" judge, but is an appointed lawyer who disposes of most preliminary matters like discovery disputes. All motions are heard en masse on a scheduled day, usually referred to as 'motion day' or 'calendar day'.
And as far as trying to quash a subpoena, that is unnecessary if it is null ab initio, by, for instance being signed (issued) by the wrong person, which this one was, or by being issued by the wrong court, which this one was, or by being improperly served, which, guess what, this one was. The best response to such an abject failure is to just "lay under the log," letting the opponent colossally embarrass themselves, and letting the judge issue FRCP Rule 11 sanctions, to which Orly is not a stranger



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join