Taitz v Fuddy (HI Cir Ct) MtR2 - "Amended Motion Reciprocal Subpoena Enforcement" - Formerly MtR

raicha · **Posted:** Fri Aug 12, 2011 3:05 pm

kreisman wrote:

I think we are sunk guys and gals. As Orly so ably pointed out...since the US Constitution requires the President to be natural born, the Supremacy Clause trumps Hawaii's statute on release of birth records. Why didn't we legal eagles see that coming?

BTW, what does "decident" mean? Orly uses it so it must be a fancy legal term.

I believe she means decedent movement, or one that is dead.

SueDB · **Posted:** Fri Aug 12, 2011 3:05 pm

Should be spelled decadent.

esseff44 · **Posted:** Fri Aug 12, 2011 3:10 pm

kreisman wrote:

I think we are sunk guys and gals. As Orly so ably pointed out...since the US Constitution requires the President to be natural born, the Supremacy Clause trumps Hawaii's statute on release of birth records. Why didn't we legal eagles see that coming?

BTW, what does "decident" mean? Orly uses it so it must be a fancy legal term.

Could she have meant 'dissident' movement? I notice she did not put in some of the other labels and titles given to her by the media. I am sure the judge will be impressed at having the Queen herself in his court.

bob · **Posted:** Fri Aug 12, 2011 3:15 pm

esseff44 wrote:

Could she have meant 'dissident' movement?

Most likely. Say it aloud in a high, weasely voice: dee-cid-ent!

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Fri Aug 12, 2011 3:21 pm

It's some French verbal form for what President Bush was -- the decider.

TexasFilly · **Joined:** Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm **Posts:** 10651

Her theory that Judith Corley expressly waived the President's privacy interest is, well, bar exam FAIL worthy. Just my opinion, of course. 8-)

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Fri Aug 12, 2011 3:24 pm

TexasFilly wrote:

Her theory that Judith Corley expressly waived the President's privacy interest is, well, bar exam FAIL worthy. Just my opinion, of course. 8-)

What else is new?

TexasFilly · **Joined:** Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm **Posts:** 10651

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

TexasFilly wrote:

Her theory that Judith Corley expressly waived the President's privacy interest is, well, bar exam FAIL worthy. Just my opinion, of course. 8-)

What else is new?

Well, it's a new fail for Orly. BTW I think I missed the part about why she's legally entitled to a mandamus. Did you see it?

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Fri Aug 12, 2011 3:28 pm

I can't see what's not there.

(Usually, anyway.)

everalm · **Posted:** Fri Aug 12, 2011 3:45 pm

I particulary enjoyed point 28 where she calls herself a forgery

28. Knowing, that the certificate of live birth posted on WhiteHouse.gov Taitz is a forgery according to experts, Taitz looked for a possible source ofthe serial number 10641 used on that birth certificate.

neonzx · **Joined:** Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am **Posts:** 4216

everalm wrote:

I particulary enjoyed point 28 where she calls herself a forgery

28. Knowing, that the certificate of live birth posted on WhiteHouse.gov Taitz is a forgery according to experts, Taitz looked for a possible source ofthe serial number 10641 used on that birth certificate.

You beat me to it. I was just about to post the same thing! "Taitz is a forgery according to experts"

Doesn't she proof-read or spell-check ANYTHING? =))

neonzx · **Joined:** Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am **Posts:** 4216

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

I can't see what's not there.

(Usually, anyway.)

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Taitz-v-Fuddy-Onaka-Complaint-exhibits12.pdf

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Taitz-v-Fuddy-Onaka-exhibits3-7.pdf

raicha · **Posted:** Fri Aug 12, 2011 3:52 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

TexasFilly wrote:

Her theory that Judith Corley expressly waived the President's privacy interest is, well, bar exam FAIL worthy. Just my opinion, of course. 8-)

What else is new?

You can't fail an exam that you have never taken.

TexasFilly · **Joined:** Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm **Posts:** 10651

neonzx wrote:

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

I can't see what's not there.

(Usually, anyway.)

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Taitz-v-Fuddy-Onaka-Complaint-exhibits12.pdf

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Taitz-v-Fuddy-Onaka-exhibits3-7.pdf

neonzx takes a literal interpretation of the Word of Stern.

neonzx · **Joined:** Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am **Posts:** 4216

TexasFilly wrote:

neonzx takes a literal interpretation of the Word of Stern.

I'm thinking he's having a problem finding the actual PDF links on Orly's site. I know I did.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Fri Aug 12, 2011 4:03 pm

neonzx wrote:

TexasFilly wrote:

neonzx takes a literal interpretation of the Word of Stern.

I'm thinking he's having a problem finding the actual PDF links on Orly's site. I know I did.

No. I was commenting on not seeing something that wasn't there. But thanks for thinking of me, Dalek.

verbalobe · **Posted:** Fri Aug 12, 2011 4:08 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

neonzx wrote:

TexasFilly wrote:

neonzx takes a literal interpretation of the Word of Stern.

I'm thinking he's having a problem finding the actual PDF links on Orly's site. I know I did.

No. I was commenting on not seeing something that wasn't there. But thanks for thinking of me, Dalek.

Truce, you guys.

TexasFilly · **Joined:** Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm **Posts:** 10651

neonzx wrote:

TexasFilly wrote:

neonzx takes a literal interpretation of the Word of Stern.

I'm thinking he's having a problem finding the actual PDF links on Orly's site. I know I did.

I wasn't making fun of you. It was really a little jab at my boy Sternie. You are one nice fellow (I heard you on RC's show last night. Although I don't share your empathy for Lakin, I admire you for having far more empathetic ability than I do). Carry on.

tjh · **Joined:** Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:18 pm **Posts:** 2474

Exhibit 7 seems to be a stamped-by-the clerk, but ... um ... somewhat incomplete summons. But it's probably enough, under Oblylaw, and proves that "The JUDGE ordered Fuddy to appear".

bob · **Posted:** Fri Aug 12, 2011 5:07 pm

Corsi, on Teh Facebook: "Orly Taitz is getting coverage in Hawaii -- finally."

Check out the barnburning coverage in the Star-Advertiser:

Quote:

Attorney files suit to see President Obama's birth certificate

A California lawyer filed a lawsuit in state court this week seeking to review President Obama's long-form birth certificate.

Obama released copies of the certificate on April 27 showing that he was born at what is now known as Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children on Aug. 4, 1961.

Orly Taitz, who is representing herself, said in her lawsuit filed on Wednesday that she questions Obama's legitimacy to be president.

The Attorney General's Office declined to comment, but wrote a letter addressed to Taitz and dated Monday saying she is not entitled to inspect the birth record.

ANY. DAY. NOW.

Reality Check · **Posted:** Fri Aug 12, 2011 5:09 pm

neonzx wrote:

everalm wrote:

I particulary enjoyed point 28 where she calls herself a forgery

28. Knowing, that the certificate of live birth posted on WhiteHouse.gov Taitz is a forgery according to experts, Taitz looked for a possible source ofthe serial number 10641 used on that birth certificate.

You beat me to it. I was just about to post the same thing! "Taitz is a forgery according to experts"

Doesn't she proof-read or spell-check ANYTHING? =))

I think I just found my new signature:

Orly Taitz wrote:

Taitz is a forgery according to experts

everalm · **Posted:** Fri Aug 12, 2011 5:51 pm

Oh, and to make it absolutely perfecty, point 28 is a duplicate pint....she has 28 in twice...... =))

28. From the beginning of June, for a period of three month, there was no response to the
request for the administrative appeal, which is tantamount to a denial of the request for the
appeal.
28. Knowing, that the certificate of live birth posted on WhiteHouse.govTaitz is a forgery
according to experts, Taitz looked for a possible source ofthe serial number 10641 used on
that binh certificate.

(edited for spooling miztake)

majorbabs · **Posted:** Fri Aug 12, 2011 7:07 pm

Again I have to ask the question of Orly -- why do you not have an expert on typewriters? Of course the answer is that the expert would blow Orly argument out of the water. I just hope that the judge is old enough to have used a typewriter.

TexasFilly · **Joined:** Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm **Posts:** 10651

majorbabs wrote:

Again I have to ask the question of Orly -- why do you not have an expert on typewriters? Of course the answer is that the expert would blow Orly argument out of the water. I just hope that the judge is old enough to have used a typewriter.

She does have an expert in typewriters. Paul Irey was a typist, therefore, he is an expert on typewriters. Don't worry, the judge need only to read the Petition.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23560

majorbabs wrote:

Again I have to ask the question of Orly -- why do you not have an expert on typewriters? Of course the answer is that the expert would blow Orly argument out of the water. I just hope that the judge is old enough to have used a typewriter.

I may be misinterpreting your comment, but the judge does not have to have ever even seen a typewriter or even a computer, know what a pdf is or any other such thing. All the judge has to be able to do is read, understand and rule on Hawaii law.

Oh, and be able to at least try to comprehend Orly's gibberish she calls legal pleadings. That's probably the toughest part of the judge's job, is deciding when to quit trying to decipher her writings and just throw in the towel on it with a (legal) WTF.

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

Taitz v Fuddy (HI Cir Ct) MtR2 - "Amended Motion Reciprocal Subpoena Enforcement" - Formerly MtR

Who is online