HAWAII CLAIMS “PRIVACY” PREVENTS RELEASE OF OBAMA’S ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE; TAITZ DEMANDS IT AS PART OF DISCOVERY
by Sharon Rondeau
(Jul. 7, 2011) — Orly Taitz has filed and posted on her website a “Motion to Compel Subpoena” in regard to the lawsuit Taitz v. Astrue filed in February 2011 against the Social Security Administration to obtain a copy of Obama’s social security number application. Taitz is requesting that the “vault” original allegedly on file with the Hawaii Department of Health be released as part of the discovery phase of her case.
The Hawaii Department of Health does not display the purported long-form birth certificate bearing the name of Barack Hussein Obama II on its website, but rather, states that only index data is available according to state law. The “document” released to the public on April 27, 2011 after almost three years of stonewalling has been denounced by experts as a forgery.
Former Weather Underground domestic terrorist and co-worker with Obama at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge William Ayers has admitted to stealing and creating false identities, including names, social security numbers and birth certificates of deceased children.
DR. TAITZ: I have filed two subpoenas. There are two types of subpoenas: one that is issued by an attorney and one that is issued by the court. The Hawaii Department of Health refused to comply with the first one which was signed by me as an attorney. In response, I have filed a Motion to Compel. Meanwhile, if they comply with the second subpoena signed by the clerk of the court, then I can withdraw the Motion to Compel.
If they don’t comply with the second subpoena as well, then I can file another supplemental brief saying, “Your Honor, the first subpoena was not complied with, and the second signed by the clerk of the court has also been refused.” So I am trying to stay a few steps ahead and not waste time.
MRS. RONDEAU: Can someone fail to respond to a court-ordered supoena?
DR. TAITZ: They did respond. There was a response to the first subpoena by the Hawaii Attorney General, which I posted on my website. They stated that they are not complying with the first subpoena due to considerations of privacy. So I issued the second subpoena which is signed by the clerk of the court. Meanwhile, I can file a Motion to Compel to the first one, and a few things can happen: the judge might decide to dismiss this case, and then the subpoena will be moot. We had this happen before. The judge might decide to grant a Motion to Compel. The judge might say that the subpoena which was issued by the court should be answered, or he might decline to grant a Motion to Compel. So we need to see what will happen. I’m doing the maximum amount possible.
They have an attorney, the Attorney General of Hawaii, who represents the Department of Health, and he can file an Opposition to Subpoena. If he files an Opposition to the first subpoena, I have sent the second one to him. It is too soon to have heard from him yet on that. He could file an Opposition or a Motion to Quash the subpoena. Then I would need to respond by either a Motion to Compel or by an Opposition to their Motion to Quash the subpoena.
Sometimes people file frivolous subpoenas. In our case, they have a right to oppose, and the judge would have to decide. I have filed the Motion to Compel with the judge whom I have for my FOIA case, which was to obtain the application for the social security that Obama is using. Typically, people who don’t have a valid birth certificate resort to using fraudulent social security numbers. That’s why this is relevant, and that’s why I issued that subpoena to compel them. There are a lot of things that can be done. Keep in mind that there is a lot of pressure on this judge to dismiss the case.
What I feel is that I am providing more and more information, clear evidence of fraud regarding the birth certificate and his social security number. I have also provided information from the Social Security Administration regarding his mother’s social security number application, which is clearly a fraudulent document. I am getting such explosive information that the dam will have to break somewhere. It is possible that the judge will allow the evidence of fraud and forgery in his court or he could dismiss it. They know if this breaks and it becomes obvious that they had all of this evidence, they could be held liable; they could be prosecuted. So I believe that the judges are worried today because of what has happened.
MRS. RONDEAU: Could a judge in Hawaii become involved?
DR. TAITZ: That’s another possibility. I assure you that I will not leave a stone unturned. Since the judge in Washington, DC has already found standing and we have discovery, I don’t want this opportunity to be lost. I want to take full advantage of it. But if the judge in DC says that it has to be resolved in Hawaii, then I will refile it in Hawaii. I will have to wait, because we have to give the government time. But right now, we have an ongoing case. Two subpoenas have been issued, we have discovery, and now I have filed the Motion to Compel. I want do the maximum I can with this case.
————————–
Update, July 8, 2011: Another report on Stanley Ann Dunham’s Social Security number application states the form is from 1965 but the signature dated 1959. This writer reads the bottom notation following the words “INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE” as “(Revised 7-55), although the two “5s” appear to have different typefaces. According to the chart of form SS-5 revisions compiled and sent to Atty. Taitz by the Social Security Administration pictured above, the form was not revised in either 1955 or 1965. However, an SS-5 form completed by another applicant in 1959 shows a different layout and no revision date at the bottom. H/T to ObamaReleaseYourRecords.