Update: Motion for Rehearing Filed by Orly Taitz in Birth Certificate Case

NEXT COURT DATE SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 16, 2011 IN HONOLULU

by Sharon Rondeau

City of Honolulu, Wikimedia Commons, top photo of montage, CC by SA 3.0

(Oct. 27, 2011) — On October 21, 2011, The Post & Email reported on a hearing held on October 12, 2011 in Honolulu, HI as a result of Atty. Orly Taitz’s request for a Writ of Mandamus in the case of Taitz v. Fuddy and Onaka.  Taitz has filed for a rehearing in the case based on her assertion that Fuddy’s defense counsel, Hawaii Deputy Attorney General Jill T. Nagamine, “misrepresented to the court” certain facts and “made up the rules of evidence.”  Taitz also contends that Nagamine’s defense of Obama’s “privacy” in refusing to release the document which the Health Department allegedly has on file is moot, as Obama himself released an image identified as a certified copy of his birth certificate on April 27, 2011.

The case was heard in Honolulu Circuit Court by Judge Rhonda Nishimura.

Fuddy is Director of the Hawaii Department of Health and refused to comply with a subpoena from the U.S. District Court in Honolulu which gave her a deadline of August 8, 2011 to allow inspection of Barack Hussein Obama’s original birth certificate.  When Taitz and two document examiners arrived on August 8 to inspect the document, they were instead handed a letter from Fuddy’s representative stating that it could not be released due to concerns of privacy.

Obama claims he was born in Hawaii, while evidence has surfaced which indicates that his birth occurred in Mombasa, Kenya.  Obama’s father was a British citizen and therefore unable to pass on U.S. citizenship to his son, much less “natural born” status, which is required by Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

When The Post & Email spoke with Taitz, she had just returned from meeting with Maricopa County, AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who has stated publicly that he is in possession of information about Obama which will prove to be a “shock” to the American people.  Taitz was invited to meet with Arpaio by an Arizona a Tea Party group.

Regarding her request for a rehearing, Taitz explained:

First of all, there was a conflict of interest between the Deputy Attorney General, who represented the case for the state of Hawaii and the state of Hawaii. Nagamine has ties to the Obama family; her husband is a family attorney for Obama’s sister.  She did not deny this fact.  She was acting more as a private criminal defense attorney instead of the Deputy Attorney General of the state. She completely misrepresented the requirement; for example, in her proposed order and at the hearing, she stated that the judge cannot refuse an agency appeal because there was no proper agency hearing.  Right after the the hearing,  together with two of my supporters, one of whom is a reporter for Channel 8 news, we actually walked from the courthouse to the Health Department, which is only  a few blocks away, and we checked.  They don’t have any official form for a hearing, and that’s how it is in any state or federal agency.  When you ask for an agency review, they review your papers and then they respond.  The words “agency hearing” means “agency review.”  I have requested access to the original birth certificate and was denied.  I asked for an agency appeal; they did not grant it, and I went to court.  So I fulfilled all of my obligations with the agency before going to court.  This is just more stonewalling.  The Deputy Attorney General of the state of Hawaii is criminally complicit by playing games, playing with words, and obfuscating the issue.

I raised with the judge that their statute, 91-2, dealing with administrative appeals, clearly states that an original is preferred if it is easily available. If it is not available, a certified copy is allowed; however, either party has the right to see an original in lieu of a certified copy.  That is the basic rule of evidence in each and every state, in federal court, and everywhere in the world.  Otherwise, any forger can create any forgery.  The whole point is to have an original document.  The Deputy Attorney General made up rules that don’t even exist in the court, saying that the only verification they do is by a one-word, “yes” or “no” answer.  She just made it up.

I stated to the judge that not only was this an error to base a decision on such a statement by the Deputy Attorney General, and the decision needs to be reversed in my favor, and I should get access to the documents.  Also, the Deputy Attorney General should be sanctioned for making up a statute that doesn’t even exist.  How can a person be allowed to work as the Deputy Attorney General of the state when she is simply making up statutes that don’t exist, does not follow the law, and is being criminally complicit in the forgery of a document.

I provided all of this in my motion for rehearing.  Of course, they will respond.  For now, the hearing in state court is tentatively scheduled for November 16 and in federal court for November 21.  So I might just go once to Hawaii, as it’s very expensive to fly there twice.  I might just stay there for both hearings.

The Post & Email’s founder, John Charlton, had also uncovered inconsistencies and improbabilities in Nagamine’s response to his question regarding any opinions which might have been issued by the Hawaii Attorney General’s office relating to the term “natural born Citizen.”  When Charlton further questioned Nagamine, she remained silent.

Taitz has accused Nagamine of “obstruction of Justice, in aiding and abetting forgery, uttering of forged documents, aiding and abetting felony and misprision of felony.”

The Post & Email asked Taitz if she has received much in donations since the hearing on October 12, and she replied, “I have not had many donations lately, to be quite honest.  I had some donations when I had hearings in Hawaii.  On Sunday I went to Arizona, and it cost me over $600 between airfare, renting a car, the cost of gasoline, and copying all of the documents.”

Taitz reported that Judge Nishimura will again preside on November 16.  The hearing is scheduled for 8:30 a.m. Hawaii time.  [Editor’s Note:  Please see update at bottom.]

Update, October 29, 2011:  The Post & Email has been informed by Atty. Orly Taitz that the rehearing tentatively scheduled for November 16, 2011 in Honolulu has been postponed to November 30, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. local time.  Taitz also reported that the court clerk, Florence Fines, has not returned Taitz’s telephone calls inquiring as to the cost of the court transcript from the last hearing held on October 12, 2011.  Taitz stated that she will need the transcript to prepare for the rehearing.  She requested that supporters of her actions residing in Hawaii speak in person, if possible, to the Manager of Court Reporter Services regarding the non-responsiveness of the court clerk.

The request form to obtain a court transcript is here.  A complaint can be filed against a Hawaii judge by contacting the Commission on Judicial Conduct.  The first canon of the Hawaii Judiciary reads:

A JUDGE SHALL UPHOLD AND PROMOTE THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY, AND IMPARTIALITY OF THE JUDICIARY AND SHALL AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY.

The state of Hawaii also requires that all judges “not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the personal or economic interests* of the judge or others, or allow others to do so.”

3 Responses to "Update: Motion for Rehearing Filed by Orly Taitz in Birth Certificate Case"

  1. unbontir   Wednesday, November 23, 2011 at 3:01 PM

    Dear Orly Taitz, I called in on Jeff Crouere’s ‘Ringside Politics with a Punch’ talk show today, he is also the head of the Louisiana Tea Party, and briefly updated him on the fiasco in New Hampshire and called on the Louisiana Tea Party to support you in your valiant effort to defend the constitution. He said that he’d like to get you on. Please do go on his show. WGSO 990 am. VICTORI TE SALUTAMUS, chris farrell

    Reply
  2. winnybar   Friday, November 18, 2011 at 10:52 PM

    The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. §§ 1973–1973aa-6)[1] is a landmark piece of national legislation in the United States that outlawed discriminatory voting practices that had been responsible for the widespread disenfranchisement of African Americans in the U.S

    Section 2 contains a general prohibition on voting discrimination, enforced through federal district court litigation. Congress amended this section in 1982, prohibiting any voting practice or procedure that has a discriminatory result.

    Reply
  3. winnybar   Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 7:34 PM

    These people are violating the civil rights of Black American voters who have the right to support a Black candidate for US President who usually would have their interests at heart. Obama is neither white nor African yet claims to be ‘Negro’. Evidence is that he is from Thailand. The Civil Rights Law of 1964 carries considerable Federal penalties. Yeah, Obama is violating that same law for the same reason with the motivation of accumulating millions of votes from deceived Black American voters.

    Clearly Obama has the interests of the German foreigners that have taken over control of the American government.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.