HAWAII CLAIMS “PRIVACY” PREVENTS RELEASE OF OBAMA’S ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE; TAITZ DEMANDS IT AS PART OF DISCOVERY
by Sharon Rondeau
Judge
Royce Lamberth is presiding over the lawsuit Taitz v. Astrue which
seeks the disclosure of Obama's original social security number
application
(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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment