Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/64116181/TAITZ-v-FUDDY-et-al-HI-Cir-Ct-MOTION-TO-DISMISS-64115865
Timestamp: 2015-11-25 15:54:36
Document Index: 195350045

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\n1350', '§338', '§338', '§338', '§338', '§3', '§92', '§92', '§338', '§338']

TAITZ v FUDDY, et al. (HI Cir. Ct.) - MOTION TO DISMISS - 64115865
P. 1TAITZ v FUDDY, et al. (HI Cir. Ct.) - MOTION TO DISMISS - 64115865TAITZ v FUDDY, et al. (HI Cir. Ct.) - MOTION TO DISMISS - 64115865|Views: 202|Likes: 20Published by Jack RyanMotion to Dismiss Filed by DefendantsMotion to Dismiss Filed by DefendantsMore info:Categories:Types, Research, LawPublished by: Jack Ryan on Sep 07, 2011Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/64116181/TAITZ-v-FUDDY-et-al-HI-Cir-Ct-MOTION-TO-DISMISS-6411586508/17/2012pdftextoriginal•4:-1ST C1RCUtT COl,RliJ
DA VlD M. LO"IF. Attorney General, State of Hawai i 2 62
~STATEOF r:i',Wkib FI ED
2011SEP -2 PH I: OS
HEIDI M. R J r 3473 .JILL T. NAGAMINE3513 REnee A E.. QUI 8663 Deputy Attorneys General 465 South King treet, Room 200 Honolulu, I lawai . 96813 Telephone: (808) 587-3050 F~e:(808)587-3077 Email: Jill . agaxnine@h.awaii.gov Attorneys for Loretta Fuddy Director of Health State of awaii and Dr. Yin T. Onaka, State Registrar of the Department of Health, State of Hawaii
'".» .~ N LJ~YA~
,~--..
IN TIffi CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT ATE OF HAWAII DR. ORL Y TAITZ ESQ.,
1-1-173"()8 RAj
LORETTA' 'DDY HER OffiCIAL APAClTY AS DIRECTOR OF TIffi HAW AIL DR.. AL
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTIL ST~TE OF
T. 0 AKA, I H1S
OFFrCIAL CAPACITY AS THE REGIS~ DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, STATE OF
HAW~ Defendants.
MOT 0 TO OlSMI S PETITIO FOR A WRIT OF MA AMUS REQUEST FOR INSPECTION OF RECORDS UNDER (SIC) ORMATION PRACTICES CT STA TE 92F, STATE OF HA \VAll ILED A ST 10, 20 I· M:EMORAND " PPORT OF MOTION· DECLARA ION OF JILL T. NAGAMINE; EXfUBITS A-C; ECLARATlO OPK rn YAMAMOTO; . OT C OF MOTIO ; CERTIFICATE OF
J 2 2Ot1'
.IME:
8:30A-M.
Bon. Rhonda'A.
~ U 2fb -$ L;; JS=ttS
;> ....
;.:~.
'. :.
i,.~:
~ ." r, r:"
MOTION TO DISMISS PETITIO FO A 7JUT OF MA. DAJ S REQUEST FOR INSPECfIO OF RECORDS UNDER . IT£D (SIC) INFORMATIO PRACflCES A STATUTE 92F STATE OF SAW , FILED AUGliST 10, 20J 1
Loretta Fuddy, Diroc or of Health, Department of
tate ofHawai'i
and Or. Alvin T. Onaka, Registrar?
eahh, State of Ha ai i("'Defendants, by and through their attorneys Da id
Louie, Attorney General, and
eOdi M. Rian, Ji T. agamine, and Rebecca E. Quinn. Deputy
Attomeys General, hereby move this Court fOTan order dismissing P aintiff's Petition for a Writ of Mandamus Request for Inspectio of Records under United (Sic) Information Practices Act (Ucomplaint'/. Defendants request
Statute 92F State of Hawaii, filed on AUgust 10 20
dismissal oft> aintiffs comp runt for lack of jurisdiction (subjcc matter and personal), for insufficiency of process, and for P aintiff's failure granted. 'This motion is brought pursuant to R c 7 of e Rilles of the Circuit Courts of tbe State ivil Procedure and it is
a claim. upon which relief can be
of Hawaii, and Rules 12 (b)( ), (2), (5) and (6) of the Hawaii Rules of
ased on the memorandum in support of motion and the records and files herein. Dated: Hono ulu, Hawaii, September 2 2011.
. LOUIE
A orneys for Dcfcndan:
lT7,
Defendams request that this Ionorab e
ourt dismiss Plaintiff's complaint. This request
OVe(
is made on the basis that the Court acks personal jurisdiction failed to effect service pursuant to Iawaii Ru e of su
~ect matter
Defendants because Plaintiff P) 4 he Court lacks
ivil Procedure (lR
jurisdiction over this case because it involves a request for a writ
and Plaintiff's comp aint fails to state a c aim upon which relief can be granted because Hawaii State aw prohibits the rc case of the information Plaintiff seeks.
BACKGROUND On or about July 5, 20 , Plaintiff prepared a subpoena that was issued out of the United
States District Court for the District of Hawai i to a non-party! the Director to produce the President's
irth certificate on AUgust 8, 201
for the purposes of inspecting, copying,
testing, Or sampling the document. Plainti
sent the su poena by certified mail to the Attorney
(Jenera! of Iawaii on July 11, 2011, but did not send it to the Director, On July 27 20 1, Plainti sent the Direct
a etter indicating that the subpoena had been sent to the Attorney
General of Hawaii along with a 09PY of the subpoena. Plaintiff appeared at the offices of the Department of demanded immediate access to the Presi eat's ('Yamamoto Decl,") at
ealth on August 8 2011 and
irth certificate, Keith Yamamoto Declarari n
3. She was met by a designated representative of the Director of
Health who was there Co inform P .aintifftbat she would no be given access origina birth certificate. Yamamoto Dec at she wanted to
3. P ainriff'was also asked if there was anything
on the Director or the Diroc or s des' gnee, and P aintiff said she d..d 00 5. Despite Plaintiff's
insisting that she had already served the subpoena. Yamamoto Decl. at
bpoeea p~ by Plaintiff is related to a case the was pc:ruting in the United States District Court, District olumbia. . ed Orl Taitt v. Micba • 1. 'tv Admini~ ~ O. )). cv-00402 RCL whet'cin the PI&ntiff appe:ated. t be aUeg).ng d'I3I the Prcsldcnt's social security number is invalid. Chief J udge Royce C. Lamberth granted swnrnazy judgmc: t in that case on At100ust30, 2Q) I.
failure to serve the subpoena in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(bXt), the Director, through her counsel, delivered written objections to P ainti Fcd.R.Civ.P.45. pursuant
and within the time mandates of
In that letter, the Direc or's counsel addressed the manner of service and the
merits of the subpoena. A true and correct copy of the ctter written by the Director s counsel is a tachcd as Exhibit uA" to the Dec aration of Jill T. Nagamine ("Nagaminc Decl. ') filed herein.
ereafter, Plain iff filed a
mpel comp iaoce with the subpoena! in the
United States District Court for the District of Hawai i and thc present action.
STAJ'IDARDOF REVIEW
, Rule 12(b) provides that in lieu of an answer certain defenses may at the option
o the p eader be made
by motion.
ncluded in the defenses that may be raised in such a motion
arc the following defenses presently raised by Defendants; (1) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, (2) lack of jurisdiction over the person, (5) insufficiency of service of t recess, and (6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, ...
A review of a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is based on the
contents of the com laint, the al egations of which are accepted as true and construed in th light most favorab e to the plaintiff. 637 ( 992), aff 512 t
orris v. Haw.aiian..Ait
m.es. 74 Haw.
235, 240, 842 P.2d 634
it. 989).
.s. 246
(1994) citing Love v. U.. ,872 F.2d 1488, 1491 (9ft
lowe er .. hen considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(bX ) the trial court is not restricted to the ace oftbe pleadings, but may review any e idence, ch as affida its and
test"mony, to resol e factual disputes concerning the existence of jurisdiction. Nom.s at 240 842
P.2d at 637 citing McCarthv v. U.S ...850 F.2d 558,560 (9Ch
1 • 'be
it. 988),
denied, 489 U_$.
bea.tmt co laintiW s MC>tionto Compcl is set for bearing on November 2). 20) 1 befOre the Magistr.ue ludg.e Richard L. Puglisi, United States Discri~ Com for the lMtriet of J fa ..
1052, (1989) and 5A Charles A an Wright & Arthur R.
i ler, Federal Practice and.Proce4\.qe §
1350 (1990).
enever it appears by suggestion 'Of the parties or otherwise that the court
lacks jurisdiction 'Of the subject matter, the court shal dismiss the action.' H
\Vhen considering a motion
P 12(hX3).
dismiss for fai ure to state a claim, it is well settled that:
A comp aim should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond reasonable d ub that the plaintiff can rove no set 'Of facts in sup rt 'Of his or her c aim ilia would entitle him or her to relief. Ravelo v. County ofH~ ·i. 66 Haw. 94, 98 658 P.2d 883, 886 ( 983) ... [citations omitted] We must therefore view a p aintiff's eomp aint in a light most fa orab e to him t bet in order to etermi ne bether the allegations contained therein could warrant relief under any alternative theory. Ravelo. 66 Haw. at 99,658 P_2d ax 886. Keauhou Master Homcowncrs,As.w.:;atiQIlJn.C. v.
Y.2f.H~wsY.i, 04 Hawai'i 214, 218 87
P .., 883, 887 (2004). Thus, when considering a motion to dismiss a comp aint for failure to d state a claim for relief, the Court s eonsidetati n is strictly imited to the al egations of the
complaint, which must be accepted as true. Id. In addition, the Court must construe thc allegatio of the mplaint in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff. Wright v. nome Depot 42 P.3~ 265, 270 (2006).
U.S.A., Inc., IV.
11 Hawai'i 401,406
ARGUM!. IT A. Plaintiff's attempt at service ofproccss on Defendants is insufficient under HRCP 4. It is
well settled that the requirements of HR P 4(d) most be c mplied with before a court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Citicorp Mortgage, Inc. v. Bartolomh 94 Haw. 422, 430, 16 P3d ~27 835 (Haw. App. 2000) (citations omitted). The sufficiency of process is dctexmined
n the tate by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the Attorney General of the Stat or to the assistant Attorney General or to any deputy Attorney eneral who has been appointed y the Attomey General.
serve an officer or an ageoc of the State, HRCP 4(dX5) requires that service
shall be made as follows:
(Jpoo an officer or agency of the tate by serving the State and by de ivering a copy of the summons an 0 tbe comp aint 0 such officer or agency. If agency is a corporation, the copies shall be delivered as provided in paragraph (3) of this subdivision of thi s rule.
Thus, to effect service upon the State; an officer, or agency of the State, the Attorney General and the officer or agency m\1S be ptlSOnal y served. A tached as Exhibit B to Kagamine Dec . is a true and correct copy of the Proof of Service fi eel by P aintiff on AUgust 23~ 201 in this C9Se. It contains n proof of se .ce n the Attorney General as it merely states that Furthermore, it
a courtesy notice was provided to De my Attorney General, Jill Nagamiac.
reflects that Plain 'ffmailed the complaint to the Defendants by certified mai , instead of ha 'ng it personally served as required by HRCP 4(dXs). Thus, this court lacks personal jurisdiction o er the Defendants due to the insufficiency of service of process.
lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff s request for
mandamus. According to
P 81. , t e writ of mandamus is abolished in the circuit courts, Additionally subject matter jurisdiction
except when direc cd to a court of inferior jurisdiction. to hear mandamus actions that are not ab c Sup erne
be heard before the circuit courts lies with the
ourt of Ha aii, Hawai'I Rule of A peUate Procedure 21 addresses mandamus actions
and states, in pertinent part, as follows: (b) Wri S ofMandatnus Directed to a Public Officer: An application for a writ of mandamus direc ed t a public officer shall made by fi ing a petition with the appella e clerk with oof f service on the officer and
the attorney general or the ehie
ega! officer of the county, as applicab e.
'the petition shall conform to the requirements of subsection (a) of this rule. pon receipt of the prescribed filing foe, the appc late e eric shal docket the petition and submit it to the supreme court for a determination
as to whether e petition wi 1be entertained. If the court elects 0 entertain the petition, i will be handled in the same manner as a petition under subsection (a) of this rule.
P aintiif c early seeks a writ of mandamus in this ease as is evident from both the
ti e of her complaint and her prayer for relief. However, based on llRCP 8 .1 and
HRAP 21
jurisdiction of the writ of mandamus sough by P aintiff does not lie
'th the
Circuit Courts but with the Supreme matter jurisdi C. ion in this matter.
ourt of Ha aii, Therefore this court lacks subject
Hawaii State Law Prohibits ~osurc
of Rccords sought bv P aintif,£
As previously stated, Plaintiff requests a writ of mandamus directing the Defendants allow P aintiff
inspect the President's birth certificate. However, Hawaii
tate law prohibits
the disclosure of the records Plain' fI seeks, Vital statistics records, such as the President's birth certificate are protected by strict confidentiality requirements under state law. Section 338-18
Hawaii Revised Statutes (c.<HRSj prohibits disclosure of the records sought by Plaintiff to anyone without a direct and tangib e interest. URS §338- 8(a) provides that:
(a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records 0 ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspoc .on of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health. lIRS §338- 8(a) (emphasis added).
Pursuant to HRS §338-18{b), there are
have a direct and tangible interest in 3CC~ provides:
CDwnCI'3
persons wbo
public health statistics records. This section
(b) 'he department shall t permit inspection of pub ic heaJth statistics records, or .ssue a certified copy 0 any such record or part thereof, un ess it is satisfied lM the app icant has a direct and tangi le interest in the record. The fo lov..tjngpersons shall be considered to have a direct and tang; e interest in a pub ic health statistics record: ( ) The registrant; (2) The spouse of the registrant; (3) A paren of the registrant; (4) A descendant of the registrant; (5) A pers having a common ances or with the registran . (6) A legs guardian of the registran . (7) A person or agency acting On behalf of registrant; (8) A personal representative of the registrant s estate; (9) A person whose right 0 inspec or obtain a certified copy of the teCOX' is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction; . (10) Adoptive paX"enJ who have fi ed ape' .on for ado ti n and who need to determine death of one or m re of the prospecti e adopted child's natural or egal parents; (11) A person ~ ho needs to determine the marital status of a ormer spouse in order 0 determine payment of alirn ny; (12) A person who needs to determine the death of a nome ated co-owner of property purchased under a joi nt enancy agreement; and ( 3) A person who needs a death certificate for e de crmination of payments under a credit insurance policy.
URS §338-18(b) (emphasis added).
The ist of persons with a direct and tangible interest in ital statistics records is limited to the thirteen enumerated categories set forth in HRS §3" 8-18(b). Plaintiff is not .n any of these categories. The thirteen categories in • 'on 338-18(b) of persons with a direct and tangib e in crest
in the records are exclusive and Plaintiff does not allege that she is a person in any of those categories, nor is she a person in any of those categories. She alleges nothi ng that indicates she might have such a right. An Offiee of nf arion Practices ('0 ) Opinion from 996, found at OIP Op, No 90agamine Decl, ("the Opinion"), interpreted its conclusions substantiate lhat be
23, 990 WL 482371 and attached. as :xhibi "C"" to the restricted access pro, .sio
f section j38· 18, HRS, ae
list in section 338-18(b) is an exclusive
ist. The Opinion was in response to a person's request
for open access to vital records for a genealogy project. Its cone usion was that only those records over 75 years old were considered 'open" records pursuant to the IPA. Other vital
records, pursuant
section 338-18, HRS, were "closed or restricted by aw," Although he
language "direct and tangible" was not in the 1977 version of the statute that was being discussed
in the opini e, it was mentioned as part of the Mode V·
Statistics Ac4 which chapter 3..)8,
HRS, closely resembles. Thus> the 1977 Mode Regulations, ike the 1977 amendments to secti n 338-18(b) Hawaii Revised Stamtes, eaumerate a ist persons who have a special status in relation o a registran Or by definition, have a "direct and tangib e interest" in the registrant's vital statis ic record.
Op. 090-23, 1990 NL 48237 at p. 4. Part of the Opinion's co
was th.3t
for those records ess than 75 years
person may inspect them "only if the DOH is satisfied that the person stands in the spousal,
fami Ial, r other re arion set forth. in section"
8-18(C)~ Hawaii Revised Statutes," The
cgislativc his ory was examined in the Opinion;
irst, the egislative bistory of the 977 amendmentsestab ish (sic] that they were int ed to clarify and codify the OH's past practice and policy of restricting access 0 vital records to the person named in the vital record, their family members, or authorized agents or persons acting on their behalf. In a ettcr to the chairman of the House Health .ommitree dated February 16, 977, the then Director of Health, in support (the 1m amendments, Stated: There is frequently confusion and disagreement as to what constitutes a direct and tangible imerest" ben eciding whether an in i idnal bas the right t recei e a copy of a vital record, Present regulations and policy restrict issuance of certified copies of vital records to persons named on the record, family members, authorized agents or persons acting' n their behalf. A Bill for an Act Relating to Vital Statistics Rcgistra ·014 Hearing on H.B, No. 20~ before the House Health Committee, 9th Leg. Reg. Sess. ( 971) (written testimony of George A.I.. Yuen, Director of Health).
4311JO _l.(X)C
ro 90-23 1990 WL 82371 at p. 4-5,
In 'ts conclusion, the Opinion sta ed:
We con e that a person seeking 0 inspect a 'tal record rc ating to an event that occurred ess than 7S years ago may inspect a vital record without demonstrating that the information is necessary for the determination of personal or property rights, only if the DOH is satisfied that the person stands in the spousal, familial, or 0 er re ation se forth in section 338- 8(b) Hawaii Revised Statutes. onverse y." a person socking to inspect or copy a vital record does not stand it). the spousal familial or other relation set orth in section 3.>8-18( ), the persoe may inspect the record only if the Registrar is satisfi that the information is "necessary for the determination of personal or property rights," Whether a person seeking to inspect a vital record stands in the relation to the registrant required y section 8- 8(b) H wall Revised Statutes, is eft to the determination of the DOH. Similarly whether access to vital records is necessary to the etcrmination of personal and property rights, must also be determined by the DOH. OIP Op,
090-23,
990 WL 48237 at p. 7,
Other language in the 977 statute seemed to require that the information requested must also be necessary for
e determine "on of personal or property rights, but the Opinion concluded
See 01 Opinion 90-23, 1990 WL
that would be a repugnant
482371,
In 1991, the Legislature of the State of
the "direct and tangib e interest" language. contained
ji amended sec "on J38· 8, HRS, to restore
and remove the requirement that the informari
in the vital records to be released be necessary for the determination of personal or
petty rigbts in order to ge the records. The Legislature gave no criteria beyond the categories
on the list that could be used to show a direct and tangible interest in
Because the expli "t pro .sioos of soc "on 338-18 establish exactly who is enti ed to
access confidential vital records and because Plaintiff never claimed to have a direct and tangible
interest in the President' s birth certificate or an entitlement based on any of the pro isions
sect' n 338-18 the State is pr hibited from diselo
"tng
to P aintiff the records she seeks.
4ID30_LDOC
Furthermore, the Plainti
tate is not only prohibi cd from disclosing confidential vital records to
section 92F ·17, HRS? makes it a riminal offense to do so if the isclosure is made with
a.ctual knowledge that it is prohi ired. [§92F- 7J Criminal penalties. (a) An officer OT employee of an agency .. intentionally discloses or provides a copy of a govemmen record, Or any confidential information explicitly described y spec' c confi cntiality statutes, to any person Or agency with actual 0 edge tha disc osure is prohibited, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, unless a grcate penalty is otherwi provided for by law. (b) person who intentional ~ gains a cess to or obtains a copy of a government record y false pre ense bribery or theft, with actual knowledge that access is prohibited, r who intentionally obtains any confidential information by false pretense, bribery, or theft, with actual knowledge that it is prohibi cd [by1 a confidentiality statute, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. HRS §92F- 7. Plaintiff seeks access to the Pres· dent' s original birth record, ut she does not c aim to
have a direct and tangible interest in the record, nor does s e have one. Plaintiff' s complaint
contains no allegations that Plaintiff is a person wilh a direct and tangib e interest as required by HRS §.>3&-18. I~et, the De end3nts and their counsel have been unable to discern that
Plaintiff has any direct and tangible "merest in the President's birth record from any of the documents that Plaintiff bas sent to the Defendants. Plaintiff submits that the fact that the Presiden has made his birth certificate available to the public makes lIRS §338-18 inapplicable. However, there is no provision in Hawaii
aw that allows an individual to waive the. tate's
bligation. Theref re, the Plain: off is not entitled to the record she seeks and thus ails cairn n
s ate a
tel" ef may be granted.
CO CLU 10 The Defendants, by and through their attorneys, respectfu ly request that this Honorab c
Court dismiss Plaintiff's complaint because P intiff's attempted service of process on Defendants was insufficient, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and Plaintiff falls
a claim upon which relief can be granted given that s e is seeks pursuant to HRS §338-18. DATED: Hono ulu, Hawai i, September 2, 20 1 DA
to the information she
M_.O
At omcy General State of Hawaii
Attomeys for Defendant
-432330_ .DOC
More From This User11-23-15 - STATE v TRUSSELL - Subpoena for Deposition Duces Tecum - LINTONJack Ryan11-23-15 - STATE v TRUSSELL - Subpoena for Deposition Duces Tecum - LINTON11-23-15 STATE v TRUSSELL - Subpoena for Deposition Duces Tecum - WhiteJack Ryan11-23-15 STATE v TRUSSELL - Subpoena for Deposition Duces Tecum - White11-23-15 STATE v TRUSSELL - Subpoena for Deposition Duces Tecum - WILMERJack Ryan11-23-15 STATE v TRUSSELL - Subpoena for Deposition Duces Tecum - WILMER11-23-15 STATE v TRUSSELL - Subpoena for Deposition Duces Tecum - QuigleyJack Ryan11-23-15 STATE v TRUSSELL - Subpoena for Deposition Duces Tecum - Quigley11-23-15 STATE v TRUSSELL - Notice of Telephonic HearingJack Ryan11-23-15 STATE v TRUSSELL - Notice of Telephonic HearingPX 2934 Plaintiffs FootnoteJack RyanPX 2934 Plaintiffs FootnotePX 2263 2014-11-07 Mack Email to Klayman Et Al Jack RyanPX 2263 2014-11-07 Mack Email to Klayman Et Al PX 2072 - Arpaio timeline/charts re Montgomery investigation (Ex. F to Dkt 1166) Jack RyanPX 2072 - Arpaio timeline/charts re Montgomery investigation (Ex. F to Dkt 1166) PX 2013 2014-02-02 Anglin Memo Re 4Bdroom House - CopyJack RyanPX 2013 2014-02-02 Anglin Memo Re 4Bdroom House - CopyPX 2012 2014-01-28 Anglin Memo Re 2Bd Apt - CopyJack RyanPX 2012 2014-01-28 Anglin Memo Re 2Bd Apt - CopyPX 2961 2014-08-15 Sheridan HW Approval Re Zullo Travel ExpensesJack RyanPX 2961 2014-08-15 Sheridan HW Approval Re Zullo Travel ExpensesPX 2906 2014-08-12 CI Payment Memo - CopyJack RyanPX 2906 2014-08-12 CI Payment Memo - CopyPX 2530 2014-01-21 Anglin Memo Re Inv Purchases - CopyJack RyanPX 2530 2014-01-21 Anglin Memo Re Inv Purchases - CopyPX 2525 2014-03-10 Email Re Refund of CI/HIDTA FundsJack RyanPX 2525 2014-03-10 Email Re Refund of CI/HIDTA FundsTaitz v Burwell - DISMISSALJack RyanTaitz v Burwell - DISMISSALPX 2922 2014-03-27 List 2 (Mackiewicz List) Jack RyanPX 2922 2014-03-27 List 2 (Mackiewicz List) PX 2921 2014-03-27 Checklist for Elmer (Zullo List)Jack RyanPX 2921 2014-03-27 Checklist for Elmer (Zullo List)PX 2920 2014-02-17 Names of People InvolvedJack RyanPX 2920 2014-02-17 Names of People InvolvedMelendres # 1574 | Nov 20 Minute EntryJack RyanMelendres # 1574 | Nov 20 Minute EntryMelendres # 1573 | Sands MemoJack RyanMelendres # 1573 | Sands MemoMontgomery v S&S # 1 | P Motion to Compel (as Filed in SDFLA)Jack RyanMontgomery v S&S # 1 | P Motion to Compel (as Filed in SDFLA)Montgomery v Flynn # 1 | Motion to CompelJack RyanMontgomery v Flynn # 1 | Motion to CompelMontgomery v Risen # 182 P Supp to Motion to Extend Discovery DeadlineJack RyanMontgomery v Risen # 182 P Supp to Motion to Extend Discovery DeadlineMelendres # 1569 | Arpaio et al Joinder in Sands Motion for SJJack RyanMelendres # 1569 | Arpaio et al Joinder in Sands Motion for SJMelendres # 1568 | MacIntyre Renewed MotionJack RyanMelendres # 1568 | MacIntyre Renewed Motion
RecommendedTAITZ v FUDDY, et al. (HI CIR. CT.) - Attachment to MtD - Declaration of Keith Yamamoto - 64117104Jack RyanTAITZ v FUDDY (HI CIR CT) CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING 10-12-11 - Taitz101211Jack RyanTranscript of Hearing Held in Hawaii Circuit Court October 10, 2011TAITZ v FUDDY - (HI CIR CT) - Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion Reciprocal Subpoena EnforcementJack RyanFrom Orly Taitz's Website - Emergency Petition - Taitz 11-9-11Jack RyanDEMAND FOR EMERGENCY AGENCY HEARING REGARDING REQUEST FOR INSPECTION OF THE O...TAITZ v FUDDY (HI CIR. CT.) - Amended Emergency Motion for RehearingJack RyanTAITZ v FUDDY (HI CIR. CT.) - Orly's Reply to Opposition to Amended MotionJack RyanFrom Orly's Site - Of course, there was no Opposition filed to the Amended Mo...TAITZ-v-FUDDY-Hadley-ltrMike DunfordTAITZ v FUDDY (Hi Cir.Ct.) - For Writ of Mandamus - Motion for Reciprocal SubpoenaJack RyanTAITZ v FUDDY (HI Cir. Ct.) - Certified Transcript - Hearing Held Nov. 30 2011 - tfbJack RyanTAITZ v FUDDY (HI CIR. CT.) - Reply to Opposition to Amended Emergency Motion for RehearingJack RyanTAITZ v FUDDY, et al. (HI CIR. CT.) - Exhibits 1-3 to Complaint - 64118710Jack RyanTAITZ v FUDDY (HI CIR CT) - Amended Ex Parte Motion Reciprocal Subpoena EnforcementJack RyanTAITZ v FUDDY (HI CIR CT) - Order to Expedite HearingJack RyanTAITZ v FUDDY (HI CIR CT) Order Granting Motion to DismissJack RyanBy CaseMike DunfordTAITZ v FUDDY (HI CIR CT) - 11 - DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLFT'S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR REHEARING MOTION TO STAY FINAL ORDER PENDING REHEARING Jack RyanDEFTS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLFT'S
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR REHEARING MOT...From Orly Taitz's Website - TAITZ v FUDDY (Hi Cir Ct) - Amended Motion for RehearingJack RyanAmended Motion for Rehearing.TAITZ v FUDDY, et al (HI CIR CT) - Orly Taitz Petiton for Re-Hearing 11-30-11Jack RyanTAITZ v FUDDY (HI CIR CT) - Application for Extended TV CoverageJack RyanApplication for Extended TV Coverage at January 6 Hearing before Judge NishimuraTAITZ v FUDDY, et al. (HI CIR. CT.) - Attachment to MtD - Declaration of Jill Nagamine - 64117099Jack RyanTAITZ v FUDDY - (HI CIR CT) - Reply to Opposition to Reciprocal Subpoena EnforcementJack RyanTAITZ v FUDDY (HI CIR. CT.) - Exhibits to Amended Emergency Motion for RehearingJack RyanTAITZ v FUDDY, et al (HI CIR. CT.) - COMPLAINT - 64118680 Taitz v Fuddy ComplJack RyanTAITZ v FUDDY - DENIED - Amended Ex Parte Amended Motion for Reconsideration Under 60 BJack RyanTAITZ v FUDDY, et al. (HI CIR. CT.) - MtD - Certificate of Service & Notice of Hearing - 64117110Jack RyanTAITZ v FUDDY (HI CIR CT) - 6 - DEFTS' MEMORANDUM IN REPLY TO PLTF'S OPPOSITION TO MTN TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS Jack Ryan6 DEFTS' MEMORANDUM IN REPLY TO PLTF'S
OPPOSITION TO MTN TO DISMISS PETITION ...TAITZ v FUDDY - Certified Transcript of 1-13-12 Hearing 11-1731fbJack RyanTAITZ v FUDDY - (HI CIR. CT.) - Reply to Opposition to Emergency Morion for Rehearing and Stay... 12-29-11Jack RyanTAITZ v FUDDY (HI Cir. Ct.) From Taitz's Website NOT From the Court Docket - Opposition to Motion To Dismiss - 9-30-11Jack RyanTHIS DOCUMENT IS FROM ORLY TAITZ'S WEBSITE NOT FROM THE COURT DOCKET OR FILE...TAITZ v FUDDY (Hi Cir Ct) - Certified Transcript 1-6-12 HearingJack RyanPrevious|NextPage 1 of 8Similar to TAITZ v FUDDY, et al. (HI Cir. Ct.) - MOTION TO DISMISS - 64115865TAITZ v FUDDY, et al. (HI CIR. CT.) - Attachment to MtD - Declaration of Keith Yamamoto - 64117104Jack RyanTAITZ v FUDDY, et al. (HI CIR. CT.) - Attachment to MtD - Declaration of Keith Yamamoto - 64117104TAITZ v FUDDY (HI CIR CT) CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING 10-12-11 - Taitz101211Jack RyanTAITZ v FUDDY (HI CIR CT) CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING 10-12-11 - Taitz101211TAITZ v FUDDY - (HI CIR CT) - Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion Reciprocal Subpoena EnforcementJack RyanTAITZ v FUDDY - (HI CIR CT) - Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion Reciprocal Subpoena EnforcementFrom Orly Taitz's Website - Emergency Petition - Taitz 11-9-11Jack RyanFrom Orly Taitz's Website - Emergency Petition - Taitz 11-9-11TAITZ v FUDDY (HI CIR. CT.) - Amended Emergency Motion for RehearingJack RyanTAITZ v FUDDY (HI CIR. CT.) - Amended Emergency Motion for RehearingTAITZ v FUDDY (HI CIR. CT.) - Orly's Reply to Opposition to Amended MotionJack RyanTAITZ v FUDDY (HI CIR. CT.) - Orly's Reply to Opposition to Amended MotionTAITZ-v-FUDDY-Hadley-ltrMike DunfordTAITZ-v-FUDDY-Hadley-ltrTAITZ v FUDDY (Hi Cir.Ct.) - For Writ of Mandamus - Motion for Reciprocal SubpoenaJack RyanTAITZ v FUDDY (Hi Cir.Ct.) - For Writ of Mandamus - Motion for Reciprocal SubpoenaTAITZ v FUDDY (HI Cir. Ct.) - Certified Transcript - Hearing Held Nov. 30 2011 - tfbJack RyanTAITZ v FUDDY (HI Cir. Ct.) - Certified Transcript - Hearing Held Nov. 30 2011 - tfbTAITZ v FUDDY (HI CIR. CT.) - Reply to Opposition to Amended Emergency Motion for RehearingJack RyanTAITZ v FUDDY (HI CIR. CT.) - Reply to Opposition to Amended Emergency Motion for RehearingTAITZ v FUDDY, et al. (HI CIR. CT.) - Exhibits 1-3 to Complaint - 64118710Jack RyanTAITZ v FUDDY, et al. (HI CIR. CT.) - Exhibits 1-3 to Complaint - 64118710TAITZ v FUDDY (HI CIR CT) - Amended Ex Parte Motion Reciprocal Subpoena EnforcementJack RyanTAITZ v FUDDY (HI CIR CT) - Amended Ex Parte Motion Reciprocal Subpoena EnforcementTAITZ v FUDDY (HI CIR CT) - Order to Expedite HearingJack RyanTAITZ v FUDDY (HI CIR CT) - Order to Expedite HearingTAITZ v FUDDY (HI CIR CT) Order Granting Motion to DismissJack RyanTAITZ v FUDDY (HI CIR CT) Order Granting Motion to DismissBy CaseMike DunfordBy CaseTAITZ v FUDDY (HI CIR CT) - 11 - DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLFT'S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR REHEARING MOTION TO STAY FINAL ORDER PENDING REHEARING Jack RyanTAITZ v FUDDY (HI CIR CT) - 11 - DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLFT'S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR REHEARING MOTION TO STAY FINAL ORDER PENDING REHEARING From Orly Taitz's Website - TAITZ v FUDDY (Hi Cir Ct) - Amended Motion for RehearingJack RyanFrom Orly Taitz's Website - TAITZ v FUDDY (Hi Cir Ct) - Amended Motion for RehearingTAITZ v FUDDY, et al (HI CIR CT) - Orly Taitz Petiton for Re-Hearing 11-30-11Jack RyanTAITZ v FUDDY, et al (HI CIR CT) - Orly Taitz Petiton for Re-Hearing 11-30-11TAITZ v FUDDY (HI CIR CT) - Application for Extended TV CoverageJack RyanTAITZ v FUDDY (HI CIR CT) - Application for Extended TV CoverageTAITZ v FUDDY, et al. (HI CIR. CT.) - Attachment to MtD - Declaration of Jill Nagamine - 64117099Jack RyanTAITZ v FUDDY, et al. (HI CIR. CT.) - Attachment to MtD - Declaration of Jill Nagamine - 64117099TAITZ v FUDDY - (HI CIR CT) - Reply to Opposition to Reciprocal Subpoena EnforcementJack RyanTAITZ v FUDDY - (HI CIR CT) - Reply to Opposition to Reciprocal Subpoena EnforcementTAITZ v FUDDY (HI CIR. CT.) - Exhibits to Amended Emergency Motion for RehearingJack RyanTAITZ v FUDDY (HI CIR. CT.) - Exhibits to Amended Emergency Motion for RehearingTAITZ v FUDDY, et al (HI CIR. CT.) - COMPLAINT - 64118680 Taitz v Fuddy ComplJack RyanTAITZ v FUDDY, et al (HI CIR. CT.) - COMPLAINT - 64118680 Taitz v Fuddy ComplTAITZ v FUDDY - DENIED - Amended Ex Parte Amended Motion for Reconsideration Under 60 BJack RyanTAITZ v FUDDY - DENIED - Amended Ex Parte Amended Motion for Reconsideration Under 60 BTAITZ v FUDDY, et al. (HI CIR. CT.) - MtD - Certificate of Service & Notice of Hearing - 64117110Jack RyanTAITZ v FUDDY, et al. (HI CIR. CT.) - MtD - Certificate of Service & Notice of Hearing - 64117110TAITZ v FUDDY (HI CIR CT) - 6 - DEFTS' MEMORANDUM IN REPLY TO PLTF'S OPPOSITION TO MTN TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS Jack RyanTAITZ v FUDDY (HI CIR CT) - 6 - DEFTS' MEMORANDUM IN REPLY TO PLTF'S OPPOSITION TO MTN TO DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS TAITZ v FUDDY - Certified Transcript of 1-13-12 Hearing 11-1731fbJack RyanTAITZ v FUDDY - Certified Transcript of 1-13-12 Hearing 11-1731fbTAITZ v FUDDY - (HI CIR. CT.) - Reply to Opposition to Emergency Morion for Rehearing and Stay... 12-29-11Jack RyanTAITZ v FUDDY - (HI CIR. CT.) - Reply to Opposition to Emergency Morion for Rehearing and Stay... 12-29-11TAITZ v FUDDY (HI Cir. Ct.) From Taitz's Website NOT From the Court Docket - Opposition to Motion To Dismiss - 9-30-11Jack RyanTAITZ v FUDDY (HI Cir. Ct.) From Taitz's Website NOT From the Court Docket - Opposition to Motion To Dismiss - 9-30-11TAITZ v FUDDY (Hi Cir Ct) - Certified Transcript 1-6-12 HearingJack RyanTAITZ v FUDDY (Hi Cir Ct) - Certified Transcript 1-6-12 Hearing