Source: http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=26801
Timestamp: 2013-06-19 19:57:03
Document Index: 69162501

Matched Legal Cases: ['§91', '§91', '§91', '§91', '§91', '§91']

Extremely important. Next hearing in Hawaii tentatively November 16, 2011, 8:30 am Circuit Court Honolulu I will post PDF with better formating later | Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire
STATE OF HAWAII ) REHEARING On October 12, 2011 this Honorable Court held a hearing in Taitz v Fuddy and Onaka. At the hearing several important issues and questions arose requiring verification with the agency, Department of Health, and Director of Health Loretta Fuddy. Plaintiff herein is submitting a NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION requesting verification and clarification of issues risen at the hearing, stay of final order pending such verification and a rehearing with Your Honor. This motion is based on the Memorandum of points and authorities and oral argument to be presented during the hearing.
Taitz believes that the defendants are simply playing with semantics and are de facto engaged in obstruction of justice, as they know or suspect, that the alleged certified copy of Mr. Obama’s birth certificate is indeed a computer generated forgery and they are making up excuses in this criminal cover up of this forgery. Taitz urges this court not to be complicit in this criminal cover up and adjudicate that the meaning of “Agency Hearing” in the sense of 92(F) UIPA (Unified Information Practices Act) is indeed “agency review”, which was done as a prerequisite to the hearing in the circuit court. Taitz submits to this court that Deputy Attorney General Nagamine intentionally and maliciously misrepresented the requirements for Judicial review of the agency decision. May 19, 2011 Letter from Alvin Onaka to Taitz, denying her request for review of records indeed was an agency decision, which entitled Taitz to a judicial review according to §91-14.
5. October 12, 2011 hearing was recorded by FOX-KHON2 network and repeatedly shown in prime time news in Hawai’i. Though the official transcript is not available yet, the TV report shows the defendants’ attorney stating during the hearing “I have a document here”. “If you were to ask if Barack Hussein Obama the II was born in Hawaii, the answer will be yes”. So, yet again, in the court of law, in the Circuit Court of the State of Hawaii the Defendant is referring to the long form birth certificate of Mr. Obama, which is allegedly kept in the bound book of birth records in the Health Department in Hawaii. As Nagamine referred to this document in the court hearing, this provided the Plaintiff herein yet again, for the second time, with the right to demand the original record for verification and authentication of the claim made by Nagamine according to §91-10(2) HRS. As such, Taitz request this court to order the defendant to allow the Plaintiff and her forensic document experts to inspect for authenticity the original long form birth certificate, to which Nagamine referred to in the court of law. If such order is not granted, than this court becomes criminally complicit together with the Director of Health Fuddy, Registrar Onaka, Deputy Attorney General Nagamine, Health Department and the office of Attorney General of the state of Hawai’i in defrauding the People of the United States of America, in obstruction of Justice, in aiding and abetting forgery, uttering of forged documents, aiding and abetting felony and misprision of felony. 6. Defendants improperly asserted a defense of privacy to deny authentication of the alleged certified copy of the original document in clear violation of Hawaii Rules of evidence Article 10, Rule 102, Tile 8, §91-10(2)b and best evidence rule. Plaintiff never asked for any confidential records and never asked to disclose anything. She only asked for authentication of the document, submitted by reference by the opposing attorney in the 9th circuit court of Appeals as well as during procedings in this court on October 12, 2011 by deputy attorney general Nagamine. The Department of Health and now this court are obligated to allow her to conduct authentication and verification of the original in lieu of the alleged certified copy puruent to Article X, Rule 1002 of the Rules of evidence of the state of Hawai’i, Title8, §91-10(2) HRS and Best Evidence Rule. CONCLUSION
1. Stay the final order in the above captioned case. 2. Rule that the Plaintiff satisfied the requirements of statute §91-14 for judicial review of the contested case in light of the May 19, 2011 letter from defendant Onaka’s decision to refuse request for inspection of records. In the alternative Plaintiff is asking this court to order the defendant to show specific statutes and rules, which require the Plaintiff to take any other steps before instituting a judicial review of the agency actions. 3. Order the defendant to provide the court with a specific citation of the “yes”or “no” one word agency verification and authentication of records statutes claimed by the Defendants. In case, such statutes does not exist, Plaintiffs are requesting this court to reverse October 12, 2011 ruling and rule in favor of the Plaintiff, as well as sanction the Defendant’s attorney for making up non-existent statutes, that go against any basic sane rules of evidence and go against §91-10 (2) HRS, Article X, Rule 1002 of the Hawai’i Rules of Evidence and Best Evidence Rule.
October 23rd, 2011 @ 2:44 pm This is your best yet, Lady Liberty. The only, way to improve it would be, to ask for a specific amount of sanctions.
The amount, should be the cost of your two airfares, hotels plus $5,000 for your time. Make it an odd amount, so that the court will understand it is to compensate you as much as to punish Nagamine. You should also require the court reporter to produce her transcript for free since she has been ignoring you.
October 23rd, 2011 @ 2:53 pm Very well written! This will certainly get the court’s attention. What do you think they will do next?
October 23rd, 2011 @ 3:55 pm Orly, this is just fantastic. I don’t know how you have the time to turn out these pleadings what with everything else you do.
October 23rd, 2011 @ 5:12 pm Greetings Dr. Taitz, Before your last trip to Hawaii I really thought you could wrap things up down there. Then you went down there and they sandbagged you. Oh, by the way, the term is “Smoke and Mirrors”, not “Smoking Mirrors”.
October 23rd, 2011 @ 5:22 pm Dr. Orly,
This is brilliant. Talk about hanging the Hawaii lawyer on her onw petard! I’ll bet you’ll get those sanctions and get her disquliafied too! The conflict of intrest is so bad. And just making stuff up has got to be the worst thing a lawyer can do. Great job!!!!!!
October 23rd, 2011 @ 7:05 pm Very impressive and compelling arguments! This is beautiful work!
October 24th, 2011 @ 1:51 am Dr. Taitz,
October 24th, 2011 @ 3:36 am I finally agree with The Truth on something! This has to be the most impressive pleading you’ve turned out to date. If this does not get the attention of the court and the judge, nothing ever will.
October 24th, 2011 @ 4:09 am Dr. Orly, Keep up the pressure, God is with you. You are the best attorney. God bless you.
October 24th, 2011 @ 9:04 am Include a request for immediate inspection of the birth certificate if you win. Don’t give them the opportunity to ‘schedule’ review and further delay justice.
October 25th, 2011 @ 7:53 pm Congratulations Mr. Jackson!
October 30th, 2011 @ 10:44 am Is it just me or do these “officials” in Hawaii seem insane?
October 30th, 2011 @ 8:10 pm Kelley – it’s just you.
October 31st, 2011 @ 5:45 pm Orly, can we sue our representatives for dereliction of duty?
November 1st, 2011 @ 2:19 am you can, but it is hard to win, they have immunity