WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

User avatar
Butterfly Bilderberg
Posts: 7654
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:26 pm

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#101

Post by Butterfly Bilderberg »

The [link]complaint,[/link] was predicated on HRE 511 (First Cause of Action), HRE 502 (Second Cause of Action), and WTF (Third Cause of Action). Here are the operative allegations:





First Cause of Action:





14. By virtue of the disclosure or consent to disclosure described in ¶¶'s 9-12, above, and the operation of Hawai'i Rules of Evidence ("HRE") Rule 511, [L 1980, c 164, pt of § 1; am L 1992, c 191, §2(4)], Obama has waived any privilege for the requested documents provided by HRS §338-18(b), the applicable statute cited by Defendants in their Denial.





15. The document disclosed contains "any significant part of the privileged matter" contained in the related documents sought, within the meaning of that term as used in HRE Rule 511, and Obama has waived any privilege for the original, whether in the paper or microfilm/microfiche form in Defendant's records, and all other related documents.





(underscoring and emphasis added)Second Cause of Action:





24. A COLB is such a report as is contemplated by HRE Rule 502. [L 1980, c 164, pt of §1].





25. Such digital alteration or evidence thereof as is described in ¶¶ 19-23, above, or alteration by whatever means, or whatever unknown processes have been performed to produce the documents disclosed or consented to be disclosed by Obama, constitute such false statements, or fraud in the return or report, as are described in HRE Rule 502.





26. By virtue of the digital alteration described in ¶¶ 19-21, above, or alteration by whatever means, or whatever unknown processes, and the operation of HRE Rule 502, no privilege is provided to the COLB/report under Hawaiian law, and the privilege otherwise provided by HRS §338-18(b), the applicable statute cited by Defendants in their Denial, does not apply here.





(emphasis added)




THE COURT: Okay. Let's go to the Rules of Evidence. Why would Rule 502 of the Hawaii Rules of Evidence provide a basis for maintaining this action?





Tr. 8:15-17These are the arguments that Judge Change was testing: (1) The COLB is a "report" withing the meaning of Rule 502. (2) Obama has, by disclosing a digital image of his certified paper copy, waived the privilege under Rule 502 that protects the original report. (3) Because I -- the plaintiff -- allege that the digital image of the certified copy of the COLB is an alteration (and you, Judge, have to swallow this lie), the digital alteration constitutes a waiver of the privilege applicable to the original report and this negates the express prohibition of HRS § 338-18 against providing me -- a person possessing absolutely no direct and tangible interest within the meaning of the law -- access to the original typewritten birth certificate and all documents related thereto, in whatever form.





In response Judge Change made these findings: (1) The original report of the birth by a physician, midwife or hospital is the "report" referred to in Rule 502; Obama's disclosure of his copy of the COLB does not operate to waive the privilege under Rule 502 because Obama is not the "reporter" who holds the privilege; he cannot waive a privilege he does not have. If the President waived any privilege, he only waived the privilege to his copy. That does not get you, the plaintiff, to the relief you are asking for -- access to the original. (2) The plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the original report was fraudulent or was altered by the DOH, and in fact, concedes that the only document that he believes was altered is the digital image of the COLB, which again, for the zillionth time, does not constitute any waiver of privilege relating to the original that belongs to the DOH. That does not get you, the plaintiff, to the relief you are asking for -- access to the original. (3) Under the canons of statutory construction, a specific statute governs over a general one. HRS § 338-18 is specific. It specifically governs the disclosure/nondisclosure of the COLB, and that statute says that DOH may provide a COLB only to a person having a direct and tangible interest and, sorry, buddy, but that ain't you. You candidly admit that you do not fall within the thirteen categories of section 338-18. There is no basis to create an exception or a fourteenth category.





The ruling:





[T]he court respectfully finds and concludes that Chapter 338-18(b) prohibits the plaintiff from continuing to prosecute this action, and under no circumstances or set of facts can the plaintiff prevail on the plaintiff's prayer to obtain the original certificate of live birth, or to obtain access to the certificate of live birth under these circumstances. So for these and any other good cause shown in the record, the court will respectfully grant the motion to dismiss.





Tr. 48:3-12
"Pity the nation that acclaims the bully as hero,
and that deems the glittering conqueror bountiful."
- Kahlil Gibran, The Garden of The Prophet

User avatar
bob
Posts: 28051
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#102

Post by bob »

"For the record," Haskins's [/break1]birthersummit.org/news/65-birther-summit-uncovering-truth.html]Nov. 6 presser referred to "a lawsuit yet to be filed."





Wolf v. Fuddy was filed [/break1]scribd.com/doc/74881479/Wolf-v-Fuddy-Hawaii-DOH-Complaint-Obama-s-Birth-Certificate-First-Circuit-Court-of-Hawaii]Sept. 30 .
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
realist
Posts: 35114
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#103

Post by realist »

Great synopsis, BB. :-bd Thanks. :hug:
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
bob
Posts: 28051
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#104

Post by bob »

OPOVV [/break1]blogspot.com/2011/12/wolf-v-fuddy-dismissed-on-basis.html?showComment=1323611610391#c3804916583747023779]comment:Hey OPVV...Me thinks the only way we're going to get the truth is to show up at the Hawaii Department Of Health Hq in an AC-130, AH-1, AH-64 or M48 and announce via megaphone: "Go ahead, punks, MAKE OUR DAY!" :-)RaceJimAnother POVV
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
PatGund
Posts: 7786
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:41 pm
Location: Everett. WA
Occupation: Middle Aged College Student

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#105

Post by PatGund »

OPOVV [/break1]blogspot.com/2011/12/wolf-v-fuddy-dismissed-on-basis.html?showComment=1323611610391#c3804916583747023779]comment:Hey OPVV...Me thinks the only way we're going to get the truth is to show up at the Hawaii Department Of Health Hq in an AC-130, AH-1, AH-64 or M48 and announce via megaphone: "Go ahead, punks, MAKE OUR DAY!" :-)RaceJimAnother POVVBoy, RacerJim does like to talk big, doesn't he??And just how does he plan to get this equipment unless he's expecting the birther wet dream of a military coup???

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 24528
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#106

Post by RTH10260 »

...


Second Cause of Action:





26. By virtue of the digital alteration described in ¶¶ 19-21, above, or alteration by whatever means, or whatever unknown processes, and the operation of HRE Rule 502, no privilege is provided to the COLB/report under Hawaiian law, and the privilege otherwise provided by HRS §338-18(b), the applicable statute cited by Defendants in their Denial, does not apply here....Hmmm - what is so difficult to understand that Obama presented his COLB to the public, and was not making any mandatory or requested "report" to the state of HI ?

User avatar
Butterfly Bilderberg
Posts: 7654
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:26 pm

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#107

Post by Butterfly Bilderberg »

Hmmm - what is so difficult to understand that Obama presented his COLB to the public, and was not making any mandatory or requested "report" to the state of HI ?Dunno what it is about birther lawyers. The compulsory reporting requirement took me about 15 seconds to locate. Oh, look! It has a list of persons who are obligated to make a report of a birth, and the baby who's all growed up is not one of them:





§338-5 Compulsory registration of births. Within the time prescribed by the department of health, a certificate of every birth shall be substantially completed and filed with the local agent of the department in the district in which the birth occurred, by the administrator or designated representative of the birthing facility, or physician, or midwife, or other legally authorized person in attendance at the birth; or if not so attended, by one of the parents.





The birth facility shall make available to the department appropriate medical records for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the provisions of this chapter. [L 1949, c 327, §9; RL 1955, §57-8; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-5; am L 1988, c 149, §1]
"Pity the nation that acclaims the bully as hero,
and that deems the glittering conqueror bountiful."
- Kahlil Gibran, The Garden of The Prophet

User avatar
Piffle
Posts: 6987
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 12:39 pm

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#108

Post by Piffle »

The [link]complaint,[/link] was predicated on HRE 511 (First Cause of Action), HRE 502 (Second Cause of Action), and WTF (Third Cause of Action). Here are the operative allegations:


:-bd =D> Nicely done, BB!





I'm much relieved to know that if I'm walking down the street and I accidentally break a rule of evidence, I haven't opened myself up to a messy lawsuit in Hawaii. Consider, for example:





(a) Prohibited Uses. The following evidence is not admissible in a civil or criminal proceeding involving alleged sexual misconduct:





(1) evidence offered to prove that a victim engaged in other sexual behavior; or





(2) evidence offered to prove a victim’s sexual predisposition.It'd really suck to get sued for waiving FRE 412(a) (or state equivalent), wouldn't it?





Just the thought of having to fill out the interrogatories is enough to cast a chilling effect on...uh...well, you know what I mean by a chilling effect, right? (See e.g., in re George Costanza for a fulsome discussion of shrinkage attributable to chilling effects).





Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that it is overbroad, involves too many broads and solicits information pertaining to matters that did not involve solicitation. Without waiving his objection, Defendant replies as follows (see also supplemental sheets 1 through 32):





To the best of defendant's recollection, the first instance involved one Martha Nurseworthy who proposed playing a game known as "doctor" behind the garage.


....


The 23rd consensual encounter occured in the back seat of a 1965 Chevrolet Impala...But seriously, trying to turn a rule of evidence into a cause of action is every bit this silly, isn't it?

User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8507
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#109

Post by verbalobe »

Piffle! =)) =)) =)) =)) (What was that about waving your objection?)

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31131
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#110

Post by mimi »

Dean made circumspective promises about a lawsuit. This one flew under the radar until WE FOUND IT and began discussing it. Very unusual, because the birthers typically trumpet every new filing.HAWAII UPDATE: We are asked, daily, to release the information about the upcoming lawsuit in Hawaii, despite the explanation that we have been asked not to do so until counsel gives us a green light. As much as we would love to share all the details with the world, doing so could possibly endanger all of our efforts, and there is simply no way to explain that without revealing those details. Having invested so much in time and resources into this, we are even more anxious than you are for the lawsuit to be heard.Please rest assured that everything is progressing properly, as we are merely fulfilling every necessary administrative procedure toward filing this successful lawsuit. Actually, these procedural steps will be the very things that end up painting the defendants into a corner in a court of law. The lawsuit that will be filed soon (we are on the last administrative procedure) will be unlike any other that has been filed in this arena. Rather than the lawsuit dealing with numerous and varied claims that ultimately get lumped together and dismissed without actually being addressed by the court, our lawsuit will be extremely narrow in focus—so narrow, in fact, that the argument will ultimately rest upon one very small word in the applicable statute.Having properly fulfilled every possible administrative procedure, we are confident that our argument surrounding that one little word in the statute will garner the agreement of the court, and we will win the lawsuit. By focusing our argument so narrowly, there is little chance that any judge would be able to dismiss our complaint.As soon as we are assured that releasing the information will not jeopardize the case, we will gladly share all of the details of our investigation and the lawsuit.[/break1]com/obama-state-ballot-challenge-and-a-hawaiupdate]http://obamaballotchallenge.com/obama-s ... awaiupdate :P

User avatar
realist
Posts: 35114
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#111

Post by realist »

Having properly fulfilled every possible administrative procedure, we are confident that our argument surrounding that one little word in the statute will garner the agreement of the court, and we will win the lawsuit. By focusing our argument so narrowly, there is little chance that any judge would be able to dismiss our complaint.Well, I don't blame them for being so super-sekrit about it. After all, the wording of the statute could change in every law book in which it appears at a moment's notice, thus robbing them of their virtually guaranteed DISCOVERY and then VICTORY!!!. :lol:
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 30005
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: District Court of Bun-Dogs
Occupation: Hayseed from North Cackilacki, Space Cadet, and your benevolent Dick Tater

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#112

Post by Foggy »

We don't know what we don't know.

(Fogbow on PayPal)

User avatar
verbalobe
Posts: 8507
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:27 pm

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#113

Post by verbalobe »

HAWAII UPDATE: ...Actually, these procedural steps will be the very things that end up painting the defendants into a corner in a court of law.all together now: "CROSS-TRIANGULATION"!!!!…so narrow, in fact, that the argument will ultimately rest upon one very small word in the applicable statute.yep, because that's the way the law works: single small words narrowly interpreted outside of any context...Odds they have actually identified any "applicable statute"?And anyway, wtf? it's like Hawkins is Evel Knievel's idiot twin, going through all the same hoopla, lining up car chassis in a canyon, putting on the rhinestone jumpsuit, inviting the press.... and then attempting the jump on a tricycle. Pedaling backwards. In the wrong county. At night. VICTORY!!!

User avatar
esseff44
Posts: 12507
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:40 am

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#114

Post by esseff44 »

I hope his Obama-hatin' patron is not paying him much because he's not getting much in return.

User avatar
realist
Posts: 35114
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#115

Post by realist »

No indication on the document list of a new filing, but...Update to the Court Minutes List..http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn31 ... 20-11.jpg5 MOT 1C14 CM 01-12-2012 [highlight]PLTF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF[/highlight]
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
realist
Posts: 35114
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#116

Post by realist »

The Docket has now been updated to reflect the filing that goes with the hearing set 1/12 posted above...http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn31 ... 3-11-1.jpg
ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
bob
Posts: 28051
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#117

Post by bob »

The Docket has now been updated to reflect the filing that goes with the hearing set 1/12 posted above..The 12th is this Thursday. Will there be more awesome coverage?
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10538
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#118

Post by Mikedunford »

The Docket has now been updated to reflect the filing that goes with the hearing set 1/12 posted above..The 12th is this Thursday. Will there be more awesome coverage?Coverage, almost certainly. The awesome part will probably depend on the hearing.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 16185
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#119

Post by Reality Check »

Is this a motion for rehearing, an appeal, or a new case?
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
bob
Posts: 28051
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#120

Post by bob »

Is this a motion for rehearing, an appeal, or a new case?The motion is titled a "motion for relief from judgment," i.e., a rule 60 motion.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 16616
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Northwest part of Semi Blue State

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#121

Post by ZekeB »

Given a choice of coverage on 1/12 or 1/13, I'd prefer to see coverage of the 1/13 event. I need more comedy in my life. Of course coverage of both events would be even better.
Trump: Er hat eine größere Ente als ich.

Putin: Du bist kleiner als ich.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10538
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#122

Post by Mikedunford »

Is this a motion for rehearing, an appeal, or a new case?Rehearing. Unfortunately, I won't be able to obtain either the rest of the file in this case or whatever new pops up in Orly's case until mid to late next week. I've been told that the files are in chambers and cannot be accessed to copy documents for a few days on either side of a hearing. But I should be able to be at both this hearing and Orly's case the following day.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 16185
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#123

Post by Reality Check »

The motion is titled a "motion for relief from judgment," i.e., a rule 60 motion.Thanks, that clarifies it.
"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Taverl
Posts: 753
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 12:41 pm

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#124

Post by Taverl »

Is this a motion for rehearing, an appeal, or a new case?Rehearing. Unfortunately, I won't be able to obtain either the rest of the file in this case or whatever new pops up in Orly's case until mid to late next week. I've been told that the files are in chambers and cannot be accessed to copy documents for a few days on either side of a hearing. But I should be able to be at both this hearing and Orly's case the following day.Thanks so much, Mike! How many zeros would you like on that Soros bonus check?

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10538
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#125

Post by Mikedunford »

The hearing today is at 3 pm. I should be able to make it, but it's probably going to be late evening here before I have time to post anything detailed.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

Post Reply

Return to “Birther Case Discussion”