WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

User avatar
realist
Posts: 34510
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#126

Post by realist » Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:02 am

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.Thanks, Mike. :-bd


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
majorbabs
Posts: 1941
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 7:13 pm

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#127

Post by majorbabs » Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:11 am

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 again for bravely exposing yourself to birthers. doG only knows what kind of disease these vermin might be carrying. :hug: :hug: :hug:



User avatar
Reality Check
Posts: 14880
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#128

Post by Reality Check » Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:13 am

Is that 3 PM HST?


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
GreatGrey
Posts: 9485
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Location: Living in the Anthropocene

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#129

Post by GreatGrey » Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:14 am

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 again for bravely exposing yourself to birthers. doG only knows what kind of disease these vermin might be carrying. :hug: :hug: :hug:Brave would be getting in an elevator with them.


I am not "someone upthread".
Trump needs to be smashed into some kind of inedible orange pâté.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 9388
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#130

Post by Mikedunford » Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:44 am

Is that 3 PM HST?Yes. So it's good that there's no show scheduled. ;)


"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: 14880
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#131

Post by Reality Check » Thu Jan 12, 2012 2:37 pm

It would have been the late show version of RC Radio. I have already scheduled a show for 9 PM ET tomorrow night. I will post the link tomorrow in the RC Radio thread of course.


"“If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.”

Heather Heyer, November 2016

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 9388
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#132

Post by Mikedunford » Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:44 pm

Just a quick status update: Traffic was unusually light, so I'm already at the courthouse. That's the good news. The bad news is that traffic was unusually light, so I'm already at the courthouse. The building has a central atrium that runs up to a big, thick, stained glass skylight, and the ventilation system is kinda old. The courtrooms, meanwhile, are on the 3rd and 4th (of 4) floors. Consequently, it's hot as hell in the hallways outside the courtrooms. There are currently three cases on the calendar for 3:00. Wolf is the second listed hearing of the three. This is kind of cool, because I might actually get to see a hearing or two in a case that isn't utter bullshit.


"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
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#133

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:52 pm

Tell us if you see Taitz's laptop.



User avatar
realist
Posts: 34510
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:33 pm

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#134

Post by realist » Thu Jan 12, 2012 8:02 pm

Tell us if you see Taitz's laptop. :lol:


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 14635
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Northwest part of Semi Blue State

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#135

Post by ZekeB » Thu Jan 12, 2012 8:06 pm

There are currently three cases on the calendar for 3:00. Wolf is the second listed hearing of the three. This is kind of cool, because I might actually get to see a hearing or two in a case that isn't utter bullshit.That would mean you've attended a hearing or two that wern't bullshit more than a certain California attorney.


Ano, jsou opravdové. - Stormy Daniels

Nech mě domluvit! - Orly Taitz

User avatar
mimi
Posts: 31119
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:01 am

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#136

Post by mimi » Thu Jan 12, 2012 8:10 pm

Interview random attorneys in the hall and ask them what they think of Vattel.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#137

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Jan 12, 2012 8:16 pm

Mike - Can you check how many cases are on calendar for tomorrow when La Taitz is up? If more than hers, will she go first or last?



User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 9388
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#138

Post by Mikedunford » Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:04 pm

D9D.More later. Got some scanning to do first.


"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
DaveMuckey
Posts: 4107
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:17 pm

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#139

Post by DaveMuckey » Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:05 pm

:-bd :-bd



User avatar
GreatGrey
Posts: 9485
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Location: Living in the Anthropocene

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#140

Post by GreatGrey » Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:05 pm



I am not "someone upthread".
Trump needs to be smashed into some kind of inedible orange pâté.

User avatar
ZekeB
Posts: 14635
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:07 pm
Location: Northwest part of Semi Blue State

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#141

Post by ZekeB » Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:05 pm

As expected.


Ano, jsou opravdové. - Stormy Daniels

Nech mě domluvit! - Orly Taitz

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#142

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:12 pm

:geezer:



User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 9388
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#143

Post by Mikedunford » Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:27 pm

:geezer:To answer the above question, the hearing schedule gets posted on a clipboard hung on a bulletin board in the hallway the day of the hearing. Based on a limited sample size, it looks like the different Judges handle their hearing calendars somewhat differently. Every time I've looked at the calendar for Judge Nishimura, each hearing is scheduled for its own time slot. She recesses after each hearing, and court reconvenes for the next one at the scheduled time. Judge Chang apparently schedules multiple hearings for one time slot, then takes them right after each other. If there are multiple hearings for same time tomorrow, will let you know. For the other part, this is me. You can have the report fast, thorough, and right. Pick any two, and I'm out of stock on fast ;)


"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
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 43902
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#144

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:28 pm

OK. I'll take all 3 because RHIP.



User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 9388
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#145

Post by Mikedunford » Thu Jan 12, 2012 11:51 pm

Here's the rundown for the hearing today:There was one case that was heard before Wolf v Fuddy - a motion for confirmation of sale and approval of a commissioner's report. I learned a few things about the normal practice of law:(1) Apparently, the equitable subrogation and equitable subordination is very important, especially since it's not clear if subordination is a remedy available under Hawaii law.(2) If you can't find a piece of paper you need within 30 seconds or so, you might as well not have it at all.(3) You might need anything related to the case in any hearing. Moving on to the case at hand: There was some interaction between Ms. Nagamine and Mr. Carroll prior to the hearing. Apparently, Mr. Carroll wanted to apologize for some things that his co-counsel had put in the pleadings. Ms. Nagamine was a bit firm in expressing her displeasure at what she took to be accusations of misconduct. Nevertheless, she was kind enough to lend Mr. Carroll copies of documents later in the hearing. We do not yet have copies of all the pleadings. I will try to obtain them, but not before late next week. I've been told that it typically takes about that long for chambers to return the file to the file room after a hearing. The case was called at 330. Ms. Nagamine and Ms. Quinn appeared for the Department of Health. Mr. John Carroll appeared for the Plaintiff. His out of state PHV co-counsel was not present. There were two separate motions before the court: a motion to set aside the dismissal order from the prior hearing, and a motion for summary judgement. Both had been filed by the plaintiff. Judge Gary Won Bae Chang began by stating that they were there on the Plaintiff's motion for relief from judgement or order, and that the Plaintiff was seeking relief because they had inadvertently filed an early draft of their memo in opposition to the Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgement instead of their final draft. Judge Chang then asked Mr. Carroll what in the final draft would have changed the outcome of the Motion to Dismiss. Mr. Carroll apologized for messing up the filing. He then stated that they had omitted their discussion of Justice v Fuddy out, and particularly the part that dealt with how their case differed from Justice. Judge Chang asked why they didn't bring this up at the earlier hearing. Mr. Carroll said that they forgot. Judge Chang seemed skeptical. Mr. Carroll mentioned that there was a 3rd lawyer involved, who had not sought PHV status, and that a lot of drafts were sent back and forth. (The third lawyer was not identified by name.) Judge Chang then asked Ms. Nagamine for the State's position. Ms. Nagamine replied that they felt that the text of the UIPA statute makes it clear that 338-18 is not covered by UIPA - it's a specific exception. She also noted that the "left out" section on page 11 of the opposition (again, we do not yet have a copy of that) was labeled "Plaintiff Violates US Constitution", and appeared not to have anything to do with Justice v Fuddy. Judge Chang asked if UIPA controls instead of 338-18. Ms Nagamine replied that their position was that HRS 92F 13-4 states that records protected from disclosure by law are exempt from UIPA, and that 338-18 is a law that protects records from disclosure. Judge Chang asked for a response. Mr. Carroll replied that they were focusing on 92F 13-1 instead of 13-4, and felt that relying on 13-1 would have carried the day for them. Judge Chang asked Ms. Nagamine how she read Justice. Ms. Nagamine was unsuccessful in doing so to the Judge's satisfaction, and he told her that the response was wasting his time. I did not understand exactly what the Judge was asking for and/or how Ms. Nagamine was failing to answer the question myself, so I can't elaborate on why the Judge was displeased with the response. Judge Chang asked Mr. Carroll to explain how 13-1 entitles his client to inspect the birth certificate, and suggested that Mr. Carroll read from the statute if necessary. Mr. Carroll did not have a copy immediately at hand. Judge Chang suggested that he paraphrase, or simply explain what has changed since Justice that would entitle his client to the birth certificate. Mr. Carroll replied that their position was that 338-18 was overridden by UIPA, and that once the birth certificate had been published, it was disclosed, and therefore the language of 92F 13-1 exempted it from protection. At this point, Ms. Nagamine quietly reached across and handed Mr. Carroll a copy of the statute. Mr. Carroll pointed out that 92F 13-1 exempts from disclosure government records which, if disclosed, would constitute an invasion of privacy. He pointed out that the birth certificate has already been disclosed, so it should not be exempted, and that as a matter of principle government should be as open as possible. Judge Chang asked for the specific entitlement to the birth certificate. Mr. Carroll replied that the public disclosure by the president should be enough in and of itself. He added that if the court sees it otherwise, that's what judges are for. Judge Chang pointed out that 338-18 explicitly prohibits disclosure except to those with a tangible interest. He also pointed out that the statute does not refer to privacy or privilege of the record, but the status of the individual asking for the record. He stated that the Plaintiff needs to show an entitlement to the document, and that allegations of fraud or a public release of the document don't meet either UIPA or 338-18 requirements. Mr. Carroll reiterated that the document had already been released to the public, and that 92F 13-1 should prevail over 13-4.Ms. Nagamine disagreed, saying that they felt that 13-4 was controlling in this instance, and that it required looking to 338-18 to see if release is appropriate. Mr. Carroll was asked where in Justice v Fuddy anything could be found that would remove the obstacle presented by 13-4. Mr. Carroll referred to page 5 of the decision (after being provided a copy by Ms. Nagamine). He said that there is ambiguity between 13-1 and 13-4, and that the court should look to the spirit of the UIPA law, which favors disclosure. Judge Chang asked Mr. Carroll if there was anything specific in there. He pointed out that if there was a law that said that records could be released on Halloween, there would still be a need to follow the other rules governing release. He went on to say that the Court reads the situation the same way that the DoH does. 13-4 seems to apply. There is nothing in the record that shows that either of the 2 things needed for release (provision of the law authorizing disclosure and the plaintiff meeting the requirements of that provision) had been met by the defendant. He went on to state that the plaintiff fails to show a reason to disclose the documents under either 92F 13-4 or 338-18. The motion to reconsider and the motion for summary judgement were both denied. The State is to prepare orders for both.
Edit: Fixed typos.


"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
Estiveo
Posts: 7199
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:31 pm
Location: Trouble's Howse

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#146

Post by Estiveo » Fri Jan 13, 2012 12:04 am

Thank you Mikedunford!


Image Image Image Image Image

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

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#147

Post by Piffle » Fri Jan 13, 2012 12:09 am

Once again, super job Mike! Thank you, thank you for covering these procedings for all of us!



User avatar
jtmunkus
Posts: 5643
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:33 pm
Location: Cone of Silence

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#148

Post by jtmunkus » Fri Jan 13, 2012 12:10 am

So Carroll's big argument is that the president waived his privilege [that he didn't possess], therefore the state should waive its privacy law. Sounds familiar.



Jill Christie
Posts: 192
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 7:18 am

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#149

Post by Jill Christie » Fri Jan 13, 2012 6:10 am

Thanks so much for your great report. No joy in Birferdumb.



User avatar
SueDB
Posts: 27756
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:02 pm
Location: FEMA Camp PI Okanogan, WA 98840

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#150

Post by SueDB » Fri Jan 13, 2012 6:25 am

:geezer:To answer the above question, the hearing schedule gets posted on a clipboard hung on a bulletin board in the hallway the day of the hearing. Based on a limited sample size, it looks like the different Judges handle their hearing calendars somewhat differently. Every time I've looked at the calendar for Judge Nishimura, each hearing is scheduled for its own time slot. She recesses after each hearing, and court reconvenes for the next one at the scheduled time. Judge Chang apparently schedules multiple hearings for one time slot, then takes them right after each other. If there are multiple hearings for same time tomorrow, will let you know. For the other part, this is me. You can have the report fast, thorough, and right. Pick any two, and I'm out of stock on fast ;)I for sure am not complaining. I am just hope that we can do as good a job if the circus ends up in Seattle or in Olympia (state capitol) There are a couple of Obots on the left coast here. Next election we will get a new congressional district (wash 10) Which isolates the rwnj a bit and could bring the new district into Demo territory.


“If You're Not In The Obit, Eat Breakfast”

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

Post Reply

Return to “Birther Case Discussion”