WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

User avatar
June bug
Posts: 6096
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:29 pm
Location: Northern San Diego County

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#51

Post by June bug » Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:16 pm

Anybody know the reason for the Dec. 27 court date?They are already set to be back in court on Dec.27,



User avatar
nbc
Posts: 4179
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#52

Post by nbc » Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:23 pm

Anybody know the reason for the Dec. 27 court date?They are already set to be back in court on Dec.27,motion for reconsideration? Hmm in context that does not make sense..



User avatar
June bug
Posts: 6096
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:29 pm
Location: Northern San Diego County

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#53

Post by June bug » Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:31 pm

Yep - that's why I asked. I don't think you can schedule a motion for reconsideration court hearing before you file the motion for reconsideration...not in this universe anyway.Eez a puzzlement. :-k



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

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#54

Post by realist » Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:32 pm

Anybody know the reason for the Dec. 27 court date?They are already set to be back in court on Dec.27,Yes. The plaintiffs had filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and it was set to be heard on that date. Though actually the Minutes List says 12/28, not 12/27. The Plaintiff's MSJ will be denined and so will the MTR. I "suspect" the comment at ORYR that the case was dismissed because he "was not a relative" is really "no tangible interest."And of course if there is a statute or part of one that "negates" the tangible interest where fraud is proven, they of course have not only proven no fraud they don't even have any evidence of such... epic failure... again.


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
June bug
Posts: 6096
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:29 pm
Location: Northern San Diego County

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#55

Post by June bug » Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:34 pm

Thanks, realist. Now I have another question. If the MTD was granted, doesn't the Motion for Summary Judgment and its associated hearing become moot?And, even if that hearing goes forward, is the court obligated to hear the Motion for Reconsideration at the same time?



User avatar
bob
Posts: 24522
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#56

Post by bob » Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:38 pm

Now I have another question. If the MTD was granted, doesn't the Motion for Summary Judgment and its associated hearing become moot? :-$ And, even if that hearing goes forward, is the court obligated to hear the Motion for Reconsideration at the same time?No. But maybe Wolf thinks that since he's reserved some time on the calendar already....


Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
June bug
Posts: 6096
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:29 pm
Location: Northern San Diego County

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#57

Post by June bug » Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:41 pm

Thanks, bob! :oops: Sekrit Stuffs!
=)) =)) =))



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

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#58

Post by realist » Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:54 pm

This poster's handle at [link]ORYR,http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot ... mment-form[/link] is certainly appropriate... :lol: [highlight]Thinking.the.Unthinkable[/highlight] said...[Reply] I'm wondering if there is anything in the Hawaii laws which would require the state officials to pronounce that the birth certificate that Obama posted on the White House website is in fact a true and correct copy of what Fuddy gave to Obama's attorney in April 2011. Fuddy stated, “Enclosed please find two certified copies of your original Certificate of Live Birth. I have witnessed the copying of the certificate and attest to the authenticity of these copies.” Since the copy that Obama placed on the WH website does not look like an original birth certificate and does not have a state seal, would it be too much to ask for Fuddy to vouch for the document that Obama put on the WH website? White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer stated, “The State Department of Health in Hawaii will obviously attest that that is … what they have on file. As Bob said, it’s in a book in Hawaii.” So let's make the Hawaii DOH officials vouch for the document Obama put on the WH website like Pfeiffer said they would. And Obama said “We've posted the certification that is given by the State of Hawaii on the Internet for everybody to see.” Why is it we can't believe everything that Obama says? [highlight]If Hawaii says that the document Obama put on the WH website is a true and correct copy that they provided to Obama's attorney, then we know that Hawaii created a fraudulent document.[/highlight] ](*,) If that is the case, then it's highly likely that the forgery was created because there is no original 1961 Hawaiian birth certificate for Obama. That would coincide with the fact that Hawaii Senior Election Official Tim Adams gave an affidavit that no government official in Hawaii could find Obama's birth certificate. On the other hand if Hawaii officials say that they did not provide the document that Obama put on the WH website, then Obama is screwed. Just the tampering with the registrar's stamp (with the misspelled "TXE" and the smiley face in the "A" of Alvin T. Onaka's signature) is prima facie evidence that Obama's birth certificate is a forgery. And when you open up the pdf file in Adobe Illustrator you can see that the registrar's stamp is a linked element from another source which was then scaled and rotated -90 degrees. So that means that the document on the WH website was not a scan of a paper document. So if Hawaii won't let anyone see what is in their files, then is it possible to make Fuddy again attest that the copy she gave Obama is in fact what Obama placed on the WH website, just as Pfeiffer said she would.Do these people actually walk and breathe at the same time without assistance?


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

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

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#59

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Fri Dec 09, 2011 8:16 pm

Hawai'i's webpage on President Obama's birth certificate "controversy" actually links to the White House webpage. These people are blithering idiots.



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

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#60

Post by jtmunkus » Fri Dec 09, 2011 8:26 pm

Maybe Orly can join this case. You know, to fix it.



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

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#61

Post by Mikedunford » Fri Dec 09, 2011 10:14 pm

Hawai'i's webpage on President Obama's birth certificate "controversy" actually links to the White House webpage. These people are blithering idiots.The websites aren't notarized.


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

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#62

Post by jtmunkus » Sat Dec 10, 2011 3:34 am

Court transcript of WOLF v. FUDDY, courtesy of ORYR (or whomever they stole it from):





[/break1]scribd.com/doc/75274207/Wolf-v-Fuddy-Hawaii-DOH-Transcript-of-Proceedings-Obama-s-Birth-Certificate-Hearing-First-Circuit-Court-of-Hawaii] ... -of-Hawaii



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

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#63

Post by jtmunkus » Sat Dec 10, 2011 4:29 am

So, the judge held that President Obama does not have a privilege to waive with regard to the vault copy of the LFBC.But doesn't the argument made by Orly and Carroll/King completely fall apart if indeed the president released a forgery? If it isn't the same document as the one in the vault - as King and Carroll (Wolf?) claim - then wouldn't the vault copy's confidentiality remain a totally separate issue?



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

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#64

Post by GreatGrey » Sat Dec 10, 2011 4:33 am

Court transcript of WOLF v. FUDDY, courtesy of ORYR (or whomever they stole it from):





[/break1]scribd.com/doc/75274207/Wolf-v-Fuddy-Hawaii-DOH-Transcript-of-Proceedings-Obama-s-Birth-Certificate-Hearing-First-Circuit-Court-of-Hawaii] ... -of-HawaiiOhhh, I do think I like Judge Chang. :)




Edit: From Page 26In fact in 1961 there were original records


made, but nowadays there's no piece of paper. It's all


done electronically. I believe 1993 or something is


when that all occurred. Same for death registration.


It's all done electronically. So the information, the


data, is housed in a computer. So if somebody wants to


see that there's a whole computer with a whole slew of


information much of which is not -- wouldn't be


something that even the registrant, the person named in


the birth certificate, would even be entitled to see,


but public health statistics.Neener neener neener, told you guys. There's only digital copies.


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

User avatar
Whatever4
Posts: 11517
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:36 am
Location: Mainely in the plain
Occupation: Visiting doctors.

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#65

Post by Whatever4 » Sat Dec 10, 2011 5:00 am

Man that was quick!


"[Moderate] doesn't mean you don't have views. It just means your views aren't predictable ideologically one way or the other, and you're trying to follow the facts where they lead and reach your own conclusions."
-- Sen. King (R-ME)

User avatar
Butterfly Bilderberg
Posts: 7646
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:26 pm

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#66

Post by Butterfly Bilderberg » Sat Dec 10, 2011 11:21 am

The hearing was over -- done, concluded, decided -- at this point, on page 12:THECOURT: You're saying that the Department of Health has no interest in maintaining the confidentiality of these records?MR.KING: No,they have a statutory obligation to do so.THECOURT: Yes.


"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
Butterfly Bilderberg
Posts: 7646
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 2:26 pm

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#67

Post by Butterfly Bilderberg » Sat Dec 10, 2011 11:30 am

[quote name=jtmunkus]So, the judge held that President Obama does not have a privilege to waive with regard to the vault copy of the LFBC.





But doesn't the argument made by Orly and Carroll/King completely fall apart if indeed the president released a forgery? If it isn't the same document as the one in the vault - as King and Carroll (Wolf?) claim - then wouldn't the vault copy's confidentiality remain a totally separate issue?




No. The "privilege" to which the Judge and Mr. Carroll are referring is a creature of statute. It is in [link]Rule 502,http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurren ... 1-0502.htm[/link], Hawaii Rules of Evidence, Required reports privileged by statute. The statute determines who has the privilege. The court asked Mr. Carroll, who has the privilege? Take a look, jt, and see if you can answer that question. No hints. ;)





A person, corporation, association, or other organization or entity, either public or private, making a return or report required by law to be made has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing the return or report, if the law requiring it to be made so provides. A public officer or agency to whom a return or report is required by law to be made has a privilege to refuse to disclose the return or report if the law requiring it to be made so provides. No privilege exists under this rule in actions involving perjury, false statements, fraud in the return or report, or other failure to comply with the law in question. [L 1980, c 164, pt of §1]




Only the privilege holder can waive the privilege. Thus, the judge asks:





THE COURT: Okay, why don't you tell me where does it say Barack Obama has a privilege under 502? Tell me what language confers a privilege on--on Barack Obama to waive.





* * *





THE COURT: Who has the 502 privilege? Look at the language and tell me who has the 502 privilege?







The Commentary to the rule explains: "A number of Hawaii statutes requiring that reports be made or information be supplied incorporate provisions against unauthorized disclosure of such reports or information. This has the effect of creating a qualified privilege for the reporting party and for the recipient on the reporting party's behalf." The privilege was created to protect the confidentiality of mandatory reports, such the report that a physician or social service worker is required to make in cases of suspected child or elder abuse.





Plaintiff's counsel (the New Jersey attorney) effectively concedes the argument.





THE COURT: So--and you agree that President Obama is not among those listed?





MR. KING: Not specifically named, no.




Jill Nagamine drives this point home:





The physicians at the hospital or the attending midwife or physician or whoever knows the facts of the birth is required to make a report and give that information to the Department of Health. But that would then--if we take that reading of it--which actually I think is fair to do. If we take that reading of it, then Kapiolani Hospital would be the person or Dr. Sinclair would have been the person required to make that report, and then they would have a privilege, I believe, to tell plaintiffs, " I don't have to tell you what's in this report that I had to make."




And the court agrees with her:





[T]his court construes the reporting of live births as a statutorily mandated report that must be prepared by appropriate institutions or individuals, none of whom are the baby that was born





* * *





If, in the alternative, the President did have a privilege, he could not waive the privilege that belong--that is created in the second sentence that belongs to the Department of Health. Only the Department of Health could waive the privilege created in the second sentence. .




There you have it. Barack Obama is not a reporting party. He, therefore, does not hold the privilege created in the first sentence. Neither can he waive the privilege created by the second sentence. He is not the record keeper who is charged by section 338 with maintaining the confidentiality of the record. Barack Obama's disclosure of his copy of the LFBC can never operate to waive the second privilege that maintains the confidentiality of the original vital record. Whatever he does with his certified copy is irrelevant to the record keeper's or privilege holder's obligation.





That's 'what the birthers cannot grasp.


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

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#68

Post by mimi » Sat Dec 10, 2011 11:50 am




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

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#69

Post by Reality Check » Sat Dec 10, 2011 11:52 am

So has the Scorecard been updated lately? Do these election challenges count also?


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

Heather Heyer, November 2016

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

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#70

Post by mimi » Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:01 pm

Since somebody paid for that transcript, I assume an appeal is on the way?



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

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#71

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:28 pm

Isn't the result preordained by Justice v. Fuddy?



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

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#72

Post by realist » Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:44 pm

Isn't the result preordained by Justice v. Fuddy?^^^^THIS


ImageX 4 ImageX36
Image

User avatar
Sequoia32
Posts: 4711
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:47 pm

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#73

Post by Sequoia32 » Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:53 pm

THE COURT: The complaint is dismissed with prejudice, yes.Doesn't this mean it can't be appealed? If not, just what does "with prejudice" mean?


So far every case of Ebola in this country got it by helping people. So relax, Republicans, you're in the clear. - Tina Dupuy

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)

#74

Post by SueDB » Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:54 pm

Soon Hawaii will be citing cases with the Taitz name on them as binding precedent... :lol: :lol:


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

Remember, Orly NEVAH disappoints!

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

WOLF v FUDDY (HI CIR CT)

#75

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:57 pm

"With prejudice" means that the plaintiff can't simply amend the complaint to circumvent the problem identified in the order granting the motion to dismiss. I.e., it's not a "pleading" issue, it's that the claim under any set of facts that the plaintiff might allege is legally without merit.





An appeal can be taken from such a dismissal.



Post Reply

Return to “Birther Case Discussion”