In today's dispatches, much like plague-ridden groundhogs popping up out of the holes to vomit forth six more weeks of insanity, we have the first two birther bills of 2012. One of New Hampshire's elected birthers decides to ignore the Constitution and go to a higher source - the Magna Carta.
Zampolit Dean Haskins reveals his super-secret, can't fail Hawaiian lawsuit - and the attorney who crafted it should stick to business and real estate law. Haskins also shows a knowledge of statistics and procedure that's in line with his knowledge of the law and the US Constitution - namely nonexistent.
The Alabama GOP is told they better not go against the de Vattelists unless they want to find a horse head in their bed. Al Hendershot wants a delay to bring Dr. Orly into his case, the defendants and the judge both say "no". Birther Rep Harry Accornero gives a take on the New Hampshire birther press conference that bears only a slight resemblance to reality. And Dr. Orly has a no good, very bad, rotten day in Hawaii.
4 January - "What the Ha-Yell" comments on the Georgia Birther Ballot Jihad.
"Just when we thought the ‘birther’ movement and it’s ringleader, Donald Trump, were fading into oblivion, the great state of Georgia proves us wrong."
Oh, Donald Trump was a johnny come lately….
4 January - Missouri gives us the first birther bill of the year, HB 1046, submitted by Rep. Lyle Rowland (R-143rd District).
Rep. Rowland was the sponsor of a 2011 birther bill, HB 283, which died in committee.
The main difference between HB 283 and HB 1046 is that 283 demanded proof of identity and proof of US citizenship for each candidate. Whereas 1046 changes this to:
"Such certification shall provide verifiable evidence of identity and of proof of status as a natural born citizen of the United States for each nominee and the origins of such evidence. Such evidence shall be in the form of the most complete record of birth available by the controlling legal authority at the time of the nominee's birth, and shall be kept and maintained by the secretary of state, and shall be deemed a public record under chapter 610. The burden of proof for such evidence shall lie solely upon each nominee. As used in this subsection, "natural born citizen" means having been declared a national and citizen of the United States at birth under 8 U.S.C. Sections 1401 to 1409, as amended, or having been declared a national and citizen of the United States under federal law as it existed at the time of the nominee's birth."
So last year was "prove to us you were born in the United States. This year is "prove to us you're a Natural Born Citizen".
Funny, I seem to recall all the birthers telling us this time last year that "all he would have to do is show us his long form, and everything would be fine……"
4 January - And New Hampshire is next up with a 2012 birther bill, HB 1164. And birther elected official Rep. Rappaport is one of the sponsors.
"III.(a) The candidate shall append to the declaration of intent documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate’s age, and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for president of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States. The documents, which shall be sworn to under penalty of perjury, shall be:
(1) A certified copy of the original long form birth certificate that includes the date and place of birth.
(2) A sworn statement that identifies the candidate’s places of residence in the United States for 14 years.
(b) If the candidate fails to submit and swear to the documents prescribed in this section, the secretary of state shall not place that presidential candidate’s name on the ballot in this state."
Well, the demand for a "certified copy of the original long form birth certificate" will run afoul of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. Otherwise, it's surprising how bland this one is. No de Vattelism at all.
"I. The national political party committee for a candidate for president for a party shall provide to the secretary of state written notice of that party’s nomination of its candidates for president and vice-president. Within 10 days after submittal of the names of the candidates, the national political party committee shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate’s citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate’s age, and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for president of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.
II. The affidavit prescribed in paragraph I shall include references to and attachment of all of the following, which shall be sworn to under penalty of perjury:
(a) A certified copy of the original long form birth certificate that includes the date and place of birth.
(b) A sworn statement that identifies the candidate’s places of residence in the United States for 14 years."
Again, no de Vattelism here. Since US law and past legal rulings have defined "natural born" as "born in the United States or to a US Citizen parent", it's pretty mellow.
4 January - Speaking of the New Hampshire elected birthers, Rep Lucien Vita co-sponsors an interesting bill….
"House Bill 1580 is the product of such a brainstorming session this summer between three freshman House Republicans: Bob Kingsbury of Laconia, Tim Twombly of Nashua and Lucien Vita of Middleton. The eyebrow-raiser, set to be introduced when the Legislature reconvenes next month, requires legislation to find its origin in an English document crafted in 1215.
“All members of the general court proposing bills and resolutions addressing individual rights or liberties shall include a direct quote from the Magna Carta which sets forth the article from which the individual right or liberty is derived,” is the bill’s one sentence.
The Magna Carta, while famed as the first major declaration of rights under English monarchy, is a bit outdated in its actual prose."
The irony being that the same people who are going "rah-rah" about the Magna Carta are the ones who cite de Vattel and claim that US law wasn't originally based on English Common Law.......
5 January - And the "big news" from Dean Haskins and birtherpoolza?? That he was harassing the Sunahara family.
Remember when he took Dr. Orly to task for her harassment of that family?? Who would have thought Zampolit Haskins was a big ol' flaming hypocrite?
"As was previously reported, in October and November, we spent a total of 2 ½ weeks in Hawaii on an investigative assignment"
And we would really like to know who was bankrolling you too.
It was at the beginning of that stay that we met Duncan Sunahara, a highly informed, but unassuming guy, complete with his signature coconut palm frond hat. He was a military veteran with an obvious deep love for his country.
Translation - he was someone we could easily sucker or buy off.
"Duncan knew that his sister was born in the same hospital that he had been a few years earlier, and that she was transferred to another hospital, but he didn't know which one (and his elderly mother could not remember). He had visited the birth hospital, Wahiawa General, and both Queen's and Kapi'olani Medical Centers, but was not able to obtain any information from them. We were able to help him procure all of the medical records from the day Virginia spent in Wahiawa General, and found that she was transferred to Kapi'olani, but Kapi'olani insists they have no records on file. It does seem odd that Wahiawa would have the records, but Kapi'olani supposedly does not (how much room could it take to store a roll of microfilm?). This certainly seems "convenient" for them."
Not really. Most hospitals don't keep 50 year old records of deceased patients around.
"When we visited the Department of Health, we weren't quite sure what we would find, since Loretta Fuddy had insisted that Virginia's records didn't exist. However, we were pleasantly surprised that Duncan's application produced several certified copies of Hawaii's new short form birth certificate (which they now absurdly call their "long form"). Upon closer inspection, we learned that the number assigned to Virginia's birth certificate is 151-1961-01180, and realized that, statistically, that number simply cannot be legitimate."
Remember how the birthers claimed that the number on Virginia Sunahara's birth certificate must be the same as on Obama's??
Translation - "Damn! It was a different number after all!!!"
"Now, here's what's wrong with that number: we all know that the last group of numbers on the "certificate" Barack Obama claims is his official record is 10641, and his certificate was supposedly processed on August 8, 1961. We also know that the Nordyke twins were assigned the numbers 10637 and 10638, and their certificates were processed on August 11, 1961. Virginia Sunahara's birth certificate states that it was processed on August 10, 1961, but the number it was assigned is 443 higher than the Nordyke twin whose certificate was stamped with the number 10637."
Not particularly curious at all. If each hospital used a pad or batch of certificates with pre-printed numbers on them. Virginia Sunahara was born at Wahiawa General, not Kapi'olani Medical Center, where Obama and the Nordyke twins were born at. Which means that each batch had a different sequence of numbers.
If one is in the reality based community, it's no big statistical mystery at all. Only the conspiracy minded would see some deep dark problem here.
Also, Haskins' understanding of math is just as flawed as his understanding of statistics or civics. 10637+443=11080, not 01180.
(On edit, Haskins went back and corrected his original post to 11080. Typoes happen, even to birthers)
"To refute the ridiculous argument that birth certificate worksheets were pre-numbered, and clerks kept small stacks of them on their desks for processing, that is not only patently false, but also, by federal law, would be illegal. Birth certificate "worksheets" (what they call blank birth certificate forms) are kept at the hospitals, and it is there where the information is entered onto them. Once all the information has been entered, they are sent to the DOH, where they are processed using a Bates machine, which enters certificate numbers sequentially, and then the date of processing is stamped onto them. Basement bloggers who suggest otherwise simply prove their lack of factual knowledge with that argument (as if any further proof of that were needed)"
*Chuckle* While Dean Haskins is rather hypercritical at denouncing "basement bloggers without factual knowledge", (since that description describes most of the birthers), again it's not a big statistical surprise either. If the numbering was done using a Bates stamp rather than a pre-printed form, then the answer is quite simple:
1) If the Bates numbering was done in pre-processing at the hospital, then each hospital would have had a block of numbers to work with.
2) If the Bates numbering was done at the Department of Health, then each clerk would have a block of numbers to work with to keep them from accidentally using the same number.
Remember, this was done in the days before wide-spread use of computer technology, where using a "block system" to assign numbers would have made more sense and protected against accidental duplication.
And again, Dean Haskins shows how petty and thin-skinned he is.
"We went back to the DOH the next day to try to obtain a photocopy of Virginia's original birth certificate, but were told that Duncan was not allowed to receive that (according to DOH rules). When we pointed out to Supervisor Jesse Koike that their "rules" were illegal, according to Hawaiian statutes, he told us that Duncan would have to discuss that with Dr. Alvin Onaka. We spent four hours waiting to speak with Onaka, who eventually instructed the security guard to throw us out of the facility (which seems to be outrageous behavior from someone with nothing to hide)."
Seems like perfectly understandable behavior from a director and an agency who keeps getting harassed and attacked by a group of conspiracy nuts.
And I strongly suspect they were doing more than just "waiting". I'd bet money that harassing the staff and clients was part of it as well.
"It is still unbelievable that, in 2008, our so-called media dispatched teams to sift through Sarah Palin's trash looking for anything they could find to discredit her, but did nothing of the sort regarding an empty suit Marxist from Chicago who refused to provide any substantive documentation regarding his eligibility."
Bias much Zampolit Haskins??
"Reality Check" has provided a list of all known certificate numbers from 4 August 1961 to 5 August 1961
"Nordyke, Susan – 10637 – August 5th
Nordyke, Gretchen – 10638 – August 5th
Obama, Barack – 10641 – August 4th
Sunahara, Virginia - 11080- August 4, 1961
Waidelich, Stig – 10920 – August 5th"
What's interesting to note?? Except for Sunahara, they're in alphabetical order. Since the Nordykes, Obama, and Waidelich were all born at the same hospital, it suggests some sorting or pre-processing at the hospital, with the same clerk handling that batch.
Virginia Sunahara was from a different hospital. Which means a different clerk. Also, since she passed away a few days after birth, they may have handled her birth certificate differently as well. (possibly infant deaths were processed by a clerk who handled both the birth and death certificates.
Haskins also provides a video interview with Duncan:
What catches my attention is Duncan stating that the woman who contacted the family was investigating infant mortality, not Obama's birth certificate. Now we know that both Nellie Ristvedt, aka "Butterdezillion", and Miki Booth said they contacted the family.
Which means one or both of them *lied* about their purpose and intent to the mother of Virginia Sunahara.
Just when I think they can't possibly get any lower, they get a backhoe and start digging.
5 January - And we have the complaint that Duncan Sunahara has filed.
(Scribd link here)
"6. On or about November 22, 2011, Plaintiff Sunahara requested from the State of Hawaii, Department of Health, an estimate of the cost and expense to obtain a certified copy of the original Certificate of Live Birth (hereafter “Birth Certificate”) of Virginia Sunahara, deceased, pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statute § 338-13(a). The statute states in relevant part, “the department of health shall upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, . . .” (Emphasis added)."
How did they respond??
"8. The State of Hawaii had previously provided a “computer generated abstract of birth record” for Virginia Sunahara, and a statement that this was the only form of the birth certificate to which Plaintiff was entitled."
So they gave him a COLB, which is what the State of Hawaii DoH gives everyone now.
"9. Pursuant to Hawaii law, Plaintiff Sunahara is entitled to a certified copy of the original hospital generated paper Certificate of Live Birth of his deceased sister, Virginia Sunahara."
O RLY?? Where in Hawaii State Law does it say that??
"10. As the natural brother of Virginia Sunahara, with the same parents, Plaintiff Duncan Sunahara is entitled to obtain a certified copy of her original Birth Certificate. HRS § 338-18 provides in relevant part,
Disclosure of Records.
(b) The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons shall be considered to have a direct and tangible interest in public health statistics records: .. .
(5) A person having a common ancestor with the registrant. . . (Emphasis added)."
So let me get this straight. Duncan Sunahara asked for a copy of his sister's birth certificate. The Department of Health gave him a certified copy of the COLB, which is what provide to their clients now. However, since we're talking birthers, this isn't good enough.
HRS § 338-18 is here
"11. As the natural brother of Virginia Sunahara with common parents, Plaintiff is entitled to a certified copy of the original Birth Certificate of Virginia Sunahara."
However, state law doesn't say "certified copy of the original Birth Certificate" It says "certified copy of any such record or part thereof."
I predict this lawsuit isn't going anywhere.
"14. As an agency of the State of Hawaii, the Department of Health is subject to the Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA), HRS Chapter 92F.
15. HRS § 92F-11 expressly provides in relevant part: Affirmative Agency Disclosure Responsibilities.
(a) All government records are open to public inspection unless access is restricted or closed by law.
(b) Except as provided in section 92F-13, each agency upon request by any person shall make government records available for inspection and copying during regular business hours; . . .
(d) Each agency shall assure reasonable access to facilities for duplicating records and for making memoranda or abstracts. . . . (Emphasis added).
16. HRS § 92F-12 further provides in relevant part, Disclosure Required.
(b) Any provision to the contrary notwithstanding, each agency shall also disclose:
(2) Government records which, pursuant to federal law or a statute of this State, are expressly authorized to be disclosed to the person requesting access. (Emphasis added).
Note the section "unless access is restricted or closed by law" and "section 92F-13". The Department of Health's own website says:
"The State’s public records law, the Uniform Information Practices Act (Modified) (“UIPA”), found at chapter 92F, Hawaii Revised Statutes (“HRS”) requires that all government records be open to public inspection unless access is restricted or closed by law. Government records means information maintained by an agency in written, auditory, visual, electronic, or other physical form, see HRS §92F-3. The UIPA does not require an agency to provide access to government records that state law protects from disclosure, see, HRS §92F-13 (4), nor does it require agencies to respond to all questions asked of the agency."
The text of HRS §92F-13 is here. It specifically exempts:
"§92F-13 Government records; exceptions to general rule. This part shall not require disclosure of: (1) Government records which, if disclosed, would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
"(4) Government records which, pursuant to state or federal law including an order of any state or federal court, are protected from disclosure; and"
So under Hawaiian state law, birth records are protected records and are specifically exempted from the Uniform Information Practices Act.
"17. The Department of Health, as an agency of the State is required to make the Birth Certificate of Virginal Sunahara available for inspection and copying pursuant to HRS § 92F-11.
18. Additionally, HRS § 92F-12 requires the disclosure of government records, specifically the original Birth Certificate of Virginia Sunahara, based on HRS § 338-13.
19. Under Hawaii law, the Department of Health is required to maintain records and to disclose and provide a certified copy of the original Birth Certificate of Virginia Sunahara to Plaintiff."
Except, again, under HRS § 92F-13, birth records are exempted from the requirements of HRS § 92F-11 and HRS § 92F-12.
"23. The Department of Health is an agency of the State of Hawaii and pursuant to HRS § 321-10, it is subject to the rule-making requirements of HRS §§ 91-1 to 4, of the Hawaii Administrative Procedures Act (HAPA).
24. Plaintiff contends that the Department of Health’s rule and practice is invalid and violates HRS § 338-13."
"26. The Department of Health’s rule of providing only an “abstract” of birth records is invalid pursuant to HRS § 91-2(b), “No agency rule, order, or opinion shall be valid or effective against any person or party, nor may it be invoked by the agency for any purpose, until it has been published or made available for public inspection as herein required, . . .“
Granted, I am not an attorney, but I fail to see how any of these apply unless they're trying to argue that the COLB-only rule wasn't filed properly at the time the DoH made that change.
"29. Plaintiff has a statutory right to bring this action under HRS § 92F-15, for the judicial enforcement of the Hawaii UIPA."
HRS §92F-15 is here
"(a) A person aggrieved by a denial of access to a government record may bring an action against the agency at any time within two years after the agency denial to compel disclosure."
Problem is that it looks like Duncan Sunahara was given the information that the DoH was allowed to give him under HRS §92F-13
Oh, and I think we have one of the main reasons why the birtherstani are trying for this.
"a. Declaratory Judgment in favor of Plaintiff Duncan Sunahara compelling Loretta Fuddy, Director of the Department of Health, State of Hawaii, to provide a certified copy of the original paper hospital generated Certificate of Live Birth of Virginia Sunahara, and a certified copy of any microfilm version of Virginia Sunahara maintained by the Department of Health;"
In a nutshell, they're trying to figure out a way to get into the "vault records" and just "happen" to see Obama's long form at the same time.
If this was Dean Haskins' Great White Hope, I suspect he's going be sadly disappointed. Again.
I do find it odd that the only local attorney they could find, Gerald H Kurashima, is practicing outside his normal practice of law, since this is neither Business Law, Real Estate, or Construction Law. Wonder what his take in this is....
5 January - The Alabama Republican Party gets warned "you better not be thinking of supporting any swarthy or questionable types, or de Vattel's sacred hand will SMITE you!!"
"Chairman Bill Armistead we expect you to vet every Presidential Candidate to ascertain they are in fact Constitutionally qualified for Office of President of the United States. We are aware that Rick Santorum’s father, Aldo Santorum, was an Italian Immigrant and Willard Mitt Romney’s father, George W. Romney, was born in Chihuahua, Mexico. Therefore, you should obtain their Naturalization Documents to make sure they were in fact Naturalized American Citizens prior to the birth of their Children, Rick May 10, 1958 and Mitt March 12, 1947. Along with their Birth Certificates and Residency requirements this will assure that Rick and Mitt meet the Constitutional requirement of Natural Born Citizen prior to their being Certified for Alabama 2012 Primary Ballot Access.
So as to prevent future Court Action we would appreciate your confirming the Republican Presidential Candidates have been certified as Natural Born Citizens as stated above prior to January 19, 2012."
5 January - Albert Hendershot wants a stay in his case against the Alabama Democratic Party. Why? He wants to go from being a pro se client to being represented by Dr. Orly. (malware and redirect warning)
(Scribd link here)
"Currently Plaintiff is not represented by legal counsel and is Pro-Se; however, legal counsel has been obtained Pro-Bono. Dr. Orly Taitz Esq. (CA Bar Number: 223433) has agreed to represent Albert E Hendershot Jr. (Pro Hac Vice) in the above mentioned case and I am requesting that I have time to prepare a proper case with the aid of legal counsel to properly show cause for my case against the Alabama Democratic Party.
Mr. Ragsdale, Counsel for the Defense is siting Cases in his MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW JUST CAUSE that the Plaintiff has no knowledge of due to his lack of legal knowledge and therefore cannot site or argue competently in and for his case hence the need for the delay in the proceedings so Plaintiff may be properly prepared with the aid of legal counsel provided by Dr. Orly Taitz Esq. for the conference requested by Mr. Ragsdale, Counsel for the Defense.
And to make it even funnier.
"As Plaintiff in this case I am also seeking a stay in the STATUS CONFERENCE until January 30, 2012 which is unfairly scheduled for January 9, 2012 so as to properly prepare my evidence, and properly argue the cases cited by Mr. Ragsdale, Attorney for the Defense with the aid of my attorney, Dr. Orly Taitz Esq."
Let's see. Today's the 5th. And he STILL doesn't have his case properly prepared???
Wow. The birthers really like planning ahead.
5 January - The judge in Hendershot's case, Judge Helen Shores Lee, 10th Judicial Circuit, is sparking some….problems with the birtherstani.
Namely she's a Democrat. And African-American.
As a result, over at Birther Report:
"Anonymous said…[Reply] Oh God, Helen Shores Lee is the biggest liberal DemocRAT ever! AND an ignorant african-american woman to boot! Trust me on this one, I've talked to her on the phone before (I worked for an attorney for 24+ years) and she is dumber than a rock. Could be a win for us or she could go off the deep end…time will tell. Hendershot has a GREAT firm behind him though so I'm not too worried. January 4, 2012 8:51 PM"
5 January - Birther elected Rep Harry Accornero of New Hampshire gives his spin on the "press conference" they did on 3 January.
"It went pretty well. Larry and the Vitas gave the papers to one of the subordinates of the Attorney General, who supposedly wasn’t in. We had to give them to someone authorized to receive them. Then we went over to the Legislative Office Building, where we were asked to leave because supposedly there was another press conference; of course, it wasn’t for two hours.
So we went outside to have it there anyway, and the press were there, so they said, “Come into the conference room in the Capitol.”
Funny, the local media reported it somewhat differently…..
"People promised that there were going to be all kinds of people there, but only a handful of people were there. That’s what’s very discouraging to me, and I shouldn’t be, but I just give it to the Lord. "
Sounds like a typical birther crowd now, doesn't it??
"We had it in the press room, so it was a little crowded in there, but of the legislators, there were probably about 8 or 12 of us. "
O RLY?? Local press reports and the video said only three were there. Granted, it's the difference between less than 1% of the state house and 4%, but still, I suspect "birther math" is in play here.
"I’m going to meet with the Speaker of the House on the 6th, and I’ve asked Larry Rappaport to come with me. "
That would be the same speaker of the house that denounced you, right?
5 January - The Birmingham News reports on Dr. Orly signing on to the Alabama Birther Ballot Jihad.
"In the court papers posted on Taitz's web site, Hendershot said he needed time to confer with Taitz about his case and to prepare to defend against Kennedy's attempts to get the suit dismissed.
Hendershot has said his suit is part of an informal effort in several Southern states to block Obama from the ballots there. He contends Obama is ineligible to serve as president because he is not a natural-born citizen.
Hendershot claims he has "staggering" evidence that Obama is using a forged birth certificate and a fake social security number. He has not had a lawyer until today.
Democratic officials have said Obama's citizenship and eligibility to serve are settled matters. Federal judges have dismissed at least seven similar lawsuits in the last four years, Kennedy's lawyers say."
And in comments:
"kenyanbornobamacorn January 05, 2012 at 12:15PM
BLACK and INELIGIBLE!!"
"But we're not racist, honest!!!"
6 January - The defendants (namely Mark Kennedy of the Alabama Democratic Party) in the Alabama Birther Ballot Jihad file an opposition to motion for a stay.
(Scribd link here)
In the first footnote:
"The Defendant has never been served with the Complaint in this matter but has decided to waive service in an effort to get this case resolved as expeditiously as possible."
What is this constant problems the birthers seem to have with proper legal service??
"3. The Defendant is required by law to certify the candidates for the 2012 Alabama Democratic Primary no later than January 19,2012.
4. On January 1, 2012 Defendant Kennedy filed a Motion for Expedited Status
Conference. On January 4, 2012 this COUli scheduled a hearing on the Defendant's motion for January 9, 2012.
5. On January 5, 2012 the Plaintiff filed a "Motion for a Stay of Expedited Status Conference." In his motion, the Plaintiff asserts that while he filed the present case without the benefit of counsel, he has now allegedly retained a California lawyer to represent him."
In other words, he realized he was in over his head and sinking.
"6. While Defendant Kennedy believes that this matter would celiainly benefit from the involvement of qualified and eligible counsel to advise and assist the Plaintiff..."
Gee, you think??
"…the California lawyer identified by the Plaintiff is not licensed in Alabama and has not complied with the requirements for admission pro had vice provided for in Rule VII of the Rules Governing Admission to the Alabama State Bar. See, e.g., Ex parte Maples, 885 So.2d 845, 850 (Ala.Crim.App. 2004) ("To be admitted pro had vice, an out-of-state attorney must associate a local attorney.,,).2"
And provides a helpful footnote about said California attorney.
"2 Even if Plaintiffs California counsel is somehow able to secure local counsel and comply with the Bar's admission rules, the Defendant will likely oppose her pro hac application based on her long and sordid history of sanctions and other unprofessional conduct. See, e.g., See Rhodes v. MacDonald, 670 F.Supp.2d 1363 (M.D. Ga. 2009), ajJ'd., 368 Fed.Appx 949 (11th Cir. 2010) ($20,000 in sanctions). "The grant of admission to a nomesident attorney to appear in this court pro had vice is not a right but a privilege, 'the granting of which is a matter of grace resting in the sound discretion of the presiding judge.'" Steinbuch v. Cutler, 463 F.Supp.2d 4, 7 (D.D.C. 2006)."
"7. More importantly, the continuance requested by the Plaintiff should be denied on the grounds that the Plaintiff elected to file this astonishing proceeding and seek the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction with full knowledge that the Alabama Democratic Primary is looming and that Defendant Kennedy has a statutory deadline of January 19, 2012 to certify candidates for inclusion on the primary ballot. For the Plaintiff to suggest that he was somehow taken by surprise when the Defendant opposed his requested relief by relying on established constitutional and legal principles strains credibility."
It doesn't strain it, it completely breaks it.
"In addition, the Plaintiff has had many months to retain counsel, yet he apparently waited until after this case was pending and this COUli had scheduled a hearing to attempt to do so."
Gee, I wonder why??
"8. This matter is due to be summarily dismissed and the sooner the better."
6 January - In the Alabama Birther Ballot Jihad, Judge Helen Shores Lee gives Al Hendershot the word about his request for a stay.
(Scribd link here)
"The Motion to Stay, filed on January 5, 2012, by Plaintiff, Albert E. Hendershot Jr., came before this Court on January 6, 2012.
After giving due consideration thereof, said motion is hereby DENIED.
Accordingly, the hearing scheduled for the above mentioned case will proceed as scheduled on January 9, 2012, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 650, Jefferson County Courthouse, Birmingham, Alabama. Please mark your calendars accordingly."
Wonder if Dr. Orly is going to try and hit up the cavity creeps for more money to attend…..
6 January - Meanwhile in Hawaii, Dr. Orly is less than happy.
"At approximately 3:05 ET, Atty. Orly Taitz contacted The Post & Email following the hearing scheduled for today in Taitz v. Fuddy in the First Circuit Court in Honolulu with Judge Rhonda Nishimura. Astoundingly, although we are told that Nishimura was aware that Taitz was not available on January 26, 2012 because of a ballot challenge hearing in Atlanta, GA, she scheduled a hearing on the subpoena issued by the court in Georgia for the very same day.
Taitz said that because of the Motion for Reciprocal Subpoena Enforcement filed with the Hawaii court, Judge Nishimura was aware that Taitz could not be in both Hawaii and Georgia on that day."
Oh shucky darn??
Here's a clue Dr. Orly. Do you REALLY expect a judge to pick out the one or two crumbs of data in the middle of all the legal noise you vomit forth on a regular basis?? Maybe if you knew anything about the law or court procedures, you might actually know to directly notify the judge of such a thing.
Particularly when most of us debunkers knew days ago that there was a schedule conflict. The fact you didn't know it says you need to lay off the nitrous and actually take responsibility for a change.
"Taitz had reported previously that Deputy Attorney General Jill T. Nagamine claimed that Hawaii did not have to honor a subpoena from a court in Georgia. However, the “Full Faith and Credit Clause” of the U.S. Constitution says differently."
So the "Full Faith and Credit" clause applies to subpoenas but not birth certificates?? That's news.
"Contact information for the Hawaii Administrative Office of the Courts is here. The First Circuit Court may be contacted here. As of press time, it is 9:40 a.m. in Hawaii. The Post & Email has just called and gotten a voice message system stating that the court is “unable to take” our call and gave a litany of other numbers to call about various problems. “We are unable to return any long-distance calls,” the recording said."
So Sharon Rondeau thinks the solution is to have the birtherstani call and harass the court.
That will go over well.
6 January - Word from courtroom observers in Hawaii is that Dr. Orly's request for reconsideration was denied.
She also claimed that President Obama was going to stand trial in Georgia (false, it's an administrative proceeding) and that they were granted discovery (also false).
Isn't that, oh, I dunno, perjury to lie to the court like that???
6 January - via Mike Dunford at "Fogbow", an eyewitness view of the courtroom in Hawaii.
"1: I think the issue w/ sanctions was that the judge had 0 remaining patience and was determined to remain professional. Which she did well. State will put request in writing.
2: 35 minute hearing.
3: motion denied from bench.
4: Orly tried to argue subpoena motion. Judge not having any.
5: Orly tried to argue to be allowed to argue subpoena motion. Judge not having that, either.
6: Orly told that judge's job not to tell her what motion to file.
7: Orly unaware that subpoena motion scheduled for 26th. (that was fun)
8: Orly very unhappy at end of hearing, almost in tears."
6 January - Dr. Orly whines that, wahh, the judge is being unfair and mean to her, wahhh. (malware and redirect warning)
"Today judge Nishimura stated, that reciprocal subpoena enforcement from GA is a separate matter and will have to be heard separately on January, 26, even though it was clearly stated in the motion, that the trial is scheduled for the same day, January 26, 2012. I pleaded with her, explaining that this is pointless, this is the day of trial. She told me to bring another written motion. She refused to hear any argument, that this is an integral part of the case at hand. I have no words to express my feelings and characterize this.
I am taking other steps, but it is extremely hard."
Here's a step you *could* take. It's called "learn to follow the damn rules".
Oh, and you can call it a "trial" all you want, but it's still an administrative proceeding.
6 January - From Birther Report
LEAVE ORLY ALONE!!! You're lucky she even litigates for you BASTARDS!!!!! January 6, 2012 2:10 PM"