5 Responses to “01.13.2012 hearing docs”

1. MichaelN
   January 13th, 2012 @ 10:07 pm

   Not only should the circuit court issue a Hawaiian subpoena……… it “SHALL” ……. which means it MUST!

   Hawaiian Revised Statutes.

   §624-27 Subpoena to witness.

   Where a commission to take testimony within the State has been issued FROM A COURT WITHOUT THE STATE, or WHERE A NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN OR ANY OTHER PROCEEDING HAS BEEN TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING TESTIMONY WITHIN THE STATE, PURSUANT TO THE LAWS OR PRACTICE OF THE STATE OR JURISDICTION WHEREIN THE DEPOSITION IS TO BE USED for purposes of discovery or as evidence, including the United States if it is a federal proceeding, THE CIRCUIT COURT, in a proper case, on the presentation of a verified petition SHALL ORDER THE ISSUANCE OF A SUBPOENA to any witness, commanding the witness to appear before the commissioner, officer or person named or designated in the commission, notice or other paper, at a time and place specified in the subpoena, to testify in the same manner as is provided by the rules of court relating to depositions for use in [the] State.

   If any witness fails to obey the subpoena, or refuses to testify, or to produce a book or paper pursuant to a subpoena or to subscribe the witness’ deposition, the court issuing the subpoena, if it is determined that a contempt has been committed, may prescribe the punishment as in the case of a recalcitrant witness in a circuit court in the State, and may make such additional or other orders as would be proper if the deposition were for use in the State. [L 1951, c 199, §2; RL 1955, §223-21; HRS §624-27; am L 1972, c 143, §1(e); gen ch 1985]

   That should take care of the subpoena, but you still have the problem with HRS 338-18(b)

   I say subpoena the “Registrant” also, under HRS 338-18(b)1., as they have a “direct and tangible interest”.

   Additionally, under 338-18 (b)
   (9) “A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;”

   has a direct and tangible interest, due to the subpoena that the Hawaiian court judge “SHALL” have issued.

   Not only demand the subpoena “SHALL” be issued, but seek a court ORDER from the judge as well.

   Hawaiian Revised Statutes.
   §338-18 Disclosure of records.
   (a) To protect the integrity of vital statistics records, to ensure their proper use, and to ensure the efficient and proper administration of the vital statistics system, it shall be unlawful for any person to permit inspection of, or to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.

   (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 a public health statistics record:

   (1) The REGISTRANT;

   (2) The spouse of the registrant;

   (3) A parent of the registrant;

   (4) A descendant of the registrant;

   (5) A person having a common ancestor with the registrant;

   (6) A legal guardian of the registrant;

   (7) A person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant;

   (8) A personal representative of the registrant’s estate;

   (9) A person whose right to inspect or obtain a certified copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;

   (10) Adoptive parents who have filed a petition for adoption and who need to determine the death of one or more of the prospective adopted child’s natural or legal parents;

   (11) A person who needs to determine the marital status of a former spouse in order to determine the payment of alimony;

   (12) A person who needs to determine the death of a nonrelated co-owner of property purchased under a joint tenancy agreement; and

   (13) A person who needs a death certificate for the determination of payments under a credit insurance policy.

2. orly taitz
   January 13th, 2012 @ 10:13 pm

   I do not understand, how could she miss it?

3. Breaking: Atty. Orly Taitz Reports on January 13 Hearing in Hawaii| The Post & Email
   January 14th, 2012 @ 7:56 am

   […] hearing in Honolulu is posted at Taitz’s website here.  Taitz also posted her own account of the […]

4. ThePaidTroll
   January 14th, 2012 @ 11:44 am

   MichaelN

   An administrative board from Georgia is not a commission to take testimony from within the state of Hawaii as you have suggested. Hence, the statute you have quoted does not apply in this instance.

5. orly taitz
   January 14th, 2012 @ 2:02 pm

   based on what?

Leave a Reply