13 Responses to “Draft of a reply to opposition for 01.06.2012 hearing before judge Nishimura, Honolulu, HI”

1. ohno
   December 30th, 2011 @ 9:15 am

   What was Virginia Sunahara’s cert number? The one one on her COLB

2. outraged
   December 30th, 2011 @ 9:23 am

   Dr. Orly, this is jaw dropping! I am no lawyer, but I found it a bit hard to follow, in parts. I am guessing that experienced Judge will not have that problem though. Godspeed Dr. Orly!!!!

3. john
   December 30th, 2011 @ 10:05 am

   Dr. Orly,

   Make sure you mention the Obama BC mugs and bring one with you to the hearing. Obama’s manufacturing of coffee mugs FOR PROFIT with his birth certificate on it is completely contrary and inconstistent with the purpose and intent of HRS 338-18 which reads in part – “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….”

   HRS 338-18 applies to ANY PERSON including Obama and applies to COPIES as well.

   While Obama had the right to receive his birth certificate according to the rules of the Hawaii DOH, Obama has the right and duty to use his birth certificate for OFFICIAL PURPOSES ONLY.

   There is no way Hawaii can defend the actions of Obama as they have been a party to it.

   Hawaii has allowed Obama to use his birth certificate in complete contradiction to purpose and the intent of HRS 338-18.

   Hawaii has allowed Obama to use a COPY of an official state issued document to be used for personal profit – A clear example of misuse.

   Further Hawaii has allowed Obama to use his COPY of an official state issued document to prescribe allegations of fraud, forgery and ridicule which goes against the integrity of Hawaii Vital records.

4. Bart Piscitello
   December 30th, 2011 @ 10:15 am

   The draft in opposition of 1/6/12 hearing is an absolute brillant piece of legal writing.
   It had sheer clarity and purpose.
   Any legal and just interpretation must grant
   Dr Taitz a favorable decision.
   I also see that there are over 23 MILLION hits on her blog.
   This is not a coincidence or curiosity seekers, but legitimate inquirys as to how much time and effort Taitz is putting in to get obama out.
   She keeps going where other lawyers fear to tread; ie, Berg, Farrah, Corsi and Kreep.
   All others could not hold the candle up high enough to read the pleadings.
   What amazes many of us is the lack of integridy that our leaders; congress, and the judicial have in not even mentioning obama’s fraud. (the emperor without clothes)
   It appears to me that she is the only one pursuing a cause; maybe Arpaio may join in.
   His possee should already have the facts; not much to do except to read them.
   Orly has done a fantastic job in her research and law work.
   I doubt if she has been justly compensated.
   With 23 million hits on her blog and hundreds of thousands coming, now is the time to get off our lazy asses and put a couple of dollars toward Taitz’s cause.
   Your dollar will be better spent than giving it to Rhino candidate that have’nt even mentioned obama’s fraud.
   They are spiritless people who seek power and fame for themselves only and not look to the survival of this great nation.
   Taitz is a leader amongst the people. and her example should encourage others to follow.
   I intend to donate more to her cause; and would’nt it be wonderful if , everytime we accessed her blog, we donated a penny.
   23,000,000 pennies would go a long way in defeating obama.
   Go Orly, you wonderful woman, Go.
   History will honor you someday; may it be soon.

5. Abu Baker
   December 30th, 2011 @ 11:38 am

   I’d suggest that Orly bring her checkbook to Honolulu on Jan 6th because she’s gonna get sanctioned and won’t be allowed off the island till she pays up.

6. john
   December 30th, 2011 @ 12:49 pm

   Dr. Orly,
   OK, Listen Closely. In Your draft you mention your 200 clients and cite a few specific candidates. You should mention that one of your clients does indeed have a “Direct” and “Tangible” interest under Provision #5 of HRS 338-18 – Your client shares a common ancestor with Obama. You mention that this plaintiff is from the Carter case and is an 8th cousin to Obama. According to UIPA Memo 11-7 – https://hawaii.gov/oip/INFORMAL%20opinion%20summaries/U%20Memo%2011-7.htm
   Your client does have the right to Obama’s birth records assuming he has the vital records to prove it – HRS § 338-18(b)(5) to limit common ancestors to those shown by verifiable vital records.
   While it may not be necessary to provide that proof at this time, this would greatly undermine Hawaii’s HRS 338-18 argument and give an additional edge in the advancement of your othervarguments. You could state that this is new evidence since client has just completed requestion of the necessary vital records to satisfy provision #5 of HRS 338-18.

7. john
   December 30th, 2011 @ 12:49 pm

   Dr. Orly,
   OK, Listen Closely. In Your draft you mention your 200 clients and cite a few spe-cific candidates. You should mention that one of your clients does indeed have a “Direct” and “Tangible” interest under Provision #5 of HRS 338-18 – Your client shares a common ancestor with Obama. You mention that this plaintiff is from the Carter case and is an 8th cousin to Obama. According to UIPA Memo 11-7 – https://hawaii.gov/oip/INFORMAL%20opinion%20summaries/U%20Memo%2011-7.htm
   Your client does have the right to Obama’s birth records assuming he has the vital records to prove it – HRS § 338-18(b)(5) to limit common ancestors to those shown by verifiable vital records.
   While it may not be necessary to provide that proof at this time, this would greatly undermine Hawaii’s HRS 338-18 argument and give an additional edge in the advancement of your othervarguments. You could state that this is new evidence since client has just completed requestion of the necessary vital records to satisfy provision #5 of HRS 338-18.

8. Paul Jackson
   December 30th, 2011 @ 1:26 pm

   @ John… “HRS 338-18 applies to ANY PERSON including Obama and applies to COPIES as well.”

   No, John, HRS 338-18 applies to Hawaii DOH, not Obama, not you, not me, not Orly or anyone else.

   “While Obama had the right to receive his birth certificate according to the rules of the Hawaii DOH, Obama has the right and duty to use his birth certificate for OFFICIAL PURPOSES ONLY.”

   Untrue. He can use it any way he wishes. Nothing he does affects what HI can do under their laws.

9. orly taitz
   December 30th, 2011 @ 1:39 pm

   yap, that is true, though his actions of taunting me are really irritating. This Juliana Smoot from his campaign really has the nerve

10. stelahogard
    December 30th, 2011 @ 7:42 pm

    Hi, this blog is really instructive. I would like to know more about this.

    Up-right Cases

11. Russell Bennett
    December 30th, 2011 @ 9:58 pm

    I wonder if Fuddy would be willing to make a new copy using the Microfilm the way the Twins certificates were done.

12. Paul Jackson
    December 31st, 2011 @ 5:14 am

    @ Russell… “I wonder if Fuddy would be willing to make a new copy using the Microfilm the way the Twins certificates were done.”

    First off, no one even knows if microfilm or microfiche exist from 1961.

    Second, the answer is no she would not be willing.

13. ohno
    December 31st, 2011 @ 10:02 am

    Russell

    THere is an assumption that a microfilm or microfiche exists. The Nordyke BC’s could in fact have been produced on a photostat machine. They are early copier type machines that produce a negative image.

Leave a Reply