TAITZ V FUDDY (HI CIR CT) CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING 10-12-11 - Taitz101211

PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAII
___________________________________ DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ.,
) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) LORETTA FUDDY IN HER OFFICIAL ) CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE ) DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, STATE OF ) HAWAII, DR. ALVIN T. ONAKA, IN ) HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE ) REGISTRAR, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ) STATE OF HAWAII, ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________)
before the HONORABLE RHONDA NISHIMURA, Tenth Judge, presiding, on Wednesday, October 12, 2011. MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS REQUEST FOR INSPECTION OF RECORDS UNDER UNITED (SIC) INFORMATION PRACTICES ACT STATUTE 92F, STATE OF HAWAII FILED 8/10/11 APPEARANCES:
of T
ien
Fr
ds
REPORTED FLORENCIA OFFICIAL STATE OF
BY: L. FINES, CSR NO. 124 COURT REPORTERS HAWAII
FLORENCIA L. FINES, CSR NO. 124 Official Court Reporter First Circuit Court State of Hawaii
he F
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
og Bo w. co m
DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ. Plaintiff, Pro JILL T. NAGAMINE, ESQ. REBECCA E. QUINN, ESQ. Deputies Attorney General For the State of Hawaii
CIVIL NO. 11-1-1731
PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2011 Honolulu, Hawaii
2 A.M. SESSION
(The case was called.) MS. NAGAMINE:
Jill Nagamine and Rebecca Quinn, Deputies Attorney General representing the defendants. MS. TAITZ:
Taitz for plaintiff, pro se. THE COURT:
submitted Application for Extended Coverage; is that correct? Any objection? MS. TAITZ: THE COURT:
he F
MS. TAITZ:
MS. NAGAMINE:
of T
THE COURT:
morning.
All right.
before this Court is a Motion to Dismiss, and I believe that the State is moving pursuant to Rule 12(b) HRCP; is that correct? MS. NAGAMINE: THE COURT: That's correct, Your Honor. Assume that the Court
ien
ds
has read the motion, the memo in op, the reply memo, and
Fr
og Bo w. co m
--o0o-Good morning, Your Honor. Good morning, Your Honor. Okay. And I believe KHON has I'm sorry, Your Honor? KHON. Is that correct? Oh, no objection. No objection, Your Honor. I believe we just got it this Without further ado, what's All right.
Orly
PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 if you could summarize your arguments without being repetitive.
And I believe you're also involved in the
Justice vs. Fuddy case?
MS. TAITZ:
THE COURT:
Hawaii App. that just came out this year? MS. NAGAMINE: THE COURT:
MS. NAGAMINE: THE COURT:
MS. NAGAMINE:
had to do with the Uniform Information Practices Act applying to government records that are otherwise
protected by law, and the Court ruled in that case that those records that are protected by the state law are -there's no exception created by the Chapter 92F.
that the Court has no personal jurisdiction over the defendants because the defendants have not yet been served. Secondly, the Court has no subject matter over
ds
this matter because the plaintiff has filed this as a petition for a writ of mandamus, and that relief has been specifically precluded by the rules. I want to get mostly
Fr
ien
to the merits of the argument, in case the Court is inclined to do that.
of T
he F
In this case, first of all, our argument is
og Bo w. co m
Yes, I was. Yes, it did, Your Honor. Of similar issues. Very similar. Not the same, but similar. Very similar.
And this was at 125 Hawaii 104
That one also
PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT:
memo in opposition, I believe the opposition has brought forth several alternatives or several arguments. Number
one, in lieu of viewing this as a petition for writ of mandamus, if the Court could view it as a complaint;
number two; in terms of the insufficiency of the service of process, there are certain arguments being made, but alternatively she is asking leave or asking the Court to perhaps give her the opportunity to make proper service if that becomes an issue.
So going beyond the procedural, the writ of mandamus or the other argument go to the substantive nature of the argument, looking at the various HRS sections.
unlawful for the Department of Health to disclose confidential vital records to any people but those who have a direct and tangible interest in those records, and the direct and tangible interest is specifically listed at 338-18(b).
ds
of T
ien
list is not exclusive or exhaustive? MS. NAGAMINE: Your Honor, we have asked the
Court to look at the Office of Information Practices'
Fr
he F
MS. NAGAMINE: THE COURT:
State law, specifically HRS 338-18, makes it
og Bo w. co m
Right, because looking at the Yes, Your Honor.
How about the argument that that
PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 opinion which we believe supports that that is an
exhaustive list, and while this Court isn't bound by the precedent of that opinion, the legislature has given the Office of Information Practices that role in government to make determinations of how Chapter 92F ought to be applied and what it applies to.
So we would ask the Court to consider the
Office of Information Practices' opinion very strongly as well as the legislative history which we have cited that supports that that is an exhaustive list, and thus -- and the plaintiff has not suggested that she is one of those persons who has a direct and tangible interest in the record. She goes on to say in her opposition to our
motion that Rule 92F, the provision allowing compelling circumstances to override the state law, that is what allows her to get this record. However, Your Honor --
of T
complaint, since this is a Rule 12(b) motion, it's a motion to dismiss the complaint. So the Court is governed
by the complaint itself that was filed, and in looking at the allegations in the complaint, and I believe they are starting from page one through page six, the allegations contained therein, there are no allegations whereby she does claim that she has any type of direct or tangible interest.
Fr
ien
ds
he F
THE COURT:
og Bo w. co m
Well, in looking at the
PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. NAGAMINE: THE COURT:
her memorandum in opposition, she does mention about the compelling circumstance, and that was a situation that was addressed by the Justice vs. Fuddy case. But in looking
at the allegations in the complaint in particular on page five, paragraph five -- and maybe I'm not reading it
correctly, but under 92F-2 in paragraph five she talks about the chapter shall be applied and construed to
promote its underlying purposes and policies, which are to promote the public interest in disclosure; provide for accurate, relevant, timely and complete government
records; enhance governmental accountability through a general policy of access to government records; make government accountable to individuals in the collection, use and dissemination of information relating to them; and balance the individual privacy interest and the public access interest. I don't see any wording that talks about
compelling circumstance. MS. NAGAMINE: You're correct, Your Honor.
ds
Their complaint was actually very limited, but I was -THE COURT: Addressing the opposition? I was addressing all of
Fr
ien
plaintiff's arguments, but I'd be very happy to limit it to those things that the plaintiff actually alleged in her
of T
he F
MS. NAGAMINE:
og Bo w. co m
That's correct.
Now, number two, with respect to
PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
complaint, which was that the person of interest who -- by that, I believe she means President Obama -- has waived any claims of privacy by publicly disclosing the document in question on April 27th. to waive. It's not the President's right
Anybody who has a direct and tangible interest
in a confidential vital record can get a copy of that
confidential record, as the President did with his own record.
After the person with a direct and tangible interest gets a copy of the record, they can do whatever they want with it, but that doesn't change the state
mandate that the State of Hawaii Department of Health, which is charged with maintaining and preserving and
protecting the vital records in its charge, that doesn't change the obligation pursuant to 338-18 that makes it unlawful for the Department to disclose that information.
with his birth certificate, as can anyone who lawfully gets their own record, but the law remains for the Department. The plaintiff also argues that after April
ien
ds
27th when the President published his copy of the long form birth certificate, that 338-18 no longer applies to the long form birth certificate, and she gives absolutely no authority for that. And on the face of the law, it
still makes it unlawful for the Department of Health to
Fr
of T
he F
So the President can do whatever he wants
og Bo w. co m
PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 disclose these confidential vital records; we cannot do it.
Plaintiff in her complaint also claims that the defendants are obligated to allow her to inspect the long form birth certificate which she seeks under the Uniform Information Practices Act. There is no
justification to allow her to inspect that record.
Ms. Taitz has no authority by law to verify whether the records of the Department of Health are those records that they purport to be. The Department of Health by law has
that authority, and 338-12 and -13 define what verification is and what certification is.
Health is prima facie evidence of the facts contained in that record, and if the Department certifies a copy as it did with the President's copy, if they certify the copy it makes, that certification is the Department of Health saying we have the original record, the original prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein, we have that in our possession. So for Ms. Taitz to say that she needs to
ds
verify it.
come and bring her experts to verify this is a really "iffy argument" at best. For her to verify it, she can't And her
ien
last argument -- no, I'm sorry that was her last argument.
Fr
of T
he F
Any record that is in the Department of
She has no authority to verify it.
og Bo w. co m
PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Practices Act. She's claiming costs and fees, and there's no authority under UIPA to go for costs and fees in this situation, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
court reporter, U-I-P-A, Uniform Information Protection Act, correct?
MS. NAGAMINE:
THE COURT:
Justice vs. Fuddy case they looked at all three sections and acts -- the UIPA, the Chapter 92F and HRS Section 338? MS. NAGAMINE: Yes, they do, Your Honor.
make, and I think this strays onto plaintiff's opposition, but because it's a point that she has raised, I would like to address it.
she can verify whether the President is eligible to hold office, she has given no authority to this Court that would provide us with any reason to believe that she is in a position of power to make a determination over the holder of the White House. She herself as just an
ien
ds
individual cannot determine whether the President is eligible to hold office or not. So even if what she had said in her complaint
Fr
of T
he F
Just one last point that I would like to
In terms of her seeking this record so that
og Bo w. co m
No, Uniform Information And then I believe under the
And when you say UIPA, for the
PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 or her document can be construed as a complaint and we
10
address it as a complaint, it should still be dismissed because she fails to state any cause of action upon which relief can be granted to her and on which she can get what she's seeking.
THE COURT:
the Justice case, there is certain language contained therein. For example, plaintiff's reason for seeking
disclosure of President Obama's birth records does not
state an overpowering or urgent need for the record to
save the life or protect the safety of an individual in a medical or safety emergency. Looking at the compelling
circumstance exception under the United States Constitution, the power to remove a sitting president resides in Congress.
President Obama's birth records is diminished by the fact that plaintiff does not have the power or authority to determine President Obama's eligibility to serve as president. Being that certain language contained in the
ds
mentioned. it's 12.
opinion, I think that goes along with what you have just
of T
he F
MS. NAGAMINE:
Plaintiff's asserted need to inspect
ien
actually looking for the exact quote from 92F -- I think I apologize, I may have that mixed up with 13.
Fr
og Bo w. co m
And in addition, in looking at
It does, Your Honor, and I'm
PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Well, I can't find it, but it's where the compelling circumstances apply to that individual's health and safety.
11
Ms. Taitz is making some ambiguous argument about the health and safety of Hawaiians, about the health and safety of American citizens. Even if there were merit
to those arguments, which we strongly disagree with, even if there were merit to those, compelling circumstances is talking about her personal health and safety, and she's alleged nothing that this is impacting her personal health and safety.
THE COURT:
again in the Justice vs. Fuddy.
he F
showing, which should be documented, of compelling circumstances affecting the health or safety of the individual claiming, or enabling identification for purposes of aiding a doctor to save such person's life. The discretion authorized here is intended to be used rarely and a precise record of the reasons for the disclosures must be made, and in the particular case they looked at the House Committee Report. "The committee is of the view that special
Fr
ien
ds
consideration must be given to valid emergency situations such as an airline crash or an epidemic where consent cannot be obtained because of time and instance, and
of T
og Bo w. co m
And that was further explained The subsection requires a
12
instant action is required perhaps as a matter of life and death." And they looked at other cases, and that
compelling circumstance was intended to apply only to life and death situations where instant action was required to further define it as to what would be applicable in those situations.
MS. NAGAMINE:
plaintiff has not suggested that any of that applies to her.
THE COURT:
that she has not alleged anything of that nature in her complaint itself. 12(b)? Because you're coming in under Rule
opposition regarding the compelling circumstance argument.
of T
allegations in her petition as well as her opposition. THE COURT: All right, thank you. I
understand your argument. MS. NAGAMINE: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: Thank you, Your Honor.
ds
ien
Fr
he F
MS. NAGAMINE: THE COURT: MS. NAGAMINE: THE COURT:
Well, I would start by saying that what -Well, first of all, why don't we
og Bo w. co m
Exactly, Your Honor, and Yes. But you are addressing her I try to address the Go ahead. Thank you, Your Honor.
Well, notwithstanding the fact
PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 address the procedural.
13
MS. TAITZ:
THE COURT:
your opposition about the service of process and the mandamus.
MS. TAITZ:
First of all, of course the defense is talking about the service of process. HRCP 4(d)5 states that the
service should be done upon the officer or agency of the State, by serving the State and by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to such officer and agency.
General, it says "... Upon the State by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the Attorney General of the State or to the Assistant Attorney General."
and I served them by certified mail; return receipt was obtained. It is, it was filed with the Court. THE COURT: Well, excuse me. When you said
ien
ds
you filed it upon the Attorney General, in looking at the complaint itself, I see where persons have signed Director of Health, Ms. Fuddy, and I see Dr. Onaka. see any signature from the AG's Office. But I don't
Fr
of T
he F
Additionally, in regards to the Attorney
The defendant conceded that I did serve them
og Bo w. co m
Yes, absolutely. Absolutely, Your Honor.
I know you mentioned, though, in
PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that Ms. -MS. TAITZ:
14
THE COURT:
of process, in terms of receipt thereon? MS. TAITZ:
THE COURT:
in terms of actual service upon them, because they need to acknowledge the service. MS. TAITZ:
letter to the Office of the Attorney General, as well as to Ms. Fuddy and Mr. Onaka. It does not state anywhere
that it has to be done by the process server.
mail is not a proper service of process.
he F
THE COURT: MS. TAITZ:
What the defense is saying is the certified It does not
state anywhere in the statute that that is not a proper service of process. They conceded that they were served,
they are arguing on the merits, so I believe there is no longer an issue as they indeed were served. The second issue, in regards to the second
procedural matter, and that's the form of the complaint -Because they do say this is
ds
a petition for a writ of mandamus. That's true. That's true, Your
ien
Honor, and as you know, I'm an out-of-state pro se plaintiff. However, on the complaint as you can see, at
Fr
of T
og Bo w. co m
I believe in the -It is my understanding
You mailed it in terms of service
They may have been forwarded, but
I did provide certified mail a
PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 state? the very top I did
15
in big letters it states it's an agency appeal, so I did request to review this as an agency appeal.
Now, in the reply, the defense is stating plaintiff's claim is not an agency appeal. They are
stating that plaintiff attempts to argue that her
complaint should be considered an agency appeal and cites HRS 91-14. Plaintiffs's reliance on HRS 91-14 is
misplaced because HRS 91-14 applies to the judicial review of contested cases, and the case before the Court does not involve a contested case as defined at HRS 91-14. Now, so we're going to 91-15.
"Contested" means a proceeding in which the legal
rights, duties or privileges of specific parties are required by law to be determined after an opportunity for agency hearing.
of T
agency hearing?
he F
right here in the complaint.
ds
Your Honor, on page four at the very top, paragraph 25. On May 4th of 2011, they sent certified mail
Fr
ien
request to Defendant Loretta Fuddy, Director of Health, and Defendant Onaka requesting inspection of Obama's 1961 original birth certificate under the Uniform Information
og Bo w. co m
Now, did this go through an Absolutely, Your Honor. It's
write "agency appeal," and you can see
What does it
On May 4th, 2011 it states,
PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Practices Act of Hawaii codified as 92F.
16
The State received a response from Alvin C. Onaka dated May 19th, whereby Onaka stated that he is
responding on behalf Fuddy and his own behalf and refused to allow inspection citing privacy concerns and State statute HRS 338-18.
appeal and reconsideration due to the fact that Obama
already waived any claims of privacy in regards to his long form birth certificate. THE COURT:
submits a request to, for example, an agency, that constitutes a contested case hearing?
he F
MS. TAITZ:
request to the agency, I requested specific information under UIPA, and the agency was obligated to respond. They
did not respond -- I apologize, they did not provide the information.
and himself and stated that they are refusing, and their response was totally misguided as a response of the Attorney General's Office, because Section 338-18 and the particular part of it that deals with disclosure of information is completely irrelevant to this case, it has absolutely nothing to do with this case. THE COURT: So instead of a petition for writ
Fr
ien
ds
of mandamus, are you asking the Court to treat this as a
of T
Mr. Onaka responded on behalf of Ms. Fuddy
og Bo w. co m
It is. I have submitted a
The State requested an administrative
So, in other words, anyone who
PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 absolutely. contested case hearing, vis-a-vis agency appeal? MS. TAITZ:
17
THE COURT:
treat it as a complaint? MS. TAITZ:
is worded on the top of the paperwork in the caption
"agency appeal," and I'm respectfully asking Your Honor to treat it as an agency appeal. THE COURT:
proper matter for a writ of mandamus? MS. TAITZ:
should not have entered writ of mandamus, I should have left only agency appeal. THE COURT:
he F
MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ:
response, the defense is stating 92F, and that's a statute that is dealing with a really certain information, and of course under the statute we are dealing with a balancing.
ds
of T
respect to the list of people who can get copies of the birth certificate -Oh, that's irrelevant, Your
ien
Honor.
That has nothing to do with this case.
Fr
og Bo w. co m
As an agency, Your Honor, I'm not sure. Yes, I apologize. It is -- I Thank you. Next issue, Your Honor. In
Or are you asking the Court to
As an agency appeal, because it
So you agree that this is not a
Well, under HRS 338-18(b) with
18 Are you acknowledging that
you do not have a direct and tangible interest? MS. TAITZ:
disclosure of information. do with my case.
This list was relevant in the case that
was filed by Dr. Justice in Justice vs. Fuddy, because at that time Mr. Obama did not disclose the information, and he was seeking disclosure. I'm not asking for any
disclosure, so that the whole motion is completely irrelevant to my case.
THE COURT:
inspect the original long form?
the certified copy.
also seeking permission on behalf of certain experts?
of T
Honor, I am not a forensic document expert, and therefore I'm asking inspection and verification in lieu of certified records.
ds
justification? MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: Sure. Go ahead. So we agree that this is a proper
Fr
ien
he F
MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT:
og Bo w. co m
Okay. Okay, so under what
Oh, Your Honor, I never asked for This list again has nothing to
So you're asking permission to
The original long form in lieu of
And that's provided in the statutes. But not only yourself, but you're
With the experts because, Your
PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you. agency appeal.
19
THE COURT:
MS. TAITZ:
When the defense has provided this long list, as I stated, this list deals only with disclosures. not asking them to disclose anything that was not disclosed before, nothing. irrelevant. I'm
The only thing that I'm asking is
verification, and when we go to 338-18, Subchapter G, it states, "The Department shall not issue a verification in lieu of a certified copy of any such record or any part thereof unless it is satisfied that the applicant requesting a verification is a private -- look at number four -- a private or government attorney who seeks to confirm information about a vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during the course or for purposes of legal proceedings," and that's exactly what I asked of Mr. Onaka, and here is a copy. This is a copy of
Fr
ien
ds
the letter, and I believe that the agency was supposed to deliver to you, Your Honor, the whole file of the agency appeal in order for you to review it.
of T
he F
og Bo w. co m
Okay. But that's your position? Yes, Your Honor. And that's why it's all
Well, I'm not saying I agree with
20
It specifically states request to access -of access to records under the Uniform Information Practices Act of 1975.
"Dear Mr. Onaka:
there were multiple requests made for release of Mr. Barak Hussein Obama's long form birth certificate.
In December of 2010 a highly decorated U.S. military
officer, Bronze Star recipient, Lieutenant Colonel Terry Lakin, was imprisoned after he questioned whether
President Obama is legitimate for office in light of the fact that he does not have a valid long form birth certificate.
required to show his birth certificate, so should the Commander in Chief. When Lt.C. Dr. Lakin stated that he
would redeploy only after he could see a valid long form birth certificate from Obama, he was court-martialled, stripped of his military pension after 17 years of service and imprisoned.
ds
please.
of T
ien
from hundreds of citizens, refused to show his long form
Fr
he F
At the time -THE COURT: MS. TAITZ:
Lakin stated that if he as an officer is
"At the time Mr. Obama ignored all requests
og Bo w. co m
I apologize.
For the last three years
Slow down for the court reporter,
21
birth certificate, and Lt.C. Lakin was sent to rot in Fort Leavenworth's prison.
Recently multi-billionaire Donald Trump
raised this issue and quickly rose in polls as a leading presidential candidate for the 2012 election. At the same
time the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed my case, Keyes Barnett et al vs. Obama, to be presented at oral argument."
THE COURT:
and allegations that you've mentioned, in looking at your opposition, you've mentioned that that constitutes compelling circumstance such as to --
he F
need to state any compelling interest. Because I'm looking at your
opposition, because that's what you mention.
of T
and prepared -- and, you know, I flew here to Hawaii yesterday, and I was preparing for this oral argument, I decided to go to your law library right by this building to verify what the defense was saying in regards to statute 338-18, and what I saw is that they're not telling the truth, and there is indeed a big difference between request to disclose information that is kept private, then you have to state that there is a compelling interest,
Fr
ien
ds
og Bo w. co m
Oh, no, Your Honor. Oh, yes.
So in terms of all the assertions
I don't even
But, however, as I came
PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 because people have a right to privacy.
22
However, it's completely different when you are dealing with verification in lieu of a certified copy. I had a hearing, Your Honor, I'm an attorney who was
representing 40 high ranking officers of the U.S. military in the Ninth Court of Appeals which is controlling this Court. It was May 2nd, just a few days after Mr. Obama I was representing
has released his birth certificate.
Alan Keyes, who was a presidential candidate, and ten state representatives.
THE COURT:
judgment was granted in favor of the defendants?
he F
MS. TAITZ:
from the Ninth Circuit here, it's still under submission, and that's why that's so important to review the original document in order to forward this to Ninth Circuit, as during the hearing the U.S. Attorney's Office stated that the case is moot, as Mr. Obama has provided his birth certificate and that a certified copy is available on WhiteHouse.Gov.
ds
Attorney the May 2nd hearing in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in front of Judges Fisher, Pregerson and Berzon, and two days after the hearing I sent a letter to Mr. Onaka stating: Mr. Onaka, I'm an attorney, according to
Fr
ien
of T
The argument was made by the Assistant U.S.
og Bo w. co m
No, no. There is no decision
Is that the case where summary
23
the rules, I'm supposed to receive verification, because the U.S. Attorney's Office is claiming that this is a valid document, and --
THE COURT:
you in pending litigation? MS. TAITZ: lieu of certified copy.
Office has flaunted this birth certificate in front of
three-judge panel in the Ninth Circuit, they also refer to it in a case -- I have actually two cases currently in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in front of Judge Lamberth, and in those cases as well as in the Ninth Circuit they are stating that the issue is moot as the birth certificate was already provided, certified copy was posted on line.
disclose any information, I didn't ask the agency, and I'm not asking you for any disclosure. I'm asking for a very
ien
ds
simple matter, and that's verification for authenticity of the certified copies that were provided to the public. And, Your Honor, for that I don't need to even state any compelling interest. All I have to provide is that I am a
private or governmental attorney, I am a licensed
Fr
of T
he F
So, Your Honor, I'm not asking you to
og Bo w. co m
And so you're seeking the -All I am seeking -Not only the U.S. Attorney's
You wish to inspect it to assist
Absolutely, in verification in
PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 opposition. opposition? attorney, I seek confirmation of information about a
24
vital event relating to any such record which was acquired during the course or for purposes of legal proceedings. That's it, and I've already proven my case.
Moreover, it is an important matter in that on April 27th when Mr. Obama has provided his alleged
certified copy -- when he provided his alleged certified copy right before his press conference, there was a press conference by White House Counsel Robert Bauer, by the press secretary Mr. Carney and by his communications director Mr. Pfeiffer, and during this conference -THE COURT:
of T
because that's what's before the Court. MS. TAITZ: Sure. I would like to bring In terms of
Fr
ien
ds
forward just one -- just couple small points.
verification, Your Honor, the defense is stating that there is an ambiguity in evaluating the records between -there is an ambiguity between 338 and 91, and I submit to you that there is no ambiguity because 338, I believe it's
he F
MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT:
og Bo w. co m
This part -I don't think so. This part is not part of the
Is all of this contained in your
Okay, you have to limit yourself,
25
-- yes, 338-41 states that Hawaiian birth certificates -okay. The Department of Health may make regulations
respecting the form of Hawaiian birth certificates and
certified copies of such certificates and other matters relating to Hawaii birth certificates as appear necessary, and the regulations, when approved and made in accordance with Chapter 91, shall have the force of law.
So clearly Chapter 91, which is your Title Eight, your administrative codes, is controlling.
Anything that the Department of Health is doing has to be in accordance with Chapter 91. And when we go to Chapter
91-10, and that's Chapter 91-10, Rules of Evidence --
he F
referencing Chapter 91 and everything, I don't see that in your opposition.
their reply, because they have submitted their reply.
of T
og Bo w. co m
Excuse me. When you're
Your Honor, that I'm replying to So
I reviewed their reply, and in the oral argument, I'm just providing clarification as to what is happening here, and all I'm stating, Your Honor, I never asked for any disclosures. anything. I'm not asking you to give me disclosure of
ds
All I'm asking -- and apparently their agency
ien
and their agency's attorney did not understand what I'm asking for. All I'm asking is verification as an
attorney, I'm asking for verification of record that in
Fr
PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 lieu of a certified copy. THE COURT:
26
deals with contested case hearings. MS. TAITZ: Yes.
case hearing, as I did request this information from the agency and they refused, and it is a contested case
hearing as I am contesting the denial that I received from the agency, and Chapter 91 states that documentary
evidence may be received in the form of copies or excerpts if the original is not readily available, provided that upon request parties shall be given an opportunity to compare the copy with the original.
to just compare the certified copy with the original, that's all I'm asking, Your Honor. Thank you.
he F
THE COURT: MS. NAGAMINE:
of T
main point, Your Honor.
confused what verification is.
record is basically like a yes or no question.
ds
people who are entitled to verification -- and we get this from government agencies trying to update lists of records. The Social Security Administration wants to know Birth records or the -- it's a yes
Fr
ien
are these people dead.
or no question, and the yes or no question on President
og Bo w. co m
All right. Brief reply? I believe that Ms. Taitz has Those
Well, you know that Chapter 91
Yes, and it is a contested
So all I'm asking is
I'm just going to address the
Verification of a vital
PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 born. Obama's birth record, because it has been such a
27
frequently asked question, has been put on the Department of Health website, and the publicly available information related to the index information on the President's birth record is on the website. It says:
That's all index information is, and a verification
would be if someone says I have this record here, was Barak Hussein Obama, II here born in Hawaii? answer, the verification would be yes. record? Yes. Or: And the
Verification is not somebody coming in and
going through ancient records that are held in the vault of the Department of Health.
he F
do you have it, don't you have it.
I'd just like to say, plaintiff did mention No, we do And in
that we had conceded that we had been served. not concede that, we still don't concede that.
terms of this being an agency appeal, there was no hearing on this matter, and the agency -- this is the first time, so we stick with our pleadings, Your Honor, we would ask the Court to dismiss this matter. Your Honor, if I may say a few
ien
ds
words in relation to what -Few words. Yes. Thank you, Your Honor.
Fr
of T
og Bo w. co m
Barak Hussein Obama, II; male; That's all it is.
Do you have a
Verification is yes or no,
28
MS. TAITZ:
verification is a yes or no question. up.
It's nowhere, it just doesn't exist.
And, you know, I didn't want to mention this, but I actually wrote Ms. Nagamine to verify this, and I believe that Ms. Nagamine's husband was an attorney for Mr. Obama's family, and I believe he handled his sister's prior divorce. So, you know, it is important to
understand that the Attorney General's Office should not argue the case as a criminal defense attorney. They
should be acting on behalf of the people, and there is
nowhere anywhere in the statute saying that verification is a yes or no question. It's absolutely preposterous.
It's the opposite, it's stating that the copy should be verified against the original, and the original should be provided.
ample evidence that according to expert after expert after expert what Mr. Obama has posted on-line is a forgery, it's a clear forgery, and I have listed the documents that were released during those times were on white paper, it was yellow, aged paper, not on this green paper, clear borders. I have shown affidavits from experts saying that When they
Fr
ien
ds
there is clear evidence of forgery, Your Honor.
of T
he F
And moreover, I have provided in my paperwork
og Bo w. co m
Go ahead. The defense is stating that
She just made it
29
posted this on line, they forgot to flatten the file, and one could open this document in Adobe Illustrator and can see layers, layers showing how this forgery was created. For example, they took Obama's mother's
signature, which is probably from his sister's document, for the birth certificate, and they took Stanley M. Dunham -- I'm sorry, Stanley M. D. Soetoro, took out Soetoro and added with computer graphics Ann Obama, and that's how they came up with Stanley M. Dunham Obama. I have
provided in the complaint, Your Honor, evidence from
experts showing that different types of ink were used, that some are scanning as black and white, some are scanning as
about upholding the integrity of the records.
he F
gray scale, some are scanning as color. This is appalling that -- they are writing Yes, Your
Honor, I'm here to make sure that there is integrity of records, that we don't have a situation where this state agency is providing 311 million American citizens with a clear forgery, according to all of the experts that are relating to this document in Court, in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the U.S.. District Court, claiming And
ien
ds
access?
that this is a valid certified copy of the original. then they are hiding and they're refusing to provide
of T
THE COURT:
Fr
og Bo w. co m
Remember, I allowed you a
PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 brief reply.
30
MS. TAITZ:
THE COURT:
or longer than the defense. MS. TAITZ:
THE COURT:
situation, the Court has read everything, considered
everything, and I believe the petitioner, the plaintiff Ms. Taitz has acknowledged that this is not proper for a petition for writ of mandamus and is requesting that the Court treat it as an agency appeal. MS. TAITZ: Is that correct?
this is a governed by Chapter 91.
he F
THE COURT: MS. NAGAMINE:
not constitute a contested case hearing, number one. Number two, even going beyond that, should the Court alternatively treat it as a complaint in terms of the request. In looking at all the different chapters
involved -- UIPA, Chapter 92F, as well as Section 338 -- the Court will grant motion to dismiss. State to prepare the order. Thank you, Your Honor.
ds
ien
of T
(Proceedings concluded.) --o0o--
25
Fr
og Bo w. co m
Yes. Thank you, Your Honor. Yes, Your Honor.
I believe you took as long as --
Okay, in terms of this particular
Now, in looking at agency appeal, What had occurred does
PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 STATE OF HAWAII C E R T I F I C A T E
31
CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU
______________________________)
I, FLORENCIA L. FINES, an Official
Court Reporter for the First Circuit Court, State of Hawaii, do hereby certify that the foregoing pages
comprises a full, true and correct transcription of
my stenographic notes, to the best of my ability, of the proceedings held in the above-entitled cause. Dated this 24th day of October, 2011.
of T
ds
Fr
ien
he F
og Bo w. co m
) ) ss. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER _______________________________ FLORENCIA L. FINES, CSR NO. 124

TAITZ V FUDDY (HI CIR CT) CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING 10-12-11 - Taitz101211

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TAITZ V FUDDY (HI CIR CT) CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING 10-12-11 - Taitz101211

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT STATE OF HAWAII

___________________________________ DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ.,

REPORTED FLORENCIA OFFICIAL STATE OF

BY: L. FINES, CSR NO. 124 COURT REPORTERS HAWAII

CIVIL NO. 11-1-1731

(The case was called.) MS. NAGAMINE:

Taitz for plaintiff, pro se. THE COURT:

And I believe you're also involved in the

Justice vs. Fuddy case?

MS. NAGAMINE: THE COURT:

to the merits of the argument, in case the Court is inclined to do that.

In this case, first of all, our argument is

And this was at 125 Hawaii 104

That one also

PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT:

Court to look at the Office of Information Practices'

State law, specifically HRS 338-18, makes it

How about the argument that that

So we would ask the Court to consider the

compelling circumstance. MS. NAGAMINE: You're correct, Your Honor.

Now, number two, with respect to

PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Anybody who has a direct and tangible interest

in a confidential vital record can get a copy of that

confidential record, as the President did with his own record.

still makes it unlawful for the Department of Health to

So the President can do whatever he wants

justification to allow her to inspect that record.

Any record that is in the Department of

She has no authority to verify it.

court reporter, U-I-P-A, Uniform Information Protection Act, correct?

Just one last point that I would like to

In terms of her seeking this record so that

And when you say UIPA, for the

disclosure of President Obama's birth records does not

state an overpowering or urgent need for the record to

Plaintiff's asserted need to inspect

And in addition, in looking at

It does, Your Honor, and I'm

again in the Justice vs. Fuddy.

And that was further explained The subsection requires a

PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

plaintiff has not suggested that any of that applies to her.

opposition regarding the compelling circumstance argument.

Well, notwithstanding the fact

PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 address the procedural.

your opposition about the service of process and the mandamus.

Additionally, in regards to the Attorney

The defendant conceded that I did serve them

I know you mentioned, though, in

of process, in terms of receipt thereon? MS. TAITZ:

that it has to be done by the process server.

mail is not a proper service of process.

What the defense is saying is the certified It does not

a petition for a writ of mandamus. That's true. That's true, Your

You mailed it in terms of service

They may have been forwarded, but

I did provide certified mail a

stating that plaintiff attempts to argue that her

"Contested" means a proceeding in which the legal

right here in the complaint.

write "agency appeal," and you can see