Today is a big day for some of the leaders in the “birther” movement. At 10 AM local time, Orly Taitz, jerome Corsi, Doug Vogt, Paul Irey plan to show up at the Hawaii Department of Health and Human Services to “to examine Barack Obama’s original 1961 typewritten birth certificate.”
Afterwards, Corsi and his band will hold a press conference. (Gee, what a shock that is.)
A little background is necessary. Taitz filed a subpoena in June of 2012. Despite the fact that Taitz had screwed up the filing on procedural grounds, the State of Hawaii responded to Taitz explaining the law to her by citing Hawaii’s Revised Statues 338-18.
(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.
Taitz fills none of those with a “direct and tangible interest” in the birth certificate.
Taitz then went to the clerk’s office in the District of Columbia and presented another request for a subpoena for the birth certificate. The clerk received the request, and now Taitz is claiming the the request is an actual subpoena.
Taitz seems to have problems with understanding basic procedures in law. In the same case she is pursuing in Hawaii, she received a rebuke from US District Judge Royce Lamberth for failing to properly apply for information. When Taitz was notified that she had made the errors, not only did she re-file the same requests with the same errors, she then told the court that someone in the court’s offices was sabotaging her filings.
If her comment wasn’t so sad, it would be laughable.
The papers she said were sabotaged were in violation of a Federal rule that requires all digits of a social security number to be redacted other than the last four digits. Taitz kept redacting the last four digits. In other words she was claiming the someone was sabotaging her filings by somehow miraculously making numbers she had redacted appear.
Judge Lamberth took a dim view of her accusation and her work product saying:
Plaintiff is either toying with the court or displaying her own stupidity.
There is no logical explanation she can provide as to why she is now wasting the Court’s time, as well as the staff’s time, with these improper redactions.
Taitz has also maintained that because Obama released the birth certificate to the public, he has waived any “privacy rights.” That assertion, of course, is ludicrous. Taitz does not understand the fundamental difference between Obama making his birth certificate available and the State of Hawaii making the certificate available. Obama, or anyone, can do what they want with their certified copy of the birth certificate. The State of Hawaii is still bound by the law.
This is the legal mind behind the Corsi team of “birthers” – a woman that can’t fill out a subpoena, is rebuked by the court for improper filings, and who is now trying to represent that a request for a subpoena is the same thing as an actual court approved subpoena.
Good luck with that.
We here are Raised on Hoecakes suspect that when Corsi, Taitz, et. al. show up in Hawaii, they will have their lunch handed to them by real lawyers who actually know and practice the law rather than claim that everything is a conspiracy.
The sad thing is that after having their lunch handed to them, the “birther movement” will then use this as further indication of the massive conspiracy to cover up the birth certificate issue.
The incompetence of Taitz is not a conspiracy.
This is nothing more than a media circus. The sad thing is that it will get attached to true conservatives and Republicans who are actually looking to get Obama out of the White House. We all will be branded by the acts of conspiracy theorists who will simply whine when things do not go their way.
It is time to end the “birther” meme and get on with the business of repairing the country, and not feeding into the delusions of people like Corsi, Taitz, and Irey.
UPDATE: This went down pretty much as we expected. Taitz showed up and was presented with a letter as to why the state of Hawaii cannot comply with the subpoena.
Taitz then went to the District Court and, according to her, has secured a hearing on why Hawaii should not produce the record that, by law, they are prohibited showing her.
We suspect that the letter Taitz was given yesterday was similar to the one she was given before. She doesn’t understand the issues raised in the letter and so she keeps whining that the privacy privilege is not retained by an individual.
The good news is that this keeps Corsi and his so called “experts” in the spotlight longer where they can try and sell more books.
Taitz et al., are claiming that this is a victory but it isn’t. Taitz apparently believes that the State has to show why they did not comply, but Taitz will also have to show why the subpoena is valid and why the State has to disregard both state and Federal privacy laws. That is a standard she cannot meet.
We believe another judge will tell her to hit the bricks.