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 HAWAI'I

DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ.,

) ) ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) ) LORETTA FUDDY, ET AL, ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________)

___________________________________

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

before the HONORABLE RHONDA NISHIMURA, Judge, Tenth Division, presiding, on Friday, January 13th, 2012.

MOTION RECIPROCAL SUBPOENA ENFORCEMENT/MOTION TO HEAR IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE SCHEDULED MOTION APPEARANCES:

ORLY TAITZ, Esq.

he F

JILL NAGAMINE, Esq. REBECCA QUINN, Esq. Deputies Attorney General

of T

Fr

ien

ds

REPORTED BY: MARI-JO DAVIDSON, RPR, CSR-339 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER STATE OF HAWAI'I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER FIRST CIRCUIT COURT STATE OF HAWAI'I

og Bo w. co m
Civil No. 11-1-1731 Pro Se For Department Of Health

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

FRIDAY, JANUARY 13th, 2012

THE BAILIFF:

add-On, Civil No. 11-1-1731, Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. v. Loretta Fuddy, et al, for motion reciprocal subpoena

enforcement motion for hearing in conjunction with the scheduled motion on 1/6/2012. MS. TAITZ: Appearances, please.

MS. NAGAMINE:

Nagamine and Rebecca Quinn, Deputies Attorney General representing defendants Department of Health.

proceed with your argument. MS. TAITZ:

permission to sit?

when the first time I found opposition from Ms. Nagamine, so I had to a write my reply overnight. I will just have

to read it because I did not have any opportunity to type it and present it to you before the hearing. going to provide my reply now. THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: You can argue your reply, also. Thank you. Go ahead. Thank you, Your Honor. Please stand. So I'm just

Fr

ien

ds

of T

he F

THE COURT:

I arrived here at 11:00 and that's

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER FIRST CIRCUIT COURT STATE OF HAWAI'I

og Bo w. co m
--ooOoo-Calling civil motions calendar Orly Taitz, plaintiff. Good morning, Your Honor. Ms. Taitz, you are the movant, Yes. Your Honor, if I might get

PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc.

HONOLULU, HAWAI'I

Jill

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. TAITZ:

Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. is providing this reply to opposition to motion to --

THE REPORTER: THE COURT:

for the court reporter. MS. TAITZ:

seeking first for this Court to provide a reciprocal

subpoena enforcement of a valid subpoena from the state of Georgia and extend the jurisdiction of this subpoena to Director of Health Fuddy.

Attorney General Nagamine for misrepresentation, defamation of plaintiff, harassment of plaintiff, attempted intimidation of plaintiff, sorry, in violation of the Color of authority of civil rights of the plaintiff and her clients by virtue of obstruction of justice, and intimidation of civil rights of an attorney seeking legitimate redress of grievances. Argument; number one, defendants are

ds

defrauding this Court -THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: Slow down, Ms. Taitz. Yes, sorry, sorry, Your Honor.

ien

Defendants are defrauding this Court by stating that the subpoena is not valid. Subpoena was issued in the state

Fr

of T

he F

Two, sanction the defendant's attorney, Deputy

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER FIRST CIRCUIT COURT STATE OF HAWAI'I

og Bo w. co m
Okay. Plaintiff hearing, Excuse me, you're reading. And you have to slow down, too, Yes. I have seven points and is

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

of Georgia where the plaintiff as an attorney is

representing multiple clients, voters and presidential candidates.

There are three attorneys representing plaintiffs.

One of the attorneys is a duly elected state Presiding judge

representative of the state of Georgia.

is a deputy chief judge of the administrative court of the State of Georgia, Michael Malihi. THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: THE COURT: MS TAITZ:

2012.

The case is Farrar, Roth, McCleran, Judy v. Obama. THE COURT: And you need to spell that for the

court reporter.

of T

R-O-T-H; Macleran, M-A-C-L-E-R-A-N; Judy, J-U-D-Y; and OBama, O-B-A-M-A. Plaintiffs are challenging Barack Obama as

Fr

ien

ds

ineligible candidate due to a number of reasons, among them his lack of valid identification papers and lack of a valid birth certificate to prove that he's a natural born citizen. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER FIRST CIRCUIT COURT STATE OF HAWAI'I

he F

MS. TAITZ:

og Bo w. co m
And Malihi is spelled M-A? L-I -H-I? Yes. Yes, Your Honor. Go Ahead. The trial is set for January 26, Your Honor, F-A-R-R-A-R; Roth,

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

Plaintiffs submitted to court multiple

exhibits showing that according to experts Obama's alleged long form birth certificate is a forgery. Nobody in the

country ever saw the original birth certificate since Defendant Fuddy refuses to produce it for inspection. THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: And Fuddy, F-U-D-D-Y.

Defendant Obama submitted a motion to dismiss in the underlying case in Georgia. motion to dismiss.

The parties are in discovery and

subpoenas are appropriate and proper.

state 616-1-2-.19; first, subpoenas may be issued which require the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of objects at depositions or hearings provided by this rule, 616-1-2-.19. Two, subpoena shall be in writing and filed at

least five days prior to the hearing or deposition at which a witness or document is sought, shall be served upon all parties and shall identify the witnesses whose testimony sought or the object sought to be produced. Every subpoena shall state the title of the action. 616-1-2-.19(5), a subpoena may be quashed by

Fr

ien

ds

Administrative Law Judge if it appears that the subpoena is unreasonable or oppressive, or that the objects sought OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER FIRST CIRCUIT COURT STATE OF HAWAI'I

of T

he F

Rules of the Administrative Court of Georgia

og Bo w. co m
Yes, thank you, Your Honor. Judge Malihi denied Obama's

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

are irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary

to a party's preparation and presentation of its position, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced.

As such, the subpoena was issued timely. form of subpoena is correct. Proper remedy for the

defendants is a motion to quash the subpoena with Administrative Judge in Georgia.

subpoenas from out-of-state are given full, faith and credit by courts in-state.

If a case would be going to trial in Hawai'i in Judge Nishimura's courtroom on June 26, 2012, and the witnesses and documents in question would have been located in Georgia, Judge Malihi or any other presiding

judge around the country would consider Judge Nishimura to be a judge in a court of competent jurisdiction and would extend the jurisdiction of her state court in Hawai'i to the State of Georgia or any other state. While in 13 states in the union reciprocal

ien

ds

subpoena enforcement is automatic, in the remaining states, includes Hawai'i, such enforcement is typically a ministerial duty which often does not even involve a judge and is freely given by the clerk of the court in order to extend jurisdiction. Just as in federal courts, a clerk

Fr

in one district would automatically sign a subpoena to OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER FIRST CIRCUIT COURT STATE OF HAWAI'I

of T

he F

og Bo w. co m
The It is automatic 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

extend the jurisdiction of another district.

After the jurisdiction is extended through

reciprocal enforcement, a party opposing the subpoena is suppose to file a motion to quash before the Administrative Judge.

Two, defendants proper remedy is filing a proper motion to quash with Administrative Judge. stated previously, according to the Rules of the As

Administrative Court of Georgia, Rule 616-1-2-.19(5), a subpoena may be quashed, which is a proper remedy.

The question is whether the subpoena was

frivolous and whether it is likely to be quashed if such motion was to be filed. According to HRS 338-18(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 gives the plaintiff's right to access documents in question. Administrative court of the state of Georgia This is

is a court which deals with election disputes.

ien

ds

not a small claims court or a traffic court, this is a court which is given specific jurisdiction to resolve election disputes and challenges, therefore, it is a court of competent jurisdiction. Defendant Barack Obama filed a motion to Defendant was ordered by Judge

Fr

dismiss which was denied.

of T

he F

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER FIRST CIRCUIT COURT STATE OF HAWAI'I

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

Malihi to stand trial and prove his eligibility to be on the ballot. In order to be on the ballot as a

presidential candidate, one has to show that he's a natural born citizen.

A birth certificate requested is prima facie evidence of statute liability. Best evidence rules

dictate that the original need to be provided in lieu of the alleged copy provided by Mr. Obama to the public. If this Court is refusing to allow the

administrative court in Georgia access to the original

document, then this Court would be depriving a court of a sister state of admissible, competent evidence necessary for trial and would be engaged in obstruction of justice. As stated previously, there are only a few

instances when a subpoena can be quashed which are as follows:

of T

he F

A, is the evidence requested irrelevant?

When the natural born citizen status is being decided, the original birth certificate is not relevant. B, is it immaterial? No. Birth certificate

ds

is a material evidence needed to prove the place of birth. C, is it cumulative? No. Because it's the

ien

only thing that is requested. D, is it unreasonable? No. It is not

Fr

unreasonable to ask to inspect the birth certificate where OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER FIRST CIRCUIT COURT STATE OF HAWAI'I

og Bo w. co m
No.

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 place of birth is being questioned. Is it oppressive? No.

it released what he claims to be a copy of such birth certificate.

In response to the legal action by Dr. Taitz, Obama's campaign manager issued -THE COURT: Ms. Taitz.

MS. TAITZ:

Obama campaign will sell more T-shirts and mugs with a picture of his birth certificate.

and mugs, how can it be considered oppressive to request to see the original document of what is on mugs and T-shirts all over the country.

such subpoena.

corruption for the defendant and for defendant's attorney Ms. Nagamine to refuse to cooperate and to demand sanctions and to demand to deem Taitz -THE REPORTER: THE COURT: MS. TAITZ: Excuse me.

ds

of T

ien

routine mundane reciprocal subpoena enforcement for trial which is scheduled less than two weeks from now. As such, it is a valid subpoena from the court OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER FIRST CIRCUIT COURT STATE OF HAWAI'I

Fr

he F

Taitz submits that it is oppressive to deny It is oppressive and a pinnacle of

og Bo w. co m
Mr. Obama has ordered You need to slow down again, Yes, I'm sorry. Statement that If it is on T-shirts Slow down again. -- litigant for requesting 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

of competent jurisdiction.

the enumerated instances where a subpoena can be quashed. There is no excuse or justification for this Court not to extend the jurisdiction from the state court in Georgia and not to provide reciprocal subpoena enforcement with

leave of court for the defendant to file a proper motion to quash the subpoena with a trial judge in Georgia.

Three, as an attorney representing plaintiffs in Georgia and in multiple other states around the

country, Taitz is obligated to seek evidence necessary for trial and would be liable if she were not to seek evidence.

representing multiple clients around the country, including several candidates running for the U.S. President, members of the U.S. military, state representatives and voters. As an attorney she owes her And she can

clients a duty of zealous representation.

actually be liable if she does not fulfill such duty. There is nothing frivolous in her actions. On

ien

ds

the other hand, it is frivolous and represents harassment, attempted intimidation of a civil rights attorney in an attempted violation of her first amendment civil right for redress of grievances. For Nagamine to demand that this Court find OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER FIRST CIRCUIT COURT STATE OF HAWAI'I

Fr

of T

he F

As stated previously, Taitz is an attorney

og Bo w. co m

PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc.

10

It does not fall within any of

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

that such a proper and reasonable zealous representation and proper discovery less than two weeks before trial to be considered frivolous and sanctionable and vexatious. Four, this case is akin to Roe v. Wade.

a few days ago Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a

ruling in Barnett, B-A-R-N-E-T-T, Keys, K-E-Y-E-S, et al v. Obama, et al, No. 10-55084 where Taitz represented

plaintiffs in a similar challenge filed on Inauguration Day in 2009.

While the Ninth Circuit found that it was too

late to file a challenge on Inauguration Day, it did find, however, that eligibility challenge can go forward and presidential candidates have standing to challenge eligibility of a candidate on the ballot. So the Ninth Circuit's, whose decision is

binding on this court, has already found that such election challenges filed all over the nation during the election are valid and candidates have standing. Moreover, multiple states around the nation

ien

ds

have specific statutes whereby not only presidential candidates, but also ordinary voters have standing to challenge eligibility of a candidate. Original birth certificate is at the root of In Roe v. Wade, Supreme Court of

every such challenge.

Fr

25

the United States has granted jurisdiction to a whole OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER FIRST CIRCUIT COURT STATE OF HAWAI'I

of T

he F

og Bo w. co m
Just

PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc.

11

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

class of cases which are repeatedly brought to court and adjudication on the merits.

As similar election challenges amounted all

over the nation, it is proper in the interest of judicial

economy to extend the jurisdiction of the court in Georgia provide the reciprocal subpoena enforcement and have this

matter heard on the merits which would avoid litigation in multiple similar cases.

Five, Taitz followed proper procedural guidelines.

Subpoena in Georgia was issued when Taitz was

prosecuted -- prosecuting a related case, Taitz v. Fuddy. It was proper to seek such subpoena enforcement in the framework of a related case. And Taitz filed a proper

motion seeking to have the subpoena heard last week during the scheduled hearing in Taitz v. Fuddy.

subpoena motion on the same day and scheduled it for January 26, Taitz filed a proper motion to expedite as the trial in Georgia is scheduled on the same day. The Court

ien

ds

expedited, therefore, there is nothing frivolous procedural until there is a final judgment in the case, the case is opened and it is proper to hear motions in the case. Even if the final judgment is issued, in some

Fr

cases post-judgment 59(e) motions for reconsideration are OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER FIRST CIRCUIT COURT STATE OF HAWAI'I

of T

he F

As this Court was not inclined to hear

og Bo w. co m

PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc.

12

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

filed, or Taitz had an option to file a new case to seek reciprocal enforcement of out-of-state subpoena.

Defendant did not show a shred of evidence of anything

done by the plaintiff which is frivolous or sanctionable or vexatious.

Six, in all her life Taitz filed only one

legal action in the State of Hawai'i, which does not give rise for this Court to deem her a vexatious plaintiff.

Defendant and defendant's attorney know that the State of Hawai'i would find a plaintiff vexatious in the State of Hawaii if the plaintiff files multiple legal actions in ` the State of Hawaii and those actions are found to be ` repeatedly frivolous.

State of Hawaii under Local Freedom of Information Act, ` UIPA seeking to examine an original document.

of T

he F

Taitz filed only one single action in the

filed one motion for reciprocal out-of-state subpoena enforcement to produce the same document. Clearly, one legal action filed in the State

ds

of Hawai'i would not give rise to a determination of a vexatious plaintiff. Moreover, there is nothing frivolous

Fr

ien

in seeking to examine an original document in lieu of an alleged copy and in light of a proper and valid subpoena related to a trial which is coming less than two weeks from now. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER FIRST CIRCUIT COURT STATE OF HAWAI'I

og Bo w. co m
And she

PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc.

13

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 this motion was frivolous, this Court would have summarily denied the motion for reciprocal subpoena enforcement as the Court has inherent power to summarily deny frivolous motions and would not have granted the motion to expedite.

So it appears that defendants are calling the actions of this very court to be frivolous, sanctionable and vexatious. Clearly, this Court sees that it cannot

obstruct justice and deny courts of competent jurisdiction around the nation and deny access to admissible, competent evidence necessary for resolution of cases at trial.

and their attorney are frivolous, abusive and oppressive and represent a last ditch attempt to obstruct justice, cover-up forgery and violate under color of authority civil rights of the plaintiff and American citizens and voters around the nation. The case was filed in August of last year.

After the State denied Taitz to examine the original birth certificates of Barack Obama in lieu of an alleged certified copy, and refused to release a birth certificate of a deceased Virginia Sunahara, who was born on the same day, August 4, '61 and died August 5, '61, where there was a suspicion that Obama's forged birth certificate was manufactured via computer graphics using Sunahara's OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER FIRST CIRCUIT COURT STATE OF HAWAI'I

Fr

ien

ds

of T

he F

And the last point, actions by the defendants

og Bo w. co m

PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc.

14

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

number.

At the time defendants used HRS 338 -THE REPORTER: MS. TAITZ: Excuse me?

used HRS 338-18 as an excuse.

this Court a valid subpoena from a court of competent

jurisdiction in Georgia which would allow her access to the document in question under 338-18(9).

of the deceased Virginia Sunahara filed, Sunahara v. Fuddy as the defendant. And the state attorneys are refusing to

grant access even though close relatives are entitled to such release under HRS 338-18(5) as a person having a common ancestor with the registrar. Both cases are before Your Honor.

he F

this Court that the defendant's reliance on HRS 338-18 is done improperly and defendants are the ones who are flagrantly violating the same very rule they're relying on in refusing to allow inspection of the documents in question, even when there is an order from a court of competent jurisdiction, and when there is a request by a close relative. It is abundantly clear that the actions by the And the only reasonable

ien

ds

defendants are frivolous.

explanation for such frivolous, abusive and oppressive actions are a criminal cover-up. They know that the

Fr

of T

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER FIRST CIRCUIT COURT STATE OF HAWAI'I

og Bo w. co m
Sorry. At that time defendants

PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc.

15

Since then Taitz filed with

And the brother

It shows to

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

document in question is, indeed, a forgery and that is why they are refusing inspection, even when obligated by the same very rules they are courting.

Not only defendant's obstruction of justice

and cover-up, they are viciously attacking the plaintiff defaming her, prosecuting her, intimidating her with demands of sanctions and vexatious interpretation.

This is a matter of national importance.

it is the most sacred civil right of the U.S. citizens,

the right to vote in lawful elections which are free from forgery and fraud. The right to vote is the highest form

of protected right to free speech, political speech. Current case represents plaintiff's protected This

constitutional right for address of grievances. nation was built on such rights.

he F

fought for women's right to vote, State's attorney like Nagamine probably saw her actions frivolous and sanctionable.

ien

22 23 24

ds

civil rights of Japanese Americans during World War II in Korematsu v. U.S. and Honda, State's attorney like

Nagamine probably sought to deem civil rights attorneys to be vexatious plaintiffs. Today, Taitz is seeking, Your Honor, to grant

Fr

25

her a reciprocal subpoena enforcement from a court of OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER FIRST CIRCUIT COURT STATE OF HAWAI'I

of T

When civil rights attorneys sought to uphold

og Bo w. co m
And When Susan B. Anthony

PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc.

16

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

competent jurisdiction in order to represent her clients at trial in just two weeks, and in order to uphold civil

rights of every American to have lawful elections free of forgery and fraud and is asking to grant her motion. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT:

MS. NAGAMINE:

pretty much stated it in writing, but I'll -THE COURT: Summarize it.

MS. NAGAMINE: that I made.

First of all, subpoenas issued from a

Georgia state administrative tribunal have no force or effect or validity in Hawai'i. 338-18(9) does require an An administrative Georgia

order from a competent jurisdiction.

tribunal is not a court under this definition.

does not have any long arm reach to order a Hawai'i government agency to do anything. The rule that Ms. Taitz was reading partially

from also has a paragraph four, which I stated in my opposition, that a subpoena may be served at any place within Georgia. And it goes on to talk about the Hawai'i isn't Georgia.

ien

ds

conditions of that.

to enforce this Georgia administrative subpoena.

of T

he F

I don't believe Your Honor has any authority And I

Fr

think that I get that from Georgia law my understanding of OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER FIRST CIRCUIT COURT STATE OF HAWAI'I

og Bo w. co m
Ms. Nagamine, your opposition. -- summarize those five points

PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc.

17

Your Honor, actually, I think I

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

what I was able to find on Georgia law, and this is from the, let's get the cite here, Georgia Code Annotated

Section 50-13-13(a)(7), subpoenas shall be issued without discrimination between public and private parties when a

subpoena is disobeyed, any party may apply to the Superior Court of the county where the contested case is being heard for an order requiring obedience.

So assuming the Department of Health is

disobeying something, which I would argue that it is not because it has not gotten a validly issued or served

subpoena, assuming we've disobeyed something, then the Superior Court in Georgia is the one who is suppose to make that determination.

enough to -- we were able to override those Georgia administrative rules, we still have Hawai'i Revised Statutes 338-18. Ms. Taitz does not have -- and her

Georgia clients do not have any direct and tangible interest in this record. it. And they are not entitled to see

ds

ien

that she's talking about.

of T

And they are not entitled to examine it or test it. Plaintiff has never even served the subpoena Interestingly, the subpoena

that was given to Your Honor to enforce has never been given to my clients. My clients got a different subpoena

Fr

that was -- I've attached as Exhibit A to my opposition. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER FIRST CIRCUIT COURT STATE OF HAWAI'I

he F

Even if that subpoena issued in Georgia was

og Bo w. co m

PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc.

18

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

And that subpoena was actually for something scheduled on -- for us to do the deposition on January 5th, which is

past, and for a court date which was January 16th through 18th. That's the subpoena that we received and I replied You can see my letter response to Ms. Taitz

to that.

that's Exhibit B to my documents. THE COURT:

with respect to the motion at hand, no service has been made as to the subject subpoena? MS. NAGAMINE: THE COURT:

subpoena is served on my client, that a similar response to all of the previous responses will go out. That is

predictable because it's all going to come back down to 338-18 that Ms. Taitz does not have any entitlement to this record.

this is not the motion for sanctions, that will be forthcoming in a separate document, but I wanted to mention that this morning so that Ms. Taitz can have all the notice that she might need when I do file my motion and she comes back here for that hearing, monetary sanctions to cover all of the time that my office has spent on all of her requests. And that's a lot of time,

Fr

ien

ds

of T

he F

MS. NAGAMINE:

Your Honor, as to my mention of sanctions, and

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER FIRST CIRCUIT COURT STATE OF HAWAI'I

og Bo w. co m
So in other words, Ms. Nagamine, That is correct, Your Honor. Okay. It's predictable that if such

PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc.

19

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

Your Honor, because Ms. Taitz doesn't form her requests in a way that is easy to address. interpretation. Her requests need some

And we do our best to interpret what she And we

is trying to get and what she is trying to argue.

have to respond to all of the arguments that we believe she's making and that does take time.

A lot of time has been spent on Ms. Taitz' issues and in this very matter. So monetary sanctions And we are

will be something that we're asking for.

hoping that that can be something to reimburse our clients and ourselves for our time. But what we really will be

asking for with all seriousness is that Ms. Taitz be declared a vexatious litigator here in the State of Hawai'i.

he F

And there is precedent for this.

a circuit court judge ordering such a thing, in the case I cited Ek v. Boggs and there are criteria listed actually in our state law. We have a law for vexatious litigants.

And I believe that Ms. Taitz amply meets all of the requirements. I listed five of the cases that she has

ien

ds

proceeded in in other jurisdictions and been rebuffed every time, including one that I mentioned in the state of Georgia. MS. TAITZ: Objection. By Judge Clay Land --

Fr

of T

MS. NAGAMINE:

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER FIRST CIRCUIT COURT STATE OF HAWAI'I

og Bo w. co m

PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc.

20

In fact, for

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. TAITZ:

MS. NAGAMINE: THE COURT:

apprise you that the Court did allow you to read off your laptop, I'm not sure if it's your laptop, your entire argument.

And I believe Ms. Nagamine neither objected nor So I do request the same courtesy. You

interrupted you.

can reply to her opposition. MS. TAITZ:

courts they allow objections. THE COURT:

Ms. Nagamine neither objected nor interrupted you. MS. TAITZ: Yes, Your Honor. Section 634J-1 defines

vexatious litigant.

actions here in the State of Hawaii and in this court ` satisfy all of the requirements of vexatious litigant. And I'm not going to go into that here because I

this motion isn't in front of Your Honor this morning.

ds

would have prepared it for this morning, but I didn't have the opportunity to put together all of the list of itemized attorney's fees yet. I was responding to And I'm sorry

Fr

ien

subpoena enforcement motion, Your Honor.

that I couldn't have worked that out to save you a hearing, Your Honor. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER FIRST CIRCUIT COURT STATE OF HAWAI'I

of T

he F

MS. NAGAMINE:

And I believe that Ms. Taitz and her

og Bo w. co m
Objection. -- a $20,000 sanction. Ms. Taitz, just to advise or I'm sorry, Your Honor. In other I know. But you noticed,

PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc.

21

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

But there's been a pattern here by plaintiff, and it's disturbing and it's wasting time. And the money

sanctions, maybe that will stop her, maybe that won't.

I'm thinking maybe it won't because a $20,000 sanction in another case hasn't stopped her. fees won't be $20,000.

that such a thing will actually stop her, it might help.

But what I would like is for my office and my client to not to have to continue dealing with this. And

I think because Ms. Taitz does meet the requirements of vexatious litigant. I think it would be very useful in

the future for any of her filings to have to be screened by a court for a court to be able to give an advanced determination as to whether there is any potential scintilla of merit to her claims.

of Your Honor this morning.

of T

that nobody can claim that they're being surprised. And have I addressed all of Your Honor's

ien

ds

questions in summary fashion about why there is no basis to grant this subpoena that wasn't ever served on my client? Is there more that I can address, Your Honor? THE COURT: My Taitz also raised the issue

regarding -- and she's correct that there is really no judgment yet to date. Although the Court did grant your

Fr

he F

And so that's, as I said, this isn't in front It's just kind of notice so

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER FIRST CIRCUIT COURT STATE OF HAWAI'I

og Bo w. co m
So I don't have any anticipation

PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc.

22

So I know our attorney's

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

motion for dismissal, that was an order granting your

motion to dismiss, however, it has not been reduced either pursuant to Rule 54 or 58 to judgment, also the Jenkins' case. So Ms. Taitz was right procedural as to that

aspect.

So the Court has not yet been in receipt of a

judgment.

MS. NAGAMINE: Your Honor.

In fact, I have last weeks order with me

because of Rule 23, I had to present it to plaintiff. fact, she hasn't had her five days with it yet.

I sent it to her on Monday or Tuesday, I don't recall. was earlier this week.

going to actually want to sign it, so after the five days I would be submitting it to the Court, anyway. If she has

no objection to my taking a couple days off of that time, I'm actually prepared to hand last week's order to the Court this morning.

ien

ds

from today's hearing, I'm not able to give you that final entry of judgment pursuant to the Jenkins case yet because one of the things that the order requires be stated is that there are no pending matters in this case. And,

actually, well, today's hearing is a pending matter, and there is a pending matter of my motion for sanctions, so I OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER FIRST CIRCUIT COURT STATE OF HAWAI'I

Fr

of T

he F

I was going to ask -- I'm assuming she's not

Because there will be an order in some way

og Bo w. co m
In It has not been five days.

PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc.

23

I've got a draft of it with me,

I believe It

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

am not going to be giving the Court that order just yet. THE COURT:

MS. NAGAMINE:

fully aware that I do need to do that order. THE COURT: argument.

Any response, Ms. Taitz, now you can proceed? MS. TAITZ:

points.

First, as I stated, I would like stated in my

reply that I would like to file a motion for sanctions

against Ms. Nagamine for public corruption and depravation of civil rights under color of authority.

he F

And I would like to bring an example.

individual gives somebody a forged check, a counterfeit check, and gets a house using a forged check. Are you

going to sanction the owner of the house who is coming to you with redress of grievances saying, my house was stolen by a thief. My house was stolen by somebody who used a It's inconceivable.

forged check.

ien

ds

of corruption that I see from Ms. Nagamine where I presented here in court evidence that what Mr. Obama posted on line is a forgery, a computer generated forgery. I showed you the layers, how it was created. I provided information, this is a forgery. My

Fr

Nobody in this nation saw the original document. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER FIRST CIRCUIT COURT STATE OF HAWAI'I

of T

And to me, this is just an unprecedented level

og Bo w. co m
Yes, Your Honor. But I am Ms. Nagamine has completed her If an

PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc.

24

Until such time it is appropriate?

Yes, Your Honor, I do have several

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

clients are presidential candidates.

trial in two weeks where this is being litigated.

the world in a democratic country, in a country that has any resemblance of any rule of law seeking to verify the original document in light of forgery by people who have standing that is coming before a judge can be considered frivolous.

How could this be frivolous? be vexatious or sanctionable?

Attorney General of Hawai'i has to be part of some kind of criminal enterprise to even think that this is in any way sanctionable or vexatious or frivolous.

he F

I mean, it's like a criminal enterprise running the Office of the Attorney General of Hawai'i. Going back to Marbury v. Madison. Any rule,

any act that is volitive of constitution, that is repugnant to constitution is void. The interpretation of In general there

Rule 338-18 by Ms. Nagamine is void.

should have been a provision allowing to view such documents.

ds

Fr

ien

court from competent jurisdiction.

of T

But I have provided you with a subpoena from a At this point there is

no, no excuse, there is zero excuse or justification not to provide such access with, of course, leave for Ms. Nagamine to file a motion to quash the subpoena if she OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER FIRST CIRCUIT COURT STATE OF HAWAI'I

og Bo w. co m
How in How could this I mean, the Office of the

PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc.

25

The case is going to

This is criminal,

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

wishes to do so.

If the document on file is not forged, it's over. If it's not forged. If it is forged, then she

should be filing criminal charges against Ms. Fuddy or anybody else involved.

proper question based on proper part of the statute, if

Your Honor is checking, 338-9 states that a person who has an order from a court of competent jurisdiction is entitled to see documents.

Your Honor, I'm here specifically to extend

this order from a court of competent jurisdiction to the State of Hawaii. ` other subpoenas.

for January 18th, it was postponed to January 26. In light of the fact that Ms. Nagamine stated

that her clients will not comply for January 18th, it is pointless to serve yet again as she stated she will not comply. The whole point of this hearing is a motion for

reciprocal subpoena enforcement. And I'm just asking Your Honor to extend the

ien

ds

jurisdiction to the State of Hawai'i, just as if you were to hold trial, a judge in Georgia would be giving you the same courtesy. Just like it is reciprocal if Ms. Nagamine

gives me courtesy, which of course she didn't, but let's imagine for a moment she gives me courtesy, you would OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER FIRST CIRCUIT COURT STATE OF HAWAI'I

Fr

of T

he F

There is no sense of me serving any

Originally when the case was scheduled

og Bo w. co m
How could it be considered that a

PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc.

26

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

expect me to give her courtesy.

If you hold trial and you want a witness from Georgia to appear before you and you issue subpoena, a

proper procedure for me to go to a judge in Georgia and ask him for a reciprocal subpoena enforcement to extend

subpoena from your court to be enforcible over a witness who is residing in Georgia. That's all I'm asking.

This is a valid trial. There is nothing frivolous.

that is done day in and day out, thousands of subpoenas all over the nation are being enforced -- are being

extended by local judges or even clerks in different courts, including your courtroom, including this court. There is no reason not to give me such

reciprocal subpoena enforcement to extend it to the State of Hawai'i.

this state, the State of Hawai'i and the rest of the nation. Because the plaintiffs all over the nation are You cannot deny judge after judge

filing such challenges.

ds

after judge all over the nation their right to conduct trial with admissible evidence. For this court not to allow it, it would be an Not allowing a judge in Georgia The copy

ien

obstruction of justice.

or any other state to seek admissible evidence. was provided.

Fr

of T

he F

If not, then there is a stand-off between

All we're asking is to see the original for OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER FIRST CIRCUIT COURT STATE OF HAWAI'I

og Bo w. co m
This is a valid case.

PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc.

27

Your Honor, this is something

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

it to be shown at trial.

would have been the birth certificate of Barack Obama,

anybody else, it would have been routinely given probably by the clerk. Your Honor.

I probably wouldn't be standing in front of

This is abusive and oppressive for Ms. Nagamine to seek sanctions against me. What is one thing that is sanctionable? that is frivolous that I have done?

you to enforce the subpoena according to your own rules. It is sanctionable, oppressive and abusive demand for sanctions that I've seen here coming from Ms. Nagamine and Office of the Attorney General of Hawai'i. Your Honor, if this is not granted, it's not It

going to end here, it will go to the higher courts. will go to the Ninth Circuit.

Ninth Circuit or any other circuit or the Supreme Court, a court found that one court, one state has a right to obstruct justice and deny all the courts around the nation a right to obtain evidence, admissible evidence. I'm not asking for anything that's illegal. I'm asking

ien

ds

I'm not asking for anything that's unethical. for something that is routine.

of T

he F

At any rate, there was never a case where the

Fr

to obstruct justice, not to be part of this criminal OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER FIRST CIRCUIT COURT STATE OF HAWAI'I

og Bo w. co m
This is a routine matter. For what? Nothing. I'm asking I'm asking Your Honor not

PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc.

28

If it

What is one thing

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

cover-up that we're seeing from Ms. Nagamine and Ms. Fuddy.

And all it is I'm just asking, please, I'm

asking this Court not to obstruct justice and allow Judge Malihi or other judges to have access to evidence. If

she -- if Ms. Nagamine is refusing -- is refusing to comply, she needs to file a motion to quash. proper remedy in this case, Your Honor. THE COURT: reply.

MS. NAGAMINE: Honor.

Ms. Taitz just said that if this were any other

birth certificate than the President's we would have turned it over at once. That is inconsistent with what

she herself said about the Virginia Sunahara birth certificate.

the Virginia Sunahara birth certificate or John Doe or Jane Smith or any other vital record, we're protecting all of our vital records in addition to President Obama's vital records. It's all of our vital records. And that's

ien

ds

the point that we're doing in all of these cases. 338-18 is about vital records. It has nothing

to do with the eligibility of the President or any other person Ms. Taitz and her followers are after. OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER FIRST CIRCUIT COURT STATE OF HAWAI'I This has to

Fr

of T

he F

The Department of Health isn't turning over

og Bo w. co m
This is the Thank you. Anything in response? Short I just have one point, Your

PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc.

29

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

do with the confidentiality and the protection of vital records.

I don't know that it's true that thousands of judges every day are enforcing other state's subpoena. I'd like to see Ms. Taitz cite one example rather than claim that there are thousands of examples. see one.

But in this case, Georgia law is very clear that the place to enforce a Georgia subpoena is at the Georgia Superior Court level. Hawai'i Circuit Court. It is not here at the

pursuant to Hawai'i Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 45, that is the rule that she is citing to. Rule 45 specifically

states for attendance of witness's form issuance, every subpoena shall be issued by the clerk of the circuit court of the circuit in which the action is pending, not in which the action is pending in another jurisdiction. For reciprocal subpoena enforcement to be

ien

ds

recognized we need to have that particular language which would allow the reciprocal enforcement that Ms. Taitz is seeking. That language is not contained in Rule 45. Under Rule 45 it also references Rule 30 and Language also is not contained therein with

Rule 31.

Fr

respect to any reciprocal subpoena enforcement, therefore, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER FIRST CIRCUIT COURT STATE OF HAWAI'I

of T

he F

THE COURT:

og Bo w. co m
I'd like to Thank you, Your Honor. Ms. Taitz has brought this motion

PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc.

30

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 motion is being denied.

Ms. Nagamine, prepare the order. MS. NAGAMINE:

the Court like the order from last Friday now? MS. TAITZ: THE COURT:

protocol, I'm assuming under Rule 23. MS. NAGAMINE: THE BAILIFF:

(Proceedings concluded.) --ooOoo--

Fr

ien

ds

of T

he F

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER FIRST CIRCUIT COURT STATE OF HAWAI'I

og Bo w. co m
Thank you, Your Honor. Would I wasn't served with this. Okay. Well, follow the proper Thank you, Your Honor. All rise, court is in recess.

PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc.

31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 STATE OF HAWAII

CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU

______________________________)

I, MARI-JO DAVIDSON, RPR, CSR 339, an Official Court Reporter in the First Circuit Court, State of Hawai'i, do hereby certify that the foregoing pages 1 - 32 comprise

a full, true and correct transcription of the proceedings had in the above-entitled cause, so taken and transcribed by me to the best of my ability.

of T

Fr

ien

23 24 25

ds

he F

Dated this 15th day of January, 2012.

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER FIRST CIRCUIT COURT STATE OF HAWAI'I

og Bo w. co m
) ) OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER /S/ Mari-Jo Davidson MARI-JO DAVIDSON, RPR, CSR 339

32