Upload
mike-dunford
View
217
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/2/2019 taitz-opp-4-27-12
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/taitz-opp-4-27-12 1/9
DAVID M. LOUIE
Attorney General,
State of Hawai 'i
2162
3473
3513
8663
HEIDI M. RIAN
JILL T. NAGAMINE
REBECCA E. QUINN
Deputy Attorneys General
465 South King Street, Room 200
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Telephone: (808) 587-3050
Facsimile: (808) 587-3077
Email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Loretta Fuddy
Director of Health, State of Hawaii and
Dr. Alvin T. Onaka, State Registrar of the
Department of Health, State of Hawaii
1 S 'r I I S U ii C : i : t i l '
S j,',;: Ii:" .',Iy '''I'
: Lr; 0
2 0 1 2 A P R 27 P M I : I I
J . K U B O
C ~ E R K
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
HAWAI'I, DR. ALVIN T. ONAKA, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE REGISTRAR,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, STATE OF
HAWAI'I,
Defendants.
CIVIL NO. 11-1-1731-08 RAN
DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM IN
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION DUE TO NEWINFORMATION; CERTIFICATE OF
SERVICE
NON-HEARING MOTION
JUDGE: Hon. Rhonda A. Nishimura
TRIAL DATE: NONE
DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DUE TO NEW INFORMATION
Loretta Fuddy, Director of Health, State of Hawai'i and Dr. Alvin T. Onaka,
Registrar, Department of Health, State of Hawai 'i ("Defendants") by and through their
459015_I.DOC
8/2/2019 taitz-opp-4-27-12
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/taitz-opp-4-27-12 2/9
attorneys, David M. Louie, Attorney General, and Heidi M. Rian, Jill T. Nagamine, and
Rebecca E. Quinn, Deputy Attorneys General, submit this memorandum in opposition to
Plaintiff's Motion For Reconsideration Due to New Information.
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff filed her Petition for Writ of Mandamus Request for Inspection of
Records Under United (sic) Information Practices Act Statute 92F, State of Hawaii on
August 10, 2011. She was seeking inspection of President Barack Obama's original birth
certificate based on the Uniform Information Practices Act (UIPA). The Court found no
basis for any of Plaintiffs claims and dismissed her case with prejudice. Subsequent to
the dismissal, Plaintiff continued to file several more motions requesting various forms of
relief, all of which were denied 1. The order of dismissal stands, yet Plaintiff has now
served Defendants' counsel with her Motion for Reconsideration Due to New Information
(unfiled as of the date of this memo).
II. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
A. Plaintiff is apparently seeking relief from the order dismissing this case. She
brings her motion pursuant to Rule 60, Rules of Civil Procedure, based on "new
information." Because Plaintiff attempts at pages 3 through 5 of her motion to quote
parts of Rule 60(b), Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP), and because she has
I(1) November 10, 20ll--0rder Granting Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of
Mandamus Request for Inspection of Records Under United (sic) Information PracticesAct Statute 92F, State of Hawaii filed August 10, 2011.
(2) January 9, 201i-Order Regarding Ex Parte Amended Motion Reciprocal Subpoena
Enforcement.
(3) February 9, 20 12-0rder Denying Plaintiffs Motion Reciprocal Subpoena
Enforcement (sic), filed January 5, 2012.
(4) February 9, 2012-0rder Denying Plaintiffs Amended Emergency Motion for
Rehearing Motion to Stay Final Order Pending Rehearing Motion filed December 6,
2011.
4590 I 5_ I .DOC
2
8/2/2019 taitz-opp-4-27-12
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/taitz-opp-4-27-12 3/9
entitled her motion as "Motion for Reconsideration due to New Information," Defendants
logically conclude that Plaintiff intends to rely on Rule 60(b)(2), HRCP, in support of her
motion. Rule 60(b)(2), HRCP, allows for relief from a judgment or order based on
"newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in
time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b)." The "information" referenced by
Plaintiff, in an inartfully collated, defectively stapled, and misordered collection of pages,
includes (1) a transcript of an administrative hearing in the State of Georgia with no
reference to the outcome of the hearing, (2) an incomplete transcript of a press
conference in the State of Arizona, transcribed by someone of unknown qualifications,
and (3) a videotape soliciting campaign contributions to Plaintiffs political campaign in
the State of California. Also enclosed with Plaintiffs mailing, but not referenced in her
motion, are (1) an unfiled (unserved) copy of her "First Amended Complaint Petition for
an Emergency Injunction from General Election, Permanent Injunction, Declaratory
Relief, Treble Damages in RICO" in a Mississippi case, (2) an affidavit of Felicito Papa,
dated April 28, 2011 (which Plaintiff had already attached as an exhibit to her complaint),
(3) an affidavit of Felicito Papa, unsigned and undated, (4) an illegible copy of something
purportedly prepared by a Linda Jordan in August, 2011, (5) an affidavit of Susan
Daniels, dated October 19, 2009, (6) an affidavit of Douglas B. Vogt, dated May 10,
2011, (7) an affidavit of John N. Sampson, dated March 8, 2010, (8) an email message
from Greg Hollister to Orly Taitz, dated February 9, 2011, (9) a Certification Declaration
of Christopher-Earl: Strunk in esse, dated December 11,2011, and (10) six blank pages.
B. Plaintiff apparently also seeks to amend the relief she originally sought in
her dismissed complaint. Plaintiff admits at page 3 of her motion that she no longer
459015_l.DOC
3
8/2/2019 taitz-opp-4-27-12
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/taitz-opp-4-27-12 4/9
actually seeks disclosure of the President's long form birth certificate, her stated goal in
her complaint, but instead, now wants access to what she calls "the book of birth record
for 1961 and microfilm of the same. "
C. Plaintiff, in an apparent misunderstanding of "sua sponte," asks the Court
to sua sponte order Deputy Attorney General Nagamine or other specially appointed
attorney from the Department of the Attorney General to criminally investigate and
prosecute all the individuals involved in Plaintiffs imagined forgery scheme. This also is
relief that Plaintiff did not seek in her initial complaint.
III. SUMMARY OF DEFENDANT'S POSITION
All of Plaintiffs requests should be denied. Nothing in Plaintiffs submittals
establishes a basis for the Court to provide relief from the original dismissal nor does it
establish that Plaintiff is entitled to the confidential vital statistics information she seeks
any more than she was entitled to it before. Similarly, nothing in Plaintiffs motion
entitles her to amend her initial dismissed complaint to seek the completely different
relief that she is seeking via this motion. Plaintiff never amended her initial complaint
before it was dismissed, so even if there were merit in her submissions, which there very
clearly is not, she would have no basis upon which to modify the relief she seeks.
Plaintiff obstinately refuses to believe the obvious, i.e., that there is no forgery scheme or
any other scheme to be investigated by anyone. In light of the reliable and readily
available proof of the President's American citizenship, it would be a manifest waste of
time to even consider investigating Plaintiffs allegations of forgery.
IV. ARGUMENT
A. Plaintiffs Motion does not establish a right to relief from dismissal
based on newly discovered evidence.
459015_l.DOC
4
8/2/2019 taitz-opp-4-27-12
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/taitz-opp-4-27-12 5/9
Plaintiff has not submitted newly discovered evidence. Most of the documents
Plaintiff submits precede the October 12, 2011. dismissal of this case, including one
which was actually attached to her complaint! Nothing in Plaintiffs motion supports a
finding that there is newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have
been discovered in time to move for a new trial under HRCP Rule 59(b).
There is no indication that a transcript of a Georgia administrative proceeding that
lacks a ruling or determination regarding the testimony proffered in that proceeding is
relevant in any way to this case. Plaintiff fails to provide an offer of proof to establish
any relevance.
The proffered transcript of a press conference in Arizona is obviously incomplete,
as it ends mid-sentence, and Plaintiff once again fails to provide an offer of proof as to its
relevance, evidentiary value, or foundation.
Plaintiffs proffered video recording appears to be a self-serving, campaign
fundraising tool, bears no relevance to this case, and also lacks foundation.
All of the other documents precede the dismissal in this case, so Plaintiff, by due
diligence, could have discovered them prior to the dismissal of this case. Plaintiff does
not even describe her efforts to discover her proffered evidence before the dismissal of
her case or explain the reason for her not having them earlier, if she indeed did not. Even
if she could not have discovered them earlier, like her other submissions, these
documents bear no relevance to the issues that were initially presented by this case, i.e.
whether or not Plaintiff is entitled to the President's vital record information.
InOmerod v. Heirs of Kaheananui, 116 Haw. 239, 172 P.3d 983 (2007), a quiet
title action where the Third Circuit Court's denial of Plaintiffs motion for relief from
459015_I.DOC
5
8/2/2019 taitz-opp-4-27-12
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/taitz-opp-4-27-12 6/9
judgment was affirmed, the Hawaii Supreme Court set forth the conditions for granting a
new trial pursuant to Rule 60(b)(2).
When a motion for relief is brought under HRCP Rule 60(b)(2), a new
trial can be granted provided the evidence meets the following
requirements: (1) it must be previously undiscovered even though due
diligence was exercised; (2) it must be admissible and credible; and (3) it
must be of such material and controlling nature as will probably change
the outcome and not merely cumulative or ending only to impeach or
contradict a witness.
116 Haw. 239, 277, 172 P.3d 983, 1021.
In this case, Plaintiff cannot meet any of the required criteria, and thus her motion
should be denied.
B. Plaintiff has provided no new reason or information to establish a
right to access to a confidential vital record.
As previously stated in this matter and expressed ad nauseam to Plaintiff in this
and other forums, Hawaii State law prohibits the disclosure of the records Plaintiff seeks
to anyone other than those who are legally entitled to disclosure. Vital statistics records,
such as the President's birth certificate, or records of all births in a particular year as
Plaintiff now seeks, are protected by strict confidentiality requirements under state law.
Section 338-18, Hawaii Revised Statutes ("HRS"), prohibits disclosure of the records
sought by Plaintiff to anyone without a direct and tangible interest. For brevity's sake,
rather than restate Defendant's argument here, reference is made to pages 6-10 of
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss' filed herein on September 2,2011.
The list of persons with a direct and tangible interest in vital statistics records is
limited to the thirteen enumerated categories set forth inHRS §338-18(b). To this day,
2 The complete title of the motion was: 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 August 10,2011.
459015_I.DOC
6
8/2/2019 taitz-opp-4-27-12
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/taitz-opp-4-27-12 7/9
Plaintiff has never alleged she has a direct and tangible interest in the vital records of
President Obama, nor does she have one.
C. There is no basis to grant Plaintiffs request for relief that is
different from that which she sought in her complaint.
Plaintiffs complaint sought a writ of mandamus advising the Defendants that the
President has waived his right to privacy, that section 338-18, HRS, does not apply to the
President's birth certificate, that the Defendants are obligated to allow Plaintiff to inspect
the original long form birth certificate of the President, and that Defendants are liable to
Plaintiff for her costs and fees. Now Plaintiff specifically states that she is not seeking
disclosure of a "long form birth certificate for Barack Obama," but rather access to the
"book of birth record for 1961 and microfilm of the same."
Even if there was a basis for relief based on Plaintiffs submissions and Rule
60(b)(2), which there is not, Plaintiff is not entitled to relief that she never sought in her
complaint.
In Bank of Hawaii v. Horwoth, 71 Haw. 204, 787 P.2d 674 (1990), a mortgage
foreclosure case, the Hawaii Supreme Court cited the general principle of fundamental
unfairness in allowing greater or different relief from that prayed for.
"[O]nce the defending party receives the original pleading he should be
able to decide on the basis of the relief requested whether he wants to
expend the time, effort, and money necessary to defend the action." 10 C.
Wright, A. Miller &M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2663, at
139 (1983) (footnote omitted). And "it would be fundamentally unfair to
give greater or different relief from that prayed for since a defaultingdefendant may have relied on the relief requested in the complaint in
deciding not to appear and defend the action." 10 C. Wright, A. Miller &
M. Kane, supra, § 2662, at 131 (footnote omitted).
71 Haw. 204,214, 787 P.2d 674, 680.
4S901S_1.DOC
7
8/2/2019 taitz-opp-4-27-12
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/taitz-opp-4-27-12 9/9
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
STATE OF HAWAII
Plaintiff, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
DR. ORLYTAITZ, ESQ., CIVIL NO. 11-1-1731-08 RAN
vs.
LORETTA FUDDY IN HER OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, STATE OF
HAWAI'I, DR. ALVIN T. ONAKA, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE REGISTRAR,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, STATE OF
HAWAI'I,
Defendants.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing document was
served on the following party by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on April 27, 2012.
Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.
29839 Santa Margarita, Suite 100
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, April 27, 2012.
f f i£1_~nTONAGAMINE
Deputy Attorney General
Attorney for Defendants
459015_l.DOC