taitz v fuddy (hi cir ct) - certified transcript 1-6-12 hearing

8/3/2019 TAITZ v FUDDY (Hi Cir Ct) - Certified Transcript 1-6-12 Hearing

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/taitz-v-fuddy-hi-cir-ct-certified-transcript-1-6-12-hearing 1/22

1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

2 STATE OF HAWAI'I

3 ___________________________________

)4 DOCTOR ORLY TAITZ, Esq., )

)

5 Plaintiff, )

vs. ) CIVIL NO.

6 ) 11-1-1731

LORETTA FUDDY, et al., )

7 )

Defendants. )

8 ___________________________________)

9

10 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

11 before the Honorable RHONDA NISHIMURA, Judge,

12 presiding on Friday, January 6, 2012.

13 (Emergency Motion/Request to Docket Amended Motion;

14 Amended Emergency Motion for Rehearing)

15

16 APPEARANCES:

17 ORLY TAITZ, Esq. The Plaintiff, Pro Se

18 JILL NAGAMINE, Esq. For the Defendant

REBECCA QUINN, Esq.

19 Deputies Attorney General

20

21

22

23

REPORTED BY

24 PHYLLIS K. TSUKAYAMA, CSR-355

OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

25 STATE OF HAWAI'I



PERMISSION TO COPY DENIED, HRS 606.13, etc. 3

1 a motion for rehearing on the Court's granting the motion

2 to dismiss; is that correct?

3 MS. TAITZ: Yes, Your Honor. And --

4 THE COURT: Okay.

5 MS. TAITZ: -- the motion to dismiss was

6 granted based on basically one statute, HRS 338-18. With

7 my reply to the opposition I have also filed a request for

8 judicial notice and also a motion for reciprocal subpoena

9 enforcement.

10 THE COURT: I believe we have scheduled the

11 motion sometime the latter part of January.

12 MS. TAITZ: Your Honor, this is an urgent

13 matter because it is related to a trial that is set for

14 January 26 in the state of Georgia where I --

15 THE COURT: But it is not -- it's not before

16 the Court. The only thing that's before the Court is the

17 motion for rehearing.

18 MS. TAITZ: Your Honor, but if this is an

19 emergency matter, I specifically requested in my pleadings

20 and I'm requesting now, I'm moving the Court to allow me to

21 argue this urgent matter because we have trial coming

22 January 26 in Atlanta, Georgia. The judge have ordered Mr.

23 Obama to stand trial, the judge has already denied his

24 motion to -- his motion to dismiss and -- on the 12(b)

25 motion and, therefore, we are now in discovery. We have




1 less than three weeks before trial.

2 THE COURT: When you appear before this Court,

3 the Court requires that all parties, including attorneys,

4 licensed attorneys, pro hac viche, as well as pro se

5 litigants abide by Hawai'i court rules, not only the

6 Circuit Court rules but the Hawai'i Rules of Civil

7 Procedure. The Court does not make exceptions. And what

8 is here before the Court on a proper motion, and the Court

9 is considering your motion, is a motion for rehearing

10 pursuant to Rule 60, Hawai'i Rules of Civil Procedure,

11 which you have cited to.

12 MS. TAITZ: Your Honor, in my reply even if

13 you refuse to --

14 THE COURT: Not refuse, you have a scheduled

15 hearing date.

16 MS. TAITZ: Your Honor, it's going to be

17 pointless in the end of January after trial. What is the

18 point of having a hearing after trial?

19 THE COURT: The Court cannot help you in that

20 regard. There are certain motions, there are certain rules

21 that allow you to shorten time. You have filed a motion in

22 the regular course.

23 MS. TAITZ: I have -- I have filed an

24 emergency motion and there are exigent circumstances.

25 THE COURT: Well, you have not cited to the




1 proper rule. The Court cannot give you the legal advice as

2 to what rule to cite to, how to properly phrase your

3 motion, because the Court cannot be an advocate for one

4 side or the other.

5 MS. TAITZ: Even if --

6 THE COURT: So the Court is here on a motion

7 for rehearing which was properly scheduled, properly filed,

8 and allowed the State to file an opposition and for you to

9 file any reply memo.

10 MS. TAITZ: Okay. Even if you disregard the

11 emergency motion to provide reciprocal subpoena

12 enforcement, within the reply to the opposition I have

13 included a subpoena which represents an order from the

14 court of competent jurisdiction.

15 THE COURT: The reply memo is intended to

16 reply to an opposition, not to inject new matters.

17 MS. TAITZ: Your Honor, this is not a new

18 matter. In my amended motion I have stated that I am an

19 attorney who is representing plaintiff, plaintiffs in

20 multiple challenges.

21 THE COURT: The Court has spoken. The Court

22 is allowing you to argue on a Rule 60 --

23 MS. TAITZ: Which --

24 THE COURT: -- as to your motion for rehearing

25 as to the order granting the motion to dismiss pursuant to




1 Rule 60.

2 MS. TAITZ: Which I'm doing, Your Honor.

3 Pursuant to Rule 60, I'm allowed to bring new evidence,

4 which I am doing. I am providing new evidence showing

5 there are challenges to Mr. Obama's eligibility in all 50

6 states of the nation. We have a trial coming. I have

7 included a subpoena with my reply to opposition to show

8 that according to this subpoena this is a court of

9 competent jurisdiction, this is an administrative court of

10 the state of Georgia.

11 MS. NAGAMINE: Objection, Your Honor. The

12 information Miss Taitz was citing right now is not in the

13 original motion. She may have cited something to this in

14 her opposition or in her reply to our opposition, this was

15 not in her motion. It is improper for her to be making

16 this argument right now. I would ask the Court to make her

17 stop.

18 THE COURT: Is it in your original motion?

19 MS. TAITZ: It could not be in the original

20 motion because this is something that came only recently.

21 THE COURT: Okay. Knowing that the Court has

22 read everything that has been submitted with respect to the

23 motion before the Court, if you could succinctly, not to

24 repeat your argument but to summarize the same, and then

25 I'll turn it to the AG for their opposition.




1 MS. TAITZ: Okay. Even if Your Honor is

2 refusing to give any credence to the fact that there is a

3 subpoena from -- which is a valid subpoena for the

4 defendant to provide evidence, I have provided in my motion

5 information and argument that indeed such challenges are

6 being filed in multiple states. I'm currently representing

7 plaintiffs in multiple states.

8 Just recently Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

9 have ruled that presidential candidates having standing to

10 challenge, multiple courts have ruled that voters have

11 standing to challenge. In those cases, be it in Georgia on

12 January 26 or be it in other states, there is a need to

13 provide evidence in those challenges.

14 And according to the State of Hawai'i best --

15 according to best evidence rule, according to State of

16 Hawai'i Rule 91, dash, dash ten, two (sic), and Article X,

17 Rule 1002, what is provided by Mr. Obama does not represent

18 best evidence and it cannot be used anywhere around the

19 country. It is just a copy that he posted on the Internet,

20 which is deemed to be a forgery based on statements of

21 multiple experts. According to best evidence rule, in

22 light of the -- this forgery, there is a need to examine

23 the original document.

24 Moreover, during the ruling after October 12

25 -- 12th hearing was made based on representation by Miss




1 Nagamine where she stated in the state of Hawai'i they,

2 when the records are requested, the answer is yes or no

3 answer, yes, we have it on file, no, we don't have it on

4 file. This was a complete fraud. There is no such rule in

5 the state of Hawai'i, nowhere. It was something that Miss

6 Nagamine just made up in order to cover up for -- and allow

7 this forgery to stand.

8 And for that Rule 60(b) includes not only new

9 matter, but it also includes evidence of fraud and

10 misrepresentation which would allow reconsideration. And,

11 therefore, I respectfully state that because improper rule

12 was quoted, rule that doesn't exist in the state of

13 Hawai'i, rule that was just made up by Miss Nagamine, this

14 is sufficient reason for reconsideration of -- in the

15 motion to dismiss.

16 I would also, if Your Honor refuses to allow

17 me to introduce this subpoena from the state of Georgia, I

18 would ask for a continuance so that I can properly present

19 this Court with an emergency motion which contains a

20 subpoena from the state of Georgia whereby, according to

21 such subpoena signed by the deputy chief judge of the state

22 of Georgia, Miss Fuddy is ordered to appear at trial and

23 pretrial deposition and provide documents in question.

24 If Your Honor is not willing to rule on this

25 today, then I'm asking for continuance so that this matter




1 can be heard in conjunction with this subpoena that came

2 from the state of Georgia and in conjunction with the order

3 by the deputy chief judge of the administrative court of

4 Georgia where -- which states that the case is going to

5 trial.

6 THE COURT: Miss Nagamine, who wishes to

7 argue?

8 MS. NAGAMINE: Thank you, Your Honor.

9 Frankly, I believe that our argument is adequately

10 presented in writing to the Court, but for Miss Taitz's

11 benefit I would like to respond to one of her points since

12 she's been unable to find that law that I was referring to

13 on October 12th. Let -- please allow me to quote from the

14 transcript of that hearing so that we know exactly what I

15 did say and then I will read the law. And I apologize to

16 the Court because I know the Court knows this law.

17 MS. TAITZ: Opposition, Your Honor.

18 MS. NAGAMINE: And I did not interrupt Miss

19 Taitz when she spoke so I would ask her not to do that.

20 THE COURT: Same courtesy.

21 MS. NAGAMINE: At page 27 of the transcript of

22 that hearing, I stated and I'm quoting: "It says: Barack

23 Hussein Obama, II; male; born. That's all index

24 information is, and a verification would be if someone says

25 I have this record here, was Barack Hussein Obama, II here




1 born in Hawai'i? And the answer, the verification would be

2 yes. Or: Do you have a record? Yes. Verification is not

3 somebody coming in and going through ancient records that

4 are held in the vault of the Department of Health.

5 Verification is yes or no, do you have it, don't you have

6 it. That's all it is."

7 That is what I just read from the transcript,

8 that is what I said at the hearing. Miss Taitz has said

9 that she's looked in the Rules of Evidence for that but

10 that's not where she should have been looking. She ought

11 to have been looking a page earlier --

12 MS. TAITZ: Objection, Your Honor.

13 MS. NAGAMINE: -- from 338-18. Because when

14 she said she went to the library to find 338-18, had she

15 turned the page previous to that, she would have found

16 338-14.3, which reads in relevant part: Subject to 338-18,

17 the Department, upon request, shall furnish to any

18 applicant, in lieu of the issuance of a certified copy, a

19 verification of the existence of a certificate and any

20 other information that the applicant provides to be

21 verified relating to the vital event that pertains to the

22 certificate.

23 I'll concede the words of the statute don't

24 say yes or no, but I think verifying the existence of

25 something is the same as yes or no. So I'm certainly sorry




1 that Miss Taitz didn't understand what I was saying, but

2 that is the law that I have absolutely not made up.

3 I would like to just make a couple of other

4 points. The original matter that we were here for, just to

5 simplify this, Miss Taitz was -- she claimed that she was

6 bringing her petition for writ of mandamus, the Court ruled

7 that there was no place for that here and dismissed it on

8 that ground. The Court also dismissed it on the ground

9 that there was no agency appeal that was being appealed

10 from. And the Court was going beyond an agency appeal and

11 treating the petition as a complaint and found no basis

12 upon which to grant plaintiff the relief she sought.

13 THE COURT: And to reiterate in terms of the

14 complaint that of which relief she sought under 92F, which

15 is nomenclature UIPA under the 92F with respect to the

16 Uniform Information Practices Act, in terms of what she

17 received from Doctor Onake, O-n-a-k-e, that on or about --

18 by the letter dated May 19th, 2011, in which he stated:

19 State law prohibits the Department from disclosing any

20 vital statistics, records or information contained in such

21 records unless the requestor has a direct and tangible

22 interest in the record or is otherwise allowed by statute

23 or administrative rule.

24 And "direct and intangible interest" is

25 defined and determined by Chapter 338 and the Court hereby




1 affirmed his denial of the request. So the Court also

2 dealt with Chapter 92F in that regard.

3 MS. NAGAMINE: So I think the simple matter

4 here, Your Honor, is is there any newly discovered evidence

5 that changes that?

6 THE COURT: And also to reiterate under

7 Chapter 91, in allowing Miss Taitz to also argue under

8 agency appeals under Chapter 91, there are particular

9 definitions with respect to agency hearing, contested case.

10 "Contested case" means a proceeding in which the legal

11 rights or duties or privileges of specific parties are

12 required by law to be determined after an opportunity for

13 agency hearing. Also, "agency hearing" is also

14 specifically defined, refers only to such hearing held by

15 such agency immediately prior to a judicial review of a

16 contested case as provided in Section 91-14.

17 The Court allowed Miss Taitz to argue agency

18 appeal under Chapter 91-14, and the Court will reiterate

19 that in terms of under the Chapter 92F UIPA in which she

20 was denied access, in which Mr. Onake did respond to her

21 request, neither does that constitute an agency hearing.

22 MS. NAGAMINE: Thank you, Your Honor.

23 So my -- my final point is that plaintiff's

24 claims have been meritless from the beginning and she

25 continues them. And I -- I hope that this Court is willing




1 to put a stop to this. I notice that the Court has

2 scheduled something on enforcement of the plaintiff's

3 Georgia subpoena later this month but I think in light of

4 the fact that this case was dismissed, this court is not a

5 forum to enforce a Georgia subpoena. And even if this is

6 case weren't dismissed, I don't think this is a court that

7 is a forum to enforce a Georgia subpoena.

8 So I would ask this Court to continue with its

9 original dismissal, uphold that, deny Miss Taitz's amended

10 emergency urgent motion for rehearing. I'm sorry, if I got

11 the title wrong. And I would ask the Court to make a

12 finding that Miss Taitz's claims are frivolous and that

13 they are intended to waste our time, the Court's time, and

14 judicial resources, and grant me leave to file a motion for

15 attorney's fees as a sanction to Miss Taitz.

16 Thank you, Your Honor.

17 THE COURT: Miss Taitz, brief reply in terms

18 of the opposition?

19 MS. TAITZ: Yes, Your Honor. First of all, I

20 was not allowed to bring anything new to this hearing. Why

21 would the Court allow Miss Nagamine to state a rule? She

22 does now quote a Rule 338-14.

23 THE COURT: I believe she's responding to your

24 oral argument in terms of that Miss Nagamine improperly

25 and/or fraudulently or may have made some




1 misrepresentations regarding a particular rule. She was

2 responding to your oral argument.

3 MS. TAITZ: Well, that's an -- that's an

4 improper time to bring -- to bring forward a new rule. She

5 had an opportunity to include it in her opposition.

6 THE COURT: For your information, I'm not

7 considering the argument. The Court is looking at in terms

8 of whether or not there are any exhibits, affidavits,

9 declarations attached to either the moving papers, the

10 opposition or the reply memo. Argument is intended to

11 persuade the Court one way or the other but it is not

12 evidence.

13 MS. TAITZ: I also bring to Your Honor a point

14 in response to what Miss Nagamine stated in regards to

15 verification. Even if you were to include Rule 338-14 --

16 THE COURT: Are you addressing her argument?

17 Because you just asked the Court to disregard her argument.

18 MS. TAITZ: What I am stating is, Your Honor,

19 that as a matter of fact I'm reiterating that verification

20 has to be done based on --

21 THE COURT: Miss Taitz, in terms of your

22 argument regarding or your reply regarding verification,

23 that's responding to Miss Nagamine's response to your rule

24 and she responded in kind. So are you responding in kind

25 to her argument regarding the verification?




1 MS. TAITZ: If Your Honor is --

2 THE COURT: And I'm saying I'm disregarding

3 that.

4 MS. TAITZ: Okay. Then I'm responding to what

5 Your Honor has quoted in regards to agency appeal. I have

6 stated in my motion that I specifically went to the Health

7 Department. There is no specific rule for agency hearing

8 when, as I have submitted a request for information, it was

9 denied in a letter by -- by Mr. Onake, I have asked for a

10 hearing and I got no response. There is no other hearing

11 that is routinely done by the Health Department and I have

12 argued in my position that what was done indeed constitutes

13 a hearing.

14 THE COURT: The Court disagrees because if you

15 look at Chapter 92F under the UIPA, there are particular

16 provisions under Chapter 92F that deals with judicial

17 review, that deals with requests being made under 92F.

18 MS. TAITZ: Which --

19 THE COURT: So there are different mechanisms

20 under either Chapter 91 or Chapter 92F, it's dealt with

21 differently.

22 MS. TAITZ: Your Honor, I -- as I stated, I

23 have provided information that what was -- what -- what

24 mechanisms? There is no specific mechanism described. And

25 what Miss Nagamine was supposed to state what -- what was




1 there within my request for agency appeal that was not

2 proper, that was not according to the rules. And there is

3 nothing. She just stated this was not a hearing. Based on

4 what? There is -- there is no evidence, there is no

5 argument showing why my -- my request for information and

6 denial of my request and my request for appeal within the

7 agency that was ignored, does not represent an agency

8 hearing whereby I was aggrieved, my request was denied and,

9 based on that, I was entitled to seek redress in court.

10 Now, in regards to the -- I -- I was not even

11 notified when is it scheduled. Your Honor, may I ask on

12 what day is it scheduled the hearing on my motion, my

13 emergency motion?

14 THE COURT: January 26.

15 MS. TAITZ: Your Honor, I have -- I

16 specifically stated in my motion that the trial is

17 scheduled for January 26. I'm respectfully asking to

18 expedite the hearing.

19 THE COURT: The Court cannot entertain oral

20 request for expedite. You need to follow the proper rules

21 and the proper motion, Miss Taitz.

22 MS. TAITZ: Okay, okay, Your Honor, then I

23 will file. I will ask for the Court to allow --

24 THE COURT: The Court can only entertain

25 whatever motion is filed with the Court.




1 MS. TAITZ: Okay. As I stated, I'm just

2 asking for a continuance and asking to just give me an

3 opportunity to file a written request to expedite

4 specifically because the trial is set for January 26, on

5 that very day.

6 I also would like to state in response to what

7 Miss Nagamine has stated in sanctions, I believe sanctions

8 should be applied against the defendants and their

9 attorney. There was no justification for not allowing

10 review of the documents.

11 Your Honor, I would like to remind you that

12 when I have submitted this appeal, all at the same time in

13 my pleadings it stated that there was a subpoena served

14 from the federal court. So there was a subpoena then, now

15 there is a new subpoena from the state of Georgia. There

16 are other cases coming for hearings and there will be

17 subpoenas from other states. Just as Your Honor would

18 expect subpoenas from this Court to be ordered and provided

19 full faith and credit in the state of Georgia and in other

20 states on that reciprocal subpoena enforcement, I would --

21 I would argue that the same would be expected of this

22 Court.

23 Miss Nagamine arrogantly, absolutely

24 arrogantly is claiming that this is frivolous. Your Honor,

25 how is it frivolous? The evidence that a person sitting in




1 the White House and who wants to sit in the White House for

2 four more years is using a forged birth certificate,

3 according to experts, and fraudulent Social Security

4 number, how in the world could that be frivolous? It is

5 the most important thing one can imagine. It -- it is just

6 unthinkable, a sign of corruption for somebody to even

7 suggest that this is frivolous.

8 THE COURT: Well, the issue of frivolous is

9 not before the Court, Miss Taitz. The Court is not

10 entertaining any type of finding in that regard.

11 MS. TAITZ: I -- so I understand that the

12 Court is not entertaining Miss Nagamine's request.

13 THE COURT: Not an oral request. If she -- if

14 she intends to file any type of written motion, the Court

15 will deal with that such that you can also respond in kind.

16 MS. TAITZ: I would like to just provide one

17 more argument, Your Honor. What we are doing right now, we

18 are reviewing Hawai'i statute 338-18 in light of what is --

19 what was conceived by the legislation -- Legislature of the

20 state of Hawai'i. And this is something that needs to be

21 viewed in balance with constitutional rights of the U. S.

22 citizens, voters, and candidates on the ballot. It was

23 clear that that statute was enacted in order to protect

24 privacy rights of individuals who want those rights to stay

25 private.




1 Mr. Obama has already released the documents,

2 and as a matter of fact in my reply I have provided a -- a

3 statement made by his proxy, attacking me personally for

4 asking to get this information. This information it is

5 relevant and important for each and every voter in this

6 country, for each and every candidate on the ballot. This

7 is information that would show whether we have a legitimate

8 president and whether the person on the ballot is

9 legitimate.

10 When the -- when the statutes are twisted,

11 when subpoenas are disregarded, when the rights, civil

12 rights of citizens, are disregarded, it's a slippery slope.

13 I come from the state of California where, in 1942, civil

14 rights of 112,000 citizens were disregarded by an executive

15 order, which is memorialized in ex parte and in --

16 THE COURT: Miss Taitz, I'm allowing you a

17 broad latitude in raising arguments that were never put

18 forth either in your moving papers or your reply memo.

19 MS. TAITZ: I did not bring -- I did not bring

20 Korematsu v. U. S., however, I did state that this is an

21 issue that -- that is related to civil rights of the U. S.

22 citizens, civil rights to lawful elections, elections free

23 of fraud and forgery. And I --

24 THE COURT: Wrap it up, Miss Taitz.

25 MS. TAITZ: Yes. And, therefore, I urge Your




1 Honor to review with utmost importance those civil rights

2 in -- in relation, in balance to what is claimed by the

3 state of Hawai'i. As I state, if -- if it needs to be done

4 in writing, I will file today a motion to expedite the --

5 the motion for reciprocal enforcement of the subpoena in

6 light of the fact that January 26 is the date of trial.

7 And I question why was it scheduled for January 26 when it

8 specifically stated there that this is the date for trial.

9 And I urge Your Honor to please take into

10 consideration that the state of Hawai'i provided zero legal

11 or factual or moral grounds to show why this, the document

12 in question, should not be provided, should not be examined

13 in light of best evidence rule as it was already made

14 public by the whole -- by the individual whose document it

15 is. There are no factual, there are no legal, there are no

16 moral grounds.

17 And, on the other hand, when you balance the

18 -- the civil rights of 311 million American citizens, those

19 greatly outweigh any considerations, frankly nonexistent,

20 that the defendant had provided. The only consideration

21 that defendant has is to cover up forgery.

22 And I would like to remind Your Honor that

23 during Watergate fraud and --

24 THE COURT: Miss Taitz, Watergate was never

25 mentioned in either your moving papers or your reply memo,




1 Miss Taitz.

2 MR. TAITZ: It was, yes, it was, Your Honor.

3 THE COURT: It's referenced but, remember now,

4 this is a Rule 60(b) motion.

5 MS. TAITZ: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.

6 THE COURT: Watergate is not new evidence.

7 MS. TAITZ: Yes, Your Honor.

8 THE COURT: All right. The Court is denying

9 the motion. Miss Nagamine, prepare the motion accordingly.

10 Court stands in recess.

11 MS. NAGAMINE: Your Honor, I have a question.

12 Based on her motion being denied, does that mean any

13 further hearings in this matter are set aside because the

14 matter is dismissed?

15 THE COURT: Well, let's see what your order

16 says.

17 MS. NAGAMINE: Okay.

18 (Proceedings concluded at 9:35 AM.)

19

20

21

22 --o0o--

23

24

25




1 STATE OF HAWAI'I )

2 CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU )

3

4 I, PHYLLIS K. TSUKAYAMA, CSR-355, an Official

5 Court Reporter for the First Circuit Court, State of

6 Hawai'i, hereby certify that the foregoing comprises a

7 full, true and correct transcription of my stenographic

8 notes, taken in the above-entitled cause.

9

10 Dated this 13th day of January, 2012.

11

12 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

13

14

15 PHYLLIS K. TSUKAYAMA, CSR-355

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

taitz v fuddy (hi cir ct) - certified transcript 1-6-12 hearing

Documents