The bill is in for Orly Taitz, the California lawyer leading the “Birther” litigation: $20,000 for sanctionable conduct. U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land previously issued a stern warning to attorney Orly Taitz and others in the so-called “birther” campaign: do not file another such “frivolous” lawsuit or you will face sanctions. Land threw out the lawsuit filed on behalf of Capt. Connie Rhodes who is an Army surgeon challenging her deployment orders due to President Barack Obama’s alleged ineligibility to serve as President. Land (a Bush appointee) noted that “[u]nlike in ‘Alice in Wonderland,’ simply saying something is so does not make it so.” In the most recent order, Land said that Taitz’s conduct “borders on delusional.”
Rhodes previously accused Taitz of filing new papers in Rhodes v. MacDonald without her approval and after she agreed to be deployed by the military. Taitz declared in one filing: “This case is now a quasi-criminal prosecution of the undersigned attorney.” She is already facing a California bar complaint and Rhodes is promising to file a new complaint against her for “reprehensible” representation.
When Rhodes learned that Taitz had filed a motion to stay deployment after she had decided to forego further litigation, she proceeded to fire Taitz by sending a remarkable letter from Office Max on the advice of “Tim who works in the District Clerk’s office.” She stated in the fax:
September 18th, 2009
To the Honorable Judge Land:
Currently, I am shipping out to Iraq for my deployment. I became aware on last night’s local news that a Motion to Stay my deployment had been entered on my behalf. I did not authorize this motion to be filed. I thank you for hearing my case and respect the ruling given on September 16th, 2009. It is evident that the original filing for the TRO and such was full of political conjecture which was not my interest. I had no intention of refusing orders nor will I. I simply wanted to verify the lawfulness of my orders. I am honored to serve my country and thank you for doing the same.
With that I said, please withdraw the Motion to Stay that Ms. Taitz filed this past Thursday. I did not authorize it and do not wish to proceed. Ms. Taitz never requested my permission nor did I give it. I would not have been aware of this if I did not see it on the late news on Thursday night before going to board my plane to Iraq on Friday, September 18, 2009.
Furthermore, I do not wish for Ms. Taitz to file any future motion or represent me in any way in this court. It is my plan to file a complaint with the California State Bar to her reprehensible and unprofessional actions.
I am faxing this as was advised by Tim, who works in the District Clerk’s office. I will mail the original copy of this letter once I have arrived in Iraq.
Respectfully,
CPT Connie M. Rhodes, MD
In her Motion for Leave to Withdrawal as Counsel, Taitz suggested that her client is lying to the Court.
She states that she not only has a (rather obvious) conflict with her former client but may present evidence that is embarrassing to her:
The undersigned attorney comes before this Court to respectfully ask for leave to withdraw as counsel for the Plaintiff Captain Connie Rhodes. The immediate need for this withdrawal is the filing of two documents of September 18, 2009, one by the Court, Document 17, and one apparently by Plaintiff Connie Rhodes, which together have the effect of creating a serious conflict of interest between Plaintiff and her counsel. In order to defend herself, the undersigned counsel will have to contest and potentially appeal any sanctions order in her own name alone, separately from the Plaintiff, by offering and divulging what would normally constitute inadmissible and privileged attorney-client communications, and take a position contrary to her client’s most recently stated position in this litigation. The undersigned attorney will also offer evidence and call witnesses whose testimony will be adverse to her (former) client’s most recently stated position in this case. A copy of this Motion was served five days ago on the undersigned’s former client, Captain Connie Rhodes, prior to filing this with the Court and the undersigned acknowledges her client’s ability to object to this motion, despite her previously stated disaffection for the attorney-client
relationship existing between them. This Motion to Withdraw as Counsel will in no way delay the proceedings, in that the Plaintiff has separately indicated that she no longer wishes to continue to contest any issue in this case. In essence, this case is now a quasi-criminal prosecution of the undersigned attorney, for the purpose of punishment, and the Court should recognize and acknowledge the essential ethical importance of releasing this counsel from her obligations of confidentiality and loyalty under these extraordinary circumstances.Respectfully submitted,
By:_________________________
Orly Taitz, DDS, Esq.
California Bar ID No. 223433
FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Captain Connie Rhodes, M.D. F.S.
SATURDAY, September 26, 2009
“Quasi-criminal prosecution”? The judge had ordered Taitz to “show cause” why a sanction should not be imposed in the case. He had previously told Taitz that he would consider sanctions if she filed similar claims in the future. After the denial of the Motion to Stay deployment, Land said that the latest filing was “deja vu all over again” including “her political diatribe.” He noted:
Instead of seriously addressing the substance of the Court’s order, counsel repeats her political diatribe against the President, complains that she did not have time to address dismissal of the action (although she sought expedited consideration), accuses the undersigned of treason, and maintains that “the United States District Courts in the 11th Circuit are subject to political pressure, external control, and . . . subservience to the same illegitimate chain of command which Plaintiff has previously protested.”
Then the kicker:
The Court finds Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay of Deployment (Doc. 15) to be frivolous. Therefore, it is denied. The Court notifies Plaintiff’s counsel, Orly Taitz, that it is contemplating a monetary penalty of $10,000.00 to be imposed upon her, as a sanction for her misconduct. Ms. Taitz shall file her response within fourteen days of today’s order showing why this sanction should not be imposed.
I am frankly not convinced that sanctions would be appropriate for filing for a motion to stay deployment per se. At the time of his order, Land did not presumably know that the filing was made against the wishes of the client. If Rhodes was interested in appealing Land’s decision, which is her right, a stay is a standard request. However, the fact that the filing may have been made after Taitz was terminated as counsel and after she was told that Rhodes was abandoning the case is more cause for possible sanctions. Moreover, the low quality and over-heated rhetoric of the filing can support such sanctions. Her filings appear more visceral than legal. In demanding reconsideration of the Court’s earlier order, she used language that does cross the line:
This Court has threatened the undersigned counsel with sanctions for advocating that a legally conscious, procedurally sophisticated, and constitutionally aware army officers corps is the best protection against the encroachment of anti-democratic, authoritarian, neo-Fascistic or Palaeo-Communistic dictatorship in this country, without pointing to any specific language, facts, or allegations of fact in the Complaint or TRO as frivolous. Rule 11 demands more of the Court than use of its provisions as a means of suppressing the First Amendment Right to Petition regarding questions of truly historical, in fact epic and epochal, importance in the history of this nation.
She also (as noted by Land in his later order) essentially accused Land of treason, as she has in public statements:
Plaintiff submits that to advocate a breach of constitutional oaths to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, is in fact a very practical form of “adhering” to those enemies, foreign and domestic, and thus is tantamount to treason, as Defined in Article III, Section 3, even when pronounced in Court. The People of the United States deserve better service and loyalty from the most powerful, and only life-tenured, officers of their government.
Taitz is also facing a California Bar complaint, here. Ohio lawyer (and inactive California bar member) Subodh Chandra wrote the bar, stating “I respectfully request that you investigate Ms. Taitz’s conduct and impose an appropriate sanction. She is an embarrassment to the profession.” For that complaint, click here.
A complaint by a former client would likely attract more attention by the Bar. These are now serious allegations including misrepresentation, false statements to the Court, and other claims that will have to be addressed by a Bar investigation. This could take years to resolve — perhaps just in time for Obama’s second inauguration.
The court ruled that Taitz violated Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in filing frivolous papers. Declaring the filings as made in “bad faith,” the court concluded that Taitz’s legal conduct was “willful and not merely negligent.” Sanctions were warranted, he held, because “Counsel’s frivolous and sanctionable conduct wasted the Defendants’ time and valuable judicial resources that could have been devoted to legitimate cases pending with the Court.”
“When a lawyer files complaints and motions without a reasonable basis for believing that they are supported by existing law or a modification or extension of existing law, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law,” Land writes. “When a lawyer uses the courts as a platform for a political agenda disconnected from any legitimate legal cause of action, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer personally attacks opposing parties and disrespects the integrity of the judiciary, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer recklessly accuses a judge of violating the judicial code of conduct with no supporting evidence beyond her dissatisfaction with the judge’s rulings, that lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law. When a lawyer abuses her privilege to practice law, that lawyer ceases to advance her cause or the ends of justice. . .
Regrettably, the conduct of counsel Orly Taitz has crossed these lines, and Ms. Taitz must be sanctioned for her misconduct. After a full review of the sanctionable conduct, counsel’s conduct leading up to that conduct, and counsel’s response to the Court’s show cause order, the Court finds that a monetary penalty of $20,000.00 shall be imposed upon counsel Orly Taitz as punishment for her misconduct, as a deterrent to prevent future misconduct, and to protect the integrity of the Court. Payment shall be made to the United States, through the Middle District of Georgia Clerk’s Office, within thirty days of today’s Order. If counsel fails to pay the sanction due, the U.S. Attorney will be authorized to commence collection proceedings.
I expect that Taitz will appeal the decision, given her past statements. The opinion goes into considerable detail on her conduct and interaction with the court, as shown below.
For the decision, click here.
For the story, click here
This has been addressed ad nauseam. I will not reinvent the wheel. I will notE that no great outcry arose about Arthur, Curtis, Goldwater, Romney or McCain when questions of their citizenship came up. Go back up the thread. Obama never had divided allegiance. Kenya or Britain never had jurisdiction. Go read. On the ludicrous, ridiculous OBL question, sorry, but it is the law and the Constitution. If there is a problem, put in an Amendment. In the meantime, unlike you, I trust the people.
Source.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/05/john-mccain-natural-born-citizen/
QUOTE
Rickey says:
May 4, 2010 at 7:55 pm Rickey(Quote)
WTF? says:
So let’s answer that question with regard to Obama. Was his father domiciled therein?
We have been over this before, ad nauseam.
1. We have no idea what the intentions of Obama’s father were at the time of Obama’s birth. Did he intend to stay in Hawaii? Did he intend to stay in the United States? Who knows? Wouldn’t the fact that his marriage started to fall apart qualify as “an unexpected event?”
What if he intended to stay in the United States but later changed his mind? Would your argument be that Obama was a natural born citizen during the time that his father intended to be a permanent resident, but lost natural born status when his father later changed his mind? That would be nonsensical.
2. The court in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark was merely stating the facts as they were at the time of Wong Kim Ark’s birth. Did you not know that at the time of the Wong Kim Ark case, his parents had returned to live in China? Did you not know that the reason he had gone to China was to visit his parents? By your definition, they weren’t “domiciled” in the United States any more than Obama’s father was. UNQUOTE
Dig’s “logic” is incoherent.
“Mr. Treacy has concluded that Ark was a natural-born citizen because the court determined that Ark was as much a citizen as a natural-born citizen.
“Based on that premise Mr. Treacy must consider those who are naturalized to not be as much a citizen as a natural-born citizen.
….
“Something that is not as much, can only be less. Would Vince Treacy have us believe that naturalized citizens are less of a citizen than other citizens of this country? Less of a citizen than natural-born citizens? That position would be ludicrous. All citizens of the United States are equal.
“I doubt Vince Treacy would claim that a naturalized citizen is than a natural-born citizen.”
I will let the Supreme Court answer this one for me:
“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.” Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 165-66 (1964).
From the Supreme Court decision, which is binding on all State courts and lower Federal courts, it is clear that naturalized citizens and natural born citizens are all equal in all respects, with the sole exception that only a natural born citizen is eligible to be President or Vice President.
Can you hear me now?
So Mr. Treacy did not “claim” a naturalized citizen to be “less of a citizen” than, or “not as much a citizen” as, a natural born citizen, because he stated that they are of equal dignity in all respects but one. That one respect, eligibility for the Presidency, is provided expressly in Article II of the Constitution and cannot be altered except by Constitutional Amendment under Article V.
The witness answered that he could not deny or affirm that he had stopped beating his wife because of the fact that he had never beaten his wife.
If anyone else can make sense of this “logic,” jump in anywhere.
Vince Treacy’s blatant racism prevents him from considering that the position of the birthers is that a U.S. born child, of a father who is not domiciled here, is not a natural-born citizen. That position has no reference to race. Obama’s father could have been a Swede and the position would still be that Obama Jr. is not a natural-born citizen.
The position of the “birthers” has to do with undivided allegiance. It is based on the observance of a strong check from foreign influence.
Would Vince Treacy consider the son of Osama Bin Laden, if born on the soil of the United States, during a temporary sojourn, and raised in a foreign country, to be illegible to the Office of Commander in Chief? Mr. Treacy, as he has done in the past, will likely say that is up to the voters. If the strong check against foreign influence was up to the voters, there would be no need for the provision to exist in the Constitution.
The voters are free to elect whomever they want. That doesn’t mean that the person chosen by the voters meets the qualifications. Not only would that premise make the Constitution nothing more than a piece of paper, or, at best, a mere guideline, but it would also mean that the Twentieth Amendment could not be recognized as a check on the emotions of the voters.
Mr. Treacy will pretend that domicile had nothing to do with the Court’s opinion in Wong Kim Ark. That’s kind of funny when you consider that “domicile” is mentioned more times than “natural-born citizen” in that opinion.
Mr. Treacy has concluded that Ark was a natural-born citizen because the court determined that Ark was as much a citizen as a natural-born citizen.
Based on that premise Mr. Treacy must consider those who are naturalized to not be as much a citizen as a natural-born citizen.
The only other conclusion available, based on Vince Treacy’s faulty premice, is that naturalized citizens are also natural-born citizens. We all know that to be incorrect. I don’t think Vince Treacy would consider naturalized citizens to be natural-born citizens, but I don’t recall him stating such. Although Vince Treacy has concurred with the opinion of Laurence and Tribe with regards to John McCain. That opinion considers one who is by statute to be a natural-born citizen. An opinion that is in direct contrast to the limited authority granted Congress to make citizens out of aliens.
Something that is not as much, can only be less. Would Vince Treacy have us believe that naturalized citizens are less of a citizen than other citizens of this country? Less of a citizen than natural-born citizens? That position would be ludicrous. All citizens of the United States are equal.
I doubt Vince Treacy would claim that a naturalized citizen is less of a citizen than a natural-born citizen.
Mr. Treacy has adopted a position, that when carried to its logical conclusion, presents a fallacy.
Dred Scott was legally wrong.
There was no basis in law or fact that slaves or freedmen could not be citizens, and no basis for holding that Congress could not ban slavery in the territories.
I am aware of the Mark Graber link. Go to the comments for some of my views on his “scholarship.”
I have put up a lot more law in this thread than you have, son.
Hey, all I said was that Scott denied citizenship to persons of African descent who were born on American soil, and that the position taken by Mario and the rest of the birther crowd would deny citizenship to a person of African descent who was born on American soil.
Quite a coincidence.
We watch what you do, not what you say.
In Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), the Sylabus stated that the Court held that “The Fourteenth Amendment’s provision that ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . are citizens of the United States . . .’ completely controls the status of citizenship, and prevents the cancellation of petitioner’s citizenship. Pp. 387 U. S. 262-268.”
The 14th completely controls the status of citizenship.
It mentions two kinds, “born or naturalized.”
There are only two kinds.
If one is a citizen, and was not naturalized, then one is a natural born citizen.
There are no other kinds.
There is no room in the Amendment for “born citizens” who are not “natural born citizens.” “Born citizens” are “natural born citizens.” The terms are synonyms. They are two phrases which mean the same thing legally.
Vince Treacy said; “Anyone can read the Dred Scott decision, 60 U.S. 393. It denied citizenship to persons descended from slaves brought to the country from Africa.”
Dred Scott was morally wrong, but constitutionally correct.
Mr. Treacy implies that a constitutional interpretation cannot be morally wrong. That’s a fallacy with plenty of opinion to demonstrate it.
When Mr. Treacy cannot find law to support his position, he relies on emotion. He tugs at your heart in order to confuse the mind. He relies on the fact that our current view on persons of African decent will find the 19th century view appalling. And we should be appalled. We should be outraged that people were treated as property. However, that was the law back then.
For a better understanding of the Dred Scott decision, you should read this link: http://hnn.us/articles/30419.html
This document should be helpful:
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf
Look at page two, subsection d.
That is the current law, as administered by the U.S.
All children born in, and subject to the jurisdiction of, the United States at the time of birth acquire citizenship at birth. Then, in red letters, it says that this applies even if their parents were in the country illegally at the time of birtb.
There were no illegal aliens when the 14th Amendment was ratified. If this unintended consequence is a problem, then amend the Constitution. Don’t try to trash the Constitution by getting some unelected judges to rewrite it according to their own personal policy predilections.
I am just stating the legal consensus, son. Don’t blame me. Blame the folks who adopted and ratified the language of the 14th. We are bound by their words, not their unstated intent.
Has Dig even read Ankeny? Has Dig even understood the legal point I made? I doubt it.
I suggested the birthers take it up to SCOTUS. Maybe birther Ginny Lamp could ask Clarence to get the gang of four together to take the case. They might get a fifth vote to go with ThomasScaliaAlitoRobers.
Ankeny went off on the merits. Birthers, stop whining that you have lost 60 cases on standing. You have one here.
More name calling. Just ask Mario what he thinks of Wong. He will tell you Wong was wrong and should be repealed. Kerchner said so on the radio with Mario.
“If this were true, it would mean that no native born citizen had a right to citizenship before the ratification of the 14th Amendment. We know that to be a false statement. The right of citizenship has never been denied to those born in this country to parents who were citizens.”
Really.
Anyone can read the Dred Scott decision, 60 U.S. 393. It denied citizenship to persons descended from slaves brought to the country from Africa. The dissent pointed out that many freedmen had been citizens at the time of the Revolution. See Justice Curtis’s dissent. He stated that free persons descended from slaves were citizens of several states and of the United States at the time of the ratification.
Yet Taney denied citizenship to persons who were born in this country to citizens of the United States.
Read Dred, learn a little history, and come back, son.
Vince Treacy said;
“The problem for Apuzzo, Kerchner and all the other birthers is that Our Constitution is not their twisted, discriminatory constitution, but is the one that the Supreme Court has interpreted and applied.
The Dred Scott case said that persons descended from Africans could not be citizens. The 14th Amendment rebuked that despicable, racist opinion. Now this crowd wants to read the racism back into 14th Amendment itself by excluding persons of African descent. Their “constitution” is no more valid than the so-called “constitution” of the so-called “confederate states of america.”
Vince Treacy, you are a real piece of work. Not only are you overtly racist, you’re a low-life pig!
The arguments presented have nothing to do with race, and everything to do with parentage.
You lost the argument, so you appeal to the emotions of racial disability from our past. Is their no bottom for you?
Vince Treacy said “He [Mario Apuzzo] and Kerchner have said that they think that Wong was wrongly decided, and that it should be reversed.”
Can you please back that up with a linked reference?
Watching Vince Treacy tout Ankeny is like watching a kid in Jersey think he’s rich because he has a pocket full of pesos. It might impress the other kids, but it just makes the adults laugh.
More from Schneider v. Rusk-
Vince Treacy (quoting Schneider) says “While the rights of citizenship of the native born derive from § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment”.
If this were true, it would mean that no native born citizen had a right to citizenship before the ratification of the 14th Amendment. We know that to be a false statement. The right of citizenship has never been denied to those born in this country to parents who were citizens.
It is admitted by most that the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment was created to ensure that citizenship was bestowed upon those of African decent. By eliminating the stipulated domicile presented in Wong Kim Ark, Mr. Treacy, applying a liberal interpretation of that case has applied it to anyone, under just about any circumstance, who is born in this country. It has even been applied to the children of those who enter this country illegally. Anybody who thinks the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to make the children of illegal immigrants, citizens of this country, needs to have their head examined.
Andy notes that “Plaintiff holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law.” Andy does not note that he is not a member of the bar of any jurisdiction in the United States. Andy is therefore filing “pro se,” that is, by and on behalf of himself, and without legal counsel admitted to practice in the State of Hawaii. Andy will probably lose the case.
Vince Treacy says “The Supreme Court has made it clear that there are TWO classes of citizens, natural born and naturalized, and that they are of equal dignity, with the sole exception that the natural born citizen is eligible for the Presidency.”
But then he presents a quote that leads him to a conclusion that is not stated; “We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.”
In effect, if the menu stated that only cold-cut sandwiches and pasta are available, but only those who order the ham sandwich can get rye bread, Mr. Treacy would conclude that the ham sandwich is the only cold-cut sandwich available. When someone like Mario Apuzzo says that a bologna sandwich is also available, Vince Treacy mocks him by calling his statement “nonsensical doctrine”, but then provides absolutely no evidence for support.
Mr. Treacy cannot comprehend that a natural-born citizen and a 14th Amendment citizen are both born citizens. One of them took a federal law (a constitutional amendment) to create, while the other had never been questioned.
In no country has it ever been questioned that those born in the country, of parents, who were citizens, were also citizens. It took no law to understand and ensure that. The same cannot be said for those whose parents were not citizens, nor could it be said for those whose parents were citizens, but born on foreign soil. Some countries recognize jus soli, while others recognize jus sanguinis. That which is beyond question is the only thing that is natural. Only a combination of jus soli and jus sanguinis is beyond question.
“Up kinda late Mr. Treacy for someone your age. They make medication for that.”
Why start all over with this juvenile taunting at a legal blog conducted by a Professor of Constitutional Law at a leading law school? This is not Kindergarten. Civility.
Up kinda late Mr. Treacy for someone your age. They make medication for that.
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
STATE OF HAWAII
CIVIL NUMBER: 10-1-969-05 RAT
(Declaratory Judgment)
COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT;
EXHIBITS 1-5: SUMMONS
ANDY MARTIN, J.D.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MARK J. BENNETT, in his
official capacity as
Attorney General
of the State of Hawai’i,
LINDA LINGLE, in her
official capacity as Governor
of the State of Hawai’i,
Defendants.
_________________________________
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff ANDY MARTIN, J.D., (“Plaintiff”), pro se, alleges in this Complaint for Declaratory Judgment against the Defendants as follows:
COUNT ONE
I.
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Plaintiff ANDY MARTIN is the author of the definitive book on President Barack Obama (“Obama”), “Obama: The Man Behind The Mask.” Plaintiff is also the producer/director of the first film concerning Obama’s Hawai’i years, “Obama: The Hawai’i Years.” He has also been writing columns and commentary about the president for nearly six (6) years and he is currently planning a second book on President Obama. Plaintiff holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law.
2. Defendants MARK J. BENNETT (“Bennett”) and LINDA LINGLE (“Lingle”) are the Hawai’i Attorney General and Governor respectively. Governor Lingle supervises and controls the actions of the executive department and in particular supervises Dr. Chiyome Fukino who is the Director of the Hawai’i Department of Health.
3. This Complaint for Declaratory Relief and these proceedings are instituted pursuant to § 632-1, Hawai’i Revised Statutes.
4. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to § 603-36, Hawaii Revised Statutes.5. The defendants are sued in their official capacities for the reasons set forth in the exhibits accompanying and attached to this Complaint.
II.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
1. Plaintiff submitted a Uniform Information Practices Act (“UIPA”) request to the defendants on or about November 2, 2008. A copy of said request is attached as Exhibit 1.
2. Plaintiff further submitted a supplemental request to
Lingle on April 3, 2009, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 2.
3. Defendants responded nearly seven (7) months later with a virtually blanket refusal to disclose any of their own internal communications. The UIPA materials for which defendants charged Plaintiff $600 were virtually worthless and made a mockery of the liberal UIPA principles applicable under both the UIPA statute and the decisions of the Hawai’i courts interpreting the UIPA. A copy of defendants’ response is attached as Exhibit 3.
4. Plaintiff wrote to the defendants on April 14, 2010; defendants have not responded. A copy of Plaintiff’s request is attached as Exhibit 4. In a final effort to avoid a lawsuit Plaintiff wrote to the defendants on April 30, 2010, attached as Exhibit 5; again defendants have not responded.
5. There is great public confusion and national concern involving the issue of Obama’s birth in this state. Ironically, the secrecy and manipulation of the defendants, and their refusal to make Hawai’i state records available to plaintiff, have fueled intense speculation that Obama was not born in Hawai’i and may have been born in Kenya. Plaintiff himself has always stated Obama was born in Hawai’i, which is why he is suing to obtain Obama’s Hawai’i birth and other public records here; nevertheless, tens of millions of Americans believe Obama was born in Kenya due to the secrecy and manipulation of Hawai’i state records by the defendants.
6. Unless and until Hawai’i executive branch officials and judges stop stonewalling and concealing historical Hawaiian archives concerning Obama, public speculation will continue to grow about the nature and extent of Obama’s origins in this state. The defendants’ secrecy and manipulation of public records have boomeranged: instead of quieting public concerns since 2008 and laying to rest questions about Obama’s “roots,” approximately 150 million Americans now harbor doubts in 2010 about the whereabouts and circumstances of Obama’s birth.
7. American media have coined the term “Birthers” to refer to the approximately 150 million Americans who harbor doubts about the circumstances of Obama’s birth. Plaintiff refers to these tens of millions of concerned Americans collectively as “Birther Nation.”
III.
LEGAL CLAIM
1. In the past, Hawai’i courts have interpreted the UIPA liberally.
2. The defendants’ current claim that any internal communications of Hawai’i executive branch officials involving Obama’s records are exempt from UIPA disclosure would gut the UIPA and make the statute worthless.
3. The refusal of the defendants to comply with the UIPA is part of an egregious (and misguided) partisan political manipulation of the Obama archives by the defendants. Defendants, using Fukino as their mouthpiece, have disseminated repeated statements and remarks about the contents of Obama’s state files; when challenged to produce the original documents to which they were referring the defendants responded with claims of secrecy.
4. The defendants have waived any secrecy of state records concerning Obama by Fukino’s repeated and continuing public discussions of the Obama files and by their constant and continuing efforts to obtain local and national publicity for their claims.
IV.
DECLARATORY RELIEF SOUGHT
Plaintiff seeks to have the defendants fully comply with the UIPA in good faith, and to provide all of their internal communications which they have refused to provide to Plaintiff for 1-1/2 years.
COUNT TWO
I.
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraph One of Count One (¶ I).
II.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
1. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraph Two of Count One (¶ II).
III.
LEGAL CLAIM
1. Barack Obama is President of the United States. He is not by any stretch of the imagination a private citizen to whom normal privacy concerns are applicable. State and federal privacy statutes applicable to ordinary private citizens were never intended to impose a veil of secrecy over historical archives and records concerning the President of the United States.
2. Hawai’i state files, records and other local sources of information constitute historical archives both of this state and the United States to which privacy statutes and privacy concerns are either completely inapplicable or almost fully attenuated. Obama himself has stated he has released his “birth certificate;” therefore he has affirmatively waived any secrecy or privacy concerning the original, typewritten 1961 birth certificate.
3. Defendants cannot be allowed to play games and seek to advance a partisan political agenda concerning Obama by making public claims about state documents and records which they then refuse to make available for public inspection and copying.
IV.
DECLARATORY RELIEF SOUGHT
1. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief declaring that Obama’s original, typewritten 1961 birth certificate is a state and national historical record and archive which should be made available to the American people and to writers, journalists, scholars and researchers. This finding should also be applicable to any and all Hawai’i state and local government records concerning Obama wherever located including, but not limited to, his school and other records.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Andy Martin prays for relief as follows:
1. For a declaration by this Court that the attached record reflects defendants have failed to comply with the UIPA in good faith, and that Plaintiff as an author and writer and cinéaste is a person to whom the requested UIPA materials should be made available forthwith;
2. That because Obama is the President of the United States, he is not a “private citizen” to whom normal privacy considerations are applicable. Any Hawai’i state records or other medical and school records constitute historical archives of this state and the United States and should be made available to writers, journalists, historians and scholars such as Plaintiff.
3. For such other relief as this Court deems just and equitable.
Dated: May 4, 2010
Honolulu, Hawai’i
Respectfully submitted,
ANDY MARTIN, J.D.
Plaintiff Pro se
I will add a final note that Mario Apuzzo does not mention that there is a federal legal definition of the term “birth certificate,” that the COLB meets that definition, that the definition is binding on federal civil and military courts, and that it is binding on the States under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.