2012-05-21 - MS SDMS - EXHIBITS To MDEC Response To Motion For Sanctions

Exhibit 1
Case 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA Document 30-1 Filed 05/21/12 Page 1 of 4

F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
B
o
w
.
c
o
m

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________
)
ORLY TAITZ, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
) Civil Action No. 11-402 (RCL)
MICHAEL ASTRUE, )
COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL )
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, )
)
Defendant. )
____________________________________)

ORDER
Before the Court are several pending motions, all of which will be denied for the reasons
set forth below.
Plaintiffs Motion [12] to Compel Preparation of a Vaughn Index requests an order
requiring defendant to provide an itemized inventory of every agency record responsive to
plaintiffs FOIA request that defendant asserts is exempt from disclosure. As discussed in the
Courts Memorandum Opinion issued this date, the Social Security Administration (SSA)
withheld only one responsive document as exempt from disclosure. As there is no need for a
Vaughn Index in this case, plaintiffs Motion [12] to Compel is DENIED.
Plaintiffs Motion [18] to Strike Defendants Answer asserts that defendant filed his
answer to her amended complaint twenty days late. She thus asks the Court to strike the answer
and enter a default judgment in her favor. Plaintiffs Motion [20] for Default Judgment, like her
Motion to Strike, also seeks a default judgment on the basis of defendants late filing. To serve
the United States, a plaintiff must serve a copy of the summons and complaint on the United
States attorney for the district where the action is brought. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(1)(A)(i). Under
Case 1:11-cv-00402-RCL Document 35 Filed 08/30/11 Page 1 of 3 Case 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA Document 30-1 Filed 05/21/12 Page 2 of 4
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
B
o
w
.
c
o
m

2

the FOIA statute, a defendant shall serve an answer or otherwise plead to any complaint . . .
within thirty days of service upon the defendant of the pleading in which such complaint is
made. 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(4)(C). Plaintiff served her first amended complaint and summons on
the U.S. Attorney on April 3, 2011 [8]. Thus, defendants answer was due within thirty days of
April 3, 2011. Because defendant did not file his answer until May 23, 2011, defendant is in
default. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide, however, that a default judgment may be
entered against the United States, its officers, or its agencies only if the claimant establishes a
claim or right to relief by evidence that satisfies the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(d) (emphasis
added). For the reasons set forth in the Courts Memorandum Opinion issued this date, the Court
finds that plaintiff has failed to establish a claim or right to relief, and thus is not entitled a
default judgment in this case.
Furthermore, [d]efault judgments are not favored by modern courts, particularly where
such judgments are unwarranted by the facts. Jackson v. Beech, 636 F.2d 831, 834 (D.C. Cir.
1980). This Circuit has explained that default judgments are normally reserved for cases in
which the adversary process has been halted because of an essentially unresponsive party. Id.
at 836 (quoting H.F. Livermore Corp. v. Aktiengesellschaft Gebruder Loepfe, 432 F.2d 689, 691
(D.C. Cir. 1970)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Cognizant of the strong policies favoring
the resolution of genuine disputes on their merits, id. at 834, the Court notes that this is not a
case where defendant has been an essentially unresponsive party. Id. at 836. Rather, defendant
answered plaintiffs amended complaint before plaintiff moved for an entry of default.
Accordingly, the Court will neither strike defendants answer nor enter a default judgment
against defendant. Plaintiffs Motion [18] to Strike and Motion [20] for Default Judgment are
therefore DENIED.
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
B
o
w
.
c
o
m

3

Plaintiffs Motion [19] for Clarification requests clarification of this Courts Order [13]
requiring plaintiff to refile her complaint and amended complaint with properly redacted social
security numbers. Plaintiff has already filed her redacted complaint [16] and amended complaint
[17], and thus her Motion [19] for Clarification is DENIED as moot.
Finally, plaintiffs Motion [22] to Compel asks the Court to compel compliance with a
Rule 45 subpoena issued by plaintiff to the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii. The
subpoena seeks access to the original long-form birth certificate issued to the President in 1961.
The requested birth certificate has nothing to do with this case, which relates to plaintiffs FOIA
request for various documents in the possession of the SSA. Inspection of the birth certificate
would resolve none of the issues before this Court. Accordingly, plaintiffs Motion [22] to
Compel is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Signed by Royce C. Lamberth, Chief Judge, on August 30, 2011.

F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
B
o
w
.
c
o
m

Exhibit 2

F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
B
o
w
.
c
o
m

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
DR. ORLY TAITZ,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
COMMISSIONS OF THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.
_____________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL NO. 11-00519 SOM-RLP
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS
EMERGENCY EX PARTE MOTION FOR
EMERGENCY ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
AND TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND FOR
ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS AND
VACATING HEARING
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS EMERGENCY EX PARTE MOTION FOR EMERGENCY
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS AND FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS AND VACATING HEARING
On August 8, 2011, Plaintiff Orlay Taitz (Plaintiff)
filed an Emergency Ex Parte Motion for Emergency Order To Show
Cause and to Compel Attendance for Production of Documents and
for Attorneys Fees and Costs (Motion). Docket No. 1. The
Motion sought to enforce a subpoena issued in a case proceeding
in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia,
Civil Action No. 11-402 (RCL) (District of Columbia action).
The subpoena sought to compel third-party witness Loretta Fuddy,
Director of Health, State of Hawaii, to produce for inspection
the original birth certificate of the President of the United
States Barack Obama.
The Court determined that the Motion should be heard in
the normal course and set a hearing for September 14, 2011.
Docket No. 4. On August 24, 2011, Ms. Fuddy filed a Memorandum
in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion. Docket No. 9. At a hearing
Case 1:11-cv-00519-SOM -RLP Document 15 Filed 10/26/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
182
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
B
o
w
.
c
o
m

2
before Chief Judge Susan Oki Mollway on August 30, 2011, the
court was informed that the District of Columbia action had been
dismissed. See Docket No. 12. Plaintiff informed the court that
she would be filing a motion for reconsideration of the District
of Columbia courts decision. Id. The court continued the
hearing on the Motion and ordered that Plaintiff file her reply
by September 20, 2011, which she did. See id.; Docket No. 20.
The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition
without a hearing pursuant to Rule 7.2(d) of the Local Rules of
Practice of the United States District Court for the District of
Hawaii. The hearing set for November 21, 2011 is VACATED. The
United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued
a Memorandum and Order denying Plaintiffs motion for
reconsideration. Taitz v. Astrue, Civil Action No. 11-402 (RCL),
2011 WL 3805741 (D.D.C. Oct. 17, 2011). Because the District of
Columbia action has been dismissed, Plaintiffs Motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, OCTOBER 26, 2011
_____________________________
Richard L. Puglisi
United States Magistrate Judge
TAITZ V. ASTRUE, CIVIL NO. 11-00519 SOM-RLP; ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFFS EMERGENCY EX PARTE MOTION FOR EMERGENCY ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE AND TO COMPEL ATTENDANCE FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND
FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS AND VACATING HEARING
Case 1:11-cv-00519-SOM -RLP Document 15 Filed 10/26/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
183
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
B
o
w
.
c
o
m

Exhibit 3

F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
B
o
w
.
c
o
m

SLC DAVIDM. LOUIE 2162
Attorney General,
State of Hawai'i
HEIDI M. RIAN 3473
JILL T. NAGAMINE 3513
REBECCA E. QUINN 8663
Deputy Attorneys General
465 South King Street, Room 200
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Telephone: (808) 587-3050
Facsimile: (808) 587-3077
Email : lill.T.Nagamine@hawaii.gov
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
C ERK
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
STATE OF HAWAII
DR. ORL Y TAITZ, ESQ.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LORETTA FUDDY IN HER OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, STATE OF
HAWAII, DR. ALVIN T. ONAKA, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE REGISTRAR,
HAWAII,
Defendants.
CIVIL NO. 11-1-1731-08 RAN
ORDER GRANTING 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
HEARING
DATE: October 12, 2011
TIME: 8:30 a.m.
JUDGE: Hon. Rhonda A. Nishimura
.....
--
-
R
...
N
CD
:..
:%
-
-
Compliance Program

-
Dale: NOV 0 9 2011
i@\/

10th Di vision
WI;//K
...

o-!'"4c;.
OlO'c
-t-to
:z:"'_
OCe")

::5:z:,..

z_C")
-5
....
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
B
o
w
.
c
o
m

ORDER GRANTING 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
On August 10, 2011, Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. ("Plaintiff') filed her Petition for a Writ of
Mandamus Request for Inspection of Records under United (sic) Information Practices Act
Statute 92F, State of Hawaii ("Petition") against Loretta Fuddy, in her official capacity as
Director of the Department of Health State of Hawaii, and Dr. Alvin T. Onaka, in his official
capacity as the Registrar, Department of Health State of Hawaii ("Defendants"). The Petition
sought a Writ of Mandamus advising the Defendants that (I) the President has waived any
claims of privacy in his long form birth certificate by making a public disclosure of the
document, (2) section 338-18, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), does not apply to the President' s
long form birth certificate and that Defendants erred in relying on that statute in refusing to allow
Plaintiff to inspect the document, (3) Defendants are obligated to allow Plaintiff to inspect the
President's long form birth certificate, and (4) Defendants are liable to Plaintifffor her costs and
fees.
On September 2, 20 11, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss Petition for a Writ of
Statute 92F, State of Hawaii filed August 10, 2011 ("Motion"). Plaintiff submitted an
Opposition to Motion Petition for Writ of Mandamus on October 4, 2011 , and Defendant's
Memorandum in Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of
Mandamus was filed October 7, 2011 .
On October 12, 2012, at 8:30 a.m., the Motion came on for hearing before the Honorable
Rhonda A. Nishimura. Plaintiff appeared Pro Se, and Jill T. Nagamine and Rebecca E. Quinn,
Deputy Attorneys General, State of Hawaii, appeared on behalf of the Defendants.
437545JDOC
2
--'- -
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
B
o
w
.
c
o
m

The Court, having considered all pleadings filed herein, the memoranda both in support
of and in opposition to the motion, the arguments of counsel and Plaintiff Pro Se, the applicable
law, and the record and files in this case, hereby finds as follows:
I. Relief is not available to Plaintiff pursuant to a Writ of Mandamus.
2. Plaintiff wants this Court to consider her Petition as an agency appeal pursuant to
chapter 91, HRS; her pleadings do not constitute an agency appeal, nor would an agency appeal
be proper under the circumstances presented.
3. Going beyond Plaintiffs requests to treat this matter as an agency appeal, if the
Court treats the Petition as a Complaint, there is still no basis upon which to grant Plaintiff the
relief she seeks.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED, ORDERED, AND DECREED that:
1. Defendants' 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 is granted.
2. All of Plaintiffs claims against the Defendants are dismissed with prejudice.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, __ -+.< i i""f'+.-/
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DR. ORL Y TAITZ, ESQ.
Plaintiff Pro Se
. /I
HONORABLE RHON'lJA A. NISHIMURA
JUDGE OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT
3
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
B
o
w
.
c
o
m

Exhibit 4

F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
B
o
w
.
c
o
m

F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
B
o
w
.
c
o
m

F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
B
o
w
.
c
o
m

Exhibit 5

F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
B
o
w
.
c
o
m

DAVIDM. LOUIE 2162
Attorney General,
State of Hawai'i
HEIDIM. RIAN 3473
JILL T. NAGAMINE 3513
Telephone: (808) 587-3050
Facsimile: (808) 587-3077
Email: JiILT.Nagamine@hawaii.gov
fIRST CIRCUI i COUR i
STAlE OF HAWAIi
fiLeD
2U12 FEB -9 AM 10.07
H. CHING
CLERK
STATE OF HAWAII
DR ORLYTAITZ, ESQ.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CAP ACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE
HAW All, DR. ALVIN T. ONAKA, IN HIS
HAWAII,
Defendants.
CIVIL NO. 11-1-1731-08 RAN
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR REHEARING
MOTION TO STAY FINAL ORDER
PENDING REHEARING MOTION FILED
DECEMBER 6, 2011
HEARING
DATE: January 6,2012
TIME: 9:00 a.m.
JUDGE: Hon. Rhonda A. Nishimura
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED EMERGENCY MOTION FOR REHEARING
MOTION TO STAY FINAL ORDER PENDING REHEARING FILED DECEMBER 6,2011
On August 10,2011, Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. ("Plaintiff') filed her Petition for a Writ of
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
B
o
w
.
c
o
m

(
Statute 92F, State of Hawaii ("Petition") against Loretta Fuddy, in her official capacity as
Director of the Department of Health State of Hawaii, and Dr. Alvin T. Onaka, in his official
capacity as the Registrar, Department of Health State of Hawaii ("Defendants"). The Petition
sought a Writ of Mandamus advising the Defendants that (1) the President has waived any
claims of privacy in his long form birth certificate by making a public disclosure ofthe
document, (2) section 338-18, Hawaii Revised Statutes (RRS), does not apply to the President's
long form birth certificate and that Defendants erred in relying on that statute in refusing to allow
Plaintiffto inspect the document, (3) Defendants are obligated to allow Plaintiff to inspect the
President's long form birth certificate, and (4) Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for her costs and
fees.
Defendants filed their 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 ("Motion") on September 2,2011. Plaintiff filed an opposition and
Defendants filed a reply on October 4,2011 and October 7, 2011, respectively.
On October 12,2012, the Motion came on for hearing before the Honorable Rhonda A.
Nishimura. Plaintiff appeared Pro Se, and Jill T. Nagamine and Rebecca E. Quinn, Deputy
Attorneys General, State of Hawaii, appeared on behalf of the Defendants. The Motion was
granted, and all of Plaintiffs claims against the Defendants were dismissed with prejudice.
On November 1, 2011 Plaintiff filed her Emergency Motion for Rehearing Motion to
Stay Final Order Pending Rehearing ("Emergency Motion") and it was set for hearing on
November 30,2011. Defendants filed an opposition and Plaintiff filed a reply on November 18,
2011 and November 29,2011, respectively. On November 30,2011, Plaintiff appeared Pro Se,
and Jill T. Nagamine and Rebecca E. Quinn, Deputy Attorneys General, State of Hawaii,
2
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
B
o
w
.
c
o
m

(
appeared on behalf of the Defendants. Plaintiff withdrew her Emergency Motion and was
granted leave to file an Amended Emergency Motion.
On December 6, 2011, Plaintiff filed her Amended Emergency Motion for Rehearing
Motion to Stay Final Order Pending Rehearing, and it was set for hearing on January 6,2012 at
9:00 a.m. Plaintiff also filed her "Emergency MotionlRequest for the Court to Docket
"Amended Motion for Rehearing", which was Received by the Clerk of Court on 11.21.2011 by
Certified Mail, but Never Docketed and Never Given to the Judge." That was set for hearing on
January 6, 2012 as well.
On December 16,2011, Defendants filed their Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs
Amended Emergency Motion for Rehearing Motion to Stay Final Order Pending Rehearing. On
January 4,2012, Plaintiff filed her Reply to Opposition to Plaintiffs Amended Emergency
Motion for Rehearing Motion to Stay Final Order Pending Rehearing.
On January 6,2012, Plaintiffs Amended Emergency Motion for Rehearing Motion to
Stay Final Order Pending Rehearing came on for hearing before the Honorable Rhonda A.
Nishimura. Present were Plaintiff, Pro Se, and Jill T. Nagamine and Rebecca E. Quinn, Deputies
Attorney General, representing Defendants.
1. Plaintiff has provided the Court with no newly discovered evidence which by due
diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for relief under Rule 59, Hawaii Rules
of Civil Procedure, or which would justify ordering relief from the dismissal with prejudice.
445933JDOC
3
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
B
o
w
.
c
o
m

2. Plaintiffs Emergency MotionlRequest for the Court to Docket "Amended Motion
for Rehearing", which was Received by the Clerk of Court on 11.21.2011 by Certified Mail, but
Never Docketed and Never Given to the Judge was made moot by the filing of and setting for
hearing Plaintiffs Amended Emergency Motion and no further action was requested or taken.
3. Plaintiff has presented nothing which supports any of her claims.
1. Plaintiffs Amended Emergency Motion for Rehearing Motion to Stay Final Order
Pending Rehearing Relief is denied.
2. The Order Granting 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, entered October 12, 2011 and filed on November 10, 2011 shall
stand.
3. Plaintiffs Emergency MotionlRequest for the Court to Docket "Amended Motion
for Rehearing", which was Received by the Clerk of Court on 11.21.2011 by Certified Mail, but
Never Docketed and Never Given to the Judge is denied because it is moot.
4. A final judgment dismissing this case with prejudice shall enter:- \?() 1$(
fil<d fl.(t'tlont i1I 5'g' HtuF.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, _ ....... F ...... E_S'----
DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ.
Plaintiff Pro Se
445933JDOC
4
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
B
o
w
.
c
o
m

Exhibit 6

F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
B
o
w
.
c
o
m

DAVID M. LOUIE 2162
Attorney General,
State of Hawai'i
HEIDI M. RlAN 3473
JILL T. NAG AMINE 3513
Telephone: (808) 587-3050
Facsimile: (808) 587-3077
Email: Jill.T.Nagamine@hawaii.gov
FiRST CII\CUI r COURi
STAlf OF
FILED
2012 -9 AM 10: 01
H. CH1H_G
CLERK
STATE OF HAWAII
DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE
HAWAII, DR. ALVIN T. ONAKA, IN HIS
HAWAII,
CIVIL NO. 11-1-1731-08 RAN
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
RECIPROCAL SUBPOENA ENFORCEMENT
(SIC), FILED JANUARY 5, 2011
HEARING
DATE:
TIME:
January 13,2012
9:00 a.m.
Defendants. JUDGE:

Hon. Rhonda A. Nishimura
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION RECIPROCAL SUBPOENA
ENFORCEMENT (SIC), FILED JANUARY 5, 2011
On October 122011, all of Plaintiff's claims against Defendants were dismissed with
prejudice. On January 6,2012, Plaintiffs Amended Emergency Motion for Rehearing Motion to
Stay Final Order Pending Rehearing, filed on December 6, 2011 was denied.
447771JDOC
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
B
o
w
.
c
o
m

On January 5, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion Reciprocal Subpoena Enforcement (sic) that
was initially set for hearing on January 26, 2012. On January 9, 2012, upon Plaintiffs ex parte
motion, this Court rescheduled the hearing for January 13,2012.
On January 13,2011, at 9:00 a.m., Plaintiffs Motion Reciprocal Subpoena Enforcement
(sic) came on for hearing before the Honorable Rhonda A. Nishimura. Plaintiff appeared Pro Se
and Jill T. Nagamine and Rebecca E. Quinn, Deputy Attorneys General, State of Hawaii,
appeared on behalf of the Defendants.
1. For reasons stated on the record, nothing in the Hawaii Rules of Civil Procedure
or any other authority referenced by Plaintiff affords Plaintiff the relief she seeks.
1. Plaintiffs Motion Reciprocal Subpoena Enforcement (sic) is denied.
2. The Order Granting 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, entered October 12,2011 and filed on November 10,2011 shall
stand.
3. A final judgment dismissing this case with prejudice b-d {s(pttJ
-A t<.,f pu rcu a I1t-
FFB - 7. f{ W .
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, __ t:_' ___ :..::...-_______ _
--. -, ..
p' i" .
RHOf
\'DA A. \1- t A \.
t. ... ;"l ... ,
447771JDOC
2
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
B
o
w
.
c
o
m

/
DR. ORL Y TAITZ, ESQ.
Plaintiff Pro Se
(
Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. vs. Loretta Fuddy in Her Official Capacity as Director of the Department of
Health, State of Hawaii, et aI., Civil No. 11-1-1731-08 RAN, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
AMENDED EMERGENCY MOTION FOR REHEARING MOTION TO STAY FINAL
ORDER PENDING REHEARING MOTION FILED DECEMBER 6,2011
447771JDOC
3
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
B
o
w
.
c
o
m

Exhibit 7

F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
B
o
w
.
c
o
m

NO. SCPW-12-0000014
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

DR. ORLY TAITZ, Petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE RHONDA A. NISHIMURA, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
ORDER
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.)
Upon consideration of petitioner Dr. Orly Taitz's
petition for a writ of mandamus, it appears that petitioner fails
to demonstrate an entitlement to mandamus relief. See Kema v.
Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ of
mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless
the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to
relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the
alleged wrong or obtain the requested action. Such writs are not
intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of the
lower courts, nor are they intended to serve as legal remedies in
lieu of normal appellate procedures. ). Accordingly,
Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCPW-12-0000014
12-JAN-2012
12:52 PM
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
B
o
w
.
c
o
m

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 12, 2012.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
/s/ James E. Duffy, Jr.
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
2
F
r
i
e
n
d
s

o
f

T
h
e
F
o
g
B
o
w
.
c
o
m

2012-05-21 - MS SDMS - EXHIBITS To MDEC Response To Motion For Sanctions

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

2012-05-21 - MS SDMS - EXHIBITS To MDEC Response To Motion For Sanctions

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Exhibit 1

Case 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA Document 30-1 Filed 05/21/12 Page 1 of 4

Potrebbero piacerti anche