16 Responses to “from FOX news”

1. Francis Black
   September 24th, 2011 @ 2:07 pm

   Why do you post things that are completely untrue?

2. Insight
   September 24th, 2011 @ 2:57 pm

   Because it is inspiring!

   Why does it have to be true? In fact, untrue is much better.

   As long as you’re up front about it.

   Keep it up, Lady Liberty!

3. Sovereign Soul
   September 24th, 2011 @ 3:55 pm

   I wonder, Francis Black; what FACTS do you have to back up your allegations?

4. jcm52
   September 24th, 2011 @ 5:07 pm

   SS:

   I think the fact that

   1) this is not from fox news

   2) the person who posted the thing she’s linking to on facebook has no facts to back it up

   are the reasons that Francis thinks it’s untrue.

5. Insight
   September 24th, 2011 @ 5:16 pm

   This is such a great thread.

6. Patty
   September 24th, 2011 @ 5:46 pm

   Sovereign Soul — please point to a court link that this is a show hearing. Hint: You won’t find it, because the Hawaii action against DOH is a mandamus, not a show cause.

7. Florence Stone
   September 24th, 2011 @ 11:17 pm

   Gee, Francis! What’s your problem? You click on the link and it takes you right to FOX. You do know how to click on a hypertext link, don’t you? Quit attacking people because of your inability to establish the veracity of a post. Geez!! Makes the world wonder if any of the obots even finished middle school. And, ignoramus Patty; there are TWO hearings in HI. One is the FEDERAL SHOW CAUSE and the other is a STATE WRIT of MANDAMUS. And if you have the skills to run a search, you will find the dates.

8. Paul Jackson
   September 25th, 2011 @ 2:51 am

   @ Sovereign Soul…’

   I have the documents from the case in Hawaii. I can read and and understand them. Apparently neither you nor the poster at Fox’s Facebook page can.

   There is nothing in the pleadings commanding anyone to be anywhere and produce anything.

   If you can show me different, I’d really love to see it. You’d have to make it up because there’s nothing there.

9. Francis Black
   September 25th, 2011 @ 2:56 am

   @ sovereign soul…

   What Patty said.

   Apparently she and I can read and understand the pleadings. You, not so much.

   Those are facts. What do you have otherwise.

   @ Insight…

   Try inspiring with the truth and facts.

10. Ben O. Verbich
    September 25th, 2011 @ 6:04 am

    checkmait!

11. jcm52
    September 25th, 2011 @ 6:14 am

    Go on Orly you coward…

    post the comment I made yesterday.

12. Kinescat
    September 25th, 2011 @ 6:44 am

    Francis Black is a party pooper. The truth is irrelevant in a battle of, titanic proportions.

13. Francis Black
    September 25th, 2011 @ 7:11 am

    @Florence Stone…

    Florence, I did not attack anyone, but merely asked a question. I’m quite capable of clicking links.

    The headline states: “Orly Taitz Victory – She forces head of DOH to attend Sept show cause hearing in Hawaii.”

    That declaration is patently false. That is why I asked the question. The federal action in HI is on a motion to compel based on a subpoena issued by Orly in Taitz v Astrue in USDC D.C. before Judge Lamberth. The hearing date scheduled is Nov. 21, rescheduled from the original date pending the outcome of Judge Lamberth’s decision on Otly’s motion for reconsideration. If he denies that motion the HI hearing is moot. In addition, and more to the point, there is nothing in the federal case in HI forcing the head of DOH to appear anywhere nor is there a show cause hearing at all.

    In the state court case, Taitz v Fuddy, a petition for mandamus, hearing scheduled for Oct 12, that hearing is on a motion to dismiss, and also does not require Fuddy to appear anywhere nor produce anything. In fact, except in very narrow circumstance, the state writ of mandamus has been abolished, and this case does not fit those remaining narrow circumstances.

    Therefore the question on publishing articles that are completely untrue.

    Hope that helps clarify.

14. dr_taitz@yahoo.com
    September 25th, 2011 @ 7:20 am

    if one of 2 judges grants my motion or my petition for agency review, I am home free and Fuddy has to provide the docs

15. RacerJim
    September 25th, 2011 @ 7:47 am

    @Patty, Paul Jackson & Francis Black,

    Apparently you either didn’t see, read, understand or are ignoring the following document from the case in Hawaii.

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    for the
    District of Hawaii

    Taitz v Astrue

    SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OR OBJECTS TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF PREMISES IN A CIVIL ACTION

    To: Ms Loretta Fuddy, Director of Health, State of Hawaii Department of Health

    Production: YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce at the time, date, and place set forth below the following documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and permit their inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the material: original 1961 typewritten Birth Certificate #10641 for Barack Obama II issued 08/08/1961, signed by Dr. David Sinclair, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama and registrar stored in the Health Department of the State of HI from 08/08/1961 until now.

    Place: Health Department, State of HI, 1250 Punchbowl Str. Room 325, Honolulu HI 96813

    Date and Time: August 8, 2011 10AM

    The provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P.45(c), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena, and Rule 45 (d) and (e), relating to your duty to respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so, are attached.

    Date: 07/05/2011

    CLERK OF COURT
    (illegible signature)
    Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

    Do indeed try inspiring with facts/truths.

16. Francis Black
    September 25th, 2011 @ 8:08 am

    @ Dr. Taitz…

    Thank you for your reply, and further thanks for allowing the posts.

    Please do not misunderstand. I was not stating that if you indeed obtain a court order for production that they would not be bound to produce, after appropriate appeals were taken, of course. At least I assume the state HI would appeal, as would the SSA, if they lost either the motion or the mandamus. In other words, as has been stated elsewhere that production would happen immediately upon such a ruling, that too is false.

    I was merely pointing out, based on the article, that there is nothing currently present on either docket that “forces the head of DOH” to appear or produce anything. That is yet to be determined.

    Again, thank you.

Leave a Reply