Let me say, my position, unlike that of some on the right, is that Mitt Romney is a natural born American citizen and constitutionally eligible to be president. With that out of the way, here is very interesting footage of his father, George Romney, who was born in Chihuahua, Mexico and ran briefly for nomination in the 1968 Republican presidential primary.
Further to yesterday’s hearing, when Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.’s Reply to a Defense Opposition to the Georgia subpoena forms Taitz found on the Internet–(Mad Ol’ Orly is under the delusion she is putting President Obama on “trial” in Georgia on January 26, resulting in DISCOVERY)–was read into the record; her original Motion before the court was Denied from the Bench, Order to be written by Defense; and Amended Ex-Parte Motion (I really have no idea): Raicha explains at The Fogbow, some of what the Attorney-General’s office is complaining about:
Here is the full version of the “Ex Parte Amended Motion Reciprocal Subpoena Enforcement”. It is a prime example of what Ms. Nagamine means when she says the State must waste time trying to figure out what Taitz is asking for.
In this “motion”, it could be: 1) an Ex Parte application to hear a brand new motion, contained in this pleading, to enforce the Georgia subpoena. This reading of the document is supported by the “proposed order”, which does not contain language “shortening time” and moving the hearing, but merely states that the order to comply with the subpoena is granted. 2) an Ex Parte application to “shorten time” to hear the motion that was set for January 26th. This reading is supported by Taitz’ lengthy citation of the Hawaii rules for shortening time for a hearing.
Here is the order, on the Ex Parte document. The order specifically states that the court is treating this document as #2 and granting the request to shorten time to hear the motion originally set for January 26th.
Here is part of the original motion for “reciprocal enforcement” submitted by Taitz on December 29th. (No exhibit attached.) This would be the motion that the court was considering on January 13th. Because motions cannot be amended in Hawaii, as was explained to Taitz on November 30th, only the facts and arguments in this document were before the court on the 13th.
This document refers only to “HAW RCP 45(a) and HAW RCP 45 (d)(1)” as the law regarding issuing subpoenas in Hawaii. No other rule or statute was before the court on January 13th. Therefore, Judge Nishimura ruled against Taitz solely on the grounds that these rules did not support Taitz’ request.
The judge didn’t miss anything, but Taitz’ will certainly file a Motion for Reconsideration of Ex Parte Amended Motion Reciprocal Subpoena Enforcement”, which will be set in due course 18 days from now, requiring an Ex Parte Amended Motion to Expedite for Reconsideration of Ex Parte Amended Motion Reciprocal Subpoena Enforcement, all of which is allowable under OrlyLaw.