MS – Orly v Democrat Party – Additional Proof of Service
Totally undermining Orly’s case And submitted by Orly…
Document Number: 71
Docket Text: NOTICE of Additional Proof of Service per Court Request, filed by Orly Taitz. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 1, # (2) Exhibit 2, # (3) Exhibit 3, # (4) Exhibit 4, # (5) Exhibit 5, # (6) Exhibit 6)(ND)
Mike Dunford explains
Exhibit 6 is a recent affidavit from Paul Irey that accuses counsel for defendants of various things. In addition to being false and scurrilous, this is completely, obviously, and utterly irrelevant to proving service of process on defendants in Hawaii.
Exhibit 5 is what purports to be a copy of an affidavit from Mike Zullo. I, personally, believe that this is most likely something that Taitz downloaded from the internet. It is irrelevant to proving service of anything on anyone.
Exhibit 4 is an email string that clearly demonstrates that Taitz believed she was serving (and suing) the Hawai‘i defendants in their official capacities. It does not prove service of anything on anyone. It does provide further proof of Orly’s chronic inability to follow directions. I suspect, based on the email string, that there may be further unresolved payment issues involving Orly and the service company. I base this in part because she was asking for same day service, failing to pay the total requested. I also note that the company has this notice on their website:
“RUSH Service: no additional fee to association members if the RUSH request is legitimate (i.e., court hearing or deadline date close) versus the client’s RUSH demand is arrogant &/or just wants everything done now. Non-legitimate RUSH request are $25.00.”
Exhibits 3 & 2 demonstrate that Orly attempted to serve the attorney general with the summonses. This does nothing to prove that Drs. Fuddy and Onaka were served with anything in any capacity, either official or unofficial.
Exhibit 1 demonstrates that Orly mailed a copy of the complaint to Jill Nagamine. That’s not service of a complaint. It’s also not service of a summons. (And we know that no summonses had been issued for those defendants as of that date.) Finally, it’s not service of anything on Drs. Fuddy and Onaka in any capacity, either official or unofficial.