DC District Court Chief Judge the Hon. Royce C. Lamberth has dealt with the Orly Taitz problem. After castigating her for her repeated inability to grasp the concept of blanking out the first 5 digits of a social-security number, he allowed her 78-page motion in opposition to the government’s motion to dismiss her FOIA lawsuit against the Social Security Administration to be filed, ordering that Exhibit 9 which still contained improperly redacted information be filed under seal.
Judge Lamberth showed the kind of judgment that I would expect from someone in his respected position. Rather than joust with Taitz’s incompetence, he has taken a decisive, pragmatic step that will allow him to rule on the motion to dismiss itself and, this observer hopes, send Taitz packing back to California. However the judge rules, he has cleared the procedural wreck of Taitz’s lawsuit from the highway of justice. [Was that over the top?]
For those who enjoy gawking at wrecks on the highway of justice, here’s the motion:
Page 9, unredacted SSN
Your analogy is good, especially considering that when I visit Taitz’ site, I often feel like I’ve visited an auto junk yard.
Bits of this and that, but nowhere anything that actually works.
She simply hasn’t any vehicle to take her from point A to point B.
It’s all junk.
Yeah, that’s a big oops. 😉
I saw this on the net. Orly needs to be contacted. The court needs to take judical notice of this
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43946712/ns/politics-more_politics/
Note the Judge.
Just is just more BS Red Tape. Had this been a regular Joe Blow using someone else SSN they would 20 years in jail. Plain and simple.
Survival Daddy,
Exactly whose SS number is Obama using?
Except in a junkyard you can usually find some actual working pieces that can be used as replacements. Not so with Orly’s site. It’s all cack.
Who knows? Who cares?
Ah, poor Survival Daddy… living in fear of a world full of imaginary hypotheticals! Since there is no actual situation here of someone using someone ELSE’s SSN, your analogy lacks any merit.
On her web site, Orly has spun her failure to properly redact SSNs in Exhibit 9 as a victory because the judge allowed the rest of the motion to be filed. But then she also thinks that
Donald Trump and Christine O’Donnell are examples of election victories for birthers.
I think the judge allowed it this time because it will be all the more expedient to deny her case. Either putting it under seal or verifying that the ss # is invalid anyway probably compelled him.
All of this is just guessing on my part, but I have a feeling the judge has had his limit at this point and wants to devote as little possible time to inane pleadings.
I’d personally like to see her held in contempt and a court ordered recommendation that Taitz complete a psychological evaluation prior to allowing any additional filings. I don’t know if that’s within the powers of a judge, but a 72 hr observation restraint would be sweet.
Yet, there has been absolutely no proof that the number belong to anybody else. In the real world, a prosecutor would normally start with “a crime occurred” and then find the perpetrator. Only after that would they take it to court. Apparently, in OrlyLaw and BirtherLaw, you start with naming the perpetrator and then look for the crime. It would be like accusing somebody of murder and lacking any evidence of any victim (body, missing person, bloody anything, etc.).
Orly’s only “evidence” is a report that specifically says it is not evidence of anything.
Barack Obama has been filing financial disclosure forms either to the state of Illinois or to the federal government since he was first elected to the Illinois state Senate in 1997.
You can’t file either financial disclosure statements or state or federal income tax returns with multiple or phony Social Security numbers.
Hasn’t that occured to the brifers yet? Well, it will when one of them tries to file FITax 1040 with a phony SSN.
When someone to rejects anything that undermines their argument, they are not going to think of is anything that further undermines it. Let us call it a classic case of denial. However, I love the birth standard of proof.
SSN for taxes, – yes. For federal financial disclosure, – no. One does not use a SSN in filing federal financial disclosure forms under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. Check out federal form SF 278: http://www.usoge.gov/forms/oge278/oge278_automated.pdf
I never saw an answer to this question. I’d like to hear an answer. What is the premise, and on what evidence is it based?
You’re joking, right?
Not exactly. I’m not hopeful that I’ll get an answer, and I am serious about not entertaining claims for which no evidence is provided, let alone no specific claim being made.
On the other hand, I consider the whole thing a joke.
Generally people use their own social-security numbers. The number Orly Taitz bandies about was verified as the one Obama used to register with the Selective Service as a teenager. Social-security numbers are required on US Income tax returns, so that’s pretty strong evidence that the number and Obama’s name match in SSA records.
So one may reasonably conclude that Obama uses his own social-security number. It also seems to be the case that subsequent to Obama’s number being broadcast all over the Internet that he has requested and received a new one.
It began when Neil Sankey provided Orly with the results of a database search which erroneously stated that Obama’s SSN was issued to an unnamed person who was born in 1890. That, plus the fact that Obama’s SSN has a Connecticut prefix, is the only “evidence” that Obam’s SSN is not legitimate.
The problems with the theory are numerous.
1. If Obama’s SSN really was issued to someone else who was born in 1890, there should be a record of that person somewhere. The person would be long dead by now, but the SSN does not appear in the Social Security Death Index, The databases which Orly’s investigators have been using do not attach a name to the person who supposedly was born in 1890. The Social Security Death Index includes the names of 1,540 people who were born in 1890 and were issued Social Security Numbers which beging with the prefix 042. Obama’s SSN is not one of them.
2. The databases which Orly’s investigators used contain a disclaimer which states that the information must be independently verified because the databases are not free of error. Neither Orly nor her investigators have independent verified anything.
3. Obama has never had any reason to use someone else’s SSN. The State Department confirmed his citizenship back in the sixties, so he certainly was eligible to obtain a genuine Social Security Number when he applied for one in 1976 or 1977. So what possible motivation would he have have to use another person’s SSN?
4. As others have pointed out, it is impossible to file a Federal Tax Return with an incorrect SSN. The IRS automatically rejects a return if the SSN does not match the records of the Social Security Administration. Obama has been filing Federal tax returns for roughly three decades. If he were using a fraudulent SSN, the authorities would have caught on by now.
5. The fact that Obama was issued a SSN with a Connecticut prefix is meaningless. We of course do not know why it happened, but the most plausible explanation is that a data entry clerk at the Social Security Administration made a typographical error when entering Obama’s Zip Code, accidentally changing it from a Honolulu Zip Code to a Danbury, Connecticut Zip Code.
I could go on, but you get the point.
The Social Security Administration has responded to Orly’s 78-page opposition with a concise 6-page reply. The government’s argument boils down to the fact that Orly has demanded a copy of Obama’s SS-5, and she is not entitled to it. The rest of her arguments are irrelevant.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/61547464/TAITZ-v-ASTRUE-USDC-D-C-32-REPLY-to-opposition-to-motion-re-21MOTION-for-Summary-Judgment-gov-uscourts-dcd-146770-32-0
According to Foggy: Just for the record, here is the sum total of actual evidence Orly has about the man born in 1890.
Just a random number on a page.
Even the idea that the number applies to a man and not a woman is sexism.
http://www.thefogbow.com/files/9113/0153/0530/Susan_Daniels_Affidavit_Page_05.jpg
Birthers somehow consider this “solid evidence”, yet the certified records of Hawaii don’t prove anything…
From page 4 of the scribd link above:
“And Plaintiff’s unsupported allegations of fraud cannot satisfy the public interest standard required under FOIA.”
(my bolding)
The Social Security Administration is the final arbiter of what constitutes Social Security number fraud. If they say no fraud was committed, then no fraud was committed, and Orly & the birthers will get nowhere with law enforcement.
And of course the idea that a Social Security Number would be issued to an 87-year-old person in 1977 is far-fetched at best.
The “Social Security Number Verifier Plus” service which Susan Daniels used is a service offered by a business called National Employment Screening..Their website also has a disclaimer:
“The vast majority of the time the public records information is correct. However, sometimes there is more than one person with the same name and date of birth. Other data entry errors, misinterpretations, and incomplete records do sometimes occur. You should always try to get corroborating information.”
Orly has demonstrated time and again that she is not interested in getting corroborating information before going off on one of her tangents.