You know how it is in Orly Taitz land. Everybody is out to get her and to sabotage her cases. The most recent report from her blog says that the court deep-sixed her latest brief in Taitz v. Colvin, and not only that: When she tries to call the court, her call is disconnected! The article is titled: “So far MD District Court did not docket my reply with the complaint about prior documents disappearing from the docket. what is going on? A complaint will be sent directly to Judge Hollander. I need your assistance in calling the court and asking to docket the reply and exhibits ASAP. Every time I call the court at (410) 962-2600, I am being disconnected[.]” [Link to Taitz site]
What is her solution?
- Write a blog article about it!
- Ask her readers to call the court for her!
- Promise to complain to the judge!
To put this in perspective, Orly wrote this desperate plea for help yesterday and the court received her paperwork [wait for it] yesterday. If Taitz had let the dust settle until today, all would have been made clear.
I am not a lawyer, but just nosing around I have found this legal principle that says the movant gets the last word. For example:
- Plaintiff: Mommy, Tommy hit me!
- Defense: Did not!
- Plaintiff: Did too!
At this point, the dispute would be “fully briefed.” Tommy has had his say in the matter. Now Tommy might want to say something else, but he has to get permission first:
- Mommy, can I please say something else?
Should Tommy’s mother give permission for something else to be said, that would be called a “surreply” and then another response to that could be made.
- Defense: Did not!
- Plaintiff: Did too!
In Taitz v. Colvin we have docket entries as follows on a Motion to Dismiss/Motion for Summary Judgment:
| ECF # | Date | Description |
| 28 | 1/30/2014 | MOTION to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment by Carolyn Colvin Responses due by 2/18/2014 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E)(Loucks, Allen) (Entered: 01/30/2014) |
| 31 | 2/19/2014 | RESPONSE in Opposition re 28 MOTION to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment filed by Orly Taitz. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(aos, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/19/2014) |
| 32 | 3/2/2014 | REPLY to Response to Motion re 28 MOTION to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment and Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Carolyn Colvin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Loucks, Allen) (Entered: 03/02/2014) |
So Defense’s Motion to Dismiss has been fully briefed. Orly then files a “Reply in support of a motion for summary judgment in favor of plaintiff” only there was no such motion that I can find (however, see update below). Here’s how the court sees Orly’s last brief, in an entry docketed today indicating Taitz’ brief would be returned to her:
Update:
An attorney commenting on this article points out that Taitz had attempted to make a motion for summary judgment piggy backed on another motion (a practice the courts frown on and may disallow). I do not know the process through which the Court discovered what Taitz was trying to do, but later yesterday, the court docketed her brief.
Taitz in a new article today [link to Taitz web site] and speaking of herself in the third person, describes the appearance of the docket entry as “miraculous” and goes on to take attorney Scott Tepper and unnamed web sites to task for assassinating her character. So here’s the best I can do by way of apology:
Orly, what you did in filing your brief in Taitz v. Colvin was not completely inept as I first thought, but just procedurally confusing and contrary to best practices. You’ll still lose the case.
For everyone’s reading pleasure, here is the brief and the attached exhibits:
And now for something completely different:
I realize that targeted advertising doesn’t have any special significance, but tell me, is there some resemblance here?
Taitz’s filings often have more than one action in them. Docket Entry 31 is a RESPONSE in Opposition re 28 MOTION to Dismiss and a Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff. Here’s the link on her google docs (https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Taitz-v-Colvin-MSJ-02.19.2014.pdf&chrome=true)
Docket Entry 32 is the government’s REPLY to Response to Motion re 28 MOTION to Dismiss and an opposition to her motion for summary judgment. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/210208053/Taitz-v-Colvin-Opposition-to-Plaintiff-s-MSJ)
The pile she filed this week is her reply to the government’s opposition to her motion for summary judgment.
Taitz screwed this up by including more than one action in a single filing, something the person who made the docket entry didn’t pick up on. I believe she is entitled to the filing that the court rejected today.
Though Taitz’s filings are usually a FUBAR, I tend to agree with THINKER on this one. She filed a dual motion and I think this is her reply to the defense’s opposition to that portion of her dual motion.
Could be wrong as she’s hard to follow at times, but just sayin’.
I’m not sure Taitz effectively filed a motion for summary judgment. (There are certain things required to go with such a motion. Taitz filed none of them. Good for the clerk not to be distracted.)
I would deny her leave.
I think this is another example of Taitz sternsigging her pleadings.
Maybe she should stop doing that. I wouldn’t expect clerks to puzzle through each filing and make a judgment call. Such a system would be inherently unfair and arbitrary. Procedures exist for a reason, making allowances only empowers incompetence / disrespect.
I’m sure that judges will begin to enforce the rules for Orly Taitz the same way they enforce them for every other litigant…any…day…now.
At this point, if I were the court, I would not want to bother to figure out whether it is a response/reply/something new, or a mix of both. If she is in entitled to a reply, then file a proper reply. If the court cannot tell what it is, too bad Orly.
Is it true the judge did allow an entry yesterday? If it is, assumptions were made about Orly Taitz in this particular issue.
FIFY.
Yes, I see that after deciding to reject the brief, they accepted it after I had written my article. I will update the article with this new information.
Now, Mr Sterngard, where is your apology to Dr. zahnwalt Orly Taitz Esq. ?
/quote
While the documents were missing, Obama supporters on one of the blogs, which is a bull-pulpit for Obama’s personal attorney Scott J. Tepper, attacked Taitz mercilessly, assassinated her good character and called Taitz the worst lawyer and many other names, claiming that Taitz does not know how to file documents and pleadings. Now the order by Judge Hollander revealed that Taitz knows how to file and an error was made not by Taitz, but by the court itself and it was corrected by the court itself. Taitz does not hold her breath waiting for an apology from Obama supporters.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=448124
This article has been updated.
The Dist of MD has a very specific procedure to follow when doing something like this (L. Rule 105.2.c, and their ECF manual at III.C.12). Another part of the problem, is Orly feels compelled to stuff a whole bunch of unnecessary carp into her titles. Had she simply titled her initial opposition as “Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, and Cross-Motion to Dismiss” the court would have probably caught what she was doing. Another big help to the court would be had Orly actually requested the ability file electronically, and followed the procedures to file a cross motion…but then again, this is Orly. She expects that she can half @ss everything, and everyone should be able to figure out what she intended to do, and just ignore all the rules she disregards. The woman can’t even be bothered to format a document properly, much less follow the rules of civil proceedure or local rules. She purports to have passed a state bar exam. There is no reason for the courts to go out of their way to accept and try to interpret the garbage she hoists on everyone.
With all due respect to your comments, If Orly did not follow a statute with the laws of MD, or a procedures of the courts, the judge would not have allowed it to be entered. Should we then also assume the judge is incompetent?
Thank you for updating the article. In your “apology” you stated she will still lose the case, I suggest we wait and find out what the judge rules before assuming again.
Why should we have to wait since Orly has established a pattern of losing every case before getting out of the hearing phase? It’s not hard to predict what will happen.
So far, there is no reason to believe that the Judge would rule in favor of Orly. There is just nothing there.
Definitely not a good sign when your attorney takes managing to get a filing docketed as a ‘miracle’ LOL
You’re certainly welcome to wait. And we all await the judge’s final ruling. That said, this is a simple FOIA case. Nothing more. There is no way in hell Orly gets the SS-5 of a living person. The SSN she links to “Bounel” is not “Bounel’s” SSN. In fact, there’s no showing that any Harry, Harry J., Harrison or Harrison J. Bounel even exists, much less that he was ever assigned a SSN.
The SS-5 Orly is requesting is (or at least was) President Obama’s. She’s been told at least 10 times that it belongs to a living person. She’s too stupid to read (or is just being obtuse or engaging in her usual pathological lying) the affidavits and comprehend what they say.
The only remaining issue here was if the agency did a proper search, according to the law. They have more than demonstrated that they did. They are not bound to search the paper records (if they still exist) but if the judge orders them to, fine. The result will be the same. She will not receive the SS-5 of a living person. And if the judge completely loses her mind and rules she can have it, it will most likely be immediately appealed and will be most likely be overturned.
If I’m wrong I’ll come back and apologize. I don’t think I’ll have to.
This is obviously not the case or there would never have been any birther cases as they have all been dismissed on procedural grounds.
Shorter “The Truth”:
‘How dare you mess up my plans to watch all Obots cry disappointing tears.’
Methinks it is YOU who has already assumed the outcome. LOL
And Lamb just went down in Alaska. Haha!
http://www.courtrecords.alaska.gov/webdocs/opinions/ops/sm-1485.pdf
The safer assumption is that the judge is being lax with the rules to streamline the eventual dismissal and appeal.
She doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning. Orly (and others) misinterpreted the 1940 census. The Russian immigrant wasn’t named Harry Bounel. His name was Harry Boymel, and he didn’t have Obama’s SSN. His SSN was 080-18-6078 and was issued in 1941.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Boymel-SS5.pdf
Since Harry Bounel’s real named was Harry Boymel, the SSA can’t possibly have a record of him as Harry Bounel. Do you understand now?
Everything Orly Taitz submits in her lawsuits is deficient in some way, usually in many ways. In the case of the current filing, she has not properly redacted all the Social Security numbers. And the whole thing about a document being removed from the public docket is BS. It was never on the public docket. Taitz herself commented on it at the time it was filed (but not posted publicly):
“it was not posted on the docket by the court and it is my understanding that SSA does not want it made public, at least this is my understanding from talking to the investigators”
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=431178#comments
Taitz’s claim that someone removed the document from the docket is demonstrably false. If Taitz really believes that the document was removed, then she has failed to diligently research the content of her brief. And if she realizes it was not removed, then she has lied in her brief. Most judges would skewer a real lawyer for this type of behavior. But Taitz gets away with it over and over again.
Does this mean the judge is incompetent? I doubt it. I think it means the judge is pragmatic. She can see that Taitz is an incompetent lunatic and probably realizes that the quickest way to get to a final ruling is to let a lot of stuff slide, just as most judges have done.
It’s a travesty of justice, in my opinion, to let Taitz continue to abuse the legal system with her nonsensical lawsuits. Unfortunately, I’m not a judge and can’t do anything about it except expose her lies and incompetence.
Here’s the actual title of her combined motion:
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss or Summary Judgment for Defense and a Motion for Summary Judgment for the Plaintiff Due to Admission by the Defense that They Never Even Searched for SS-5 of Harry Bounel Which They Were Obligated to Search Under FOIA and the Record They Were Obligated to Provide Under 120 Year Rule; They Searched the Numident, Which is Not What Was Requested and Not What They Were Obligated to Do
Is there a statute under the FOIA that states they are not bound to search for paper records? Are we to assume that every FOIA document ever released was only based on what was available in an electronic file? You are correct, it is basically just a FOIA issue in my opinion also, however, the law is the law. I have asked before, if it is just a matter of looking at archived paperwork, one would assume it should be somewhat organized and not to difficult to search for it. Why would the federal government not want to perform this search and instead choose to spend taxpayer money for attorneys and court costs, is it cheaper than a document search? I would assume that if Taitz did not have standing this would have been thrown out already, but, maybe that is what the judge is trying to decide on based on the available information.
There is nothing to understand. All the SSA had to do was make a search of paper archives, verify her claims are false and be done with it. Unfortunately, the FOIA is misused at times but it is still the law. I am not defending Taitz, I am questioning the resistance to follow the law.
It has asolutely nothing to do with “standing”. It has to do with (as you continue to point out) the law. There is law and precedent setting out what is a proper and adequate search and what one is entitled to under FOIA.
They’re all cited in the defendant’s briefs. Look ’em up and read ’em.
Yeah you actually are defending her. You want the government to bend over backwards to coddle her incompetence. She can’t file a FOIA normally why should they have to bend over backwards for her? The law doesn’t allow the abuse of the system which she seems content to.
The law says that the agency’s search must be reasonable. It need not be exhaustive, or the method preferred by the requester (or armchair pseudolawyers).
In Taitz’s case, the SSA has submitted evidence of not only the search results (zip), but also its methodology. The judge will have no problem accepting the SSA’s evidence, and entering judgment in favor of the SSA.
That you think you know the SSA’s business better than the SSA impresses no one (but perhaps yourself).
Absolutely not. FIrst off, it’s Federal Court. Federal Courts will rarely boot pleading for messing up on technical errors of civil proceedure, particularly when a party is pro se (although Orly, as an attorney shouldn’t be given any slack). Secondly, it would be someone in the clerk’s office, not a judge making these calls, so your desire to label a federal judge is misplaced. Thirdly, Orly’s failure to comply with the rules wasn’t the sort that directly impacted that particular filing. The title of her document opened “Opposition to Motion to Dismiss,” followed by a paragraph of other fluff. Since it was a timely Opposition to a Motion to Dismiss, there would be no reason not to permit the document to be filed. Her failure to properly identify the cross-motion part of the filing is why the Goverment’s reply and Opposition to her Cross motion was only identified as a reply, and her reply to their Opposition was treated as a Sur-reply, requiring leave of court before filing. Again, you attempt to label our federal judges (or clerks) falls short.
Ok, once again I will ask. Under the FOIA where does it state a paper search is not included. I must now also ask, what statue states that you cannot abuse the system? I see frivolous lawsuits every day. I have sat as a jurist twice when the state should have never indicted the defendant, it was a waste of time, the jury decisions where made in less than ten minutes on both cases (that includes juror instruction and the walking to and from the jury room), that could also be seen as abuse in my opinion. We have the court system for a reason, we may not all agree on its use but the law is the law.
I assume the sun will rise tomorrow morning…..should I wait for confirmation of that before making any assumptions too?
“If Orly did not follow a statute with the laws of MD”. Nice catch, I meant in MD (federal etc), so I stand grammatically/accurately corrected. I was also not aware that different federal districts had different requirements, interesting.
Here’s the government’s Memorandum in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment. It tells you everything you need to know about the applicable case law and statutes related to Taitz’s request and why she will lose this case.
http://ia600909.us.archive.org/8/items/gov.uscourts.mdd.244215/gov.uscourts.mdd.244215.28.1.pdf
Taitz doesn’t understand how to plead a case. She usually doesn’t bother to address the actual arguments the defense presents because she’s always focused on her nonsensical conspiracy theories. This case is no different.
Actually, you have no proof it will rise tomorrow just an assumption based on historical fact, which by the way I tend to agree with, in my opinion it will rise tomorrow. The point is, before the judge has ruled I see no reason to accept the final outcome before it happens. If the judge rules in Taitz favor some comments here will be totally false presumptions leaving you the same predicament Taitz has put herself in with past claims. If you don’t like her that’s fine, but then why stoop to her level?
Read the Government’s filings…you know, the ones that actually cite law and cases. FOIA and the case law interpreting it makes it clear, once an agency has given their answer, either by providing documents, or saying none exist, the burden is on the requester to show the agency failed to make a reasonable search. That is all that is required of the government. Make a reasonable effort to locate documents. It doesn’t put any specific burden on the agency beyond making a “reasonable effort.” Neither does it give the requester the option of deciding how they want the search performed. SSA has a database of all the information. They searched the database and nothing matched the infor Orly asked for. End of story. And actually, the case law and recent amendments have actually pushed things to the database search side as not only be adequate, but the preferred methods.
Hoffman v. United States Dep’t of Justice, No. 98-1733-A, slip op. at 10-11 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 15, 1999) (finding that an agency is not required to conduct a physical search of records “if other computer-assisted search procedures available to [the] agency are more efficient and serve the same practical purpose of reviewing hard copies of documents”).
http://www.justice.gov/oip/procereq.htm#N_169_
Well, no proof except for accept science…but unlike the Orly winning a case, it is likely that some day in the distant future, the sun will go supernova, expand and consume the earth, thus resulting in some day the sun not rising.
Except that, as usual, Orly has no law to support her wild claims. Orly just wants, but has articulated no legal reason why she is entitled.
The difference being is I have an understanding of the law, and base my conclusions on an examination of the relevant statutes and case law. Orly is just guano crazy. If by some chance the judge throws her a bone, I will be suprirsed, and will admit my errors.
Again, my conclusions aren’t based on a dislike of Orly. They’re based on an actual examination of the law and facts. That is why, even on the very slight chance I am wrong, I will never stoop to Orly’s level.
You do know there is a profession that has studied the law, and it is well compensated to provide predictive opinions about the application of the law to a specific set of facts.
The SSA’s search was reasonable, and found nothing. Taitz will lose.
Who, exactly, is resisting following the law?
The only one I can see involved in this case is Orly, and that’s more of a function of she has no clue what the law is or how to plead a case.
The Georgia case (“Taitz loses to an empty table”) went to trial. I’m pretty sure there is a single-digit number of others that have, too. I believe one in Indiana did, because there’s been whining abiut Irey’s limited acceptance as an expert witness. I hink that was also one where the judge ruled Obama is an NBC.
I have read the document previously, but thank you for the link. It does state the SSA went electronic in 1980 (from my memory, which is getting worse with age). My contention is, if the person ever did exist, did the SSA enter in all information electronically for every person who ever received a SSN since the SSA system began? I do not know this answer maybe someone here does. I would find it unusual that the SSA would hand enter hundreds of millions of applications previous to 1980, I have no idea how many people that would be. In order to provide case precedence I would assume it would need to be based on a case that is relevant to the timeframe incurred in this case. In other words, if someone asked for FOIA for a document from say 1990, that would be a huge difference in relevance for an adequate search.
The Truth: Thank you for updating the article. In your “apology” you stated she will still lose the case, I suggest we wait and find out what the judge rules before assuming again.
You do realize that the so-called “missing document” ECF 7, which was not removed from the public docket but never was on the public docket, has zero, zip, nada relevance to the case at bar, right?
It is related to the Original Complaint which is no longer the operative Complaint.
The SSA has, as of 2008, issued more than 450 million Social Security Numbers. Do you really believe that “all the SSA had to do” is to examine 450 million paper records in an effort to find one which has the name “Harry Bounel” on it? Where would you suggest that they begin?
The SSA, just like every other large organization, uses indexes to search for records. The Numident cross-references Social Security Numbers with names. They can enter a SSN and match it to a name, and they can enter a name and match it to a SSN. That is precisely what the SSA tried to do, and they found nothing which matches what Orly requested.
Upon receiving Orly’s first FOIA request, which contained only Bounel’s name and Obama’s SSN, the SSA entered Obama’s SSN and saw that it matched his name. He is still alive, so they were prohibited by law from releasing any information to Orly.
Orly’s second FOIA request added the following information:
1. Bounel was an immigrant from Russia.
2. Bounel was born in 1890.
3. The year that Orly believed he entered the United States.
4. The year that Orly believed he received his SSN (circa 1977).
Orly, of course, made several mistakes. First of all, she made the mistake of assuming that Bounel was born in 1890 simply because the 1940 census says that he was 50 years old that the time. What she failed to consider is that the information on that page of the census was obtained on April 16, 1940; if Bounel’s birthday was April 17 or later in the year, he was born in 1889, not 1890. Second, she failed to comprehend that the census enumerator never spoke to Bounel; the enumerator obtained the information about Bounel from his landlady, who obviously did not know his date of birth and who clearly guessed at his age. Third, Orly failed to consider the possibility that the landlady and/or the enumerator misspelled Bounel’s surname. Fourth, Orly mistakenly believed that the particular page of the census was for 915 Daly Avenue in the Bronx – a non-existent address. That census page actually was for 915 Elsmere Place in the Bronx.
Other records – including naturalization records, draft registration records, the 1920 census, and the SS-5 which I previously provided a link for, show that “Harry Bounel” really was Harry Boymel. Boymel was born in 1886 and was 53 years old at the time of the 1940 census; he was an immigrant from Russia; he was a fruit dealer; and he lived at 915 Elsmere Place in the Bronx.
I am sure that even you would agree that it is impossible for the SSA to produce records which do not exist. “Harry Bounel” does not appear in the 1920 census or the 1930 census. There are no naturalization records for “Harry Bounel.” There is no record of “Harry Bounel” in the Social Security Death Index. There is no record of “Harry Bounel” ever registering for the draft. All of those records exist for Harry Boymel, but none exist for “Harry Bounel.”
Orly will never get the SS-5 for “Harry Bounel” for the simple reason that he never existed. Since he never existed, Obama could not possibly be using his Social Security Number. Case closed.
I am not familiar with the people on this blog. Perhaps you are an attorney, perhaps others are, at this point no one has claimed to be an attorney. I am not, which I am sure is obvious. I am trying to better understand this case, I do know from reviewing the files that an enormous amount of federal government money has been spent reviewing case precedence and statute as well as submitting the pleadings, and as a taxpayer I contribute to that cost so I am concerned. I agree that if Taitz claims are bogus it is a waste of my tax dollars but I am also a business owner so I question why the SSA didn’t just spend a fraction of the cost to look at paper files and be done with it. At that point if they find nothing then in my opinion as a taxpayer the government should be able to ask for a cost reimbursement to prevent future bogus claims, but that’s not our system. Perhaps the SSA should establish a $10,000 fee or some other amount so this feature is available in the future, at least for anything over 120 yrs old which is the now the requirement I believe. Oh to have a perfect world would be nice, of course then some of us would not have jobs 😉
So which is it, Special Snowflake? Are other people allowed to make predictions… or is that reserved for Special Snowflakes?
And don’t pretend you don’t know what “Special Snowflake” means. Here’s a link, so you can’t feign indignance any more, you dishonest little seditionist:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Special%20Snowflake%20Syndrome
Yes, obvious. Many attorneys watch Taitz (and other birthers’) cases; they have never been wrong in predicting the outcome. But one need not be an attorney to understand that the law does not require the type of search that Taitz is demanding.
And you think if the SSA jumped through Taitz’s hoops that she still wouldn’t sue? How quaint.
The SSA gets sued under FOIA all the time. This is just one case on one attorney’s desk. Think big, or continue you think you know how to manage the SSA’s business better than it.
I am not questioning anything about Obama in this case, I understand that is the Taitz motive, but its not mine. Many people use the FOIA to do research and this case may create another precedence to overcome in future research. I agree that a persons SSN should be private and not available to anyone who wishes to get it on a whim. This relates to something that is allegedly over 120 years old and should have no bearing on Obama.
For someone who doesn’t want people making predictions, Mommy’s Special Snowflake sure does make a lot of predictions… not one of which can be justified by the actual facts.
Let’s remember who we’re dealing with here.
Actually I am quite certain I could manage a government system better, I have seen enough waste to last a thousand lifetimes. I do know management, I understand a balance sheet very well and I can tell you the current status of the government is not in very good condition due to decades of abuse.
You point out what I admitted, I am not an attorney. By the stab you take at me I assume you are an attorney and indeed a law expert, or maybe you just read a lot?
It has TWICE been pointed out to you (once by me, once by Rickey) that there are FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY *$%#ING MILLION SS-5s on file. I even did the math for you, and showed that, even with the most optimistic assumptions, the cost of doing that search would exceed $5,000,000, and would take anywhere from several weeks, to several years, depending on the number of people they pulled off doing useful work to do it.
Again, it was explained to you, in detail, that it DOES relate to Obama, and why.
Is there any point in trying to deal with you as an adult? Because it sure isn’t working so far.
What does this have to do with the Taitz case? That is an entirely different subject. Of course you “eightball” wouldn’t understand. I am defending the FOIA that I may need to use. Read my post here “eightball” and stop trying to change the discussion.
So you are telling me the SSA has all the paper documents in a big pile in the shed out back? Since you have so much faith in the government why wouldn’t you conclude that it should be organized in an understandable fashion. Or are you telling me the SSA is so ignorant they would look for documents in irrelevant years? All $5,000,000 worth? Where did you arrive at that number, is that the official statement of the SSA?
So you have no experience in large-scale document and database management (and the law), but you have special insight on how the SSA ought to process FOIA requests. Based on your limited reading of one vexatious litigant’s frivolous lawsuit? I watched an episode of E.R.; am I qualified to perform surgery?
Awwww, it’s ADORABLE when it’s mad!
Dig me, Snowflake: YOU are the one who demanded that people in this thread, beginning with Our Esteemed Host, not make any predictions; all I did was point out that you’re a base hypocrite, which I shall do whenever it pleases me to do so. You demand I read your post? Hell, sweet pea, I QUOTED IT.
What you see as waste may be so in a for profit system that does not care about people, but a government system has many requirements that some may see as wasteful.
Then again, there is undoubtedly waste to be found anywhere, but I am not convinced that you could do better.
You haven’t been commenting here long and I don’t know if you’re new to site as a reader. If you are, then let me explain to you briefly what we know about Taitz’s FOIA with SSA. We have found, and it’s quite solid, that the Census record Taitz is searching for has the name wrong. The information for the Census was provided by a landlady, and not the person himself. His name is Boymel, not Bounel. There is no one named Bounel from that time period in SSA files because we have checked the Social Security Death Index, and places like Ancestry.com. On the other hand, we have made our own FOIA for Boymel and it was found handily, and of course he is also in the Death Index. We know his SSN and it’s nothing like Obama’s and it was issued long before Obama was born.
As long as Orly asks for Bounel, she gets nothing. It doesn’t matter where they search–the record doesn’t exist.
I cannot speak for Taitz, but I don’t think she would be willing to pay for a search of the physical records.
That’s a silly statement. You do understand that one can make informed guestimates? I know, it does require the ability to collect relevant data and so on, and I do understand that such novel concepts may not be high on your list but still, you need to understand that attacking the numbers is not really going to make things happen your way. The simple fact is that the SSA did what the law requires them to do. The thought that somehow they should go into their warehouses and search through any and all boxes that are relevant and perhaps not relevant seems rather outrageous. After all, it is easy to ‘misplace’ a document and Orly is not very clear about the search parameters.
The case is simple: the SSN Orly believes to have been assigned to “Bounel” was not assigned to him, and the SSN that was assigned to the person who appears to be “Bounel” from her “research” was named Bornel [Boymel, Doc.] and his SSN does not match the one assigned to our President. One which he has been using since at least 1980 and which passes IRS scrutiny.
Again, reason and logic do not permit a different interpretation of the facts. Orly filed a FOIA and the agency complied. She has exhausted her remedies. The judge will soon confirm this. It’s the logical action given what is known, and Orly’s “assertions” lack in foundation in law, or fact.
See how the Supreme Court of Alaska just the other day rejected another birther’s “claims”.
Wow, so now I am someone who does not care for people and I cannot understand government waste. How many people do you employ? How much tax money do you generate for our government? If it wasn’t for people like me willing to take a risk and own a business what would you do for a living? I don’t need to convince you of anything, I know what I am capable of I and I guarantee you my efforts help people and the government funding more than your does. I don’t need to know what you do for a living, by your statement I can tell it is mediocre.
On the Internet, no one knows you’re a dog.
You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine, lets leave it at that. What ever the judge decides will be the end of this one way or the other so our arguing will accomplish nothing.
Ok eightball you win, woof woof
So you’ll be refraining from making unsupportable accusations? Good to hear it!
A manual search is infeasible.
I would expect the records are on microfilm. Microfilm can only be ordered one way, and the only ways I can think of that are reasonable are SSN order/range or accession date order.
Taitz doesn’t know the SSN. We know from earlier responses that the SSN she gave in her FOIA was found by SSA and belongs to a living person (and that person is Obama). Searching paper records by number is pointless, since the record was already located in the index.
The other possible ordering would be by accession date, but Taitz has no idea what the date of issuance of the record was. She THINKS that it was around 1977 and to be safe one would have to visually scan every SSN issued from 1976 to 1978. That’s not reasonable. It’s not only unreasonable, but pointless because the date on the record she wants is not between 1976 and 1978 in the first place.
The only other way to find a microfilm record efficiently is by index, and we already know from SSA that it’s not in the index.
Of course readers here know the SSN the date of Orly’s lodger in Census records: 080-18-6078, and the date of application was July 11, 1941.
I will if you do the same.
Holy Crap, that was almost a joke. So close.
Go back and review your debut posts on this board, pumpkin; is it any wonder no one wants to deal with you?
Now try to find a single statement I’ve made that can’t be supported by the evidence. Hint: I’m very careful not to make such statements.
You on the other hand… I stopped counting at EIGHT utter fabrications you made that were demolished by various posters here. You are really very, very bad at making a case.
Shoo, pumpkin. We are not equals. We will not converse as such.
Thank you for the respectable response, I know you have experience in records so I cannot refute your expertise. I would suspect then the judge might request a specific date and year to make any search feasible, that would be the only reasonable positive thing Taitz could expect in her case, and, in my opinion would be fair, if she cant provide it then its over. Thank you again for not demeaning me, derogatory comments seem to be a typical response by many, yet not all.
Your superior intelligence once again shines through eightball. congratulations.
And you what suspect would be wrong. The law requires that the SSA’s search be reasonable. No judge is going to say searching the electronic database is unreasonable.
Yeah, I’m here all weekend if you want to attend.
Poor little Snowflake… comes on strong, but now has hurt fee-fees after being caught in so many lies.
Are you a federal judge or attorney? If you are, maybe you are correct
No.
Otoh, you just told everyone that there’s no point in spending time explaining things to you, because you either can’t be bothered to read them, or can’t understand them.
So, scorn and mockery it is.
So you also suffer from reading comprehension problems?
What specific date and year would you suggest? You can’t possibly believe that Social Security records are organized by date of birth, do you? The only other way to do it is by knowing the time frame during which a particular Social Security Number was issued. If “Harry Bounel” did exist, Orly has no idea when his SSN would have been issued. Theoretically it could have been anytime between 1936 and 1978. How long would it take to search through 32 years of paper files?
When I ordered Harry Boymel’s SS-5, I provided the SSA with his name, date of birth, and SSN. They had no trouble finding his SS-5 through the Numident. It took them less than a month to respond.
Oh blackball, please try to stay on the post subject, I know its hard. The references I made had nothing to do with the SSN, or cant you read in context? Hell, I never even said Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii. Or maybe, you are a campaign manager, but that wouldn’t make sense I guess, maybe you should go to birther report and expose them? They are just as calloused as many are here and have about the same responses.
You really think that you are special? Where would you be with out those willing to work for you? Do you really believe that your ‘risk taking’ is somehow special?
You are funny in your arrogance.
One needn’t be an attorney to understand a law, pumpkin. The law is the law regardless of who is reading it.
ROTFL, I assume that you are leaving now? As to ‘arguing’, it helps lay the foundation for a well informed conclusion, rather than one based on ignorance, fear, or prejudice. Understanding the issues helps one avoid making foolish claims. If that is something you are interested in.
I do not believe that he has thought through his statement…
One thing to keep in mind about FOIA: Only basic FOIA requests that don’t take a lot of time and don’t return a lot of copies are free. Taitz would have to be willing to pay for a search that took a long time. I suppose SSA could give her an estimate.
But let’s not lose sight of the fact that Orly Taitz is trying to prove that the 042 social-security number belongs to Bounel, and SSA has already said that it doesn’t because they found that record in their index and it belongs to a living person, not someone born 124 years ago.
Pot kettle black…
‘The Truth’ just recently said
Thanks for playing my friend.
Spoken from someone who has never employed anyone I am sure. I guess not everyone wants to achieve something in life and accomplish a goal. But if your goal is to just accuse me and bad mouth people that move the economy forward have a nice time.
Reasonable assumptions that for once did not play out. How familiar are you with Taitz’s antics and her countless failures in the courts?
Scroll up, pumpkin; look at where I quoted YOU. YOU are the one who tries to make this about himself, IN THIS VERY THREAD, so HERE is where I’ll point out your hypocrisy. Any. Time. I. Want. To.
You’re actually getting worse at this. I didn’t think that was possible.
In that vein – As long as “The Truth” is posting in this thread, and the previous thread in which he was talking about Stanley Ann Dunham and Subuh has been closed, I figure that this is as good a place as any to summarize the debunking of his claims.
Sometime in 1959, after the summer but while Mercer Island High School was in session. Dunham and a male friend named Bill Byers decided to make an impromptu trip by car to San Francisco. We know that it happened during the school year because another friend, John Hunt, was asked to go along but he refused in part because “They would get in trouble for cutting school” (“A Singular Woman” by Janny Scott, pp. 67-68). “The Truth” believes that Dunham was impregnated by Subuh during her time in San Francisco. His belief is easily debunked, if for no other reason than the incontrovertible fact that Subuh was not in San Francisco at any time after July 14, 1959.
Subuh gave four talks in San Francisco during the summer of 1959. The first was on July 3 and the last was on July 13. He then gave five talks in Los Angeles, and by August 1 he was in Oslo, Norway. He remained in Europe until January, 1960, when he traveled from Greece to India. Subuh was nowhere near San Francisco when Dunham was there, so he could not possibly have impregnated her.
http://www.subudstories.info/bapak/talks/talks.html
“The Truth” has offered two fallback theories. One is his claim that Dunham “disappeared” shortly after she returned to Washington. But that isn’t true. “Whatever the case, sometime shortly after graduation in 1960, Stanley Ann vanished.” (“A Singular Woman” p. 71). Not only is “The Truth’s” time frame wrong, in context it is clear that she did not literally vanish. She was upset that her parents were moving to Hawaii and that her father would not let her attend the University of Chicago, and she reacted by cutting off contact with her high school friends. As her friend Maxine Box said, “She was upset that she had to move.” (“A Singular Woman” p. 71).
The other fallback theory is that Dunham met Subuh in Chicago during the summer of 1959. President Obama has written that she told him that she worked as an au pair in Chicago that summer, and this is supported by her aunt, Arlene Payne, who has said that Dunham stayed with her for a time while Payne was doing graduate work at the University of Chicago (“A Singular Woman” p. 71). Subuh, meanwhile, gave three talks in Chicago in 1959. The first was on June 17 and the last was on June 25. He then was in Denver on June 30. The population of Chicago in 1959 was 3.5 million; the idea that Dunham would have met Subuh during the ten days or so that he was there is rather remote, even if she happened to be there at the same time (and “The Truth” has no idea what part of the summer she spent in Chicago). However, simple arithmetic tells us that Subuh could not possibly have impregnated Dunham while he was in Chicago. If she had conceived during the last week of June, she would have given birth in late March or early April of 1960, during her senior year in high school. None of her many high school friends who have been interviewed have any recollection of her being pregnant.
“The Truth” then makes the evidence-free suggestion that Stanley Ann became involved in Subud during her time in Indonesia. In fact, Subud is mentioned only twice in “A Singular Woman” and Subuh is not mentioned at all. In 1970 Stanley Ann was recruiting teachers for the Ford Foundation. “A half-dozen of them [teachers] accepted her invitation, many of them members of an international spiritual organization, Subud” (“A Singular Woman” pp. 116-117). One of Stanley Ann’s many friends in Indonesia was Mohammad Mansur Medeiros, “a reclusive and scholarly Subud member from Fall River, Massachusetts” (“A Singular Woman” p. 121). Those are the only mentions of Subud in the book that I can find, and there is not even a suggestion that Stanley Ann ever joined the organization. The fact that she met a few members of Subud is hardly a dramatic or significant revelation.
So much for “The Truth’s” so-called research.
It’s more than assuming, it’s based on the law, the arguments and the facts. How familiar are you even with the case, the arguments, Orly’s failures?
Ha! Nice, I missed that one… I’m still on his first day’s worth of derogatory comments WHICH NO ONE SHOULD MAKE ANY MORE SO STOP IT YOU GUYS.
The truth March 9, 2014 at 12:49 am #
“Oh the obots sure do dream, in their world there is no deception by Obama. He WILL be exposed, the lies will overcome him and he will fail to convince anyone otherwise. If he is a citizen, all he needs to do is show evidence and not hide behind attorneys? There is not one shred of evidence he is a citizen, not one! I cant wait for the day he is impeached for fraud, all the people who laughed about “birthers” will hang their head in shame.”
You set the tone as a birther bigot and jackass from your first posts here as a guest and new visitor on a private blog.
Playing the victim is pathetic.
Hypothetically, if you staggered into someone’s home, crapped on the rug, laughed hysterically and then spit in everyone’s face, would you expect to be invited to stay for dinner?
This is the only Taitz case I am aware of. I don’t study her cases, just this one.
I have no doubt that you believe that you are moving the economy forward, however you forget that the economy is not just moved forward by people who are willing to invest money but also those who invest labor.
Once you realize that it takes money and labor to be successful, you may come to understand why your contributions are not really that special.
We all have our goals in life, and none are really more special or noble than others. But I can understand why you may believe otherwise.
Yeah well did you read the derogatory comment I responded to? I only retaliate if I am attacked in a demeaning way first.
That explains a lot. So you are ‘aware’ of this single case. So how familiar are you with the filings, the actions taken, the ‘arguments’ raised as they are supported by the facts? Even in this single case Orly has shown how capable she really is.
Ah right… And you find something ‘demeaning’ because you do not like what I said? And you continue. Surely you must find it somewhat ironic..
Hilarious…
BZZZZZT! Incorrect, but thanks for playing.
Scroll up, sweet pea; follow the links I’ve helpfully provided to the “derogatory comments” you sprayed all over the board before anyone here had ever heard of you.
Or, in your schoolyard vernacular: “You started it.”
Of course you could refute his expertise as one should never take anyone’s claims as truthful, blindly. This is where one has an opportunity to research the issue, explore the rational and logic, and present an informed opinion and/or rebuttal. Dr C’s expertise should have no impact on your ability to refute the claims.
Hey, you’re the one who said you are a jurist. You should already know how the judge will rule.
I did mention Taitz should have to pay for the search in a previous thread, to that I would agree. It appears what started as a legitimate blog about the Taitz case and SSN case has turned into a circus on another subject. I was attempting to learn the specifics of the case and the law interpretation to be better informed but it is now a parade of Obama propaganda supporters. I really see no need to continue here, between this site and the birther report site its hard to say which is worse on slander at a personal level of the poster. If I have a belief about Obama, which by the way is not a good one, I should not be personally attacked, that would be Obamas job or someone paid to defend him, of course maybe that is the case here with some paid commenters.
Jurist, business owner, researcher… he’s The Most Interesting Troll in the World.
OK, the call is Paid Agents Of The Regime. Anyone get BINGO off that? Please show Doc your card.
I don’t think one can appreciate Taitz outside of the context of her many cases. I’ve actually been in court when she was counsel. It was painful to watch. She often has cases dismissed for failure to follow the rules, and she was sanctioned by the courts three times.
You asked Bob if he was a lawyer. I don’t know. There are several lawyers that post here, Sterngard Friegen is the only lawyer I see off hand commenting in this thread. We also have some private detectives, scientists, mathematicians, journalists and law students.
I don’t know any way to deep dive Taitz’ legal misadventures quickly, but if you were to enter: Taitz lawsuit in the search box, you’d probably get the best you could at this site.
You might try this one article, though, to get the flavor of what you’ll find:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/09/everybody-v-everybody-else-orlys-massive-missive/
That case was subsequently thrown out by Judge Carter because Orly totally screwed it up.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/10/judd-flushed/
No, but I still have Paranoid Non-Sequitur and Dr. Alvin T. Onaka’s Hidden Smiley Face.
I have read all the docs on this case. I am not an attorney so it is hard to understand some of the language. I would be the first to admit she rambles on in what seems to be irrelevant issues but I tried to get to the core of what she was asking for. It didn’t seem unreasonable for me to request a paper search, Dr C helped me to understand the actuality of what would be involved so I better understand the cost involved. I commented she should specify a specific item and date she is looking for, as well as pay for the search if it is beyond what would be normal. That’s where I am at but this thread is getting out of hand now.
I’m all of those. And I own a business. And I can search 450 million records on my lunch break. And I’m married to Morgan Fairchild (younger, hotter version.)
Any guesses why, pumpkin? Scroll up, I gave you links.
Shoo.
One doesn’t need to be a judge or attorney to read the cases where that proposition has been plainly stated. And has been referenced in this very thread.
Maybe not in your world, but in the real world, judges defer to expertise of the actual experts doing the actual jobs. There’s also common sense: the purpose of an electronic database is the efficient storage and retrieval of data; it is why they were invented and are universally used.
His expertise is in records, I have read about his experience that is posted here, I have also searched outside opinions about his experience. Nobody else here has claimed to have equivalent experience, they are worried more about personal attacks.
And I asked you what time frame she should limit the search to. Do you have any suggestions?
To you a personal attack is anytime you go off subject throw out a straw man argument and get called on it.
Nobody has answered my question. The SSA started the electronic system in 1980. Did they manually type in hundreds of millions of records that existed prior to that? I did not ask this but will now, has there been an audit performed in the past to see if the manual system input was accurately performed? Before I get the negative comments, I am asking if anyone here has a legitimate answer with a link etc, I realize I can check myself if needed.
and you wonder why we poke fun at you? When you claim the other side is paid when you’re losing badly it shows you already understand you have a losing argument. Any chance you had at being taken seriously just went out the window.
You have to earn respect. And your whining just makes it funny.
You don’t get respect by walking into a room and stinking up the place with insulting comments like this:
The truth March 9, 2014 at 11:23 am #
“Unfortunately, after Obama is exposed once and for all, all of the Obots will become another unemployed American thus driving up our tax burden even further. They could of course write a best selling book on how they were deceived, I would probably buy one just to see how they were physiologically transformed into someone who does not seek truth. And I would like someone to present me with one document proving Obama is an American citizen, just one, does someone here have such a document? It is not his birth certificate, not his SSN or his selective service record, by the way not one person of his graduating class at the college he claims to have attended for two years recognizes him, not one! This is a very mysterious man indeed. I will give him credit, he is an expert at fraud, of course he does get a lot of help.”
That kind of bigoted crap is not new or special here.
There are conservatives who vote Republican and others who don’t support the president who regularly post here. They get respect because they earned it.
That happens. One trick is to just ignore anyone who’s not helpful. I know it feels like you need to respond to everything, but asymmetric debates don’t work.
Sad pumpkin!
We tend to respect Doc’s pronouncements on vital records and searches… but it didn’t require Doc’s expertise to understand that searching hundreds of millions of paper records is unfeasible, IF they even EXIST in paper form any more. I defy you to count 10,000 of ANYTHING…. pennies, if you want…. without even having to look at the dates on them, much less a very specific name. That will take you DAYS. Then do it again… and again… and AGAIN… you will die of old age before you reach 100 million, let alone 450 million.
Titles or even occupations are not nearly as important as facts. Sometimes, an expert is needed to interpret facts… but you have rejected the expertise of over a dozen cited experts in just the few days you’ve been here. In fact, taking Doc’s word this time is the FIRST time you’ve conceded that someone might know more about a topic than YOU do.
You are so very tiresome.
Oh but that’s not all, I am a third degree black belt instructor, a private pilot and a recorded musician. Believe what you want, if you have no ambition its not my fault.
Stop whining. The good thing about the internet truth is you seem to be able to pretend to be whatever you want to. Assuming others haven’t employed others or accomplished goals in life. Hell if your main goal is playing the victim and whining on a blog, you’ve accomplished that goal and then some.
You remind me of the old Penelope skit on SNL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX9xNn2f1Go
Its not my case, it belongs to Taitz so you will need to ask her
Ain’t that ‘the truth’, and somewhat ironically as well.
The Taitz case that is most important to the current Colvin case is her 2011 Taitz v Astrue, in which the Social Security Administration said that she is not entitled to the SS-5 for the Social Security number that she believes Obama stole from someone named Harry Bounel because the person to whom that SSN belongs is still alive and the SS-5 is therefore exempted from disclosure under FOIA. She lost that case and it was upheld on appeal. If she were a competent, ethical lawyer, she would not have filed a second FOIA lawsuit seeking something that the courts have already determined she is not entitled to.
But she is neither competent nor ethical.
Really?…
You know nothing about me or my ambition, sweet pea. And, in fact, it’s irrelevant to the case you’ve failed to make. Get it? I could claim anything I want, just like you do, and it wouldn’t affect the President’s eligibility… which is the real topic of the blog. So who’s not keeping on topic?
You really don’t get it, do you?
It appears that SSA had “master punch cards” for every social-security participant in the 1930’s.
For a detailed discussion of the evolution of information systems and record handling at SSA, see The Story of the Social Security Number.
OK, them’s fightin’ words!
I’ll concede that a few of us have been givin’ it to you pretty good here, but have you really spent much time reading the garbage that gets spewed at Birther Report? It’s not even close! And it’s next to impossible to post there as an anti-birther without having the comment moderated out of existence. I can only imagine how vitriolic it would get at BR if we were allowed to post there as freely as birthers are allowed to post here.
The distinct sound of goalpost shifting.
Are you seriously suggesting that the SSA uses automated systems for those born after 1980, but a manual system for those born before 1980? And that the system administrators have never, ever thought to run various quality-control tests?
It must tough being the smartest person on the planet.
A freebie: If Taitz’s thought there was a problem with the SSA’s record-keeping system, it was her job to present the court with admissible evidence (which is not idle speculation in comment threads). She didn’t, so the court won’t worry itself with this imaginary problem.
What the what??? But it’s OK for YOU to demand answers of US, while refusing to search for or read the questions and answers that were posted on this site for YEARS???
You realize that these are not OUR cases either, right? Would we be within our rights to tell you to ask the various parties to the cases?
Are you getting stupider? Do you need a nap?
Instead of selectively picking and choosing what you like to see, maybe you should read I am an independent, I have accused Bush of crimes also. Some people here see what they want to see, they read into a statement what they want. I stand behind what I said about Obama, I don’t like him, I don’t trust him. I do not believe in his policies, I think he is a liar, and I think he is the worst president in history. It has nothing to do with him being black, I don’t like the white half either. If I could single handedly get him impeached I would do it but all I can do is research and try to prove my suspicions that will end in his removal from office. That is where I am at. So now if you want to discuss the topic of the SSN case fine otherwise go away.
The 1980 date is totally bogus. SSA had punch cards in the 1930’s.
I will look at it, I was not aware of that.
Some useful information on the history of the SSN and its computerization
And I’m sure you’ll be super-objective when you look at the evidence, right, sweet pea?
By the way, they sell those “I hate his white half” bumper stickers at Klan rallies; be sure to stock up.
Also here
“The Truth” is, yes I have looked at several comments and they disgusted me because of the racial slurs and kkk type comments. I did not see any pro Obama comments there, I never got that far I stopped reading them, that’s how I found this site, I looked around for a new one. I have experienced sh&^%$y personal comments directed strictly for me here.I would like to know, how are people here ever going to convert anyones beliefs with personal slander, all it does is piss people off.
Your personal beliefs are no surprise, however, I wonder if there is much of a foundation for such a position beyond what you believe? So when you jumped on board Orly’s case and commented, did you believe that the facts somehow supported your beliefs? And what about due diligence, do you believe it suffered?
Not exactly… I posted two links which should be a start for you to research the actual facts.
That’s just adorable. You sure do like playing the pity card.
And then you dribbled, “I will look at it, I was not aware of that.”
A clueless birther? Shocking.
I got the 1980 date from a document the federal gov attorney provided the court in this case. If it is bogus it was because I thought they would present that facts.
personal slander… Wow… Come on ‘the truth’, grow some thick skin, you came here dishing out and people held you to task to support your claims and called you out. I’d focus more on the claims you made and see how well they do or do not match the facts, and then apply this to claims made by others. That’s how one properly researches issues in order to reach a well informed position.
Shocking. It surely helps to inform oneself before one jumps into a discussion on the topic? Am I wrong?
1. Point to one instance where you’ve been slandered. (I’ll note that you actually mean libeled, since slander is spoken (I KNOW THAT WITHOUT EVEN BEING A LAWYER OR FEDERAL JUDGE,) and libel is written, AND that “The Truth” is an absolute defense against a charge of libel. People have said a lot of things that may hurt your fee-fees, but they’re also TRUE things that hurt your fee-fees.)
2. Who said anyone is here to convince anyone or change their minds? All we do is discuss facts; wise people change their OWN minds when confronted with facts.
3. Most Important: what could anyone say to change your mind anyway? Your mind is made up; you said so yourself.
You really do suck at this.
Link, please. Show us that document, sweet pea.
I was actually posting here on this site about who I believe is Obama’s father, but that’s another subject. The blog post was shut down. I saw this blog yesterday and thought it conflicted against what Taitz said on the case in regards to a motion that was not allowed. I saw on Taitz site it was put in the docket today so I asked on this thread if it was true. Dr C responded it was true and updated this blog. The issue is, I want the Taitz case to be successful so they look for it, if they don’t find it my theory is still intact, If by some freak deal they find Taitz is correct my theory is blown out of the water, of course that would make my case irrelevant at that point anyway.That is my interest in this case.
This is a pattern with you, pumpkin. You demonstrate an amazing depth of ignorance in almost every post, yet still believe you’re informed.
Google “Dunning-Kruger Effect” for tonight’s homework.
Now shoo.
You don’t have a “theory,” nor a “case.” What you BARELY had was a hypothesis, which was thoroughly discredited. Simple enough, as you pulled it out of your ass.
Words have meanings, pumpkin; you can Google those meanings.
As I have been told here many many times here, read the links provided, it is in this thread. As you would say, why should I do the work for you.
As an act of kindness which is seldom found here, this is the link. It is at the bottom of page 9
http://www.scribd.com/doc/210208053/Taitz-v-Colvin-Opposition-to-Plaintiff-s-MSJ
Soooo …. the SSA ran pen-and-paper games for 40+yrs until it scored its first Trash-80 in 1980? Holy Ticonderoga #2’s, Bat-Man! The hip cats over at the Census Bureau were way ahead of their time!
in order to do that you’d have to find something worthy of impeaching him over. Thus far no one has been able to find anything.
Why would we have to convert you? You’ve already shown you’re impervious to logic and rational thinking.
Why would I research the attorney bringing the case? Did you investigate the federal attorney assigned? At least I admit it.
Ah but that places the responsibility solely on the courts. However, before one takes on a ‘theory’ or better stated a ‘hypothesis’ one should do more than just adopt it. One should find ways to understand, explore, support it and then proceed to think about what would it take to rebut it and research these angles.
The case is of limited interest really because it is based on a flawed premise. However at the simple FOIA level, the case also provides little support both for Orly’s claims, which are quite outrageous, but also at the level of legal success. If Orly gets to pay for a manual search and is willing to pay for it, then we will find out in a few months, or years that she was wrong again. There is just no logic to support her position, other than a spurious entry of a name Bounel in data which is infamously unreliable. You do know that the same data shows President obama’s birth date with day and month switched as well as a 1990 DOB. Once you understand how these online databases are created and vetted, do you understand why Orly’s is a foolish quest.
President Obama has consistently used his SSN from as early as 1980 and there is NO evidence that the number ever belonged to anyone else. The search by the SSA further supports this, even though Orly has failed to understand the language used by the SSA to inform her of this. Now, in Orly’s defense, I have observed how Orly’s reading comprehension skills are quite poor.
Given what we know, it is quite straightforward to make an informed prediction. I or we may be mistaken, that’s the nature of hypotheses, but the likelihood of such is quite small.
You do understand the burden of proof? Orly brings a complaint and it helps to understand the history of her filings before one jumps onto the case. The research involved is pretty trivial. The federal attorney is just a random ‘victim’ who gets assigned to having to respond. I fail to see the logic in your arguments here. Do you disagree that if you had properly done your research, you would not be where you are right now?
Are you an expert in how the SSA documented numbers? Did you know they stored it until today? Let me guess……my answer is no.
Reading comprehension fail on page 9. Re-read the whole para. The gov’t stipulates that the Numident was fully electronic as of 1980, that is, records were no longer submitted via hardcopy. No reason at all to get the impression the SSA began computerizing in 1980.
Common sense alone should suggest otherwise. From the beginning of SS, managing the information by manual means was out of the question.
It states
You interpreted this as
Surely you do see that one does not follow from the other.
You also argued
Again, that is not exactly what the document said now is it?
Ok, so exactly what is the definition of electronic in the document. Link or evidence please.
You’re not very good at guessing or reading, now are you? And what do you mean by ‘documented numbers’? Most people have looked into this for quite some time already. What are you trying to ‘communicate’ here?
For the record, pumpkin, I had no way of knowing which of thousands of documents you were referring to until you so kindly provided that link…
… which, SURPRISE, does NOT say what you claimed it did.
YOU said
But the document you so kindly linked to says “The Numident became
fully electronic in the 1980s (i.e., it includes older records that were submitted in hardcopy).
Do you understand that there is a difference between when a thing begins, and when it ends? No, you do not. Because you are not very bright.
By the way, the rest of that document explains very goddamn clearly why Taitz is going to lose yet another case; as has been explained to you, all reasonable efforts have been made to find what she’s looking for, yet doesn’t exist. A judge ruled so, and was upheld on appeal.
While I point and laugh at your failure, I thank you for your kindness.
EDIT: I see that smarter, faster and probably better-looking Obots have already beat me to explaining your Reading Comprehension Fail while I was typing. Oh, the shame.
No, I am interested in the outcome, as I mentioned I want them to look and I hope they find nothing. I have NEVER stated Obama’s SSN was a stolen number. I don’t care if Taitz wears a pink polka dot bikini in court with a whirly bird hat on her head, that is irrelevant to me. I must admit though, now that I have seen more of her past I have my doubts, maybe I will get lucky.
So let’s limit it to 1977, the year when Orly believes that a Social Security Number was issued to Bounel. There were approximately 7 million SSNs issued that year. Do you seriously believe that a hand search of 7 million records is feasible? If a Social Security employee examined a record every ten seconds, eight hours a day, 365 days a year, it would take more than 6 1/2 years to examine 7 millions records. Obama will be three years into his retirement by then.
The parsing of words. Everyone is so worried about electronic in 1980, which the document does state. What is the damn difference, the point is at SOME TIME it entered an electronic database whether its a computer or an electric abacus. Everyone bitches about the cost involved but gave no reason as to why until Dr C helped clarify it. If you wish to just argue and parse words join congress.
Actually, pumpkin, her hypothesis makes way more sense than yours does, and actually results in impeachment proceedings; yours is just racism and misogyny, and baseless accusations of behavior before the President was even born. Get it? Your ridiculous notion of “another father” won’t get you the impeachment you dream of. So you’d do better to hope she’s right.
Then explain to me how they searched for one back then? Your numbers are bogus. Provide me a SSA statement showing that figure.
Really? That is hard to reconcile with other things you have said but I will take your word for it. If you are interested in the outcome, it is even more important to understand the foundation of the case, as well as its history. If it is all about getting “lucky” then you must be used to disappointments? Understanding Orly, the history of the case, her ‘arguments’ and the response by the Government, combined with FOIA precedents, should have helped you understand that ‘getting lucky’ in this case would have to overcome the laws of probability in this universe.
They looked and found nothing, although Orly believe that they did. A manual search is just logically infeasible and Orly would never be willing to pay for this. 1980 saw about 5-7 million SSN applications and since the date is uncertain, Orly would want to include 1981 as well. Do the math.
Stop playing the racist card it doesn’t work anymore.
You’re rooting for Orly to win, aren’t you? There is a reason why the sports section of a newspaper lists the records of the starting pitchers for baseball games – it gives an informed reader some insight into which team is likely to win.
Orly has lost every birther case she has filed, she was severely sanctioned for misconduct in one, and she is likely to be sanctioned in another. Would you bet on a baseball pitcher who has lost every game he has started?
They already did the search which is the electronic variant of how they would do it in those days. There is a master record and there were cross references that allowed on the index the data. These data all have been transferred to an electronic format but the basic principle is the same. Are you saying that they should look at the index again? Or do you want them to look for misfiled or erroneous SS-5 entries which requires them to process each entry. I provided you with links
Then read on as to how they cross referenced from names.
I only stated getting lucky after I was informed about the other Orly cases within the last couple hours. Since there has been no cost associated with any search other than speculation I suspect Orly will not decide until then.
Oh, sweet pea… when you stop saying racist things, we stop pointing them out.
One does not have to play the racist card, as you call it, to observe how unlikely your claims really are or how irrelevant
Doc explained to you that the SSA used punch cards from the very beginning, right? And you DO know that computers existed before 1980… right?
Please tell me that you understand that. Because I’m starting to wonder if you know anything.
Don’t blame me for your communication skills. Just asking for verification. The answer was self evident, as a bit of logic and reason and minimal math skills would be sufficient. Perhaps I am overestimating your familiarity with the case.
What racist thing did I say? That I don’t like him, that he is a liar, that he is the worst president in history? Your definition and mine are two different things. That man had the chance to change this country for the better, all he has done is sent us into a deeper downward spiral that Bush started. His campaign promises where all lies, it is shown over and over. That is not racism. It seems you are the troll trying to change the subject and distract from the discussion which by the way is the SSN case.
I believe Orly received a bill for the cost of the original search. If Orly really wants to perform the search of the paper records, then it seems trivial to do an estimate of the cost. Orly will never spend the money necessary for such a search.
I was alive before the 10 function calculator was invented. I am well aware of when the computer was used functionally. It was not nearly as fancy as the one you use to type crap words.
It is with the greatest regret I will leave this abuse now, I will miss it. You are welcome to go back to boredom until the next victim comes along, until then enjoy your 10 comment blogs. Good night all.
I should warn you that when you deal with me you are dealing with a professional investigator. I don’t pull numbers out of my ass.
The SSA issued 6.4 millions SSNs in 1971. It issued 5.9 million SSNs in 1967. From that I estimated that “approximately 7 million” were issued in 1977. The numbers began to spike in 1962, when the first post-war baby boomers reached the age of 16.
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v35n7/v35n7p30.pdf
Feel free to double-check my arithmetic.
Ah, but is that true… I am afraid to ask you for supporting data… And before you just quote another website, do the proper research first.
Unemployment is down, stock market is up, gays are finally accepted to serve our country, health insurance reform was successfully passed. And that with a mostly unwilling congress who was intent to not give him a single success… Deficit is down, spending is down, consumer confidence is up.
and
And so he leaves… Predictable, when confronted with the facts, he claims ‘abuse’ and leaves. Says it all… Sad that he never really got around to supporting his beliefs…
Your obsession with the race of President Obama’s ACTUAL parents AND of the man you imagine to be his parent is unseemly. But of course it’s not racist, because NO ONE IS RACIST SO STOP SAYING THAT.
Bye, pumpkin! I hope the name you use when you come back is not nearly so ironic, and that you have a better opening line! See you soon, sweet pea!
If you claim he’s the worst president in history then you obviously haven’t researched much of American history.
“The Truth” can’t believe that roughly 7 millions SSNs were issued in 1977.
The SSA has issued 453 million SSNs in the past 78 years. That works out to an average ot 5.8 million per year. The first year it exceeded 5 million was 1963.
Why is it that birthers cannot grasp such simple concepts?
You must be very proud of yourself.
Drat. I’d laid in a weekend’s supply of Cheetos and was ready for fun.
Come now I didn’t believe you the first 3 times you claim you were leaving. You’ll come back and continue to lose arguments as you’re used to.
Ain’t that ‘the truth’…
Don’t lose that number; it’s the only one you’ll own.
Blatant mischaracterization of the case in latest birther report article, leaving one to wonder whether it was the author or Taitz’s fault:
“In an interview last week with Freedom Outpost, Mrs. Taitz told us that she was still waiting to hear from the courts Washington, D.C. and Maryland. “I did have a favorable decision from Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander in Maryland, where she denied the motion to dismiss by the defense. They wanted a summary judgment ruling that there is no social security number… this Harry Bounel, that Obama is using his social security number.”
“The judge said ‘No, you did not do a proper search,’ and she refused to give them the summary judgment,” Taitz said.”
Sheesh, the court granted the motion to dismiss but gave Taitz leave to file a seconded amended complaint if Taitz wanted to allege an improper search. The court has made absolutely no finding that there was a failure to do a proper search.
If the game is dishonesty or incompetence, bet on Orly and give the points.
For starters, you have attempted to slur the reputation of a deceased, dark-skinned man with your evidence-free claim that he had sex with and impregnated a 16-year-old white high school student.
You probably failed to see the humor in this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=493pL_Vbtnc
Stop me if you’ve heard this one: Birfer Instant Expert™ stumbles into a thread … 😉
Well, if the choice is between the two of us … I am more likely to know the answer, and more likely to admit what I don’t know, and better able to research what I don’t know.
Oh myyyyy. First, you asked that at all, second you asked that about a document you introduced and referred to, third you later said:
Oy.
What’s really said about that, is that NBC provided links to the some of the SSA’s own ‘history of’ essays, the second of which included periodic totals for several stats, including registrations by year, through 1983. 7.7M in 1977. 10+M in 1973.
He didn’t even know about Orly’s other cases … sheesh.
Darn, I missed the whole thing. If you are still reading, Mr. Truth, I have some advice for posting and getting real information on Doc’s blog: Ignore the posts that are merely insulting. Don’t answer at all. If a poster gives you information surrounded by insults, address the information. Don’t snark back.
I sense you aren’t one of the many trolls we do get here that look for such treatment. Also, not all of us are sitting here all day waiting to pounce. Some of us politer, more serious folks only come once a day or so.
That said, pretty much anyone following the docket in this case knows that it will be dismissed. Orly is clearly looking for a non-existent person. The only place this name ever existed was a single entry in a single database search. The database was one used by skip-tracers and shows names associated with the target. In other parts of the report, Barack Obama is listed with Michelle Obama’s SSN. That’s because his SSN appears with her name (as well as his) on bank accounts, leases, mortgages.
Doc did a great article on this already, here: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2013/12/who-or-why-or-which-or-what-is-harrison-j-bounel/
No other trace of the name Harrison J. Bounel has ever appear anywhere else (except in commentary about this database entry), even with both birthers and obots looking for 3 years. That says to the reasonable person that the entry was bad data.
Ouch.
Admit it, that’s funny.
*slow clap*
That’s a little hyperbolic, don’t you think? Worse than Harding, Buchanan, Andrew Johnson? I’d ask you for specific examples of what makes him the “worst in history” in your mind, but first, that would take us off topic and second, I have no hope whatsoever that you would provide anything that would be of any substantive interest.
So yes, even this post is too far off topic, but I bring it up anyway because you should realize that when you say something like that, it’s clear to any listener that your concept of “history” doesn’t extend back very far at all. To say that it goes back even as far as 2009 would be overly generous.
That kind of shortsightedness tends to be extrapolated by your listeners to imply an overall laxity in any kind of rigorous thought, and this is part of the reason, but by no means the only reason, why your posts are met with ridicule.
The key reason, of course, is that you clearly have done no research before throwing up the usual half-baked birther mantras. We’re looking for something new, and you’re just not delivering.
If you want to be taken seriously, you should say serious things.
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant.
Oops, too late.