One would hope that after years of Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. and accomplices illegally publicizing what she claims to be President Obama’s Social Security Number, the SSA would have given him a new one and nobody but the SSA and President Obama knows what it is. However, the SSN follies continue in the tinier than ever Republic of Birfistan.
On March 24, 2011, Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. posted to her blog a copy of a First Amended Complaint filed in an FOIA case, Taitz v. Astrue, (very recently Dismissed with prejudice), in the US District Court, District of Columbia, which included exhibits from President Obama’s Selective Service and Social Security records.
26 In this First Amended Complaint Taitz provides additional information, specifically Exhibit 1 Selective Service Application for Barack Obama, showing that he uses SSN xxx-xx-4425 [redacted--OFGS] and Exhibit 2 SSNVS Social Security number Verification System, which shows that this is not a legally obtained Social Security number for Barack Obama. This is a prima facia evidence of Social Security fraud and Identity Fraud obtained from the official records of the United States Government, which coupled with the age of 121 years old of the original applicant (date of birth 1890) justify release of at least redacted SS-5 information requested, such as gender, race and age of the SS5 applicant for SSN xxx-xx-4425 [redacted--OFGS] and the zip code, where the original SSN card was mailed by the social Security administration. concealment of such data will constitute aiding and abetting Social Security Fraud and Identity Theft.
In another doomed “FOIA” request, [she may have meant UIPA, I'm not sure], addressed to Dr. Alvin T. Onaka, Registrar of the Hawaii Department of Health, Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. again submitted the same exhibits, informing Dr. Onaka:
a. Mr. Obama’s selective service certificate (Exhibit 3) shows him using a Connecticut Social Security number xxx-xx-4425 [redacted--OFGS]
b. Social Security Verification Systems (Exhibit 4) show that this number was never assigned to Mr. Obama.
The provenance of the exhibits involves tampering with an official government record of President Barack Obama’s and possibly committing several federal crimes:
1. Illegally accessing a government computer system.
2. False personation.
3. Identity theft.
4. Mail fraud.
5. Unlawfully obtaining a government identification document.
6. Causing a government record to be changed for false purposes.
Last year, Col. Gregory Hollister (US Air Force Ret.), a longtime Birther, impersonated President Barack Obama by way of filing a change of address and redirecting the President’s mail to his own address in Colorado Springs CO. Hollister received a confirmation of the change containing President Obama’s Selective Service information.
According to Hollister, he was provided with what is claimed to be the President’s Social Security Number by Ohio private investigator Susan Daniels, who works closely with Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. in this ongoing Birther project. Hollister used that number to deceive the Selective Service Administration; and while posing as Obama’s employer, used the Social Security Number Verification Service (SSNVS), which requires the following certification.
* I understand that I may be subject to penalties if I submit fraudulent information.
* I understand that SSA may prevent me from using these services if SSA determines or suspects there has been misuse of the services.
* I am aware that any person who knowingly and willingly makes any representation to falsely obtain information from Social Security records and/or intends to deceive the Social Security Administration as to the true identity of an individual could be punished by a fine or imprisonment, or both.
* I am authorized to do business under this User ID.
Hollister denied breaking any laws.
“I was very meticulous and made sure everything I did was compliant with the law,” Hollister said, noting that he sent Obama an 1099 tax form.
A 1099 is an IRS income reporting form for independent contractors and free-lancers. Hollister did not explain how sending that to Obama complies with federal laws on the use of Social Security data.
The profound ignorance of Birthers is immediately recognizable here: 1099 forms are not issued to employees, but to contractors; Obama is not an employee of Hollister’s, he is an elected official; and, Hollister could have no legitimate business using the SSNV system to verify Obama’s Social Security Number.
A Fogbow lawyer, Raicha, who first determined that Hollister was the culprit, went through the Selective Service system’s telephonic process and explained how Hollister managed to receive a replacement draft card belonging to the President.
It is a duplicate sent out by the automated system. I called it myself. If you answer the prompts truthfully that you are seeking info on another person, the system will only confirm the registration verbally, give you the number and the date of registration.
If you reply that you are seeking your own info, you also get the option to have documentation mailed to you. At that point, the system tells you when the last update to your record occurred and tells you to press “0″ if you want to change your mailing address.
The system told me that this record was changed on 12/7/2010. So someone accessed the system, changed the address, and had this record sent to them under false pretenses.
Hollister’s wife told the Colorado Springs Independent, when they called, “He really doesn’t want to talk to anybody about this because it wasn’t supposed to go public in the first place.”
What? Nobody told Orly?
Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. has further implicated herself in this I-don’t-know-how-it-can’t-be-criminal scheme. In a video taken following oral argument in Drake v. Obama, referring to the documents Hollister fraudulently obtained, she uses phrases such as: “we found out”; “we found out through Selective Service records”; “we went to the Social Security system”; “we have clear evidence”; “we have more evidence.”
If one were to have a valid birth certificate, he would have no problem getting a valid Social Security number from the state where he resides, and what we found out through Selective Service records that Mr. Obama was using this Connecticut Social Security number, xxx-xx-4425 [redacted--OFGS]. That’s from the state of Connecticut where he never resided. We went to Social Security Verification System, and we entered the same number and name, and it says failed, never issued. So we have clear evidence of fraud, Social Security fraud, and elections fraud, because Mr. Obama is residing in the White House using the Social Security number that was never assigned to him.
To the question, “Is someone who uses the fruits of this illegal activity an accessory after the fact?”, a Fogbow lawyer, Poutine, replied:
if they participated with at least one overt act in furtherance of a scheme to obtain these fruits, they may be guilty of conspiracy to commit all the crimes you’ve named above plus others, even if they weren’t the ones to actually supply a false mailing address, place the actual phone call, or input the actual data into the website. A search warrant would very easily provide cellphone and other phone records to show whether there’s a link between Suspect #1 and Suspect #2 to that end.
Chief Judge Royce Lamberth, in his Memorandum Opinion in the August 30, 2011 dismissal of Taitz v. Astrue, wrote:
The Selective Service does not release registration acknowledgment forms to the public; only a registrant himself can request proof of his registration. See Registration Information, http://www.sss.gov/ack.htm. The Court can only conclude that plaintiff has submitted a form that some individual obtained through a false request and subsequently posted online. Plaintiff also submits a “verification results” page from the Social Security Number Verification System (“SSNVS”) indicating that social security number xxx-xx-4425 is “not in file (never issued).” Pl.’s Opp’n to Mot. for Summ. J. Ex. 2 [31]. She argues that this page is further evidence that the SSA is covering up the President’s use of social security number xxx-xx-4425. The SSA uses the SSNVS to provide employers with a means of verifying the names and social security numbers of employees. See SSNVS handbook, http://www.ssa.gov/employer/ssnvshandbk/ssnvsHandbook.pdf. “Anyone who knowingly and willfully uses SSNVS to request or obtain information from SSA under false pretenses violates Federal law and may be punished by a fine, imprisonment or both.” Id. at 5. As with the registration acknowledgement form discussed above, the Court can only conclude that plaintiff has submitted a page that some individual obtained under false pretenses—that is, by representing himself as the President’s employer. The court notes that both documents submitted by plaintiff are incomplete; the address on the registration acknowledgment form and the employer identification number on the SSNVS page have been blacked out, further confirming the documents’ fraudulent origins.
Say you are a real, honest to God lawyer, schooled in the ways of the judiciary, know how to read judicial tea leaves, how to take a fucking clue, what would you do?
I doubt very much you would do something really stupid like this.
At the link are exhibits to what Taitz is calling a Motion of Reconsideration Taitz says she is filing, if she hasn’t already [OFGS: see update below], in Taitz v. Astrue in Chief Judge Lamberth’s court; requesting: “Emergency hearing and oral argument on the merits within 20 days, based on newly discovered information and based on an assertion of clear error and manifest injustice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).”
Sterngard says:
What Taitz has claimed she filed to support her imaginary motion to reconsider (there is no such motion), is:
1. not “evidence,”
2. not admissible,
3. not lawfully obtained,
4. not relevant to any issue in the case; and
5. not newly discovered.Other than that, Taitz has a real winner.
He’s kidding about that last part.
Remarkably absent in all of this, that I’ve seen, has been an affidavit supplied by Col. Hollister to Taitz backing up her filings. However, the “newly discovered evidence” for the MTR includes yet another improper accessing of President Obama’s records, this time by a different person, named Linda Jordan, another one who thinks she is the President’s employer.
From Welsh Dragon at The Fogbow:
From the affidavit of Orly’s patsy, Linda Jordon, it’s clear that she didn’t use the SSNVS as such but used the the E-Verify system instead.
Even on E-Verify she failed in her attempt to use the system as an employer. She got so far and was then stymied by needing to input some info from the President’s I-9.
What she then did is use the E-Verify Self Check service instead. As it’s name implies this service is only available to check one’s own documentation. To use it she would have had to impersonate the President by entering name, address, SSN birthdate and correctly answer a quiz to further confirm that she was the President.
Linda Jordan has now posted as “Ethical” but signing her real name to Free Republic:
I admit that I did not read the fine print, I barely read what I needed to in order to input the data and I am in the habit of always scrolling down and clicking “I agree” and then “next” without reading. I figured it was boiler plate language and skipped over it.
What did she skip over?
Unauthorized access is a violation of the laws of the United States (U.S.) and the policies of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and may result in administrative or criminal penalties. Users shall not attempt to access other users’ files or system files without prior authorization. Absence of access controls is not an authorization to access or a waiver of applicable laws or Department policies.
This site has been designed to comply with the federal laws of the United States. If any materials on this site or use of this site are contrary to the law of the place where accessed and viewed, the site is not intended for access and view and shall not be used or viewed. Therefore, viewers are responsible for informing themselves of the laws of their specific jurisdiction and complying with them.
Understand this: Ms. Jordan has sworn herself, in the affivadit being filed by Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., to the commission of an illegal act, encouraged by an officer of the court, who is filing it with a judge who has ALREADY strongly objected to documents being filed on information acquired under false pretenses.
Remember this: Taitz v. Astrue was dismissed on a summary judgment awarded the Defense. The relevant facts are only: The SSA made a search for the requested records (Yes); The SSA produced all records not protected by law (Yes); The SSA did not produce a requested SS-5, because it was protected by law (Yes).
That is all an MTR should properly have addressed.
What a boob.
Update 9/13: The “Motion for Reconsideration” in Taitz v. Astrue is now available on Jack Ryan Scribd: Case 1:11-cv-00402-RCL Document 36 Filed 09/09/11, 60 pages.
Docket Entry 9/13/2011:
09/09/2011 36 MOTION for Reconsideration re 35[RECAP] Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Motion to Strike, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Order on Motion for Default Judgment, 34[RECAP] Order on Motion for Summary Judgment by ORLY TAITZ (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit (Unredacted))(zrdj) (Entered: 09/13/2011)
–
NOTE 1/14/2012: Having heard a number of recent reports of computer virus infections suffered by visitors to Orly Taitz’s web site, OFGS has deadened links leading there. As we have done in the past, when such problems have arisen, we will not be linking to her site for the foreseeable future.
–
See also:
At The Fogbow, Special Report: The President’s Social Security Number
At OFGS:
Hollister v. Soetoro: SCOTUS Rehearing–DENIED
Hollister v. Soetoro: SCOTUS: Certiorari–DENIED
Hollister v. Soetoro Dismissal—AFFIRMED
Orly Taitz Readying For CA Bar Disciplinary Hearing
Birther Lawyers Feuding Over Hollister v. Soetoro
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.