An attorney who has aggressively pursued the release of President Obama's Hawaii long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate filed a complaint in federal court yesterday to force the release of Obama's Social Security files.
"I'm not asking for Obama's Social Security number," Attorney Orly Taitz told WND, acknowledging that the Social Security Administration will not release the number of a living person. "I want related information, including information about deceased individuals that will help us prove whether or not Obama has committedSocial Security fraud."
Taitz filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to force the Social Security Administration to respond to her Freedom of Information Act request seeking information on Obama's Social Security number.
At the heart of Taitz's complaint to the court is the suspicion that Obama has engaged in Social Security fraud by using a number initially issued to another person.
Taitz contends the Social Security number Obama has used the most often since around 1980 was, according to Lexis Nexis and Choice Point, initially assigned to an elderly individual born in 1890 who resided in Connecticut.
This is Taitz's second FOIA request to the Social Security Administration, seeking to obtain Obama's Social Security records. An earlier request was denied May 18, 2010, on privacy grounds.
The D.C. court denied Taitz's appeal to the previous FOIA filing on the grounds that the appeal was filed prior to the final determination by theSocial Security Administration.
On Oct. 4, 2010, Taitz filed a second FOIA request with the Social Security Administration, refining her request in an attempt to avoid the privacy concerns that determined the agency's previous denial.
So far, the Social Security Administration has not responded to Taitz's second FOIA request, despite six certified letters she has sent the agency since Oct. 4, 2010.
To buttress her arguments, Taitz submitted to the federal court affidavits signed by private investigators Susan Daniels and John Sampson.
Both Daniels and Sampson state that in the 1980s, Obama assumed as his own a Social Security number that had been applied for in Connecticut and was issued by the Social Security Administration between the years 1976 and 1977
Sampson, a retired senior investigator with the Department of Homeland Security, provided in his affidavit an expert opinion that there is no reasonable explanation for a person residing in Hawaii to get aSocial Security number issued in Connecticut.
"The affidavits of the private investigators indicates Obama is using a fraudulent Social Security number," she said, "so I am requesting information from the Social Security Administration that would help us track down the Connecticut-issued number Obama is using as well as the multiple Social Security numbers that show up for Obama in the private investigator databases."
Read more
"I'm not asking for Obama's Social Security number," Attorney Orly Taitz told WND, acknowledging that the Social Security Administration will not release the number of a living person. "I want related information, including information about deceased individuals that will help us prove whether or not Obama has committedSocial Security fraud."
Taitz filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to force the Social Security Administration to respond to her Freedom of Information Act request seeking information on Obama's Social Security number.
At the heart of Taitz's complaint to the court is the suspicion that Obama has engaged in Social Security fraud by using a number initially issued to another person.
Taitz contends the Social Security number Obama has used the most often since around 1980 was, according to Lexis Nexis and Choice Point, initially assigned to an elderly individual born in 1890 who resided in Connecticut.
This is Taitz's second FOIA request to the Social Security Administration, seeking to obtain Obama's Social Security records. An earlier request was denied May 18, 2010, on privacy grounds.
The D.C. court denied Taitz's appeal to the previous FOIA filing on the grounds that the appeal was filed prior to the final determination by theSocial Security Administration.
On Oct. 4, 2010, Taitz filed a second FOIA request with the Social Security Administration, refining her request in an attempt to avoid the privacy concerns that determined the agency's previous denial.
So far, the Social Security Administration has not responded to Taitz's second FOIA request, despite six certified letters she has sent the agency since Oct. 4, 2010.
To buttress her arguments, Taitz submitted to the federal court affidavits signed by private investigators Susan Daniels and John Sampson.
Both Daniels and Sampson state that in the 1980s, Obama assumed as his own a Social Security number that had been applied for in Connecticut and was issued by the Social Security Administration between the years 1976 and 1977
Sampson, a retired senior investigator with the Department of Homeland Security, provided in his affidavit an expert opinion that there is no reasonable explanation for a person residing in Hawaii to get aSocial Security number issued in Connecticut.
"The affidavits of the private investigators indicates Obama is using a fraudulent Social Security number," she said, "so I am requesting information from the Social Security Administration that would help us track down the Connecticut-issued number Obama is using as well as the multiple Social Security numbers that show up for Obama in the private investigator databases."
Read more
2 comments:
Orly Taitz is the "birther queen" who was fined $20000 for wasting the courts time on a similar matter. I wonder how much this very important lawsuit will cost her this time.
You don't think it matters if the man elected POTUS uses a fraudulent ID?
Of course, if he doesn't have a birth certificate, and isn't a citizen, I guess he would have to come up with something when asked for his SSN.
One judge with an attitude fined her. There have been several other cases, and they're still pending.. some on their way to the Supreme Court.
This matter will have to be adjudicated eventually.
Post a Comment