World Net Daily
By Bob Unruh
Announcing it's "not her lucky day," a federal judge in Washington, D.C., has told an eligibility attorney he has dismissed her case demanding information from the Social Security Administration regarding President Obama's Social Security Number, sought because of suspicions it may be fraudulent.
The case was filed by California attorney Orly Taitz, who has brought many of the major court challenges to Obama's eligibility based on a lack of evidence that he meets the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born citizen."
The case was filed by California attorney Orly Taitz, who has brought many of the major court challenges to Obama's eligibility based on a lack of evidence that he meets the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born citizen."
The case at hand was filed against the Social Security Administration because Obama's number indicates a Connecticut residency, yet there is no evidence he ever lived in the state. He claims he grew up in Hawaii and apparently had a Social Security Number there, as he reported he worked in a Honolulu ice-cream shop.
The judge, Royce Lamberth, credited Taitz for her dedication to her cause but said that "today is not her lucky day."
The judge, Royce Lamberth, credited Taitz for her dedication to her cause but said that "today is not her lucky day."
He concluded that there's no real interest in determining whether the Obama Social Security Number is genuine or fraudulent, arguing that the need for privacy for the president trumps all else.
"The SSA explained that the Privacy Act of 1974 ... protects the personal information of social security number holders," he wrote. "The SSA determined ... the plaintiff had identified no public interest that would be served by disclosure.
"Plaintiff makes no secret of her intention to use the redacted Form SS-5 to identify the holder of social security number xxxx-xxx-4425 – or, as plaintiff puts it, to confirm her suspicion that the president is fraudulently using that number," the judge wrote.
But Lamberth wrote in the case against Michael Astrue, Social Security commissioner, that whether Obama is using a fake number isn't his concern.
"Even if plaintiff's allegations were true, an individual's status as a public official does not, as plaintiff contends, 'make exemption 6 irrelevant to him and his vital records.'"
He said he would "disregard" documents from the Selective Service and the Social Security Number Verification System suggesting there are problems with Obama's number, because he "concludes" they were obtained "under false pretenses."
Taitz told WND she is submitting a motion for reconsideration based on new evidence that includes an affidavit from an individual who obtained a government affirmation that the number Obama is using doesn't match his name.
She said it is important to the public, because it could provide evidence of fraudulent IRS returns, fake election documents and Social Security fraud, should the allegations prove accurate.
Taitz also has filed a state court action on similar grounds in Hawaii, where there had been a hearing scheduled in September on orders from a federal judge to address the state's refusal to comply with a subpoena for Obama's original birth documentation.
"The SSA explained that the Privacy Act of 1974 ... protects the personal information of social security number holders," he wrote. "The SSA determined ... the plaintiff had identified no public interest that would be served by disclosure.
"Plaintiff makes no secret of her intention to use the redacted Form SS-5 to identify the holder of social security number xxxx-xxx-4425 – or, as plaintiff puts it, to confirm her suspicion that the president is fraudulently using that number," the judge wrote.
But Lamberth wrote in the case against Michael Astrue, Social Security commissioner, that whether Obama is using a fake number isn't his concern.
"Even if plaintiff's allegations were true, an individual's status as a public official does not, as plaintiff contends, 'make exemption 6 irrelevant to him and his vital records.'"
He said he would "disregard" documents from the Selective Service and the Social Security Number Verification System suggesting there are problems with Obama's number, because he "concludes" they were obtained "under false pretenses."
Taitz told WND she is submitting a motion for reconsideration based on new evidence that includes an affidavit from an individual who obtained a government affirmation that the number Obama is using doesn't match his name.
She said it is important to the public, because it could provide evidence of fraudulent IRS returns, fake election documents and Social Security fraud, should the allegations prove accurate.
Taitz also has filed a state court action on similar grounds in Hawaii, where there had been a hearing scheduled in September on orders from a federal judge to address the state's refusal to comply with a subpoena for Obama's original birth documentation.
Her Petition for Writ of Mandamus, if granted, would require the state Department of Health to turn over to her the original 1961 Obama birth records the agency has kept from the American public.
A mandamus action compels an official or government officer to perform a duty demanded by the petitioner.
Taitz filed 48 pages of pleadings and exhibits before Circuit Court Judge Rhonda Nishimura.
It is separate from the Astrue case, which she said would be appealed.
Taitz has maintained that by releasing his long-form birth certificate to the American public on April 27, Obama has waived all privacy restrictions that would prevent the Hawaii DOH from making public the original 1961 birth records the agency has on file.
"I decided to file the state case for mandamus because this is a separate case that stands on its own," Taitz told WND.
Taitz charged that if the long-form birth certificate the White House released on April 27 is not on file in a 1961 original copy in the Hawaii DOH, then a criminal felony has been committed.
"I don't believe there is any 1961 typewritten birth certificate document for Obama on file in the Hawaii DOH that looks anything like what the White House released," she asserted. "Why else would the Hawaii DOH fight me so hard to keep us from seeing whatever birth records are on file?"
A mandamus action compels an official or government officer to perform a duty demanded by the petitioner.
Taitz filed 48 pages of pleadings and exhibits before Circuit Court Judge Rhonda Nishimura.
It is separate from the Astrue case, which she said would be appealed.
Taitz has maintained that by releasing his long-form birth certificate to the American public on April 27, Obama has waived all privacy restrictions that would prevent the Hawaii DOH from making public the original 1961 birth records the agency has on file.
"I decided to file the state case for mandamus because this is a separate case that stands on its own," Taitz told WND.
Taitz charged that if the long-form birth certificate the White House released on April 27 is not on file in a 1961 original copy in the Hawaii DOH, then a criminal felony has been committed.
"I don't believe there is any 1961 typewritten birth certificate document for Obama on file in the Hawaii DOH that looks anything like what the White House released," she asserted. "Why else would the Hawaii DOH fight me so hard to keep us from seeing whatever birth records are on file?"
Question for you...If this kind of news was televised to the masses, do you think Orly Taitz would have a better chance in court?
The media wanted to make sure she didn't have the "power of the people" on her side.
New Lewi
Inspirational Music
http://www.newlewi.com/
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=339629
No comments:
Post a Comment