Discussion of President Obama's SSN #

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23943

By request I am opening a thread to discuss the single issue of the allegations of President Obama using a "fraudulent" Social Security number and, in addition, the assertion that he has 39 SS numbers.

Please post discussion of this single "issue" here.

I will "try" to move some of those posts here, but they are intermingled with other discussion in the same post, so that may not be a viable exercise.

If you wish, copy and paste some of the postings related to this topic and begin. I have a fairly busy day today with real work and other things I must get done before Saturday with my fambly.

kimba · **Joined:** Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:24 pm **Posts:** 6736

How about starting fresh and saving realist's time and cutting to the chase:

What is the admissible evidence that Barack Hussein Obama:

1. Ever obtained and used more than one Social Security number?

2. Obtained a Social Security number within a group of numbers assigned to residents of CT by fraudulent means?

verbalobe · **Posted:** Thu Dec 23, 2010 10:36 am

kimba wrote:

...What is the admissible evidence that Barack Hussein Obama:

1. Ever obtained and used more than one Social Security number?

2. Obtained a Social Security number within a group of numbers assigned to residents of CT by fraudulent means?

Way to kill a thread.

Plutodog · **Posted:** Thu Dec 23, 2010 10:53 am

verbalobe wrote:

kimba wrote:

...What is the admissible evidence that Barack Hussein Obama:

1. Ever obtained and used more than one Social Security number?

2. Obtained a Social Security number within a group of numbers assigned to residents of CT by fraudulent means?

Way to kill a thread.

Not in birferland where "admissible" has a different translation than in the real world courts. =))

kimba · **Joined:** Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:24 pm **Posts:** 6736

OK, I'll play.

1. What information demonstrates:
a. Barack Hussein Obama II has used more than one Social Security number?

b. Barack Hussein Obama II obtained by fraudulent means a Social Security number within a group of numbers normally issued to residents of Connecticut?

Edit: c. Barack Hussein Obama II obtained by fraudulent means a Social Security number previously assigned to someone born in 1890.

2. What makes the information admissible as evidence in state or federal court?

Piffle · **Posted:** Thu Dec 23, 2010 12:20 pm

verbalobe wrote:

kimba wrote:

...What is the admissible evidence that Barack Hussein Obama:

1. Ever obtained and used more than one Social Security number?

2. Obtained a Social Security number within a group of numbers assigned to residents of CT by fraudulent means?

Way to kill a thread.

I agree. "Admissable" is way too problematic, IMO. Admissable for what purpose and under what circumstances?

It seems to me that a starting point might be to solicit any purported evidence whatsoever that the President used any particular social security number.

If a proponent of the multiple SSN allegation cannot articulate so much as a factually based reasonable inference that the President has used any particular number, s/he cannot, by definition, demonstrate the use of several numbers.

Offtopic :

A bit of a sidebar story. Out of curiousity, this morning I spent a few minutes querying the Social Security Death Index (SSDI) from which I discovered that there are 173 social security numbers associated with the name "John McCain" -- all of them presumably dead, of course.

[Whether the John McCain who became a Senator from Arizona and ran for President is in fact dead is open for debate. Based on his vote against the START Treaty this week, there is at least some evidence that an imposter may be filling his shoes. The previous John McCain had vigorously supported ratification of the treaty several times in the past.]

Anyway, much to my amazement I discovered that my father (born 1905; died 1966) got his social security number in Indiana. WTF? To the best of my knowledge, my father never lived in Indiana. But then I thought about it for a while.

I know that he lived in Chicago during the 20s and, by the early 30s, his employer had transfered him to Charlestown, W.V. I also know that he maintained several lifelong ties with friends in the Chicago area. Among them was a couple named Ferry who later became my godparents. (Yes, 'tis true, I actually had Ferry Godparents.) From the early 30s onward, the Ferrys lived in Whiting, Indiana -- a town not too far from Chicago. Rounding out the known facts, I know that my father took fairly lengthy business trips to Chicago during the 30s and 40s and sometimes stayed with the Ferrys.

My theory is that when the first round of social security numbers was issued in 1936, my father must have been bunking with the Ferrys and either (1) his employer had their address as his temporary mailing address or (2) he went to an Indiana post office to register.

While I believe that Obama's so-called Connecticut social security number is most likely some kind of red herring altogether, my point is that I'm probably the only living person (except, perhaps, one of the Ferry children with whom I have lost touch) who could reconstruct a scenario under which my father could have lawfully obtained an SSN from the Indiana pool. My sister is another candidate but I'm pretty sure her memory is too far blown to recall and order the salient facts.

Assuming my explanation is the correct one, it would be impossible to explain this apparent anomaly from information in public records or from Internet searches.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23943

Quote:

If a proponent of the multiple SSN allegation cannot articulate so much as a factually based reasonable inference that the President has used any particular number, s/he cannot, by definition, demonstrate the use of several numbers.

I'm not going to take the time to look them up now, but I believe it's been shown by documents that he indeed does use the (I think) 4425 # which supposedly was issued in CT to supposedly some man.

I have seen the question posted at Orly's blog as to who is this mysterious man from CT who was issued this # and the answer was that there was no man identified as connected to that number from CT. It's just supposedly Obama's (which I believe has be shown to be correct) but issued in CT to someone (not identified) but was born in 1899 or some such. #-o

That's my memory.

verbalobe · **Posted:** Thu Dec 23, 2010 12:30 pm

Piffle wrote:

While I believe that Obama's so-called Connecticut social security number is most likely some kind of red herring altogether, my point is that I'm probably the only living person (except, perhaps, one of the Ferry children with whom I have lost touch) who could reconstruct a scenario under which my father could have lawfully obtained an SSN from the Indiana pool. My sister is another candidate but I'm pretty sure her memory is too far blown to recall and order the salient facts.

Assuming my explanation is the correct one, it would be impossible to explain this apparent anomaly from information in public records or from Internet searches.

Yes, but still too easy -- your father is/was not a hoaxster a priori. So we know there had to be a logical, lawful, innocent explanation of some sort. Such is not the case with Obama. #-o

Edit: Kimba: My 'kill thread' comment was tongue-in-cheek.

kate520 · **Posted:** Thu Dec 23, 2010 12:39 pm

This has always struck me as the most ridiculous charge of all, one that only an obsessed person would try to peddle. When i received mine, I was told to guard it with my life or risk ...identity theft. When retailers started requiring them for check cashing ID, the privacy part was all over, now everyone has access to them.

There is no longer a guarantee that the person using the ssn is the one assigned it. My husband had been hiring people with stolen ssn's for years in his manufacturing business. Those folks would only stay around for a few months. They seemed to know how long it took until the DA sent a letter notifying the employer about it. He uses a service now to check, but even they get fooled sometimes. I know perfectly well how these numbers get passed around.

Obly's insistence that the business with the ssn's is significant is a large part of why people can't take her seriously.

mimi · **Posted:** Thu Dec 23, 2010 12:49 pm

kate520 wrote:

This has always struck me as the most ridiculous charge of all, one that only an obsessed person would try to peddle. When i received mine, I was told to guard it with my life or risk ...identity theft. When retailers started requiring them for check cashing ID, the privacy part was all over, now everyone has access to them.

There is no longer a guarantee that the person using the ssn is the one assigned it. My husband had been hiring people with stolen ssn's for years in his manufacturing business. Those folks would only stay around for a few months. They seemed to know how long it took until the DA sent a letter notifying the employer about it. He uses a service now to check, but even they get fooled sometimes. I know perfectly well how these numbers get passed around.

Obly's insistence that the business with the ssn's is significant is a large part of why people can't take her seriously.

When I lived in Virginia, your SSN was your drivers license number. It was then copied onto every check you wrote by the sales clerks.

I don't think they use SSN's anymore for drivers licenses.

Whatever4 · **Posted:** Thu Dec 23, 2010 12:53 pm

A few years ago, my company was considering contracting with a database company similar to the one used to generate Obama's list. I was able to view my own data. FULL of errors. Transposed numbers, neighbors' addresses, some random things we couldn't figure out. It showed the 8 different places I've lived, plus 10 others. One place I had interviewed at but never worked, but it showed me working there for 15 years. A couple of places were linked to my husband's SSN, one to my mother's. Stores in cities I have never been to but might be regional processing centers? My MIL sent us a subscription to Reader's Digest as "The Whatever Family", so we had entries to Mrs. TW Family. It was pretty easy to pick out the real stuff. I once looked at the printouts of Obama's "data" and thought it was similar to my experience. Definitely the start of an investigation, but far from reliable in the form it was in.
-xx

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Thu Dec 23, 2010 12:57 pm

Regular Fogbowzers already know, and have the impulse control not to post, other people's social security numbers. For the new members, or newly active members, especially those living in California, let me remind them of the following California state statute, which has mirror statutes in most other states:

Quote:

Civil Code §1798.85. Security and Use of Social Security Numbers
(a) Except as provided in this section, a person or entity may not do any of the following:
(1) Publicly post or publicly display in any manner an individual' s social security number. "Publicly post" or "publicly display" means to intentionally communicate or otherwise make available to the general public.

We should be able to have a meaningful discussion without posting all of anyone's SSAN.

ZekeB · **Posted:** Thu Dec 23, 2010 12:58 pm

Perhaps the company you "worked for 15 years at" only had you on their employee roles to make their EEOC records look better, Whatever4. :-?

listeme · **Posted:** Thu Dec 23, 2010 12:59 pm

Quote:

When I lived in Virginia, your SSN was your drivers license number. It was then copied onto every check you wrote by the sales clerks.

I don't think they use SSN's anymore for drivers licenses.

They don't.

Also, when I was getting divorced in... crap, a few years ago, I can't remember which year... they were in the process of requiring that SSNs not be part of public court documents, which required that pretty much all of our documents be redone, as they had already been put together with the SSNs in them.

Piffle · **Posted:** Thu Dec 23, 2010 1:17 pm

listeme wrote:

Also, when I was getting divorced in... crap, a few years ago, I can't remember which year... they were in the process of requiring that SSNs not be part of public court documents, which required that pretty much all of our documents be redone, as they had already been put together with the SSNs in them.

Yup, one particular problem was that Federal law actually required that social security numbers and other identifying info be stated explicitly in all Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs, often pronounced "quadros") dealing with distribution of IRAs, 401(k)s, pensions and other retirement funds. I assume most of these have been redacted by now at the local court houses, but it used to be easy as pie to pick up the SSNs of divorcees from the court records.

gentrfam · **Joined:** Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:22 pm **Posts:** 728

When I was in our law school's criminal clinic, we were taught basic investigation techniques. We were warned that the SSN might or might not mean anything about where someone was born. That accords with what the SSA says about their numbers:

Quote:

Note: One should not make too much of the "geographical code." It is not meant to be any kind of useable geographical information. The numbering scheme was designed in 1936 (before computers) to make it easier for SSA to store the applications in our files in Baltimore since the files were organized by regions as well as alphabetically. It was really just a bookkeeping device for our own internal use and was never intended to be anything more than that.

So, I think that with a Connecticut prefix and $2.50 you might be able to get a large iced coffee at Dunkin Donuts, but not much more. You certainly couldn't introduce it at evidence, absent more, as a connection between Obama and Connecticut.

Anyone want to check Wigmore's Evidence Treatise?

mimi · **Posted:** Thu Dec 23, 2010 1:26 pm

Piffle wrote:

listeme wrote:

Also, when I was getting divorced in... crap, a few years ago, I can't remember which year... they were in the process of requiring that SSNs not be part of public court documents, which required that pretty much all of our documents be redone, as they had already been put together with the SSNs in them.

Yup, one particular problem was that Federal law actually required that social security numbers and other identifying info be stated explicitly in all Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs, often pronounced "quadros") dealing with distribution of IRAs, 401(k)s, pensions and other retirement funds. I assume most of these have been redacted by now at the local court houses, but it used to be easy as pie to pick up the SSNs of divorcees from the court records.

Yeah, I think a particular bankrupt financial planner's SSN is out there due to his bankruptcy filing.

Tes · **Posted:** Thu Dec 23, 2010 1:33 pm

Piffle wrote:

... I assume most of these have been redacted by now at the local court houses, but it used to be easy as pie to pick up the SSNs of divorcees from the court records.

Actually, I think that assumption is, unfortunately, wrong, at least with respect to historical records. Newer procedures are in place to minimize the publication but (a) old records haven't been redacted in most places and (b) the fact that Orly has repeatedly published multiple people's full SS# in court records (some of which have not been redacted or placed under seal to this day (!!!)) clearly demonstrates that the information is still not consistently treated as confidential info.

verbalobe · **Posted:** Thu Dec 23, 2010 1:43 pm

Tes wrote:

Piffle wrote:

... I assume most of these have been redacted by now at the local court houses, but it used to be easy as pie to pick up the SSNs of divorcees from the court records.

Actually, I think that assumption is, unfortunately, wrong, at least with respect to historical records. Newer procedures are in place to minimize the publication but (a) old records haven't been redacted in most places and (b) the fact that Orly has repeatedly published multiple people's full SS# in court records (some of which have not been redacted or placed under seal to this day (!!!)) clearly demonstrates that the information is still not consistently treated as confidential info.

Ironic (may be the wrong word), isn't it? That someone who actively and belligerently contributes to the unguarded flow of confidential SSNs into the public data stream, also TAKES data from that stream completely uncritically, and treats it as if all its sources are gospel.

Piffle · **Posted:** Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:14 pm

Tes wrote:

Actually, I think that assumption is, unfortunately, wrong, at least with respect to historical records. Newer procedures are in place to minimize the publication but (a) old records haven't been redacted in most places and (b) the fact that Orly has repeatedly published multiple people's full SS# in court records (some of which have not been redacted or placed under seal to this day (!!!)) clearly demonstrates that the information is still not consistently treated as confidential info.

Thanks for that courthouse update, Tes. I'm sure it was too much to assume that someone with one of those green eye shade thingies has gone back and redacted old court files. So, in your recent experience, what do they do to minimize public access to, say, info in a QDRO?

The more I think about it, seven or eight years ago (my most recent hands-on frame of reference), a divorce file would have been just about the ideal starting point for identity theft. Not only did QDROs have the key personal identifiers, but they'd often have account numbers, financial institution names and asset amounts as well. Paging through the file, you'd get most of the other vital data you'd need -- D.O.B., date and place of marriage, past and current addresses etc. If the case was at all juicy, you might find an incorporated PSA and/or CSA with lots of additional financial and family information.

And the ex-wife may have gotten an order restoring her name, too. What better time to pull off some chicanery than when someone is in the process of effecting a court-ordered name change? What a great time to get a new drivers license, updated social security card, etc. Yikes! The possibilities make me shudder.

As for Orly's practices, what can you say? As long as the bar appears to be a toothless tiger...

kimba · **Joined:** Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:24 pm **Posts:** 6736

Quote:

Ironic (may be the wrong word), isn't it? That someone who actively and belligerently contributes to the unguarded flow of confidential SSNs into the public data stream, also TAKES data from that stream completely uncritically, and treats it as if all its sources are gospel.

We see this all too often in the internet world, specifically the conservative, tea party, birther world. A bit of information, correct or incorrect, factual or not, appears on a blog somewhere and is linked to, quoted, re-tweeted on every other conservative/tea party/ birther blog and then they claim it's "well-known" because when you google it, you get 327 hits - So it must be true!!! I think someone(s) understands and relies on this phenomenon, has deliberately fed bullshit into the data stream to spread it, then when it becomes widespread, plucks it back out and says, "see, this isn't just what I'm claiming, it's widely known" completely unsupported by fact, but "widely known".

nbc · **Joined:** Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:38 am **Posts:** 2619

kimba wrote:

How about starting fresh and saving realist's time and cutting to the chase:

What is the admissible evidence that Barack Hussein Obama:

1. Ever obtained and used more than one Social Security number?

2. Obtained a Social Security number within a group of numbers assigned to residents of CT by fraudulent means?

The records show that there are in fact three birth dates linked to the SSN?

All three are assigned to President Barack Obama, one with a birthdate of 1890, the others 08-04-1961 and 04-08-1961

Are there therefor three different people involved? Or is this just an example of poor data collection by public databases which are infamous for such mistakes?

And yet Orly insists that the errors of others are somehow evidence of fraud. No wonder that she is getting nowhere with her follies.

Tes · **Posted:** Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:46 pm

Piffle wrote:

So, in your recent experience, what do they do to minimize public access to, say, info in a QDRO?

From what I can tell, the courts "have rules" and expect litigants to follow them. (Reality is a different story.)

My most recent experience is my docket-watching for birther cases over the past couple years. When checking out litigation by an identified birther, I (not infrequently and, in fact, alarmingly frequently) run into their bankruptcy file (or multiple bankruptcy files). And, I'll just say that many many times, they've included a full SSN on a document that is not sealed.

Typically, when I come across a document in a public docket that contains a SSN (in any context), I call the docket clerk/clerk's office and notify them that Case X, Document 123 contains a full SSN#. Some times, they have gone in and fixed it. Other times ... not. (And, other times, I haven't gone back to check.)

Edit: edited for typoes

kimba · **Joined:** Tue Sep 08, 2009 3:24 pm **Posts:** 6736

Quote:

Or is this just an example of poor data collection by public databases which are infamous for such mistakes?

I think it's an example of poor data interpretation by someone who claims to be an investigator and work with these databases all the time, and an attorney who should have the common sense, experience and ability to apply a reasonable test to information dumped on her doorstep. Anyone with even passing experience with these databases knows the information reported to you when you make a search is merely a big dripping scoop of all the stuff that's floating in the public information stream about you. Some is true, Some is mistaken, some is really associated with someone else and got tied to you because their data happened to bump into your data somewhere, by a record keeping error, data entry error, Identity theft attempt, who knows. But a skilled investigator who works with these databases all the time would have the experience and common sense to know how to sift out a good % of the nonsense. Instead, whether deliberately or because of lack of skill, the full ladle of Barack Obama's stuff was indiscriminately poured into the birther information stream and reported to be the absolute, complete, unvarnished truth. Utterly incompetent from start to finish.

Tes · **Posted:** Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:51 pm

kimba wrote:

We see this all too often in the internet world, specifically the conservative, tea party, birther world. A bit of information, correct or incorrect, factual or not, appears on a blog somewhere and is linked to, quoted, re-tweeted on every other conservative/tea party/ birther blog and then they claim it's "well-known" because when you google it, you get 327 hits - So it must be true!!! I think someone(s) understands and relies on this phenomenon, has deliberately fed bullshit into the data stream to spread it, then when it becomes widespread, plucks it back out and says, "see, this isn't just what I'm claiming, it's widely known" completely unsupported by fact, but "widely known".

Offtopic :

The phenomenon you describe is the subject of Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free, a book I highly recommend. In that book, Pierce enumerates the "Great Premises of Idiot America":

Quote:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident:
1) Any theory is valid if it sells books, soaks up ratings, or otherwise moves units.
2) Anything can be true if somebody says it on television.
3) Fact is that which enough people believe. Truth is determined by how fervently they believe it.

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

Discussion of President Obama's SSN #

Who is online