Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

RTH10260 · **Posted:** Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:35 pm

tjh wrote:

RTH10260 wrote:

Hmmm -- wonder if Mr Nemeroff would be interested in getting a copy of this ruling, though his case is nearly closed. Would be nice to see a motion for judicial notice reference this and the motions to compel within the docket.

They've probably got instructions not to feed the trolls.

Silent death in the yahoo. Amen.

Not a death threat!

LM K · **Posted:** Mon Sep 12, 2011 4:49 am

Another Orlybot claiming responsibility for illegally accessing Obama's info? Is this to get Hollister out of hot water? Or just another yahoo?

Quote:

This is exactly what the E-Verify response looks like. I printed it as soon as it came on the screen.

I used the government run E-Verify system to check Obama’s legal working status.
I figured I would be challenged for using E-Verify but I concluded it was a legitimate gray area as to exactly who is considered the employer of POTUS. I was willing to argue that I was one of his employers, particularly given the fact that so many people in positions of authority and responsibility said they had no idea who was responsible for vetting a potential POTUS. The results I got back pointed directly to fraud. But here is what I thought you would find interesting.

It has been pointed out to me recently that the section of E-Verify I thought was the “self service” section for employers was reserved NOT for employers but for potential employees.

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.

I am sure it did not register with me at all because why on earth would a person have to ask the goverment to tell them whether or not they are a citizen of the United States? I mean that is something each person knows about themselves. It would be like the government setting up a website for people to go and ask them “Do I have brown hair?” Why would a person have to ask the government if they are a citizen? An employer would need verification from the government about an employee but not the employee, he or she KNOWS if they are a citizen. So it never entered my mind that this section was not for employers.

But apparently the part of E-Verify that I used IS for potential employees to go to so they can find out if the name, SSN and birthdate they are using passes goverment muster or raises red flags. I have since gone back to actually read the directions and find that the potential employee is promised that IF the data they enter raises alarm bells that the information will be shared with no one.

Doesn’t that boggle your mind? The E-Verify website was set up for employers to verify the legal working status of their employees or potential employees, and in fact employers are requiered by law to check the legal working status of their employees. The whole point of it is to catch undocumented, illegal workers. BUT E-Verify also offers, on the same website, a section for potential employees to check whether or not the government knows they are undocumented so they can AVOID getting caught and the government has assured them that if the data they enter comes back as not legal they will deep six their illegal status. Linda Jordan

SueDB · **Posted:** Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:07 am

Criminals always like to rationalize their behavior. Impersonating the President is not a good idea at the moment.

Just another name and IP for the list.

Since the judge didn't sanction Orly for illegal conduct, the rest of the clowns think it is alright to impersonate employers and the President on the these sites.

Not to criticize the judge - I feel he is not preventing this by allowing Orly to get away unscathed. Personally, I think Col. Hollister should be investigated further.

TexasFilly · **Joined:** Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm **Posts:** 10766

LM K wrote:

Another Orlybot claiming responsibility for illegally accessing Obama's info? Is this to get Hollister out of hot water? Or just another yahoo?

Quote:

This is exactly what the E-Verify response looks like. I printed it as soon as it came on the screen.

I used the government run E-Verify system to check Obama’s legal working status.
I figured I would be challenged for using E-Verify but I concluded it was a legitimate gray area as to exactly who is considered the employer of POTUS. I was willing to argue that I was one of his employers, particularly given the fact that so many people in positions of authority and responsibility said they had no idea who was responsible for vetting a potential POTUS. The results I got back pointed directly to fraud. But here is what I thought you would find interesting.

It has been pointed out to me recently that the section of E-Verify I thought was the “self service” section for employers was reserved NOT for employers but for potential employees.

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.

I am sure it did not register with me at all because why on earth would a person have to ask the goverment to tell them whether or not they are a citizen of the United States? I mean that is something each person knows about themselves. It would be like the government setting up a website for people to go and ask them “Do I have brown hair?” Why would a person have to ask the government if they are a citizen? An employer would need verification from the government about an employee but not the employee, he or she KNOWS if they are a citizen. So it never entered my mind that this section was not for employers.

But apparently the part of E-Verify that I used IS for potential employees to go to so they can find out if the name, SSN and birthdate they are using passes goverment muster or raises red flags. I have since gone back to actually read the directions and find that the potential employee is promised that IF the data they enter raises alarm bells that the information will be shared with no one.

Doesn’t that boggle your mind? The E-Verify website was set up for employers to verify the legal working status of their employees or potential employees, and in fact employers are requiered by law to check the legal working status of their employees. The whole point of it is to catch undocumented, illegal workers. BUT E-Verify also offers, on the same website, a section for potential employees to check whether or not the government knows they are undocumented so they can AVOID getting caught and the government has assured them that if the data they enter comes back as not legal they will deep six their illegal status. Linda Jordan

Hmm, affidavit or freep post? Which one is going to have legal consequences? :-k

Looks like another attempt to weasel out of getting caught red handed, just like Thomas Robert Nelson from Franklin, NC. Also, I would note that somewhere upthread folks have linked to a facebook page of a Linda Jordon. I think y'all may have the wrong person there. This miscreant is Linda Jordan, of Seattle, and her address is on the affidavit.

raicha · **Posted:** Mon Sep 12, 2011 8:22 am

Freeper "ethical" is apparently the "Linda Jordan" who provided Orly with the affidavit for her "motion for reconsideration". I guess she now has doubts about what she has done and feels the need to further explain her misuse of the system.

The "results" that Linda Jordan obtained did not say that the number was invalid or nonexistent. Rather, there was a "mismatch" between the records and what Linda Jordan entered into the system. As LJ was attempting to impersonate someone else, that is not surprising.

LJ says on Freep:

Quote:

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.

This is what she claims she "skipped over":

Quote:

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.

LJ thinks the self-check system is designed for another type of abuse - for illegal aliens to verify the SSN they may be using. But in fact the system is used by people who non-citizens are in this country legally. Folks with work visas and green cards and other legal residents.

Like all birther arguments, Linda Jordan's attempt to justify her actions and set up a legal defense for them is a failure.

TexasFilly · **Joined:** Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm **Posts:** 10766

That's one ironic screen name, even for a Freeper.

TexasFilly · **Joined:** Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm **Posts:** 10766

Addy has a very nice compilation of the crimes of Gregory Hollister, Linda Jordan and Orly Taitz here. So glad Addy is back from her extended vacation! =D>

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23935

TexasFilly wrote:

Addy has a very nice compilation of the crimes of Gregory Hollister, Linda Jordan and Orly Taitz here. So glad Addy is back from her extended vacation! =D>

Indeed. Very well done Addy, and welcome back. :-bd

Quote:

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.

SueDB · **Posted:** Mon Sep 12, 2011 9:55 am

realist wrote:

TexasFilly wrote:

Addy has a very nice compilation of the crimes of Gregory Hollister, Linda Jordan and Orly Taitz here. So glad Addy is back from her extended vacation! =D>

Indeed. Very well done Addy, and welcome back. :-bd

Quote:

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.

It is going to be an interesting week. Looking forward to RC Radio!

I might just threaten to call in this week. :lol:

Adelante · **Posted:** Mon Sep 12, 2011 10:09 am

T'anks.

As always, please PM me if I get something wrong.

lyssandri · **Posted:** Mon Sep 12, 2011 10:36 am

TexasFilly wrote:

Addy has a very nice compilation of the crimes of Gregory Hollister, Linda Jordan and Orly Taitz here. So glad Addy is back from her extended vacation! =D>

Well done, Addy!

This isn't intended as a criticism of what you posted because you got a LOT of information in there and including this might have made it more convoluted that it already is. Reading your post, however, did remind me that this is something I would like to see more of, so I'm going to go ahead and add it here - but it's not aimed at you, Addy, ok?

I think it would be good to make a point to more frequently point out the sheer stupidity of Orly's "born in 1890" canard regarding the alleged "original owner" of the Obama's SSN. I know that for a long time, I actually thought that the document she got had a statement that the holder's birthday was in 1890 and that it was just some kind of weird typo that she'd misconstrued the way she misconstrues so much else in the world. I was really surprised, then, when I finally saw a copy of the printout she was referring to and discovered that the "1890" isn't given as any kind of a date for anything. In fact, it's not explained at all. There is simply a single line on the form with the numbers "1," "8," "9," and "0" on it with no text before or after them to give put it into ANY context or give ANY indication as to what - if anything - it's intended to represent. I think that's something that more anti-birthers should know and understand because it's just so typical of Orly's crap.

TexasFilly · **Joined:** Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm **Posts:** 10766

Heh. Over at WingNutDaily, some of our own members are trying to have a discussion with Paul Irey about his silly analysis. Here's what Irey says:

Quote:

Paul Irey · Top Commenter · East Liverpool High School
[highlight]Bran Mak Morn and Kai ... I was never trying to do "forensic analysis".[/highlight]
I was just pointing out with graphic proof that the typed letters on Obama's birth certificate do not match for size and style. I have definitively proved that to the satisfaction of everyone but the paid Obats that troll here on the WND birther stories. Where else do you troll Bran? Is birther bashing all day your only interest? Same question to you kai.
Reply · 2 · Like · about an hour ago

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=342937

If Orly was a real lawyer, she'd be a bit concerned about that admission. Mr. Woodman is also involved in the discussion. Irey admits he hasn't read Woodman's book (and he calls him "Mr. Williams"). What a maroon.

SueDB · **Posted:** Mon Sep 12, 2011 12:27 pm

TexasFilly wrote:

Heh. Over at WingNutDaily, some of our own members are trying to have a discussion with Paul Irey about his silly analysis. Here's what Irey says:

Quote:

Paul Irey · Top Commenter · East Liverpool High School
[highlight]Bran Mak Morn and Kai ... I was never trying to do "forensic analysis".[/highlight]
I was just pointing out with graphic proof that the typed letters on Obama's birth certificate do not match for size and style. I have definitively proved that to the satisfaction of everyone but the paid Obats that troll here on the WND birther stories. Where else do you troll Bran? Is birther bashing all day your only interest? Same question to you kai.
Reply · 2 · Like · about an hour ago

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=342937

If Orly was a real lawyer, she'd be a bit concerned about that admission. Mr. Woodman is also involved in the discussion. Irey admits he hasn't read Woodman's book (and he calls him "Mr. Williams"). What a maroon.

Well, I am part of this "everybody" and I think he is full of male bovine offal. He hasn't proved anything except he is a serious nutter and serial liar.

Not forensic, but put one the airs of a forensic analysis. My guess is he might have gotten a couple of e-mails from real document experts that are pissed off....He is giving them a bad name. In that type of industry (expert witness) your name and reputation is EVERYTHING...

SueDB · **Posted:** Mon Sep 12, 2011 12:32 pm

TexasFilly wrote:

Heh. Over at WingNutDaily, some of our own members are trying to have a discussion with Paul Irey about his silly analysis. Here's what Irey says:

Quote:

Paul Irey · Top Commenter · East Liverpool High School
[highlight]Bran Mak Morn and Kai ... I was never trying to do "forensic analysis".[/highlight]
I was just pointing out with graphic proof that the typed letters on Obama's birth certificate do not match for size and style. I have definitively proved that to the satisfaction of everyone but the paid Obats that troll here on the WND birther stories. Where else do you troll Bran? Is birther bashing all day your only interest? Same question to you kai.
Reply · 2 · Like · about an hour ago

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=342937

If Orly was a real lawyer, she'd be a bit concerned about that admission. Mr. Woodman is also involved in the discussion. Irey admits he hasn't read Woodman's book (and he calls him "Mr. Williams"). What a maroon.

Any lawyer that is any good would ensure that these words are used against him in a court of law.

This guy would never see the inside of a courtroom except to contest a traffic ticket.

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9708

SuEdB wrote:

Not forensic, but put one the airs of a forensic analysis. My guess is he might have gotten a couple of e-mails from real document experts that are pissed off....He is giving them a bad name. In that type of industry (expert witness) your name and reputation is EVERYTHING...

Irey is a moron who wouldn't get past a Daubert or Frye hearing in any federal or state court anywhere in the country. He has no name. He has no reputation, except as an irremediably ignorant cretin.

Edit: Tyop

SueDB · **Posted:** Mon Sep 12, 2011 12:40 pm

A Legal Lohengrin wrote:

SuEdB wrote:

Not forensic, but put one the airs of a forensic analysis. My guess is he might have gotten a couple of e-mails from real document experts that are pissed off....He is giving them a bad name. In that type of industry (expert witness) your name and reputation is EVERYTHING...

Irey is a moron who wouldn't get past a Daubert or Frye hearing in any federal or state court anywhere in the country. He has no name. He has no reputation, except as an irremedially ignorant cretin.

Tru Dat... =))

Butterfly Bilderberg · **Posted:** Mon Sep 12, 2011 2:31 pm

Calling the judge presiding over the case in which he hopes to testify "Lucky Day Lamberth" is NOT a good idea.

SueDB · **Posted:** Mon Sep 12, 2011 2:39 pm

Butterfly Bilderberg wrote:

Calling the judge presiding over the case in which he hopes to testify "Lucky Day Lamberth" is NOT a good idea.

That's OK, he will never get near a courtroom. Mebbe he can file that for "future reference" when he pulls this male bovine offal again.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23935

LM K wrote:

Another Orlybot claiming responsibility for illegally accessing Obama's info? Is this to get Hollister out of hot water? Or just another yahoo?

Quote:

This is exactly what the E-Verify response looks like. I printed it as soon as it came on the screen.

I used the government run E-Verify system to check Obama’s legal working status.
I figured I would be challenged for using E-Verify but I concluded it was a legitimate gray area as to exactly who is considered the employer of POTUS. I was willing to argue that I was one of his employers, particularly given the fact that so many people in positions of authority and responsibility said they had no idea who was responsible for vetting a potential POTUS. The results I got back pointed directly to fraud. But here is what I thought you would find interesting.

It has been pointed out to me recently that the section of E-Verify I thought was the “self service” section for employers was reserved NOT for employers but for potential employees.

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.

I am sure it did not register with me at all because why on earth would a person have to ask the goverment to tell them whether or not they are a citizen of the United States? I mean that is something each person knows about themselves. It would be like the government setting up a website for people to go and ask them “Do I have brown hair?” Why would a person have to ask the government if they are a citizen? An employer would need verification from the government about an employee but not the employee, he or she KNOWS if they are a citizen. So it never entered my mind that this section was not for employers.

But apparently the part of E-Verify that I used IS for potential employees to go to so they can find out if the name, SSN and birthdate they are using passes goverment muster or raises red flags. I have since gone back to actually read the directions and find that the potential employee is promised that IF the data they enter raises alarm bells that the information will be shared with no one.

Doesn’t that boggle your mind? The E-Verify website was set up for employers to verify the legal working status of their employees or potential employees, and in fact employers are requiered by law to check the legal working status of their employees. The whole point of it is to catch undocumented, illegal workers. BUT E-Verify also offers, on the same website, a section for potential employees to check whether or not the government knows they are undocumented so they can AVOID getting caught and the government has assured them that if the data they enter comes back as not legal they will deep six their illegal status. Linda Jordan

I don't know if this is more from Ms. Jordan or if someone else has additionally been misusing the SSA Self Check. It's not signed as the one above is.

From comments at ORYR

Quote:

Anonymous said...[Reply]

Here are some more details on exactly what Obama's "Notice of Mismatch" most likely means. When I got back a notice that said "Possible Mismatch" I had the option of saying that you would go to a SSO to find out what was going on or not. I tried it both ways. When I chose "No" that was the end of it. But when I chose "Yes" another screen came up with a letter to print out that I could take to the SSO when I was going to find out what the "Possible Mismatch" meant.

(the letter is attached to the affidavit)

The letter said "Notice of Mismatch with SSA Records" Here I got more information than the "Possible Mismatch" screen. Below that there was a list of sub-reasons and there was a check next to "SSA record does not verify, Other Reason."

I started researching what this meant.

1. I typed in Google..."SSA record does not verify, other reason".

2. And got this "SSA- POMS: RM 10250.005-The[highlight]Self Check[/highlight] Process and the Self.....https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0110250005
March 15, 2011-SSA record does not verify, other reason. Special indicator..."

3.Which led to this; "RM 10250.005 The [highlight]Self Check[/highlight] Process and the [highlight]Self Check[/highlight] Notice" and further down undewr B2. a chart "Mismatches defined....Reason on [highlight]Self Check[/highlight] Notice, SSA Record does not verify, other reason." and in the next column (Interpretation of Reason" next to "SSA record does not verify, other reason" it says "Special indicator present."

4. So, twice now "special indicator" has popped up as an explaination for "SSA record does not verify, other reason". So what is a Special Indicator?

5. I typed in "special indicator present, SSA" and got this:
A-08-09-19099-Social Security Afministration Aug 26, 2009-Subject Effectiveness of Special Indicator Codes on the Social Security....from non-citizens who do not have a current immigration status."

6. Which led to this: Office of the Inspector General, Social Security Administration, Effectiveness of Special Indicator Codes on the Social Security Administrations Numident File, August 2009 A-08-09-19099, Audit Report"

7. And in the report I found this: Table 1, a list of the special indicator codes as of November 2008. There are 9 of them;
Code (#) Description
1. False Identity
2. Noncitzen Not in Status
3. Multiple SSN's with Different Identities
4. Scrambled Earnings with New SSN Assigned
5. SSN Obtained Using Fraudulent Documentation
6. SSN Assigned Based on Harassment/Abuse/Life Endangerment
7. Fictitious Identity
8. Fraud-OIG Investigated
9. Fraud SSN Misuse

Eight of the Special Indicators have to do with fraud of some kind. [highlight]I do not think option #6 was even available until long after Obama started using the SSN in question.[/highlight] [in other words... I don't know but since it sounds good, I'll post it and it will become fact.] It looks to me like the SSN Obama is using has been flagged with a Special Indicator indicating fraud. ](*,)

I hope this information is helpful to you.
September 12, 2011 6:06 AM

Welsh Dragon · **Posted:** Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:21 pm

That was also posted by "Ethical" at FR this morning so it probably is Linda Jordan.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23935

https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0110250001

Quote:

Legislative history for Self Check

DHS created Self Check in response to the Conference Report (House Conference Report 111-298) associated with the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2010. [highlight]Congress provided funds specifically for the development of a “[highlight]self check[/highlight]” tool that allows individuals to validate the accuracy of their records[/highlight] with federal agencies such as SSA and DHS.

DHS is phasing in [highlight]Self Check[/highlight] beginning March 2011.

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/ ... 2ca60aRCRD

Quote:

USCIS is releasing the Self Check service in phases. At this point the service is offered only to users that maintain an address in Arizona, California, Colorado, the District of Colombia, Idaho, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, or Washington. The availability of Self Check will be limited for the initial launch [highlight]as the service is tested and improved upon based on the outcomes of the initial implementation[/highlight].

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9708

Butterfly Bilderberg wrote:

Calling the judge presiding over the case in which he hopes to testify "Lucky Day Lamberth" is NOT a good idea.

Of course, nobody will ever testify in this already dead case.

bob · **Posted:** Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:54 pm

Quote:

Send to Congressman Steve King all of my pleadings from Taitz v Astrue, demand emergency Judicial Committee hearing on Obama’s fraudulent use of a stolen SSN [xxx-xx]-4425

Rep. King Upset With Amnesty for Obama Uncle

xxx-http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=25403

Rep. Steve King (R-IA).

A Legal Lohengrin · **Joined:** Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:56 pm **Posts:** 9708

bob wrote:

Quote:

Send to Congressman Steve King all of my pleadings from Taitz v Astrue, demand emergency Judicial Committee hearing on Obama’s fraudulent use of a stolen SSN [xxx-xx]-4425

Rep. King Upset With Amnesty for Obama Uncle

xxx-http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=25403

Rep. Steve King (R-IA).

He deserves it. Obama has supposedly been "fraudulently" using the same SSN since he got it. That has to be 30-40 years. So where's the fucking "emergency?" I guess "emergency" goes into the pile of English words this Russian Communist still doesn't understand.

Foggy · **Posted:** Mon Sep 12, 2011 4:44 pm

Quote:

"Send to Congressman Steve King all of my pleadings from Taitz v Astrue ..."

Always willing to help, Orly. Mail all those pleadings to me, and then I'll mail them to King. ;;)

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

Taitz v. Colvin (Formerly Astrue) - FOIA action

Who is online