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

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

Yo! Linda Jordan. You ever think that "Special Indicator" might mean that a flag has been put on the SSN for some reason, maybe like, to indicate that it belonged to the President? And now the SSA Inspector General is tracking attempts to illegally access that number?

SSA does not invalidate or destroy the original SSN when a new SSN is assigned. The original and new SSNs are cross-referred in SSA's records to make sure that the individual gets credit for all earnings and to ensure the integrity of Social Security's programs. SSA maintains the confidentiality of all its records and will not disclose information about an individual's SSN without the individual's consent, unless required by law to do so.

SSA requires that each individual requesting information about him/herself properly identify him/herself as the subject of the record. An individual requesting information in person must present documentary evidence. An individual requesting information over the phone must provide six pieces of identifying information, which SSA can verify from its records.

NOTE: SSA has added an extra layer of security when an SSN has been assigned based on harassment, abuse, or life endangerment. SSA has implemented procedures to prevent inappropriate/erroneous disclosure of SSN information over the phone when a new number has been assigned in these situations, which includes domestic violence. The caller will be advised to go to the local field office for an in-person interview and properly identify him/herself as the subject of the record before SSN information will be disclosed.

When SSA assigns a new SSN because a person has been harmed by the misuse of his or her
original SSN, the Agency places a special indicator on the old SSN record to block issuance of
replacement SSN cards and SSN printouts.

Also of interest is this testimony to the House Ways & Means Cttee earlier this month:



http://waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Feldt_Testimony.pdf

I found it by repeating one of Linda Jordans google searchs but going to the bottom of the first page! There are other sources that I found with a bit more digging.

Yo! Linda Jordan. You ever think that "Special Indicator" might mean that a flag has been put on the SSN for some reason, maybe like, to indicate that it belonged to the President? And now the SSA Inspector General is tracking attempts to illegally access that number?

Before requesting a new number, carefully consider the following:

We do not void or delete Social Security numbers. Therefore, your original number will remain assigned to you and your new number will be cross-referred to your original number. (We do not cross-refer numbers when your reason for getting a new number because another person is using your original number.);

Social Security cannot update the records of other agencies and organizations, such as the Internal Revenue Service, schools, the department of motor vehicles, medical facilities and financial institutions, which identify you with your original number;

Social Security cannot control how other agencies and organizations use your original number when it is in their records; and

Using a new number does not ensure a credit bureau will not combine credit records from your old number with your new number.

What I am thinking is that there is a flag, but one to record the IP address etc of anyone inquiring about this number. This would result in an alert to any agency investigating the theft of our President's Identity.

By this time, I am 100% positive he has a new number (along with his wife and probably both his kids). What these clowns don't realize is that the Government is in charge of the SS system. It would be normal procedure to issue another SS number when one is compromised by criminals such as Col. Hollister and Orly Taitz. Notice that Orly keeps getting others to do her Dirty Work - She thinks she can't be charged with being part of a conspiracy to steal the SS Act Number for your President.

We'll see now, won't we.

The more Orly screeches, the more chance someone is going to have to "do something about it". Leaving it alone would have been an excellent idea, but NOOOOOOOO!!!!

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.”

Nice find LM K.

Correct Emma, the appellate court doesn't do zibits, even extremely large illegal ones.

You think the government may be setting a trap using this as bait????

Taitz shoved it in Judge Lamberth's face again, with brand new stories about how her people accessed records in an effort to obfuscate the illegality of the prior conduct. Of course what Taitz failed to appreciate is that she implicated her "associates" in new misconduct.

Taitz must think that federal judges are as dumb as she is. If so, Taitz has another thing coming.

The newly "researched" documents with their affidavit do not make the documents already on the docket in the case disappear magickally. Those were the ones Judge Lamberth pointed out to her as being in a very dark grey zone.

Silent death in the yahoo. Amen.



Not a death threat!

I believe that a request for sanctions from a U.S. attorney would only throw fuel on the fire -- "Obama ordered them to go after me!" This matter has to be handled by the court system itself; the judges have to show the courage and wisdom that Judge Land showed.

I agree with this advice but only in part. These are all good practice when one is dealing with an ethical attorney who can be trusted to reciprocate, is bringing a cause of action in good faith and will not abuse the process. When dealing with an Orly or some other scoundrel, one shouldn't give an inch on anything except when advantageous. It can be worth it just not to piss off the judge and thereby appear to be the adult in the room.

However, if it involves an abusive litigant who is dragging random third parties into abusive depositions and serving the deposition subpoenas defectively, I wouldn't give them a speck of regard and would quash the hell out of them. WIth an Orly, I believe it would be worth it to point out early and often that this is a vexatious litigant (and a complete lunatic) with no regard for the rules.

I think it is reasonable to let even an Orly off for technically deficient service, so that a dismissal can be with prejudice rather than a procedural dismissal that simply allows the disgruntled nut to file again.

[...]

An email Jones sent to Sparks and judges in the Western District of Texas on Aug. 30 took the Austin trial court judge to task for the sharply worded orders.

One of those orders, which came out on Aug. 26, invited a pair of lawyers involved in a subpoena dispute to a "kindergarten party." Jones' email reads as follows:

"Dear Sam, It has not escaped my attention, or that of my colleagues or, I am told, nationally known blog sites that you have issued several 'cute' orders in the past few weeks. The order attached below is the most recent. Frankly, this kind of rhetoric is not funny. In fact, it is so caustic, demeaning, and gratuitous that it casts more disrespect on the judiciary than on the now-besmirched reputation of the counsel. It suggests either that the judge is simply indulging himself at the expense of counsel or that he is fighting with counsel in what, as Judge Gee used to say, is surely not a fair contest. It suggests bias against counsel. No doubt, none of us has been consistently above reproach in our professional communications with counsel. We are all prone to human error. But no judge who writes an order should allow such rhetoric to overcome common sense. Ultimately, this kind of excess, as I noted, reflects badly on all of us. I urge you to think before you write. Sincerely, Edith Jones."

Sparks was out of town and could not be reached for immediate comment about the email. Jones declines comment on the substance of the email but says she was "saddened" that it had been released to others, including Texas Lawyer.

[...]

NBC - can you provide a link for those of us interested in edumacating others?

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 ([highlight]Attachments: # 1 Exhibit (Unredacted))(zrdj)[/highlight] (Entered: 09/13/2011)

Attachment Description
1 [highlight]*Restricted*[/highlight] 0 kb