It would appear Taitz submitted unredacted versions of the Exhibits 1 thru 3 under seal.

The public exhibits include Conkle's "Dear Judge Lambreth" letter.

As for the substance of the motion, there are no major changes to the text.

I enjoyed Orly arguing that Linda Jordan could (illegally) act as "employer" of the President and/or misrepresent herself as the President because Obama has no superior and is paid with tax payer money. Interesting, but when did the Constitution change regarding Congress' power to investigate and impeach a President? Aren't most/all birfers alleged strong adherents to the Constitution?

If this filing doesn't get Orly sanctioned again, I don't know what will.

And if something in the filing does actually get her sanctioned, it's going to be the Jordan lunacy. In the famous footnote four, Judge Lamberth wrote:

I'm not sure that the "good faith belief" excuse that every citizen is the employer of the President and therefore entitled to try to use E-verify to check his SSN is going to be enough to keep Lamberth's blood pressure in the safe range.

Is being untruthful in a court document perjury?

Only if it is sworn. It could be a fraud on the court, though.

Damn. I hadn't noticed earlier that not only does she provide the three numbers for the alleged "Connecticut" SSN prefix, she does so on the very next line after she provides the "redacted" full SSN.

It appears that she is displaying her stupidity by toying with the court. How much of this crap is Judge Lamberth going to tolerate?

I don't think she even understands Social Security numbers are issued by the Social Security Administration not the states. She says it's a "Connecticut Social Security number" several times. On page 5 she says "he never resided in the state which issued this number." Later on page 8 she says Zeituni Obama "had a social security number from the state of Indiana." At one point she writes "Connecticut" Social Security number, but I think Ms Orly believes the numbers are issued by the states. Otherwise she'd have written, like fogbowers carefully do, that the first three digits are from a group of numbers originally reserved by the Social Security Administration for people with Connecticut addresses. Her fantasy is so easily blown out of the water by what's posted at the SSA's on website regarding the "meaning" or lack thereof of the first 3 digits.

Taitz has demonstrated that she believes that the first three digits of a person's social security number are governed by the situs of the application. Her investigator, Daniels, has repeatedly said that, i.e., Obama has a "Connecticut" number, Obama's "aunt" has an "Indiana" number, etc. They understand the federal government issues the numbers; they believe the first three digits are absolutely controlling (and perfect), notwithstanding the administration's express disclaimer.

And, as BB and Raicha noted on RC's show last week, Taitz' affidavit is not actually signed, but rather bears a "/s/" and no notarization. That, of course, is de minimus compared to the rest of the steaming pile of BS that Orly filed, but it is still kinda funny.

The Meshugenah Chaleria's ability to err has no end; her skills have no beginning. That simple truth is likely to be her only lasting legacy.

Orly tries to argue that Obama's SSN should not be covered by FOIA exemption 6 privacy laws because it is "public information" because Obama's 2009 tax return (with SSN) was posted at the Whitehouse.gov website. Both Orly and Chito Papa's affidavit state that Chito downloaded the document and opened it up using an Adobe program and saw that the document had 2 layers. It was only after he removed the top layer that the SSN was revealed. (Apparently one has to "lock" the layers in place and who ever prepared the tax form forgot to do this.) IANAL, but I don't think that this counts as "public information" nor public display of the SSN.(Of course, it doesn't matter how many time Obama displays his SSN, it doesn't affect the laws governing the SSA.)

As others have said, this is just one of many problems with her brief.

60 pages. I need a nap.

I notice on page 25 (I think) that although she made a half-assed attempt to redact both SSNs, you can still read them.

Generally, a waiver must be "knowing and intelligent" in order to recognized as a waiver under the law. That means, generally, that the waiver was made intentionally and with knowledge of the consequences. Orly's own paperwork shows that the unredacted information was intended to be fully redacted. The file was completely redacted and reposted only a few hours after the first posting. No judge would find this to be a waiver of anything by Barack Obama.

Then there's the rest of the problems. Like the fact that there is nothing Obama can do or "waive" that releases the HI DOH from complying with State law.

Is this Orly's "Final" version? Or could she be working up a revision to file on top of this one? I did notice on her site she called it her "third draft."

Though I've been witnessing it all summer, now I'm beginning to take in the scope of the stupidity of this immigrant moron Taitz. I really believed, I wanted to believe, in the back of my mind, that someone just COULDN'T be this damn dumb...

I stand corrected.

Even if it did, it can't change the SSA's policy of not releasing information of a living person. Just because a private citizen's SSN was revealed by accident or even posted doesn't change the agency's policies. It's the same ridiculous argument that he released copies of his original birth record therefore Taitz should be able to look at the original in Hawaii. What an individual did with his copy of his vital record can't change the vital records laws of Hawaii. What an individual does with his Social Security number doesn't change SSA policy.

And what Orlylaw Pleading™ would be complete without requesting, if all of the other drivel fails, that the Court should nevertheless take sua sponte action?



I'm pretty sure this comes straight out of her Taft Skool Speshul Noats on Wremidies §1.1: When there is no conceivable legal theory that would accomplish what you seek, file a speshul motion asking the judge to pull a wremedy out of his or her ass. (Bar Exam Note: The term "sua sponte relief" is Latin for "from the Court's own ass".)

Orly doesn't seem to grasp what sua sponte means or why, if you request it, it is not sua sponte.

I heard Susan Daniels explain that on the radio, I believe on Mark Gillar's show. She said that the language explaining that the "first three digits" state code isn't necessarily accurate was added AFTER she discovered the Connecticut SSN. Falsely claiming that the first three digits don't always correlate to the state of residence is all part of the conspiracy to cover up President Obama's crime when, at age 15, he and Bill Ayers scoured the cemeteries of Connecticut together in order to steal the SSN of a man born in 1890, so President Obama could work in an ice cream shop in Honolulu later that summer ...

I think Judge Lamberth has done his best and has been more patient and forgiving than any American ought to - despite his position as a high-ranking federal chief judge and his power to have already taken serious action to reprimand Taitz.

But he has laid the foundation to sanction her ass silly. His warnings have been clear, concise, stern and serially disregarded by this lunatic. He has reminded her about his ability to sanction her - even sua sponte, and has allowed her to continue making a mockery of his court. Just in case there were ever a doubt about his due diligence in this matter...

He is in the national spotlight, and he knows it - if interest from ABA Journal (thus ABA, non?) and Washington Post are any indication.

Logically, he's set the stage, he's built the legal foundation, and he's dismissed the case - with prejudice. Isn't serious punishment the only next step?

The sanctions are coming, the sanctions are coming!!

Yeah. Any. Day. Now.

Oh, so they wrote their area number disclaimer in response to the questions about Obama's SSN. Sure they did Sue.

The plot goes deeper than that. In 2007, the Social Security Administration changed its policy on how it assigns numbers. They are now entirely random, with no geographic code in them at all. I believe they did this at Bill Ayers request to clear the road for Obama's usurpation of the presidency.

http://ssa.gov/employer/randomization.html

I think the randomization of SSNs was only put into operation very recently - Wiki says June 2011 - my SSN was issued in 2010 and conforms with the old area code system.