Taitz v. Astrue - FOIA action

Joseph Robidoux III · **Posted:** Mon Oct 17, 2011 10:36 am

Orly got the Taitz name right. That's all that matters to her.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23594

TAITZ v ASTRUE (USDC D.C.)

New Docket Entry...

Quote:

10/17/201 139 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 36 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on October 17, 2011. (lcrcl2) (Entered: 10/17/2011)

link shortly

Another not so lucky day for Orly
Taitz v Ruemmler also DISMISSED today
See thread with link shortly

Welsh Dragon · **Posted:** Mon Oct 17, 2011 3:59 pm

So much for my prediction of an order sometime after Xmas!

majorbabs · **Posted:** Mon Oct 17, 2011 4:09 pm

realist wrote:

TAITZ v ASTRUE (USDC D.C.)

New Docket Entry...

Quote:

10/17/201 139 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 36 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on October 17, 2011. (lcrcl2) (Entered: 10/17/2011)

link shortly

Another not so lucky day for Orly
Taitz v Ruemmler also DISMISSED today
See thread with link shortly

It's all a lie!!! Orly warned us when she posted the following on her website: "PS Obots are sending desinformation. Please, spread the ord and e-mails and articles with wording “Orly Taitz subpoena Hawaii” it will help bump this issue up in searches"

Epectitus · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:55 pm **Posts:** 2361

Quote:

The Court is loath to dignify plaintiff’s allegations of fraud with a response on the merits. However, suffice it to say that plaintiff’s argument is premised on the incorrect assumption that Social Security numbers assigned prior to 1973 have any correlation to the recipient’s residence, see Employer Filing Instructions and Information,http://www.socialsecurity.gov/employer/stateweb.htm (“Prior to 1973, social security numbers were assigned by ourfield offices. The [first three] number[s] merely established that his/her card was issued by one of our offices in that State.”). Plaintiff’s entire premise is totally defeated by a cursory examination of this site, which demonstrates that plaintiff’s allegations lack any basis in fact.

Highlands · **Posted:** Mon Oct 17, 2011 4:11 pm

Love footnotes 1 and 2 on page three of the order. :xo

Next time, sanctions please!

MaineSkeptic · **Joined:** Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:48 pm **Posts:** 5295

Epectitus wrote:

Quote:

The Court is loath to dignify plaintiff’s allegations of fraud with a response on the merits. However, suffice it to say that plaintiff’s argument is premised on the incorrect assumption that Social Security numbers assigned prior to 1973 have any correlation to the recipient’s residence, see Employer Filing Instructions and Information,http://www.socialsecurity.gov/employer/stateweb.htm (“Prior to 1973, social security numbers were assigned by ourfield offices. The [first three] number[s] merely established that his/her card was issued by one of our offices in that State.”). Plaintiff’s entire premise is totally defeated by a cursory examination of this site, which demonstrates that plaintiff’s allegations lack any basis in fact.

Wasn't Obama's SSAN issued subsequent to 1973?

Epectitus · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:55 pm **Posts:** 2361

MaineSkeptic wrote:

Epectitus wrote:

Quote:

The Court is loath to dignify plaintiff’s allegations of fraud with a response on the merits. However, suffice it to say that plaintiff’s argument is premised on the incorrect assumption that Social Security numbers assigned prior to 1973 have any correlation to the recipient’s residence, see Employer Filing Instructions and Information,http://www.socialsecurity.gov/employer/stateweb.htm (“Prior to 1973, social security numbers were assigned by ourfield offices. The [first three] number[s] merely established that his/her card was issued by one of our offices in that State.”). Plaintiff’s entire premise is totally defeated by a cursory examination of this site, which demonstrates that plaintiff’s allegations lack any basis in fact.

Wasn't Obama's SSAN issued subsequent to 1973?

No... post 1975 IIRC.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23594

Highlands wrote:

Love footnotes 1 and 2 on page three of the order. :xo

Next time, sanctions please!

Quote:

From footnote 1 and 2

Quote:

1 The Court is loath to dignify plaintiff’s allegations of fraud with a response on the merits. However, suffice it to say that plaintiff’s argument is premised on the incorrect assumption that Social Security numbers assigned prior to 1973 have any correlation to the recipient’s residence, see Employer Filing Instructions and Information, http://www.socialsecurity.gov/employer/stateweb.htm (“Prior to 1973, social security numbers were assigned by our field offices. The [first three] number[s] merely established that his/her card was issued by one of our offices in that State.”). Plaintiff’s entire premise is totally defeated by a cursory examination of this site, which demonstrates that plaintiff’s allegations lack any basis in fact.

2 Furthermore, the Court notes that individuals may only use the E-Verify Self Check service to check their own employment eligibility, and that to do so an individual must answer a series of private questions before gaining access to the system. See Self Check : Terms of Use, https://selfcheck.uscis.gov/SelfCheckUI.

hint hint wink wink

Wish it were more. Orly nor her minions will "get it" but it is exactly what was said her from day one... the only fraud being committed here is by those abusing the system such as Linda Jordan and others, and perhaps (and most likely, IMO) with not only Orly's knowledge but consent and perhaps even direction.

MaineSkeptic · **Joined:** Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:48 pm **Posts:** 5295

Epectitus wrote:

MaineSkeptic wrote:

Wasn't Obama's SSAN issued subsequent to 1973?

No... post 1975 IIRC.

And how is that not subsequent to 1973?

Epectitus · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:55 pm **Posts:** 2361

MaineSkeptic wrote:

Epectitus wrote:

MaineSkeptic wrote:

Wasn't Obama's SSAN issued subsequent to 1973?

No... post 1975 IIRC.

And how is that not subsequent to 1973?

I misread your post... fixed it above.

Highlands · **Posted:** Mon Oct 17, 2011 4:30 pm

realist wrote:

Orly nor her minions will "get it" but it is exactly what was said her from day one... the only fraud being committed here is by those abusing the system such as Linda Jordan and others, and perhaps (and most likely, IMO) with not only Orly's knowledge but consent and perhaps even direction.

Is His Honor under any sort of obligation (either legal or ethical) to report this fraud to the authorities? Or the CA Bar?

[-o<

obot 1024 · **Joined:** Mon Sep 27, 2010 2:25 pm **Posts:** 639

realist wrote:

TAITZ v ASTRUE (USDC D.C.)

New Docket Entry...

Quote:

10/17/201 139 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 36 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth on October 17, 2011. (lcrcl2) (Entered: 10/17/2011)

link shortly

Another not so lucky day for Orly
Taitz v Ruemmler also DISMISSED today
See thread with link shortly

Paging AG Nagamine....that pile of poo on your desk can now be cleaned off.

majorbabs · **Posted:** Mon Oct 17, 2011 4:42 pm

MaineSkeptic wrote:

Epectitus wrote:

Quote:

The Court is loath to dignify plaintiff’s allegations of fraud with a response on the merits. However, suffice it to say that plaintiff’s argument is premised on the incorrect assumption that Social Security numbers assigned prior to 1973 have any correlation to the recipient’s residence, see Employer Filing Instructions and Information,http://www.socialsecurity.gov/employer/stateweb.htm (“Prior to 1973, social security numbers were assigned by ourfield offices. The [first three] number[s] merely established that his/her card was issued by one of our offices in that State.”). Plaintiff’s entire premise is totally defeated by a cursory examination of this site, which demonstrates that plaintiff’s allegations lack any basis in fact.

Wasn't Obama's SSAN issued subsequent to 1973?

It just so happens our ailing Foggy (I really hope he's doing better) included a section for special reports and one of those reports deals with Obama's SSN (issued Mar 21,1977).

Here's the link:
The President's Social Security Number

It never dawned on me there's Special Reports section since I access Fogbow by going directly to the Forum. I guess I'll need to make a point to check out the homepage every once and a while. I didn't see an author for this report, but whoever did it did an excellent job. I wish I had known this report (as well as the other reports listed in the Special Reports ) about this because I could have saved so most trying to re-find information.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Mon Oct 17, 2011 4:52 pm

Well, Taitz still has Taitz v. Hillary Clinton. If she's smart she'll file this one in the Central District of California and keep her mouth shut about a related case. It will then go "on the wheel" and be randomly assigned to a judge. If she doesn't try to make it a Santa Ana case it can be assigned to a judge in L.A. and she'll avoid Carter and Guilford, who are now aware of her tricks.

But, knowing Taitz (and because she doesn't want to win, just have an active case pending), she'll either file this in D.C. and try to get Lamberth assigned (being the Sisyphus she is), or file in Santa Ana and try to relate to Barnett.

Cross-posted in Taitz v. Ruemmler.

bob · **Posted:** Mon Oct 17, 2011 4:53 pm

Quote:

More cover up of Obama forgery and fraud by the federal court

xxx-http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=26568

MaineSkeptic · **Joined:** Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:48 pm **Posts:** 5295

majorbabs wrote:

MaineSkeptic wrote:

Epectitus wrote:

Quote:

The Court is loath to dignify plaintiff’s allegations of fraud with a response on the merits. However, suffice it to say that plaintiff’s argument is premised on the incorrect assumption that Social Security numbers assigned prior to 1973 have any correlation to the recipient’s residence, see Employer Filing Instructions and Information,http://www.socialsecurity.gov/employer/stateweb.htm (“Prior to 1973, social security numbers were assigned by ourfield offices. The [first three] number[s] merely established that his/her card was issued by one of our offices in that State.”). Plaintiff’s entire premise is totally defeated by a cursory examination of this site, which demonstrates that plaintiff’s allegations lack any basis in fact.

Wasn't Obama's SSAN issued subsequent to 1973?

It just so happens our ailing Foggy (I really hope he's doing better) included a section for special reports and one of those reports deals with Obama's SSN (issued Mar 21,1977).

So why is Judge Lamberth basing his decision on procedures that were in effect prior to 1973?

Welsh Dragon · **Posted:** Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:05 pm

Careless cutting and pasting IMO.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:06 pm

Welsh Dragon wrote:

Careless cutting and pasting IMO.

There's another bad one I found, too. Let's see if the Chaleria picks it up as a MTRTR. And maybe add a motion to recuse, too, since Lamberth shouldn't have granted the Chaleria's request and allowed himself to take the case in the first place.

Mikedunford · **Posted:** Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:30 pm

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Welsh Dragon wrote:

Careless cutting and pasting IMO.

There's another bad one I found, too. Let's see if the Chaleria picks it up as a MTRTR. And maybe add a motion to recuse, too, since Lamberth shouldn't have granted the Chaleria's request and allowed himself to take the case in the first place.

Right. Besides, if there's a MTRTR and a motion to recuse still pending, then the case is still alive* and the November hearing in Hawaii can still go forward. And if the MTRTR and motion to recuse are denied before late November, she can still stretch this one out if she can provoke an Order to Show Cause - all she'll have to do there is move for an extension of time to reply, and hey! presto! live case, and live Hawaii hearing.

And if she gets her hands on the real records, the OSC will obviously be ruled on in her favor, so no worries there.

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in before you can view hidden messages

majorbabs · **Posted:** Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:34 pm

MaineSkeptic wrote:

majorbabs wrote:

MaineSkeptic wrote:

Epectitus wrote:

Quote:

The Court is loath to dignify plaintiff’s allegations of fraud with a response on the merits. However, suffice it to say that plaintiff’s argument is premised on the incorrect assumption that Social Security numbers assigned prior to 1973 have any correlation to the recipient’s residence, see Employer Filing Instructions and Information,http://www.socialsecurity.gov/employer/stateweb.htm (“Prior to 1973, social security numbers were assigned by ourfield offices. The [first three] number[s] merely established that his/her card was issued by one of our offices in that State.”). Plaintiff’s entire premise is totally defeated by a cursory examination of this site, which demonstrates that plaintiff’s allegations lack any basis in fact.

Wasn't Obama's SSAN issued subsequent to 1973?

It just so happens our ailing Foggy (I really hope he's doing better) included a section for special reports and one of those reports deals with Obama's SSN (issued Mar 21,1977).

So why is Judge Lamberth basing his decision on procedures that were in effect prior to 1973?

I don't think he's basing his decision based on procedures in effect prior to 1973. Rather I think the Judge is making a point that SSA procedures changed in 1973. Obama received his SSN in 1977. Before 1973, ONLY folks living in Connecticut could get a prefix like Obama's SSN. After 1977, the SSN's prefixes were not tied to any given state which meant that a young boy living in Hawaii in 1977 could very well have been assigned a SSN prefix that USED to be unique to Connecticut. By pointing out the 1973 date, the Judge destroys Orly's rational that in 1977, the ONLY way you could get a SSN with a prefix similar to Obama's was to live in Connecticut.

At least that's the way I read. Since I'm not a lawyer I could be wrong.

Edit: Edited Changed from Obama being born in 1977, to he got his SSN in 1977. It's not every day that you can age someone 16 years with a simple click of a mouse.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23594

Quote:

I don't think he's basing his decision based on procedures in effect prior to 1973. Rather I think the Judge is making a point that SSA procedures changed in 1973. Obama was born in 1977. :shock:

Before 1973, ONLY folks living in Connecticut could get a prefix like Obama's SSN. After 1977, the SSN's prefixes were not tied to any given state which meant that a young boy living in Hawaii in 1977 could very well have been assigned a SSN prefix that USED to be unique to Connecticut. By pointing out the 1973 date, the Judge destroys Orly's rational that in 1977, the only way you could get a SSN with a prefix similar to Obama's was to live in Connecticut.

At least that's the way I read. Since I'm not a lawyer I could be wrong.

majorbabs · **Posted:** Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:38 pm

realist wrote:

Quote:

I don't think he's basing his decision based on procedures in effect prior to 1973. Rather I think the Judge is making a point that SSA procedures changed in 1973. Obama was born in 1977. :shock:

Before 1973, ONLY folks living in Connecticut could get a prefix like Obama's SSN. After 1977, the SSN's prefixes were not tied to any given state which meant that a young boy living in Hawaii in 1977 could very well have been assigned a SSN prefix that USED to be unique to Connecticut. By pointing out the 1973 date, the Judge destroys Orly's rational that in 1977, the only way you could get a SSN with a prefix similar to Obama's was to live in Connecticut.

At least that's the way I read. Since I'm not a lawyer I could be wrong.

Well Obama is/was ahead of his time?!? I fixed it.

bob · **Posted:** Mon Oct 17, 2011 6:12 pm

Taitz wrote:

I have no doubt my motion for reconsideration will be granted. (Aug. 30, 2011, Taitz v. Astrue (D. Hi.).)

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23594

bob wrote:

Taitz wrote:

I have no doubt my motion for reconsideration will be granted. (Aug. 30, 2011, Taitz v. Astrue (D. Hi.).)

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

Taitz v. Astrue - FOIA action

Who is online