is seeking to revive this long dead and affirmed-on-appeal case. Let's hope Judge Lamberth gives her and the case the reconsideration they deserve.
The basis for the motion to reconsider is that Taitz has new evidence (though she hasn't posted what it is) that Harrison Bounel was issued the social security number Taitz claims belongs to President Obama, and under a 120-year rule of the Social Security Administration (which she wants the court to judicially notice), all of the information concerning Bounel should be released.
As usual, in strict conformance to the Sternsig Rule, Taitz misses a few things. While there are many more than these problems, here are a few:
1. She hasn't proven the number in question was ever issued to anyone including President Obama (though she gets tantalizingly close).
2. She has no proof that any social security number was ever issued to Mr. Bounel.
3. The "evidence" isn't new in the sense that it wasn't available when Taitz first filed this frivolous lawsuit.
4. There is no "Emergency" (nor "eergency").
5. The case is long dead. (I suspect she's trying to save on filing fees.)
Other than that, pure genius.
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, STE 100
Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688
Tel: (949) 683-5411; Fax (949) 766-7603
E-Mail:
dr_taitz@yahoo.com,
orly.taitz@gmail.comUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Dr. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ, PRO SE
Plaintiff,
v.
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATIONMichael Astrue, Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration,
11-cv-00402 Respondent
Honorable Royce Lamberth Chief Justice presiding Request FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FILED IN Conjunction with AN EERGENCY [sic] MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Plaintiff Pro Se Dr. Orly Taitz (hereinafter “Taitz”) hereby requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following document attached as Exhibit 1. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Chief FOIA Officer Report for 2011
This request is made pursuant to Rule 201 (a), (b)1, (b)2, (c)2 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
RULE 201. JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ADJUDICATIVE FACTS
(a) Scope. This rule governs judicial notice of an adjudicative fact only, not a legislative fact.
(b) Kinds of Facts That May Be Judicially Noticed. The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it:
(1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or
(2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.
(c) Taking Notice. The court:
(1) may take judicial notice on its own; or
(2) must take judicial notice if a party requests it and the court is supplied with the necessary information.
(d) Timing. The court may take judicial notice at any stage of the proceeding.
(e) Opportunity to Be Heard. On timely request, a party is entitled to be heard on the propriety of taking judicial notice and the nature of the fact to be noticed. If the court takes judicial notice before notifying a party, the party, on request, is still entitled to be heard.
Social security administration Chief FOIA Officer report is
(1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or
(2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.
Aforementioned report is posted on the official web site of the Social Security administration
http://www.ssa.govand under 201 C (2) must take judicial notice if a party requests it and the court is supplied with the necessary information.
the report in question is relevant to the proceeding as Petitioner Taitz is seeking reconsideration of the decision by the SSA to deny her release of the SS-5 for the Social Security number REDACTED due to privacy considerations. In her motion for reconsideration Taitz provides newly discovered evidence showing that the Social Security number in question was assigned to Harrison J. Bounel, an immigrant from Russia, born in 1890. Fed. R. Evid. Rule 201. Under Fed. R. Evid. Rule 201(f) judicial notice may be taken at any stage of the proceeding. Government of Canal Zone v Burjan, 596 F.2d 690, 694 (5th Circ. 1979).
SSA Chief Foia Officer report in question in Section I, (1) (c) states
We have revisited longstanding decisions regarding the withholding of certain frequently requested data, to determine if our recommended guidance is still applicable and reflects the presumption of openness. For instance, we issued new guidance for disclosing extremely aged individuals’ original Social Security Applications (SS-5) when our records do not indicate a date of death. We developed a new policy that establishes a “120 year rule” and assumes that an individual is alive unless their birth date exceeds 120 years or we have proof of the individual’s death. This new policy enabled us to release more information and potentially reduced requests on appeal.
Since Harrison J. Bounel was born in 1890, he would be 123 years old and according to aforementioned 120 year rule SSA was obligated to release his SS0-5 under FOIA 5US 552.
CONCLUSION
This court should take the Judicial notice of the SSA Chief FOIA Officer report
Respectfully submitted
/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ
President of the Defend Our Freedoms Foundation
05.18.2013
cc Inspector General of the Social Security Administration
cc senator Chuck Grassley ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee
cc Congressman Bob Goodlatte Chair of the House Judiciary Committee
cc Daryl Issa, Chair of the House Oversight Committee
cc Inspector general of IRS
I look forward to seeing her accompanying papers, which have probably been drafted with the same care and attention to detail as her request for judicial notice.
Prediction: These papers and Taitz's subsequent request for default will all be ignored.
Login
Register
FAQ
)
](./images/smilies/brickwall.gif "brickwall")
