I cannot imagine that someone in upper levels of Social Security does not have an explanation for the anomaly of the 042- area assignment but it is illegal for them to divulge the information unless a federal judge decides its in the public interest or unless Obama granted permission or a waiver to divulge the information. It should be enough that Social Security has always had a disclaimer about the assignments. By itself, it is not evidence of any kind of fraud. It would have never occurred to me when I was 16 and applied for a Social Security to check it to make sure the number was correct as to the state designation. If it had been different, was I supposed to insist that it be changed in case I wanted to run for president some day?

Yes, of course (assuming your skin pigmentation is darker than the average WASP).

Thanks esseff44 and realist.

Richard S. Flahavan's short reply includes, “This Agency has no evidence that President Obama’s 1980 registration is not authentic.” I'm sure that Butterbutt would parse it to mean that they also don't have any evidence that it is authentic!

Or after he is 100 years old or after his death. (¡Viva Obama!)

Isn't that a bit like throwing someone into a lake to see if they are a witch and if they drown they are innocent?

So Daniels is asking the SOS to investigate, but as I read the sections quoted in the complaint the SOS would only have to review the validity of the submissions of the political parties. There seems to be no wording that mandates the inclusion of any third party information, far less the inclusion of unproven speculative conspiracy material. Ot to speak of the often mentioned fact of no SSN requirement for POTUS candidates.

PS. What happened with the assumption of being innocent until proven and convicted of a crime? Why do bifers think that any SOS could initiate a criminal investigation of their own? And no such "investigation" would end in a criminal court.

In Ohio the SoS is charged with investigating all irregularities or potential violations of election law. See Ohio Rev Code § 3501.05(N)(1).

The 2008 lawsuits were dismissed because under Ohio law there is no mechanism for a person to challenge the qualifications of a presidential nominee certified to the Ohio ballot by a political party pursuant to R.C. 3505.10(B).

In Neal v. Brunner, the court indicated that the Secretary of State has no duty to investigate unsubstantiated information from the internet.

Didn't anyone tell Granny Susan PI to research case law prior to filing her complaint But then it's only her that is querying irrelevant SSNs.

My point was exactly about how unproven accusations of misuse SSNs, never presented in a criminal court, could be seen as a "irregularity" and it for sure cannot be classifief as a "potential violation of election law".

Granny Sue can say "But, but, but, I'm the one who put that unsubstantiated information on the internet!"

I was responding to:



The birfers are right that the Ohio SoS can initiate a criminal investigation sua sponte. They're wrong that the SoS is mandated to do so, or would ever do so in this case. Husted is probably the best SoS we've had since Sherrod Brown back in the 80s.

ooooh, got any links? I'm updating the SSN page in the Home pages.

Actually, that could just mean they're not a very competent witch. (Just kidding to my favorite Fogbow witch!)

I hate to say it, but it looks to me like Susan may be succeeding -- somewhat -- where Orly has consistently flat-out failed.

But first, it's necessary to disabuse oneself of the notion that Susan is bringing this lawsuit with the expectation of getting anywhere in court. I'm sure she knows that a valid social security number is not an eligibility requirement and she also probably understands that rest of her legal underpinings are infirm or missing altogether.

This is a publicity stunt, plain and simple. Susan knows that if she wrote an article or paper presenting her "position", no one of consequence will read or republish it. There's no good place to peddle it. Filing a lawsuit, on the other hand, is an event worthy of a press announcement. It gives the likes of Jack Cashill a platform -- presumably official and serious -- for repeating the allegations and opining on the importance of these (not-so-new) scandalous developments.

Yabbut Orly's spewed the same nonsense a hundred times, right? So why does Susan appear to be getting just a hint of traction with parts of the fake rightwing press by focusing on the social security "issue"? Easy: You take one issue at a time and beat on it.

In contrast, Orly is incapable of singling out a point and driving it home. Whenever she opens her mouth, she seems compelled to unload a dozen allegations in a single breath. Blah, blah, blah. As a consequence, readers/listeners quickly tune her out. (It doesn't help that she comes off as a disagreeable, unlikable screeching bitch while she's doing it either.) No matter how many charges she unleashes, her screeds get summarized by the press as an accusation that Obama is not a qualified Hawaiian-born citizen. The social security "issue" and selective service crap (and sundry other conspiracy theories) are lost in the din. It's too painful to take in.

Naturally, Granny Susan's lawsuit has no merit whatsoever as a lawsuit. But as a publicity stunt meant to broaden the discourse about the so-called social security number controversy? I'm not so sure she won't have an impact and, assuming that's her purpose, she'd be wise to keep herself distanced from Orly. Way, way too many people already have Orly pegged.

Obviously this is not a credible legal threat. But is it a PR threat (albeit minor) to the Obama campaign? I guess we'll see.

I'm not surprised that Susan Daniels has filed without Taitz' "assistance" and without sending her a copy of the complaint.

Watch the video from the day the devil went down to Georgia. Afterward, Daniels and Taitz were competing for face time, setting up their interviews side-by-side and talking over one another.

There is no love lost there.

Well of course there isn't. My Beloved Orlana has used Susan Daniels "work product" eleventy-twelve times, but only paid for it once, if at all, which is doubtful. Orly's gettin' all those PayPal birfer bucks and Suzie wants her a taste.

Is it just me, or does Exhibit 20 (pg 81) reek of reading comprehension FAIL?

It says quite clearly that they don't re-assign SSN#'s, which Susan Daniels is presumably hoping will back her claim that President Obama haven't had a new SSN# issued, yet it then fleshes out that there are more than enough numbers available in the SSN# pool to cover their immediate requirements, hence there's no need to reassign any SSN#.

Reading over the motion, it looks like Daniels might have a bit of a jurisdictional problem. Most oaths that are sworn end "So help me God," which could be taken either as the oath-taker's request for God's assistance in fulfilling the oath or indicating that they are aware they should be afraid of God should they fail to fulfill the oath. But here's the oath Husted swore, as per Daniels' transcription from a YouTube video:



That phrasing isn't asking for God's assistance, it's a statement that if the oath-taker violates the oath, it is GOD who will stand in judgment upon them - not the citizens of Ohio, not the Justice System, just God. As such, it would appear that the courts have no jurisdiction to hear the case. Ms. Daniels' may have to figure out how to petition God for a hearing if she really wants to carry this through....











</snark>

Where have we heard that Orly hired Daniels as a PI to do a background check on the Obamas? My understanding has always been that Susan Daniels undertook the "investigation" on her own and sent the information to Orly, not that Orly hired her.

I thought the problem for Daniels with Ohio law was that she snooped around on her own using databases available to her only because she's licensed as a private investigator in Ohio and she's allowed to use those databases only when she's conducting a legitimate investigation for a client. The temps working for the State Dept who snooped into Obama's, Clinton's and McCain's passport records using databases to which they had access but had no legitimate reason to search face criminal charges. The Ohio Family Services worker who checked on Joe the Plumber using databases available with no legitimate reason was fired and almost criminally charged. I always thought Daniels could face similar charges and loss of her license if she ever drew attention from the right people that she'd run a background check on the President with no legitimate reason.

Docket Update

DOCKET SHEET

Time: 10:13:04 AM
STYLE: DANIELS vs. OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE CASE: 12M000653
ACTION: OTHER CIVIL (M) FILE DATE: 7/2/2012
JUDGE : DAVID L. FUHRY
SUSAN DANIELS PLAINTIFF
9754 THWING RD
CHARDON, OH 44024
PROSE ATTORNEY
OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE DEFENDANT
180 E BROAD ST 16TH FLOOR
COLUMBUS, OH 43215
JON HOUSTED AKA
180 E BROAD ST 16TH FLOOR
COLUMBUS, OH 43215
****** DOCKET ENTRIES ******
07/02/2012 DEPOSIT ON CIVIL CASE: $121.00 MADE BY SUSAN DANIELS Receipt: 67586 Date: 07/02/2012
07/02/2012 INITIAL FILING FEES FOR CIVIL CASES Receipt: 67586 Date: 07/02/2012
07/02/2012 CASE DESIGNATION SHEET FILED.
07/02/2012 COMPLAINT AND MOTION FOR TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND MANDAMUS FILED.
07/05/2012 SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT SENT
07/05/2012 Issue Date: 07/05/2012 Service: SUMMONS WITH COMPLAINT Method: CERTIFIED MAIL - CP Cost Per: $ 8.00 OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE 180 E BROAD ST 16TH FLOOR COLUMBUS, OH 43215 Tracking No: 71969008911103886609

Alright, found in Daniels' testimony at the Georgia Circus, page 10:

She doesn't say she was hired by Orly though. She never said anyone hired her in her August 2009 affidavit

In her Geauga County filing she says:


Her 2009 affidavit has lots of attachments with title"Tracers Information Specialists", a subscription site for which you must state the purpose for the non-public information available. Tracers restricts use to certain purposes. I don't see "background check on the President" on the list of approved uses In her recent Geauga County complaint, she includes just one page from the Tracers Information results, the one that has 1890 for a date of birth.(Exhibit 17b) The Tracers Information title was excluded this time.

Who hired Daniels in 2009? Was it Orly? Has Daniels "advanced" her story to include being hired by someone because she realizes if she did all that locating and investigating and researching on her own with no legitimate purpose she's got a problem?

Sorry if I've replowed old ground.

She is trying to overcome the previous rulings where the plaintiffs lacked personal knowledge

On page 7, paragraph 22, Daniels says she was engaged to investigate Obama's background in August, 2009. She does not say who it was that 'engaged' her. How legitimate it was is another question.

How can you have personal knowledge of "evidence" that doesn't exist?