Obama’s Social Security number
Social Security Card
Crusading birther litigant Orly Taitz, DDS, Esq. has adopted the President’s Social Security number(s) as one of her major themes. This was repeated just last week in a filing with the DC federal court, as reported here at Obama Conspiracy Theories. So what’s her beef?
Taitz claims fraud on the part of Obama for (1) using multiple Social Security numbers, and (2) using the Social Security number of someone else.
39 Social Security numbers
In her most recent filing Taitz wrote:
I submitted an affidavit from a licensed investigator Neil Sankey, showing that according to most reputable National databases Lexis Nexis and Choice Point Barack Obama used as many as 39 different social security numbers, none of which were issued in the state of Hawaii, where he resided. (Submitted as an exhibit with the complaint)
I have looked at various filings available from the courts, and I have not personally seen the list of 39 Social Security numbers. What I have seen is various lists of names similar to Obama, mostly living at Obama’s former Chicago address and all having the same Social Security number. From where I sit, I have no documentation available to me that Taitz’s claim is true, and if it is, I would question the accuracy of these databases, which are essentially credit reporting databases aggregated from various sources usually without any verification. We do not know what matching criteria were used to say that these were our president Barack Obama. It all seems rather far fetched. (more…)
Taitz requests preliminary injunction
Orly Taitz has provided the text of her recent filing with the DC federal court. This is not on the court web site yet (perhaps due to the holiday), so I am putting the text here for your information. The court requires that Social Security Numbers be removed from these public filings, a provision violated by Taitz. I have redacted them from this copy.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
HONORABLE ROYCE LAMBERTH
PRESIDING
Civil Action: 10-151 RCL
Dr. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ, PRO SE Plaintiff,
v
Barack Hussein Obama, Defendant
APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
Notice of Application For Preliminary Injunction pursuant to LCvR 65.1 (c), LCvR 65.1 (d)
Plaintiff is seeking a Preliminary Injunction to recuse the US attorney’s office from representing the defendant.
Plaintiff is seeking a Preliminary injunction- Injunctive relief to obtain the vital records of the defendant prior to the February 26 deadline for document and response submission of the response by the Plaintiff to the CA Bar.
Plaintiff is seeking a preliminary injunction hearing within 20 days, as prescribed by LCvR 65.1 (d) to be scheduled by the court prior to March 1st. (more…)
Last one standing
“I am the last attorney standing with an ongoing court case to unseal Obama’s records and remove him from office for fraud”
That’s what Orly Taitz said in an email to Obama Conspiracy Theories, notifying us of a new WorldNetDaily article today about Orly Taitz and her lawsuit in DC federal court. (I find the use of the word “standing” particularly ironic.) Ever ready to give birtherism a boost, WND writer Bob Unruh, wrote a flattering account of the case and its sole plaintiff.
What is interesting about this article is this:
“Plaintiff is seeking a preliminary injunction … to obtain the vital records of the defendant prior to the February 26 deadline for document and response submission of the response by the plaintiff to the [California] bar,” she wrote. “Plaintiff is seeking a preliminary injunction within 20 days, as prescribed by LCvR 65.1 (d) to be scheduled by the court prior to March 1.”
While I was not able to verify that this is an actual filing with the court, it is the first reference I have seen that shows action has been taken by the California bar against Taitz. Will her troubles with the California Bar finally give her an individual stake in Obama’s eligibility? She seems to think so.
I do not see that Obama’s election had a direct causal connection with Taitz’s sanctions nor her other troubles. And in any case, her conduct was sanctionable, no matter where Obama was born.
Allen v. Soetoro dismissed
The Doctor is stifling a big yawn as yet another birther lawsuit bites the dust.
Allen v. Soetoro was a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit demanding a host of documents from the Department of State, Immigration and Naturalization Service and Homeland Security including requests for birth certificates, passports, name change records and so on, insisting on the possibility that President Obama is an illegal alien.
The court upheld the agency regulations that prohibit disclosure of information about a living person without their authorization as consistent with the FOIA.
The return of the Taitz
Prolific birther litigant Orly Taitz is back in a new episode of “the president is a usurper” in the DC District court.
Rather than gathering a long list of plaintiffs, Taitz is the sole pro se plaintiff in this case filed in the District of Columbia January 27, 2010. Judge W. O. Carter formerly rebuffed Taitz’s quo warranto claims in his California court since legislation requires all such lawsuits to be filed DC. Taitz has remedied that particular defect by filing this one in DC. It seems more of the same old same old, although better written than her former fare.
You can read it for yourself here.
More information on Obama’s legal bills
“The monetary cost to the government in defending these … cases was extremely minimal”
We reported earlier on this blog that an Obama attorney (Fredric Woocher) said there is nothing to the myth that Obama is paying his lawyers millions to fight eligibility cases. Woocher’s firm represented Obama in one of the very few cases where Obama attorneys actually filed anything, this time in California. Woocher’s firm was acting pro bono. Obama was represented in Keyes v. Bowen by Aimee Dudovitz, and associate of Strumwasser and Woocher. After this case was dismissed, costs of defense were assessed against the plaintiffs. Obama’s costs were noted as $520 and those of Joe Biden who shared the same attorney were also $520.
Now we have further evidence of minimal legal expenses from Roger West, an assistant US attorney in the central district of California, who represented the Government in the year-long lawsuit, Barnett v. Obama (formerly known as Keyes v. Obama). West told Mother Jones Magazine that the case brought by Orly Taitz was so weak, that it didn’t take much time to file the motions necessary to have it dismissed. He said:
“I filed one motion that didn’t take too long, we’ve had two hearings and that’s it,” he says. “It’s not like we’ve devoted some sort of task force to this.”
Army Major Rebecca Ausprung, who defended the Army in two cases involving service personnel challenging the President said:
“The monetary cost to the government in defending these two cases was extremely minimal,”
When Philip J. Berg was ordered to pay government costs to the Federal Elections Commission after losing his case and appeal, the bill? $20.40. (That amount did not include the attorneys’ time.)
Obama lawyer denies “millions” in fees
This is old news, but as the Internet myth of President Obama spending millions of dollars in legal fees “sealing” documents persists, it bears repeating.
Obama attorney in the California case of Keyes v Bowen (one of the three known cases where Obama was represented by private counsel), Fredric Woocher, said:
“This suit, like all of the others that have been filed challenging Obama’s qualifications for the Presidency, is frivolous,” he said in an email to POLITICO, adding that he is, in fact, working pro bono. “There is absolutely no truth to the stories about the untold millions supposedly being paid to us,” he said.
