Main Menu

Tag Archives | Examiner.com

When did Greg Hollister check Obama’s SSN?

On February 9, 2011, Greg Hollister (litigant in the Hollister v. Soetoro lawsuit) sent a private email to Orly Taitz, and copied John Hemenway (Hollister’s attorney in the lawsuit), Larry Elgin (Hollister appellate attorney), Susan Daniels (a private investigator assisting Orly Taitz) and Linda Bent (a writer) stating that he had  a web printout from the Social Security Administration indicating that Barack Obama’s social-security number did not pass the Social Security Number Verification System (SSNVS). For background on what that meant, see my March, 2011 article, “More social-security troubles for the President?

Taitz recently published an image of Hollister’s email, but rather than redacting the addresses, I’ll just present the text, making it accessible to search engines at the same time:

Dear Ms. Taitz.

I have been monitoring your efforts at a distance reference the eligibility of Barack Obama to serve as POTUS. I see that you are now filing suit reference his many SSNs.

I have a copy of Obama’s selective service card with the SSN affixed. I, as a small business owner have access to the Social Security Number Verification System. As a result, I checked the SSNVS for the SSN Obama used for registering with Selective Service. The SSNVS search resulted in a report sheet that states that number Obama used to register for Selective Service was never issued.

Let me be direct – i have not agreed with many of your tactics in this endeavor. However, I have continued to follow your efforts to see where there may be synergy and this is one.

Therefore if you think the documents will be helpful, please let me know and I will send you the PDF files for both the Selective Service Card and the SSNVS report that states that SSN was never issued.1

Sincerely
Greg Hollister

Gregory S. Hollister, Colonel, USAF, Retired
President, Hollister Enterprises, LLC2

Hollister doesn’t say when he ran the SSNVS check, but the letter suggests a sequence of events.

Continue Reading →

More social-security troubles for the President?

Gregory Hollister, plaintiff in Hollister v Soetoro, has put forward a story that pours salt on Barack Obama’s social-security number wounds.

Readers will recall that dentist cum attorney Orly Taitz, Esq. DDS sloppily redacted social-security numbers for Barack Obama and others in one of her court filings, announcing to the world Barack Obama’s number. Journalist Spencer Kornhaber verified that this is the number that President Obama used when registering with the Selective Service in 1980 through a public Selective Service verification web site.

Examiner.com reports that Hollister used the Social Security Number Verification System (SSNVS) provided for employers by the Social Security Administration to verify Obama’s published number with the SSA, and claims that the SSA system said, “SSN not in file (never issued)”. Following is an image that claims to show the verification (or lack thereof) for President Obama:

Alleged SSNVS response for Barack Obama (click to enlarge)


What’s wrong with this picture? Simply stated, what Hollister claims to have done is a crime: Continue Reading →

Columbia Examiner goes full-bore birther

Examiner.com, a compendium of bloggers called “Examiners” catered to crank journalism in the article by Dianna Cotter, titled America’s two unconstitutional Presidents.

Cotter claims to have done independent research, and I won’t deny she did, but in this article she contributes little or nothing beyond repeating the arguments presented by denialist lawyer Leo C. Donofrio in his smear campaign against Barack Obama by way of former president Chester A. Arthur. Cotter appears to have researched extensively the historical evidence available and represents it fairly. The problem is that she also took Leo’s unreasoned speculation and puts that in too, mixing fact and fantasy with a result, perhaps not intentionally, that is full-bore birther material. If she had taken the research she did, and then applied some critical thinking to Donofrio, the result might have been something worthwhile.

Following is some of what’s wrong with the article (in bold italics):

  1. “President Arthur was successful in keeping the secret of his heritage.” There is no historical evidence supporting this assertion, and at least one contemporary newspaper account described Arthur as “born an Irishman”.
  2. “[Arthur] was not Constitutionally Qualified for the Office of either Vice President or President, and set a precedent by which it would happen again.” If such were true, why does she think the Congress voted unanimously to certify Obama’s election and the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court swore him in if the well-known fact of Obama’s parentage mattered?
  3. “During the campaign of 1880, questions were asked about Chester’s birth place, but just as today, those doing the research were looking in the wrong direction.” A. P. Hinman in his contemporary account describes the exact situation of Arthur’s father’s naturalization. It is hardly credible that Hinman didn’t know. He just didn’t care. And what “wrong direction” does she think people today are looking?
  4. “[The father’s naturalization] document and its relevance have only recently been discovered.” Or perhaps rediscovered.
  5. “A lawyer and scholar by the name of George D. Collins Esq. wrote an article regarding citizenship during Arthur’s term,” Collins was writing in 1884 in defense of the Chinese Exclusion Act that singled out the Chinese as unfit for citizenship. Collins reviews were rejected by the courts of his day. Today we would describe Collins as a racist and a bigot.
  6. “He also draws upon “The Law of Nations” by Emerich [de] Vattel written in 1758.” Cited by the LOSING side in United States v Wong Kim Ark. The only time De Vattel was cited by the winning side in a citizenship case was in Dred Scott, where the court concluded that African Americans could never be citizens. (See the racist theme?) That decision is widely regarded as one of the worst blunders in the history of the Supreme Court and one of the causes of the Civil War and half a million dead. Continue Reading →