Main Menu

Tag Archives | Social Science Association

Taitz punked again? Fake SSA letter?

Orly Taitz is all excited, and has released a press release [link to Taitz web site], writing that:

Investigator, Mr. Brewer , working with attorney Taitz, finally received a confirmation from the SSA that they indeed have records of Harry Bounel, whose SSN 042-68-4425 Obama is using. It is interesting that they released without problems records of other deceased individuals, such as Thomas Wood, whose SSN 042-68-4424 is just one before Bouel’s, (sic) but they stated that the Bounel’s social Security application is with the Office of Earnings Operations.

Of course one’s initial response is that Taitz is reading something that isn’t there, which she well may be. She has a document on SSA letterhead that says:

This letter is in response to your February 3, 2014 inquiry to Acting Commissioner Colvin concerning your request for the late Mr. Harrison J. Bounel’s Social Security records. The records you requested are under the jurisdiction of our Office of Earnings Operations. We are referring your inquiry to that office. The officials there will look into the situation you described and reply directly to you. You should hear from them soon.

Signed? “Social Security Administration.” imageYeah, right. I have several letters from agencies responding to FOIA matters and they are universally signed by some individual. I think Taitz has been punked again. However, if the letter is legitimate, it actually doesn’t confirm that Bounel has any records with Social Security, but rather all Social Security records are handled by the Office of Earnings Operations. What it says is that records, not Bounel’s records, are under the Office of Earnings Operations.


Based on discussions on this article, I think the letter is probably authentic, but misunderstood. It’s not saying that the records exist, but that the described request was being forwarded to another office.

1The file referenced  is an optimized version of the original Taitz.

Field rejects the legal status of natural law

The influential lawyer and legal reformer David Dudley Field gave an address to the Social Science Association in 1866. The title of his talk was “An International Code.”

In that address, Field made the following interesting comments about writers on international law, and I think it applies directly to the writings of Emerich de Vattel:

Who made these rules, or this international law if you so call it, is explained by the definition which I have given. It was made by the nations themselves, either through express compact with each other or through general practice; that is to say: by treaty or by usage. Publicists, I know, looking beyond the rules so made or sanctioned, have sought in those moral precepts by which nations, not less than individuals, ought to be governed in their intercourse with each other for guides in other circumstances; and statesmen and diplomatists have often fortified their arguments by reference to such opinions, and it has thus frequently happened that those precepts have been gradually adopted into the usage of nations. These views of the publicists are, however, to be regarded rather as suggestions of what ought to be the conduct of nations in particular circumstances than as a statement of established rules. They are entitled to the same weight in the decision of national disputes as a treatise on natural law is entitled to in the decision of a case by the courts of America or England. [Emphasis added.]