Main Menu

Tag Archives | Taitz v. Donahoe

Taitz gets busy

Here it is, only January 3 and Orly Taitz has already posted 17 articles on her blog for the year and announced a number of legal moves. I could change the byline for this blog to “I read Orly Taitz so you don’t have to,” but I’ll stick with tradition. In any case, here are the legal lowlights:

  1. Taitz filed a FOIA request with the District of Columbia Health Benefit Exchange Authority. They replied today saying that disclosure of information about Obama’s enrollment in the exchange is prohibited by law, D. C. Official Code § 20534(a)(2). They also respond that they have no records of any court order to scrub Obama’s records from their database, no regulations requiring them to check for fraudulent social-security numbers, nor any documents relating to a requirement to report identity theft to a court. Taitz sees reports that Obama had difficulty signing up because his federal records are in some way not available to the exchange software a “sign from God.”
  2. The second amended complaint is filed in the case of Taitz v. Colvin, a FOIA lawsuit over the social-security number of a Mr. Bounel born in 1890. In rejecting her previous complaints, the Court explained to Taitz that the response by the government to her request ends the court action unless she alleges that the government’s search is inadequate. Taitz comes back claiming that individuals at the Social Security Administration are attempting to defraud the Court. Rather than explain why she considers the search inadequate, she says that the search was inadequate because the SSA didn’t provide evidence of its adequacy, shifting the burden of proof to the SSA.
  3. Taitz further requests in Taitz v. Colvin that the court refer her evidence of the FOIA officer “acting with malice” to a grand jury, or let Taitz step in for the US Attorney and present it herself (Taitz not even being admitted to the Bar in Maryland), and then she dumps a moldy list of birther talking points about claimed anomalies in various statements and documents. She wants to prosecute basically everything she ever thought was wrong with Barack Obama. This runaround the US Attorney is what I call the “Vogt gambit”, which we know is a loser.
  4. Taitz has filed a motion in opposition to the defense motion for summary judgment by the Postal Service in Taitz v. Donahoe. Taitz is protesting because the judge, Royce C. Lamberth “previously covered up all evidence of fraud and forgery in Barack Obama’s ID in related cases.” The judge is gonna love that. Despite the judge explaining it to her in Taitz v. Colvin, Orly doesn’t get the fact that FOIA lawsuits become moot once the government provides a response, whether timely or late.

Will government shutdown delay birther litigation?

In a story that sounds just too good [that is, bad] to be true, Orly Taitz says that it will. Recall that Taitz has a string of lawsuits against the executive branch to obtain Social Security records she thinks will prove Obama is using someone else’s SSN. She is also suing the Postal Service to get information about Obama’s Selective Service filing done at a post office in Hawaii.  Orly says in a press release [links to Taitz web site] that she got a phone call from “Daniel Van Horn, Chief of Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice” saying that the DOJ would seek an extension of time to reply in the Taitz v. Donahoe case because of the shutdown. Donahoe is the Postmaster General.

Taitz seems to be a bit more careful after been the victim of a string of hoaxes, at least noting and reporting the phone number that called her. The story sounds fishy for a several reasons. First, it doesn’t seem likely to me for the Chief of the Civil Division to be making phone calls in a pissant lawsuit such as Taitz v. Donahoe.  The second is the rather remarkable alleged disclosure that material submitted by Taitz had “disappeared” from the DOJ mail room (the kind of thing Taitz claims a lot but seems unlikely). Daniel Van Horn is more precisely the Chief of the Civil Division for the US Attorney’s office for the District of Columbia, but the phone number Taitz reports doesn’t tie back to the US Attorney’s office. I did a reverse phone number lookup on it, and it went to Fannie Mae (The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA)!

Privacy Star link showing phone 202-752-2506 belonging to Fannie Mae

Let’s play silly for a minute. Who do we know that is an Obama supporter, and the former head of Fannie Mae? None other than the venerable James A. Johnson, identified by Jerome Corsi as Obot and Fogbow poster Jimbot, aka neonzx. Re-entering the real world, I point out the word “former,” and of course JimBot is not the same person anyway.

I am painfully aware of my own confirmation bias when looking at an allegation to spot a hoax. I have an uninformed opinion about how the DOJ works and who would call whom that I use to make a decision. The phone number lookup could be unreliable. Still I was able to pile up enough points to tag this article “Punking the Birthers.”

Thanks to commenter Joe for the tip. You can read the text from the Taitz article in his comment moved below.


This article has been updated to indicate that Donahoe is the Postmaster General, and that the suit against the Postal Service is related to Obama’s Selective Service application.

Orly sues the post office

I guess you can’t be a crusading attorney without an active lawsuit. Orly Taitz isn’t generating much buzz with her languishing case in Mississippi, and her not-so-sexy appeals, so here’s a new shiny object to garner attention, Taitz v. Donahoe et al.

Yes, dear reader, Orly Taitz has sued the Postmaster General. “Why,” you ask, and well you should. What did the Post Office do to warrant a 62-page complaint? They didn’t respond satisfactorily to a Freedom of Information Act request. Taitz had filed a complaint with the Postal Service’s Inspector General, claiming that Obama’s Selective Service registration was faked (these registrations are filed at post offices and received by postal personnel). The IG didn’t respond and Taitz filed a FOIA to find out what happened to her complaint. They didn’t respond to her FOIA request either, she says.

I have a lot of experience with non-responsive government agencies to FOIA requests, and I can appreciate Taitz’ frustration. What I can’t understand, however, is what she expects the Postal Service to do about an encounter between Obama and some unidentified postal clerk 30 years ago, an encounter that the birthers claimed never happened.

Taitz makes lengthy citations from the FOIA statutes and regulations. She then attaches a number of partially-illegible documents (Orly consistently fails to provide legible scanned documents in her court filings). She provides some images, ripped off from the Cold Case Posse, who in turn ripped off the research of Debbie Schlussel.

The problem for the Postal Service is that they apparently didn’t respond to the FOIA within the statutory time limit, which means (if I understand this) that the Court has jurisdiction and may instruct the Postal Service to respond. Their response will likely be,

image I know nothing, nothing.

Read the complaint here (at least the legible part):

Continue Reading →