Orly Taitz’s case in DC federal court, Taitz v Astrue, was dismissed last month. In a hearing before the Hawaii district court on Taitz’s motion to force the Hawaii Department of Health to answer her subpoena in that case, Taitz announced that although the underlying action had been dismissed, she intended to file a motion for reconsideration.
The Court continued the 8/30 hearing until November 21 and told Taitz to file her motion to reconsider by September 16.
Court adjourned.
Orly has posted her motion for reconsideration on her blog http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=25287. It is, um, underwhelming. She is saying that Obama accidentally posted his 2009 tax returns on the Whitehouse.gov web site with his SSN intact. Therefore, he has willfully waived any right to privacy he had regarding that number and the SSA must release information from the SS-5 application form. Not batshit crazy, but not entirely coherent either. Another birfer fail.
Is that true?
So basically she’s saying that because someone said that someone said that Obama (obviously accidentally if the story is to be believed at all) already allowed a tax return to be released that had an unredacted SSN on one page, that somehow serves to force the SSN Administration to ignore the law?
And that’s the extent of her “explosive new evidence”?
And she really is offering THAT as a reason that the judge should reconsider her fail case?
Really?
Really?
Sorry CT, but I disagree. This is a whole new level of desperation induced batshit crazy.
Even if true, there is no legal theory with which I am familiar that supports the proposition that the accidental release of privileged information constitutes a waiver.
Is that the full extent of Orly’s shocking new evidence?
I don’t see it on the Whitehouse.gov version here http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/04/15/president-obama-and-vice-president-biden-s-tax-returns but perhaps it was inadvertently left in in a previous version. Whether it is true or not does not affect the federal regulations against SSA releasing information about living people. She’s not going to get the SSN application form.
She spends some time in her pleading addressing the illegal evidence she submitted regarding Greg Hollister’s illegal search of Obama’s SSN on the Social Security e-verify system intended only for use by employers to verify SNNs for potential employees. She actual got some sucker named Linda Jordan to re-do the search and includes an affidavit from Ms. Jordan saying that she did the search and that it is legal because the President works for the American people. Poor Linda. She’s obviously been taken in by grifter Orly.
Under that logic, I should be able to search for anyone’s private info legally as long as they work for a company that I own even one share of stock in.
Same (wrong) principle. Very wrong.
Dollars to donuts Orly asked Hollister for an affidavit and he refused. The former AF Col. has learned to keep his mouth shut.
Actually, it isn’t supposed to be used by potential employers. It is to be used only by actual employers to verify the SSN of an employee or independent contractor for the purpose of preparing a W-2 or 1099.
Do you suppose Linda Jordan sent Obama a W-2?
Judge Lamberth may actually sanction Orly for this.
How does she “prove” her point? the returns are in PDF format.
How many layers will Orly’s version contain?
And I forgot to add: will there be a sooper dooper sikrit messuge in the headings saying “Edited by Him, Lucas Smith on 16 April, 2010”?
Not quite. What she says is that the SS# numbers were redacted, but her witness was able to recover the underlying data through manipulation of the document. See page 3 of her Motion and see also the affidavit at Exhibit 1, which clearly states (para. 3):
“I downloaded [the tax return] on my computer. I observed that all information about the president’s and the first lady’s social security numbers were redacted. All blocks or spaces for social security numbres were blank, or “white-out.”
The witness then explains how she opened the doc in Adobe Illustrator, deconstructed the layers and obtained the REDACTED confidential information.
~~
This is called metadata mining – and such activity for the purpose of obtaining confidential data in litigation violates an Attorney’s Professional Code of Conduct in multiple states, including DC.
Agreed. See http://epic.org/privacy/surveillance/spotlight/0707/mou_everify.pdf
See also http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Verification/E-Verify/E-Verify_Native_Documents/manual-employer_comp.pdf — which has a list of what employers using system MUST do and what they MUST NOT do.
Also — rules clearly state that before an employer can create a case in E-Verify, both the employer **and employee** must complete the Employment Eligibility Verification form (Form I-9). See id.
Rules also PROHIBIT employer from using e-verify to check on an employee hired before the employer signs up for the program and accepts the MOU. See id.
And – also (too) – MOU (and Employer Manual) both REQUIRE the employer to safeguard all confidential information obtained through system.
These are just a few of the e-verify rules violated here — I’m sure we could make a long list of the violations.
21 pages long!? Well, they do say brevity is the soul of wit.
According to her affidavit what she actually used was E-Verfiy SELF CHECK which is only supposed to be check on oneself. To use it she would have had to have claimed to be the President!
Mind boggling ineptitude yet again. To paraphrase another….watching this woman attempt to practice law is like watching Edward Scissorshands try to shape balloons into animals.
From a post on Orly’s Blog – just more proof of how ignorant her followers are:
Tim
September 9th, 2011 @ 11:12 am
I have no doubt Orly’s cases will go nowhere. Obama will be reelected. He has an army of communists, blacks, latinos, whites, hackers domestics and foreign, rich supporters domestic and foreign and liberal college kids who will do the footwork and fraud for him. Unless the right start visiting trailer parks and telling the whites that the blacks are coming to lynch them, Obama will win. Nobody cares about politics anymore. At least the masses that matter. Communists are dirty sons of bitches. Even the dead is going to vote this time for him.
It’s also called “incompetence” on the part of whoever published those tax returns.
I also think Adobe shouldn’t require someone to buy the professional version of Acrobat (or use some third party plug-in or print a document on paper) in order to properly redact a document. This should be a feature of the Standard version, IMO.
For more information on redaction of confidential information in documents see:
http://blogs.adobe.com/acrolaw/2010/12/ricks-acrobat-x-redaction-guide/
You can do that in regular Adobe – it just requires another 2 steps. After you make the redactions, save the document as png files (it will save each page as a separate file), then “combine” the png files back into a single PDF file. You lose all OCR that way — but once you recombine, you can then re-OCR the file — but the stuff you redacted is truly gone. I’ve done this dozens and dozens of times — even though I have Adobe Pro — just b/c i “trust” the process more.
Do you suppose Linda Jordon has been filing Form 941- Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Form to report employment taxes and has made bi-weekly federal tax deposits? If not, she can be personally liable for the unremitted taxes.
Here is where I would bet dollars to doughnuts that “someone” (MIB???) had a heart to heart chat with the former soldier. Soon after it came out that it was Hollister that impersonated the President on an official website, he shut up and has kept a very LOW profile. Since he is a retired O-6, he knows many folks which may account for a slap on the wrist so far. I wonder what will happen to him when Orly makes a “Federal Case” out of it…..snicker…guffaw…lol….etc.
I was wondering if the President was a W-2 employee of hers or a 1099 employee???
Either way, she has filing and tax withholding obligations. If an employer does not have a SSN or EIN on file for a contractor, and pays more than $600 in a year, the contractor must withhold and remit federal income tax at a 25% rate. If the “employer” fails to do this, the employer becomes liable for the tax unless (or, in this case, she) can establish to the IRS that the 1099 recipient actually reported the income and paid tax.
So Linda Jordon is in a bit of a dilemma: If, as she swore in her affidavit, she believes Obama is her “employee,” she is obligated to make quarterly filings of employment tax returns and to withhold federal income tax and FICA — and pay the employer’s share of FICA (7.45%) as well as FUTA. She is liable for any unremitted deposits. Or she claim that Obama is a contractor, but since her E-verify failed, she is legally obligated to withhold and remit federal income tax on what he was paid as a contractor. Failure to meet these obligations is, in turn, met with penalties for failure to deposit tax, failure to pay over the tax, and failure to file the employment tax return — all of which are calculated as a percentage of the tax that the employer failed to report and remit..
The President’s annual salary is $400,000. I hope Linda is good at math.