On June 25, Orly Taitz (DBA Defend Our Freedoms Foundation) filed suit in Maryland federal court against Carolyn Colvin, the current Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. It’s a lawsuit involving a request under the Freedom of Information Act for the Social Security application of one Harry Bounel, born in 1890. Taitz thinks that the social-security number used by President Obama really belongs to Bounel.
Taitz is not licensed to represent anyone else in Maryland, but she can represent herself. Why Maryland? She can file in Maryland, the closest district to where the records are kept; she could file in the District of Columbia where she already filed and lost a FOIA lawsuit; she could file at home in California, a lore logical choice. A summons was issued to the Commissioner on July 9.
The Amended Complaint (see below), while 36 pages in length, is skimpy on details. Most of the Complaint consists of lengthy and unnecessary regurgitations of federal statutes, regulations and reprints of federal web sites. The gist of Taitz’ claim is that she made a FOIA request for Bounel’s SS-5 form, to which she is entitled if it exists because the request is for someone older than 120 years, and SSA hasn’t responded.
The blatant omission from the Complaint is the specific text of what Taitz requested. We’re left with Taitz’ characterization of her April 26 request:
Plaintiff sought SS-5, Social Security application for three individuals, among them Harrison J. Bounel, born in 1890.
My recollection is that if the agency does not respond within 20 days, there is a presumption that the request has not been honored and all administrative remedies have been exhausted. That means Taitz can sue. The 20-day response is not the return of the requested material, but an acknowledgment of the request with a determination of whether the Agency will search for the information, or that the request is improper.
I know from bitter experience that some federal agencies sometimes do not respond within the time limits of the statute. (I did get an SS-5 from the Social Security Administration rather quickly.) If the facts are as Taitz alleges and the law is as I understand it, then she has a right to sue. That, however, doesn’t mean that there will be a quick resolution, that Taitz is entitled to the records she seeks (it really depends on precisely how her request was worded), that the records she seeks even exist, or that there is anything helpful to Taitz in the files of the Social Security Administration.
Here’s the complaint (not recommended for reader consideration):
Taitz forgot to ask for the SSN of Bounel’s evil twin, Skippy.
Holy Moly, what a lunatic.
“Tired of Astrue? Try Colvin.”
Well, the (still closed) Astrue case is now Colvin. Orly’s trying (and will be unsuccessful) to resurrect it with a similar request.
Wasn’t Skippy’s real name Barry Bounel?
Any idea why she filed this case in Maryland?
Um, because she’s nuts?
Baltimore office is where she was referred when she went to CT.
Might be because SSA headquarters are in Baltimore, not Washington.
But she should have filed it in California, where she is a licensed attorney.
Too well known in California…gotta get away! 😀
The District Court in DC ordered that Colvin be substituted as a party defendant, but Orly continues to style her pleadings in the manner of Taitz v. Astrue.
She brings virtually the same case in the District of Maryland, without informing the court of her pending FOIA action in DC. Is it possible — probable — that she styled the Maryland case as against Colvin so that a PACER search by the judge’s law clerk would not discover that Orly has already litigated the same FOIA claim (without success) and is therefore precluded by the doctrine of res judicata?
Doc, you wrote: “It’s a lawsuit involving a request under the Freedom of Information Act for the Social Security application of one Harry Bounel, born in 1890.”
No, actually it’s a lawsuit seeking the SS app of one Harrison J. Bounel, which is the rub.
There is not even a flimsy connection produced so far between the Harrison J. Bounel of Chicago (whose social has been associated one single time with the house owned by the Obamas) and the Harry Bounel in the Bronx in the 1940 census. She’s just decided that they are one and the same cuz it fits her conspiracy theory.
Her own exhibit from the 1940 Census shows that she’s got the wrong person.
What a marooon.
Is she that smart/stupid?
Didn’t she request something like “information on Harrison J Bounel with the SSN …” (Obama’s SSN)? And therefore could not get any information because that SSN never belonged to Bounel and therefore is not subject to the 120 year rule? I think I read as much here, but it may have been another case…
That would require her actually understanding the concept of related cases. I think you’re giving Orly far too much credit for competence and knowledge of the law. We are talking about someone who still can’t consistently redact social security numbers under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Exactly! Again, I say, what a maroon.
I was thinking of trying colvin, but the side effects are a little too much for me.
Diarrhea WITH fainting? No thank you!
IIRC, her Bounel SSA request intermixed the SSN previously associated with Obama. So her request will be denied on the usual ground: privacy rights of a living person.
Taitz won’t understand this, scream about the 120-year rule and accuse everyone of criminal conspiracy, treason, etc.
When the reality it is her own damn fault for writing an clumsy request.
Of course, if Taitz did write a precise request, and SSA responded that it had no records for Bounel, Taitz would scream about the 120-year rule and accuse everyone of criminal conspiracy, treason, etc.
So the question is…who did she pay/sleep with to do her law degree exams?