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.” 
Yeah, 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.
Update:
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.
Certainly looks that way.
However, even if it were legit, Taitz is still reading something that’s not there.
As usual.
If Taitz was punked, who was the punkor? Brewer, her “trusted” investigator? IF it is a punk, it’s a long punk because this isn’t the first time Taitz has mentioned him.
I think the letter is legit, but it doesn’t say what Taitz thinks it says: It just says that Brewer’s inquiry will be routed to the appropriate department.
I’m not so sure this is a punk. The letterhead and the TEH2A code appear to belong to the Social Security Administration Office of Public Inquiries. The examples I see on the web all have a name and a signature of an SSA employee, but I could imagine that they might have a policy of sending out the letter without a specific employees’ name on it in some situations when the response is just to tell the person making a request that he contacted the wrong office and his concern has been forwarded to another office.
Never has so much been inferred from so little.
It is a textbook example of the existential fallacy:
1. All mermaids can swim.
2. Therefore, there are at least some mermaids in existence.
Every communication I have ever received – personal or business – had a name with a contact phone number which, to me, is a problem with this letter.
A quick search of the web for the “Office of Earning Operations” fails to turn up that exact term. What I do find is:
The Assistant Associate Commissioner for Earnings Operations (S2RB) is responsible for planning and directing a major portion of the operations administered by OCO. He/she is responsible for the planning and direction of two divisions and a DOC that establish and maintain earnings and enumeration records supporting Social Security programs.
The Division of Earnings Record Operations (S2RB1): blah, blah
http://www.ssa.gov/org/orgdco.htm
Me thinks lawyer Taitz has been punked.
There is nothing to see here. What happened is that Brewer sent the request to the wrong Social Security office and department. The Office of Earning Operations handles all requests for SS-5 records. The letter looks like a boilerplate one which is sent to anyone who submits a request to the wrong department.
Brewer probably sent the request to the Office of Public Inquiries, which is on Security Boulevard in Baltimore. The Office of Earning Operations is on N. Greene Street. The full address is on form SS-711:
http://www.ssa.gov/online/ssa-711.pdf
She is definitely reading something that is not there. It is essentially saying that the type of records you are requesting are under the jurisdiction of another department–not that the record for Bounel is under another department’s jurisdiction. It is funny that someone who uses words as imprecisely as Orly Taitz cannot accept that imprecisely worded statements by others may be open to her misinterpretation. She always thinks they mean exactly what she wants them to mean.
Here’s a letter with the same signature as the one Taitz posted. No name or phone number for an SSA employee. I don’t think she was punked.
http://moorishnationalaffairs.com/uploads/SSA-Response_to_Dissolution_Writ_38130001.pdf
As “Annie Daynow” I am trying to school Orly about the fact that Brewer just sent his request to the wrong SSA office, but she has convinced herself that the Office of Earnings Operations is only concerned with requests about wages.
I sent her a link to the actual SS-5 records request form. Maybe that will convince her. But probably not.
If someone IS punking her, then aren’t they taking a big chance in essentially forging a government document?
English is not her strong point. Of course, it appears the only thing that is her strong point is making whoopie with her legal assistant in the dentistry chair.
Well, it’s not even signed.
Well maybe, but an unsigned letter?
In response to comments on this article, the conclusion has been rewritten.
I think at this point “dumb as a box of rocks” would be a disservice to rocks.
Conspicouously absent from Orly’s pile o’ poop is the request that was sent to SSA.
It’s dollars-to-doughnuts that her flying monkey made the same stupid mistake she did, included Obama’s SSN in the request for Bounel’s records, and has been referred to someone who will eventually send out the same “Cain’t touch dis: privacy rules” rejection she’s gotten again and again.
Yes. As the Valentine-Day letter (linked to above) indicates, the SSA sometimes sends out unsigned letters.
The most obvious explanation is that when SSA believes it is dealing with a nutjob, the name of the letter’s author is withheld, to prevent the nutjob from pursuing that individual for doing his or her job.
Given Orly’s track record as a sort of Jack-of-all-incompetencies, I think it’s more likely that what she was making with her legal assistant could more accurately be termed, “making whoopsie”.
One almost feels sorry for the wide-eyed Charles Licoln the Thurd. Imagine him waiting innocently up in her dental chair as Orly clambers up, and essentially
prepares to pull a rabbit out of a hat.
And afterwards how will he socially handle finding out that the scent of a woman, is not oil of cloves?
I will have to agree with the majority here in that I think the unsigned letter is odd, but it could still be a standard form they send out for misdirected mail.
My bet however, is on what the original letter actually said, and it going to the wrong office, getting forwarded, to be summarily rejected for all the usual reasons eventually, as a result of it having been sent to the wrong office initially and having to be properly forwarded before it could be rejected.
I have infinite faith that her “investigator” is every bit as half assed, slipshod and incompetent as she is, and has perpetuated the same mistakes.
I do think, that if there were any punking done here that she did it to herself, yet again.
One of my first courses in maths started with a slightly more obfuscating example of the same, a list of “obviously true statements” that allowed the conclusion “Therefore God exists” but was essentially the same fallacy, just hidden behind a longer string of arguments. 😉
It simply exploits the fact all statements about the empty set are true (“All falsified birth records of Obama are in my basement” is a true statement) since there’s no element in the empty set to build a counter-example with.
(The other common fallacy, “ex falso quodlibet”, meaning both true and false statements can be derived from a false premise – “if pigs can fly, 1+1 is 3” is a true statement – , can also be seen in birtherism; e.g. “since there is no proof Obama ever re-acquired US citizenship, he’s not a citizen”.)
Dear Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq.,
We have forwarded your request to the Department of Fictional Characters Created By Sad, Deranged Kooks.
Please do hesitate before contacting us again.
Regards,
Sane People
I don’t think the lack of a signature is standard for misdirected mail. I think it is probably something that they do occasionally when responding to wingnuts who have a history of harassing SSA employees (like sovcits and birthers) and when the situation does not require any additional communication with the employee sending the letter, such as a notification that the request has been forwarded to another office.
However, if the letter is legitimate, it actually doesn’t confirm that Bounel has any records with Social Security, but rather that earnings records are handled elsewhere. What it says is that earnings records, not Bounel’s records are under the Office of Earnings Operations.
That’s not correct. The letter from SSA doesn’t say anything about earnings records. This is what it says:
The records you requested are under the jurisdiction of our Office of Earnings
Operations.
As I posted previously, the Office of Earnings Operations is responsible for handling requests for SS-5 forms of deceased individuals. From the SSA website:
You may use Form SSA-711 to request a deceased person’s application for a Social Security Number (Form SS-5); however you do not need to use the Form SSA-711. To obtain a deceased person’s Form SS-5, send your request to:
Social Security Administration
OEO FOIA Workgroup
300 N. Greene Street
P.O. Box 33022
Baltimore, Maryland 21290-3022
http://www.ssa.gov/foia/request.html#a0=4
It is apparent to me that Brewer sent in a request for Harrison J. Bounel’s SS-5, but he sent it to the wrong office. SSA then referred it to the Office of Earnings Operations (OEO), where it belongs. That’s all there is to this.
Thanks for the information. The article has been updated.
No problem. Incidentally, Orly has confirmed to “Annie Daynow” that Brewer’s request was for Bounel’s SS-5, which essentially confirms that the request was forwarded to OEO because Brewer sent it to the wrong office.
Did she confirm that Brewer’s request included “Bounel’s” SSN?
No. This is what she said about Brewer’s request:
he did not request earnings info and therefore the requested info would not be in the office of the Earnings operations, he asked for SS-5, and he sent info to the right office
She is trying to convince people that there is something significant about the request being forwarded to the Office of Earnings Operations. Last night “Annie Daynow” sent her the same info which is in the note which I posted here at 9:37 p.m. last night, but it either is still in moderation or she has decided not to publish it.
Orly has posted a link to a pdf which shows that the February, 2014 inquiry from Brewer which generated the response from SSA was indeed sent to the wrong address, but she still doesn’t realize it.
One item sent in October and two in November were sent to the correct address, but Brewer’s February inquiry was sent to the wrong address. So SSA responded with a letter stating that it was being forwarded to OEO.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/envelope-from-the-letter-from-the-General-Counsel-of-SSA.pdf
So, she started by showing us the reply, and now she’s showing us the address to which the request was sent.
Are those stories about her having been a “swimsuit model” using a euphemism for “stripper”?