VOL. 17 ISSUE NO. 37   |  SEPTEMBER 14 – 20, 2011


E-Verify on Obama yields SSN mismatch notice

Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. files motion for reconsideration in SSA challenge

orly taitzWASHINGTON – On Sept. 8, in her relentless pursuit to uncover the truth behind President Barack Obama’s fraudulent use of a Connecticut-issued Social Security number (SSN), Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. (r) filed a motion for reconsideration in her Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) challenge against Michael Astrue, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, who was granted summary judgment on Aug. 30 by U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth.

In his memorandum opinion granting summary judgment in favor of Astrue, Lamberth wrote, “Ever persistent, plaintiff has once again come before this court in an effort to uncover ‘the biggest cover up in the history of this nation … She believes that the president is using a ‘fraudulently obtained’ Social Security number and that the Social Security Administration – among other agencies – is involved in a scheme to ‘cover up social security fraud, IRS fraud, election fraud and possibly treason’ committed by the President … As her numerous filings with the court demonstrate, plaintiff will stop at nothing to get to the bottom of this alleged conspiracy.”

Lamberth went on to say, “Unfortunately for plaintiff, today is not her lucky day.”

In her motion for reconsideration, Taitz stated there is newly discovered information and, based on an assertion of clear error and manifest injustice, requested an emergency hearing and oral argument on the merits within 20 days.

Taitz said she learned from Private Investigator Doug Hagmann, while she was appearing on his radio show, when Obama originally posted his tax returns on WhiteHouse.gov, he left his full Social Security number on one of the pages and it was the same Connecticut-issued Social Security number (042-68-4425) as noted in the sworn affidavits of three other private investigators Neil Sankey, Susan Daniels and John Sampson.

According to Taitz, once Obama’s unredacted SSN was posted on the White House’s website, it then became a public record.

obama e-verifyTaitz also provided as an exhibit with her motion an affidavit from Linda Jordan, a Seattle resident, who attested to entering Obama’s name, birth date and the same SSN into the government’s E-Verify program, used for verifying employment eligibility.

Entering Obama’s information resulted in the production of a “Notice of Mismatch with Social Security Administration (SSA) Records,” instructing the employee (Obama) to “Bring this notice with you when you visit SSA.”

The reason checked for issuing the notice stated, “SSA record does not verify, Other reason, SSA found a discrepancy in the record.”

Previously, when Obama’s SSN was entered into the SSA database for verification by another, it too returned as “failed,” stating the number was never issued.

According to Daniels and others’ research, the earliest the Connecticut number ever appeared associated with Obama was in 1986, with the exception of it appearing on his fraudulently created Selective Service System registration, which was apparently created in 2008 to appear as if it were filed in 1980.

While motions for reconsideration are generally disfavored, Section 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state they may be granted where a party presents new evidence not reasonably available prior to the judgment, or where it is shown that the prior ruling was clearly erroneous or manifestly unjust.

Taitz presented both newly discovered evidence and argues clear error and manifest injustice in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

In his memorandum opinion, Lamberth also concluded Taitz “identified no legitimate public interest that would be served by disclosure of the requested Form SS-5” (Application for Social Security Number).

Lamberth stated, “In determining whether the disclosure of government records would result in a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy, the relevant public interest to be weighed against the privacy interest is the extent to which disclosure would contribute to ‘public understanding of the operations or activities of the government.’”

According to Lamberth, Taitz’s “vehement allegations of fraud consist of mere ‘bare suspicion[s]’ and thus fail to satisfy the public interest standard required under FOIA.”

There is more than ample evidence Obama is using a SSN that was not assigned to him, has a fraudulently created Selective Service System registration and produced a long-form Certificate of Live Birth that has been determined by numerous experts, including Doug Vogt and Paul Irey, to be a blatant forgery.

These facts alone, which seem to establish Obama is usurping the office of President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the military, should be more than enough to satisfy the public interest standard required under FOIA to compel the SSA to produce a copy of Obama’s Form SS-5.