Spread the love


by John Charlton

(Oct. 16, 2009) — One aspect of the case Barnett vs. Obama, which Attorney Orly Taitz often speaks about is the SSN fraud associated with the name “Barack Hussein Obama”, or variants of the same. While it is an aspect of the case which has received little attention, other than ridicule by judges and Obama supporters, it is an important material fact to allegations of fraud surrounding the entire life story of the man.

Recently, Dr. Orly Taitz filed the affidavit of Susan Daniels, private investigator, as part of the supporting evidence in the case.

This is what Susan Daniels found:

I located the social security number for Barrack Hussein Obama and found that it was issued between 1977-79 in the State of Connecticut.

The social security number was used by Barrack Obama for numerous addresses in Chicago and it was the only social security number he used.

I investigated further and verified that the number was issued in Connecticut by running the numbers before and after Barrack Obama’s and found them also to have been issued in Connecticut between 1977-79.

Further, the number assigned to Barrack Obama may have been assigned previously, as it appears to also be associated with someone born in the year 1890.

The affidavit then cites the number for one, “Barack Hussein Obama”, the others from CT, the certificate of professional status for Daniels, and then lists the 53 addresses in Chicago associated with the Obama SSN.

First, it I would note that the affidavit has a small spelling error, it should read “Barack” not “Barrack”, on lines 5, 6, 7, and 8.

How one can have 53 addresses in which he used his SSN is the object of the affidavit’s import.  First, it is not clear how this SSN of Obama is associated with these 53 addresses:  are these from property records, utility bills, leases, mortgages, etc.?  Second, it is not clear whether Obama’s SSN number was used with or without his permission.  What is clear is that such a use would be SSN fraud if it was for the purpose of tax evasion, no matter who used it.

Obama has portrayed himself as a man who rose up from poverty and worked and lived with the poor.  If he owns 53 residences in Chicago, it is hard to understand how he criticized John McCain for having only 7.  But perhaps he lived at 53 addresses during his 20 years in Chicago — he does say he was a vibrant community organizer!

The harder question is, “Why is no Attorney General, state or federal investigating this?”  Especially since even the inadvertent mis-transcription of one digit of a SSN on a financial document, can get an attorney disbarred  in most states. Additionally, if some other parties are using his SSN, this would be a form of identity theft, and if he is president, then it is a question of National Security.  So where is the Secret Service on this one?

Since no one is investigating, the presumption is that Obama does not object to the association of his SSN to all these addresses; hence he is tacitly admitting that his SSN was used with his permission at these 53 addresses.

Join the Conversation

No comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. John —

    You are over-thinking:

    1. — This is an Affidavit to the court.

    2. — It is a Sworn Affidavit.

    It is the Court that has to satisfy itself that it KNOWS why there are ‘reflective dates.’ No you, not me, not Sue Daniels.

    Why? Because the document that shows the ‘reflective dates’ in an official U. S. government document!

    This far you are correct — Sue Daniels needs to point out these reflective dates, and she should bring this detail to the Courts attention — with or without explanation — since the OBVIOUS explanation is the one that I suggested.

  2. John —

    A minor detail, but worth noting — the double date format on Page 5 of 11 on the Daniel’s Affidavit —


    Same date — two formats.

    Top — American format
    Bottom — British format.

    This begs the question: Was a British format ‘Birth Certificate’ used with an American format ‘Certification of Live Birth’ used by Stanley Ann Dunham to apply for a Social Security Number for her still “minor” son, Barack, sometime between 1977 and 1979?

    This is a proverbial ‘smoking gun!’

    This is an official government verifier that demands a visual authentification — this alone ought to be enough for Judge Carter!
    Mr. Charlton replies: First let me commend you for your attention to detail.

    Second, we’d have to know what kind of investigation Daniels undertook, and why that information is there.

    Third, if it is established that it came from documented sources; then I would agree with you; in indicates that he may have applied for his SSN using a birth certificate issued in British style. If, so, HE WAS BORN OUTSIDE OF THE USA.

    However, Daniels has to come forward and explain the association of birth dates she found, before one can infer anything from these reflective dates.