WHY ARE PRIVACY CONCERNS AN ISSUE WITH A PUBLIC FIGURE SUCH AS OBAMA?
by Sharon Rondeau
(Jul. 13, 2011) — Atty. Orly Taitz told The Post & Email this evening that she has filed an Opposition to a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the government in the case of Taitz v. Astrue, which seeks a copy of the social security application issued with the number which Barack Hussein Obama II is currently using.
On July 11, 2011, Taitz’s Motion to Compel in the same case was docketed by the U.S. District Court in Washington, DC, which is presiding over the case thus far. Taitz described the new development in this way:
The government filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. This motion is usually filed when there is already standing in the case, but they want to dismiss it before trial. They filed, and I am responding. They are really misrepresenting the case. They are saying, “Attorney Taitz asked for an application for a social security number for a live person, of a ‘live holder’ of the social security card, and according to the guidelines, we cannot provide it.”
My response was first that the “undisputed facts” which they cited are wrong, because I didn’t ask for the number of a live holder of the social security number; I asked for the application of the lawful holder of that social security number. I didn’t ask for the application of a live holder. As a matter of fact, according to their own records, the social security number in question was never issued. So even if we were willing to believe that it was issued, we see this number associated with an individual born in 1890 who would have been 121 years old now and presumably deceased at this time.
Obama started using this number around 1980, and he’s been using it for most of his life, but there is no information showing that he is the lawful holder of this number. As a matter of fact, all the information that we have shows that he is illegally using this number. I provided them with all of the exhibits and information: for example, of Obama’s mother’s application for social security, stating that I got this from the Social Security Administration. I also got the list of revisions for that application form, and according to what Social Security provided me, Obama’s mother used a number for most of her life that was fraudulently obtained. The application that was used said “Revised 7-55,” and according to the Social Security Administration, there was never such a revision made in that year. So right away, there is evidence of fraud.
Moreover, I provided them with an enlarged 200 x 300 version, and it shows not only the revision date of 1955 when there was no revision of the form that year, but also, when you look at the enlargement, you can see that the two “5s” in “1955” look different. Usually, you would not expect that to happen unless it’s a forgery and they used numbers from different documents, cutting and pasting.
There’s another form from the same year that is different from the form that was used by Ann Dunham. In the top left corner, it has “Form SS-5, Department of the Treasury, Social Security Administration,” and Ann Dunham’s form does not have this wording.
I also provided them with a quotation from the book by Bill Ayers, and I said, “According to his own admission in his book, he created hundreds of social security numbers.” The response from the Social Security Administration where they are asking for a Motion for Summary Judgment says that it needs to be private because it is a number of a live individual and they do not provide numbers of live individuals. I’m saying, “Well, let’s take Bill Ayers as an example: he created hundreds of numbers just because he is alive.” But those social security numbers were fraudulently obtained. The public at large would not be able to get this information in regard to those social security numbers. So it means that Bill Ayers can use hundreds of numbers with impunity, and those numbers can be used to negate the laws of hundreds of law-abiding citizens because those social security numbers have been used to obtain voter registration cards, in fraudulent financial transactions, IRS fraud, social security fraud, election fraud…anything can happen. And the public has no recourse at all, which means that there is a problem with the way the agency conducts business. One of the reasons to grant a FOIA request and even provide information on a private individual is when the interest of the public exceeds the interest of the individual’s privacy.
So I’m saying that the country has all of this information that shows fraud. We have information that his mother’s social security number application was fraudulently obtained; we have information showing that Obama’s birth certificate was fraudulently obtained; his friend’s social security numbers were fraudulently obtained. There is a high likelihood that Obama’s number was fraudulently obtained also, and therefore, the expectation of privacy is superseded by the requirements of the public at large to know what is going on.
I also wrote that the FOIA exemption rules were created so that private individuals would not be compromised, so that somebody would not get a social security number of a private individual and steal his identity. However, this would not apply in the case of Obama, because he is acting as president. Even if we were to redact the number, we know that the first three digits of the number he is using come from the state of Connecticut, and according to his own memoirs, he never lived there. So we know he is fraudulently using a Connecticut social security number; he is in the White House, and he’s well-known. So is it reasonable to believe that there is an expectation of privacy? Is it reasonable to believe that somebody from Anytown, America is going to enter a bank and say, “I’m Barack Hussein Obama; this is my social security number; I want to withdraw $1,000,000 from this account?” No. It’s unreasonable to believe that something like this could ever happen.
We already have paperwork from SSA saying that this number was never assigned. We also have information to show a cover-up. For example, before, we could get information on Obama’s Selective Service, and that’s where we got our first verification that Obama is using this number. You would enter the social security number, his name and his birth date. But now, when you go on the website for Selective Service, it says, “Information is denied because you have exceeded the daily number of inquiries that you can make.” Now that happens even when people go on the website for the first time, so that shows a pattern of cover-up.
If you go to the page of the Social Security Administration, it says that “the page is blocked due to security reasons.” So not only do we have evidence of fraud by the government; we also have evidence of a cover-up. It’s unbelievable that we have to go through all this hell…that we have a putative president who doesn’t even have a valid social security number. This is so sickening.
Taitz stated that the filing by the government did not surprise her, although she added, “You would expect them to have some honesty and integrity” by releasing the requested documentation. When we asked her what the next step is, she answered, “The judge needs to decide. There is a possibility that the government will file a reply. When they file a motion and the other party files an opposition, they have a right to submit a short reply. They may or may not file one. The judge will probably wait for a week to see if they file a reply, then he will make a decision on what to do in this case. He might grant their Motion for Summary Judgment and dismiss the case, or he will grant my Opposition and deny their motion and will issue an order granting me my FOIA request, and the Social Security Administration will have to produce the application for the social security number that was used by Obama.”
Sharon Rondeau has operated The Post & Email since April 2010, focusing on the Obama birth certificate investigation and other government corruption news. She has reported prolifically on constitutional violations within Tennessee’s prison and judicial systems.