Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

[ED.: From Butterdezillion's Blog at butterdezillion.wordpress.com/:]

The Putting-it-All-Together Series:

Part 1: HDOH Red Flags
butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/hdoh-red-flags.pdf

Virginia Sunahara’s death certificate shows us not only that the HDOH is fabricating vital records, but that the subordinates ordered to do it are resisting by raising red flags in the forgeries they create. This is one of the central pieces to finishing this puzzle.

Part 2: Clue Number Two
butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/clue-2-obama-apparently-given-stig-waidelichs-bc/

Four August 1961 BC#’s were changed by the HDOH, based on the BC numbering system documented by CDC records. Obama was given the BC# that originally belonged to the 3rd Honolulu birth after Gretchen Nordyke – almost certainly Stig Waidelich.

Part 3: The Law Enforcement Provision
butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/part-three-the-law-enforcement-provision/

The alteration of 4 out of the 6 disclosed August 1961 BC#’s (including one deceased infant) makes it almost certain that the HDOH shifted BC#’s in order to give Obama a new BC# on a BC created at the request of law enforcement and claiming whatever law enforcement said it should say. There is a BC in Hawaii that has the BC# 10641 and whatever law enforcement ordered it to say, for Obama’s safety. There is also the record that Obama originally had, which has a different BC# and reveals something so drastically different that law enforcement claimed that real record would put Obama’s life at risk. Either that, or the HDOH falsified at least 4 August 1961 BC#’s without even trying to legally justify it.

Part 4: Three Bizarre Events
butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2013/04/05/part-four-three-bizarre-events/

[The following] three events are bizarre unless you realize what was going on:

1. Abercrombie claimed an investigation of Obama’s birth record found something actually written down in the State Archives.

2. Mike Evans claimed Abercrombie told him he had gone to the hospitals with a search warrant, and there is no birth certificate or other evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii.

3. When the story of Evans’ claims went viral Abercrombie and AG Louie forced HDOH Director Palafox to resign and lied about it while anonymously threatening to investigate him for medical billing fraud. Three days later Palafox forced them to tell the truth about firing him by saying he didn’t know why he resigned.

I believe Palafox was the snag in the plan to create a new BC for Obama based on law enforcement saying it was necessary to protect Obama from those “crazy Arizona birthers”. Palafox wouldn’t create a new BC for Obama because the only record they had for Obama was non-valid and couldn’t legally be presumed as true, and the law only allows a new BC to be created for someone who was born in Hawaii. So Gov. Abercrombie and AG Louie got rid of Palafox and replaced him with Loretta Fuddy who (as we will see) proceeded to execute the plan – including (among other things) the unlawful shuffling of 4 August 1961 BC#’s in order to land Obama with a BC that claimed a Kapiolani Hospital birth and had the BC# that had been used on the forgery to sanitize Obama’s passport file 3 years earlier: Stig Waidelich’s.

Part Five: Fuddy Illegally Executes the Plan
butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/part-five-fuddy-illegally-executes-the-plan/

ATTENTION:

9-19-12 Secretaries of State, look at
butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/birth-index-list-does-not-indicate-legally-valid-record/
for proof that Obama’s name on the birth index list proves nothing about his birth certificate’s legal validity and thus doesn’t contradict Onaka’s confirmation to AZ SOS Ken Bennett that the record is non-valid. See
butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/complete-klayman-letter-to-bauer.pdf
for a reminder of what you received via certified mail from Attorney Larry Klayman a couple weeks ago (the proof of receipt will be posted here soon). See
butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2012/09/21/kansas-never-asked-if-record-was-valid/
to see that the verification Kansas received is legally worthless. To understand the difference between the AZ verification and the legally-worthless verifications requested by both MDEC and KS SOS Kris Kobach, see
butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/wheel-of-fortune-v-family-feud-final.pdf

9-13-12 The current BC#’s the HDOH claims for Barack Obama, Stig Waidelich, Johanna Ah Nee, and Virginia Sunahara could not have been on their original 1961 BC’s if either Okubo’s or Verna Lee’s numbering methods were used. If Lee’s was used, then the trail of BC#-swapping isn’t hard to follow at all… See
butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2012/09/13/the-hdoh-has-juggled-bcs-for-at-least-4-1961-bcs/

9-3-12 I’ve confirmed the legal reasoning with 3 different attorneys: Onaka confirmed that Obama’s HI BC is not legally valid:
butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2012/09/02/onaka-confirms-obamas-bc-is-non-valid/
You will be hearing more about this.

5-30-12 AZ SOS Bennett did NOT withdraw his form request; the verification’s response was to not verify that birthdate (and other information) because those facts CANNOT be verified. This is indirect confirmation that Obama’s birth record is not legally valid.
butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2012/05/30/verification-verifies-if-anything-that-obamas-record-is-legally-non-valid/

5-25-12 CRITICAL – WHAT THE HDOH “VERIFIED” FOR THE AZ SOS ACTUALLY STRONGLY SUPPORTS OBAMA’S BC BEING LATE AND AMENDED, AND THUS NOT LEGALLY VALID: butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2012/05/24/hawaiis-non-verification/

5-21-12 Important updates at
butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2012/05/21/important-updates/

NEW: HDOH Funny Business Regarding Virginia Sunahara
This one is critical. The HDOH says they can’t find any birth record under Virginia Sunahara’s name even though she is listed in their 1960-64 birth index. Much more.

NEW: 1960-64 Birth Index Includes Legally Invalid Records.
This one is also critical. The 1960-64 birth index includes the birth names of at least 2 adopted children. Those records are required to be sealed, and their inclusion in the public list indicates that the list has been manipulated by the HDOH. At this point we have no way of knowing whether any name listed in the birth index represents a legally-valid record.

NEW: HDOH Has Two Different Versions of 1960-64 Birth Index.
The HDOH sent me copies of the exact same page from the 1960-64 Birth Index Book, 2 months apart. But one has the date range heading and the other doesn’t. Either there are 2 versions of the 1960-64 birth index, or they are altering pages from it at will.

NEW: If the COLB Seal Is Nickel-Sized…
The seal on Obama’s COLB is a significantly different size than the seal on Obama’s long-form. Companion to “Obama BC Seal Contradicts Factcheck“

New: Did Factcheck Help Forge the COLB?
Just like some of the items on the long-form forgery, the seal on the Factcheck COLB doesn’t distort properly for the bend of the paper it’s on. That seal could not have been on the COLB when Factcheck photographed it.

NEW: “Obama BC Seal Contradicts Factcheck“
I was wrong. A photo by Savanna Guthrie shows there WAS a very light, indistinct seal on the long-form BC. Unfortunately for Obama, it can’t be the same seal as was on the Factcheck COLB.

NEW: “White Copy” Not Directly From Certified Birth Certificate
The copy distributed to the press was taken from a print-out, not from the certified BC. This specifically enabled manipulation.

NEW: Long-Form Forgery for Dummies
How we know the long-form Obama presented is a forgery –
NO COMPUTER KNOWLEDGE NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND =)
Updated by “Obama BC Seal Contradicts Factcheck”
and further clarified by If the COLB Seal Is Nickel-Sized…

butterdezillion.wordpress.com/

[ED.: From Butterdezillion's Blog at
butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2011/05/04/long-form-forgery-for-dummies/:]

Longform Forgery for Dummies
This has to be as a PDF so you can magnify the images.

The only non-manipulable image of Obama’s long-form that would have to show the certifying seal is an alleged photograph of the certified long-form. Unlike scans or black and white photocopies, actual photos always show evidence of a seal, as I document here through photographs of my own daughter’s death certificate.

But the alleged photo of Obama’s certified long-form shows no sign of a seal.

That proves that what he showed reporters was NOT the certified copy he received from the HDOH. It had no seal, and the reporters totally spaced off what any one of us who researches this stuff would have immediately checked, since it is the only part that gives the paper any legal value.

Obama had certified copies from the HDOH and he chose to present to the entire world something else, while CLAIMING it was what the HDOH sent him. Presumably it was a print-out of the manipulated PDF. If no manipulation had been necessary Obama could have simply shown the media the actual certified copy, as he CLAIMED to do. The absence of the seal gives it all away. [Ed.: Shortly after this was written, Mr. Obama's minions added to the image at whitehouse.gov a reasonably valid-looking seal. But it appears to be not exactly the correct size. ]

UPDATE 1: Somebody said there is a seal that can be seen if you adjust the contrast and brightness. I set both these images for the highest contrast, set them both at -20 for brightness, and lined them up so the cross-hatches are the same size. Compare for yourself.

Word Image With Contrast

For those who get a hassle with a Word document, here’s the file as a PDF:
PDF image with-contrast

I left this in Word because that’s the program I have where I can adjust contrast. I am not technologically sophisticated – and in a world where stuff can be manipulated digitally I think it does some good to look at what is actually in front of our eyeballs. If we have to magnify to this degree to see even a HINT of a tiny squiggle somewhere then you can bet your bottom dollar that no reporter looked at this with their naked eyes and saw a seal. A seal that requires this kind of manipulation defeats the whole purpose of a physical raised seal – which is to have an immediately visible sign that the paper in front of you is the same paper that the HDOH sent from their office.

I am a housewife with four kids and a husband to tend to and no computer expertise. In 5 minutes or less I could take a photo of the whole death certificate and post it on my blog with varying angles, close-ups of the seal, etc to give a convincing proof that the document I have is authentic. But with all the resources and personnel at Obama’s disposal this is the best he can come up with? Come ON, people. There is no excuse for this ____.

UPDATE 2: For those who say the photo isn’t really a photo but is just a jpg version of the same scan used in the PDF, here is a comparison of the PDF with the jpg of the “photo”.
Comparison of Degrading Quality

Because the quality degrades, it is a good bet that whether this claimed “photo” is a photo or a scan, it is a photo or scan OF THE MANIPULATED PDF. And we’re still left with no PHOTO of an ACTUAL CERTIFIED COPY.

This whole thing is so senseless [hokey, even]. The HDOH sent a paper document with a seal. If you want to convince people that you’ve got a paper document with a seal the best way is to let them see, hold, photograph, and videotape it. Refusing to do that and instead making scans of it in a format where the content of it can be manipulated is the worst thing they could do, if they wanted to make their case for authenticity. It’s the perfect thing to do if they want to increase suspicions while thumbing their nose at people for having questions in the first place.

There is not one media person who saw a real certified birth certificate, and the only things they or we have been given are manipulable images. The media is ridiculing US because they were too stupid to know how to verify the authenticity of a birth certificate. Incredible. Absolutely incredible.

butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2011/05/04/long-form-forgery-for-dummies/

The Obama Hustle

The Rediscovered Truth About Barack H Obama

BREAKING NEWS – [Ellen L. Hollander, U.S. District Judge for the U.S. District of Maryland.] gives Attorney Orly Taitz 21 days to file a second amended complaint and add allegations in regards to an improper withholding by the Social Security Administration of records of Harry Bounel, whose Social security number is being illegally used by Barack Obama.

By AL HENDERSHOT - Editor: The Obama Hustle 12/16/2013
The soon to be six year-long investigation into the case against Barack H Obama and his use of a stolen social security number which belongs to a 120 year old deceased individual by the name of Harry Bounel has taken a new course today. The information obtained was on a Mr. Harry Bounel who was born in Russia in 1890 and living in the Bronx, NY as of the 1940 Census.


1940 Census listing Mr. Harry Bounel on line 48.

A November 16, 2012, FOIA [request] noted below clearly proves that the Social Security number, 042-68-4425, [stolen] by Obama does not belong to him but in fact belongs to Mr. Harry Bounel.



November 16, 2012, SSA reply to
FOIA request for info about Harry
Bounel, DOB 1890, using Social
Security number 042-68-4425.

When the FOIA was requested, it was done using the “SS-5” request form and using the 120 year old rule, which excludes privacy concerns for information requested for information on a deceased individual’s “SS-5” documentation, who would be over 120 years of age at time of request. It was completed using the name of Harry Bounel, SSN 042-68-4425, and the DOB – 1890.

My previous article, “http://theobamahustle.wordpress.com/?s=three+strikes” goes into great detail on how the evidence has mounted against Obama and his fraudulent activities concerning his stolen social security number.

The following excerpt is from www.orlytaitzesq.com

“Judge Hollander in Maryland gives Attorney Orly Taitz 21 days to file a second amended complaint and add allegations in regards to an improper withholding by the Social Security Administration of records of Harry Bounel, whose Social security number is being illegally used by Barack Obama. When Taitz filed the complaint, SSA did not respond at all.

"After the law suit was filed, SSA responded by fraudulently claiming that the records were not found. Taitz responded that this is a fraudulent assertion, since the records were found before and denied to another petitioner due to privacy concerns; however, Social Security has no right to claim privacy, as according to their own 120 year rule they have a duty to release the records.

"The judge stated that the plaintiff Taitz might be correct, however at this time she cannot rule in her favor as her original complaint was filed before SSA responded, so the judge gave Taitz an opportunity to re-file a second amended complaint and add new allegations, stating the SSA responded but improperly hidden the records.

"This is a great development. This all but assures that the judge will order the SSA to release the SS-5, Social Security application of resident of CT, Harrison (Harry) Bounel, whose [issued-in-CT) SSN, 042-68-4425, was stolen by Obama and used in Obama’s 2009 tax returns, which initially were posted on WhiteHouse.gov without proper redaction, without flattening the file.”

Each and every one of Obama’s relatives have
all had social security numbers of their own
even though they have all been documented
as being in the United States illegally.

theobamahustle.wordpress.com/2013/12/16/breaking-news-judge-hollander-in-maryland-gives-attorney-orly-taitz-21-days-to-file-a-second-amended-complaint-and-add-allegations-in-regards-to-an-improper-withholding-by-the-social-security-admini/

Subject: Fwd: A Peek Into Obama's Records
>
> I am not a "birther", but it does seem curious to me that there could be so many inconsistencies with his documentation. Especially since his and Michelle's records are not available from college, etc. Me thinks someone has something to hide....

> Let me know if you can figure this out?
>
> 4 Simple questions from a reputable attorney...............
>
> This really should get your "gray matter" to churning, even if you are an Obama fan. I wouldn't want my hero to be made out to be a liar, would you?
>
> For all you "anti-Fox News" folks, none of this information came from Fox. All of it can be verified from legitimate sources (Wikipedia, the Kapiolani hospital website itself, and a good history book, as noted herein). It is very easy for someone to check out.
>
> 4 Simple Questions:
>
> 1. Back in 1961 people of color were called 'Negroes.' So how can the Obama 'birth certificate' state he is "African-American" when the term wasn't even used at that time ?
>
> 2. The birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama's birth as August 4, 1961 & Lists Barack Hussein Obama as his father. No big deal, Right ? At the time of Obama's birth, it also shows that his father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama's father was born in "Kenya , East Africa ".
>
> This wouldn't seem like anything of concern, except the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two whole years after Obama's birth, and 27 years after his father's birth. How could Obama's father have been born in a country that did not yet Exist? Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the "British East Africa Protectorate". (check it below)
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya_> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya_
>
>
> 3. On the Birth Certificate released by the White House, the listed place of birth is "Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital". This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called "KauiKeolani Children's Hospital" and "Kapi'olani Maternity Home", Respectively. The name did not change to Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged. How can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated 1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978 ?
> (CHECK IT BELOW)
> ( <http://www.kapiolani.org/women-and-c...s/default.aspx> http://www.kapiolani.org/women-and-c...s/default.aspx)
>
> 4. Perhaps a clue comes from Obama's book on his father. He stateshow proud he is of his father fighting in WW II. I'm not a math genius, so I may need some help from you. Barack Obama's "birth certificate" says his father was 25 years old in 1961 when Obama was born. That should have put his father's date of birth approximately 1936-if my math holds (Honest! I did That without a calculator!!!) Now we need a non-revised history book-one that hasn't been altered to satisfy the author's goals-to verify that WW II was basically between 1939 and 1945. Just how many 3 year olds fight in Wars? Even in the latest stages of WW II his father wouldn't have been more than 9 years old.

> Does that mean that Mr. Obama is a liar, or simply chooses to alter the facts to satisfy his imagination or political purposes ?
>
> Why hasn't this been discussed in the major media ?
>
> Very truly yours,
> Rich
> RICHARD R. SILVERLIEB
> Attorney at Law
> 354 Eisenhower Parkway
> Livingston , NJ 07039
>
> "A pen in the hand of this president is far more dangerous than a gun in the hands of 200 million law-abiding citizens."
>

OMG America shared ConservativeGuy's photo.

Overpasses for Obama's Impeachment


Have you ever....

Said the Pledge of Allegiance?

Have you ever...

Given serious thought to what it actually meant?

The first line alone should give you serious consideration.

The colors of the flag have MEANING. Do you know what the meaning is?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

Red is a symbol of valor and bravery
White symbolizes purity and innocence
Blue signifies vigilance, perseverance, and justice

You pledged allegiance to the flag, which means you pledged to protect and honor the meaning of the flags colors.

Do you act with valor and bravery?
Do you protect purity and innocence?
Do you act with vigilance, perservere in the face of daunting enemies, and always seek justice?

And to the Republic for which it stands..

Have you done anything to preserve and restore the Republic for which those colors have meaning?

One nation under God,

Whether or not you believe in God or not, you can still be a good American. As for me, I BELIEVE!

Indivisible,

Have you brought patriots together to unite this nation to restore the Republic?

With Liberty and Justice for ALL.

Have you done your part to ensure liberty and justice in America?


Have you have done what you can to preserve our nation, to protect it, and to save it from the tyranny that lurks within?

JOIN Overpasses for Obama's Impeachment and honor your Pledge of Allegiance!

America is the greatest nation in the history of the world, with freedoms unfathomable to the vast majority of humanity.

If we fall into darkness, the whole world does..

Join us today, and help WAKE UP AMERICA!

Figures. Obama Tried to Sign Up for Obamacare But “System Couldn’t Verify His Identity” (Video)

Posted on December 24, 2013 by john

Posted by Jim Hoft, Gateway Pundit: According to the White House, President Obama tried to symbolically sign up for Obamacare but the system didn’t recognize him.

Ed Henry at FOX News reported: “We learned today from the White House. Initially, they said he signed up for what they called a bronze plan, paying about four hundred dollars a month in premiums. But, then they came back to us and said – Wait, he didn’t actually enroll. They said his staff did it and that’s because of his unique circumstance as Commander in Chief. That his personal information is not in particular government data bases. So healthcare.gov could not actually verify his identity, oddly enough… So his staff did it.







I sure hope they tried

‘Barry Soetoro, Kenya’

before they gave up…

http://www.thenattyconservative.com/...dentity-video/

BREAKING: Why couldn't Healthcare.gov verify Obama's I.D.?

Has the scandal of the century just been re-ignited?

Barack Obama tries to sign up for his Obamacare, and Healthcare.gov cannot validate his own identity!

Here are the details the rest of the media are afraid to even utter ...

WND EXCLUSIVE

Why couldn't Healthcare.gov validate Obama's identity?

Bombshell in attempt to sign up president for insurance plan

Jerome R. Corsi
Published: 2 hours ago

Video at the Page Link:



NEW YORK – The White House appears to have dropped a bombshell when it explained to the press why White House staff in Washington enrolled President Obama in Obamacare instead of Obama himself.

Officials said it was because HealthCare.gov could not verify Obama’s identity.
Here is what Ed Henry, Fox News White House correspondent, reported on air:
“Somebody who’s not waiting in line to enroll is the president of the United States. We learned today from the White House. Initially, they said he signed up for what they called a bronze plan, paying about four hundred dollars a month in premiums. But, then they came back to us and said – ‘Well, wait. He didn’t actually enroll. They said his staff did it and that’s because of his unique circumstance obviously, as commander-in-chief, that his personal information is not in various government databases, so Healthcare.gov could not actually verify his identity, oddly enough. So, he had to do it in person this weekend, so he was signing up for the D.C. exchange, but his staff did it.”

A CBS report in Washington, likewise, explained White House staff had to go to an “in-person” Obamacare site to sign up Obama for coverage.
The Fox News report, noted by the Gateway Pundit, set off a round of speculation on the Internet.
What information was so sensitive for Obama that it had to be excluded from government databases?
Clearly, the information was not his Social Security Number or his birth records, because the White House has claimed to have made public both.
On May 5, 2010, WND published a report documenting that WND researchers were able to find, through an ordinary search of the Social Security database online, the Social Security Number Obama has been using.
In the same article, WND also reported Obama was using a Social Security Number set aside by the Social Security Administration for applicants with addresses in Connecticut. Public records, meanwhile, provide no evidence Obama ever had an address in the state.
On April 27, 2011, the White House released a form the White House claimed was Obama’s long-form birth certificate, making public Obama’s date and place of birth.
The White House also releases annually on a timely basis the income tax returns for Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, with the Social Security Numbers missing. Yet for the purpose of filing the IRS return, there appears to be no exception allowing the president or the vice president to omit their Social Security Numbers.
The Healthcare.gov website says the only information required for applying for health-care coverage on the government exchange is a Social Security Number, employer and income verification, and the policy numbers of any current health-insurance plans.



Source: HealthCare.gov

As indicated above, WND reported after Obama took the oath of office that the Social Security Number he currently is using could be found through a public search on the Social Security website.
None of the other information required, as seen on the above Healthcare.gov “Marketplace Application Checklist,” appears to be information that would be included in a government database for any U.S. citizen prior to applying for health insurance.
While the policy numbers of existing health-insurance plans covering members of the household would be protected for all citizens under various state and federal privacy statutes, the information does not appear to reach the threshold where national-security concerns would require keeping the information secret for the commander in chief under a national-security classification.

E-Verify ‘flagged’ Obama SSN
On Sept. 12, 2011, WND reported the Social Security Number being used by Obama did not pass a check with E-Verify, the electronic system the U.S. Citizenship and Immigrations Services of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security created to verify whether or not prospective employees have the required authorization to work legally in the United States.
In that article, WND published the “Self-Check” page from E-Verify that clearly listed a “Notice of Mismatch with Social Security Administration (SSA) Records.”
As seen below, Obama’s Social Security Number produced a mismatch that warranted a visit to the Social Security Administration to investigate the discrepancy.



E-Verify notification of “mismatch” in Obama Social Security number self check

The checked reason for the mismatch notice was: “SSA record does not verify. Other reason. SSA found a discrepancy in the record.”
The graphic below shows a Social Security Administration website page that indicates the response “SSA record does not verify, other reason” is to be interpreted as “Special indicator present,” with the reference to three E-Verify sections.



Social Security page explaining response "SSA record does not verify, other reason."

Further research revealed that the SSA adds “Special Indicator codes” to identify Social Security numbers that individuals obtained fraudulently.
According to an audit report authored by the Office of the Inspector General, Social Security Administration, titled “Effectiveness of Special Indicator Codes on the Social Security Administrations Numident File,” dated August 2008, there were nine special indicator codes as of November 2008:

1. False Identity
2. Noncitizen Not in Status
3. Multiple SSNs with Different Identities
4. Scrambled Earnings with New SSN Assigned
5. SSN Obtained Using Fraudulent Documentation
6. SSN Assignment Based on Harassment/Abuse/Life Endangerment
7. Fictitious Identity
8. Fraud – OIG Investigated
9. Fraud SSN Misuse
   

WND obtained a copy of an affidavit from Linda Jordan, a private citizen who entered Obama’s Social Security Number into the “Self Check” section of the E-Verify website and found it to be flagged as likely being fraudulent.
“Eight of the Special Indicators have to do with fraud of some kind,” Jordan said. “It looks to me like the SSN Obama is using has been flagged with a Special Indicator suggesting fraud.”
WND’s request for comment in September 2011 to the media office of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigrations Services of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security went unanswered.

Whose Social Security Number is Obama using?
As seen below, U.S. Air Force Col. Gregory Hollister, retired, obtained from the Social Security Administration verification that the Social Security Number currently being used by Obama is a number that was never issued to him.


SSA verification that the Obama's Social Security number (redacted above) was not issued to Obama

Yet, WND has independently verified that Obama is using the Social Security Number in question.
As seen below, WND confirmed in an article published Feb. 2, 2011, that Obama’s Social Security Number links to Obama in the online records maintained by the Selective Service system. Inserting Obama’s Social Security Number into the online Selective Service search engine produces a valid Selective Service Number identified with Obama.

Selective Service online search engine links Obama's Social Security Number to his Selective Service Number

On Nov. 30, 2010, WND reported that the Social Security Administration has decided to randomize all future Social Security Numbers issued, beginning on or about June 25, 2011, in a move that will eliminate state-specific assignment of the Social Security Numbers.



http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/why-could...amas-identity/

Atty. Orly Taitz received a tip that to sign up for Obamacare on 12/23/13, Mr. Obama may have used a new SSN beginning with 212, issued to him by the Virginia SSA. She asks readers with any info on a deceased military person (or civilian) with a 212 SSN to contact her at orly.taitz at hushmail.com .

SSNs beginning with 212 were for Maryland return addresses, until they began to be randomized in 2011.

U.S. law forbids anyone to have a reissued (used) SSN or a second (new) SSN. I'm sure that exceptions are made for persons in the U.S. Federal Witness Protection Program (WITSEC), but otherwise, it's one SSN per person for life, even for identity theft victims - the opposite of Mr. Obama's frauds.


[ED.: New to Mr. Obama's SSN fraud? Read Dr. Jerome Corsi for the basics.]

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
ORLY TAITZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN COLVIN,
Commissioner,
Social Security Administration,
et al.,
Defendants
.
Civil Action No. ELH - 13 - 1878

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This case arises under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552. On April 26, 2013, Dr. Orly Taitz, plaintiff,(1) sent a FOIA request to the Social Security Administration (the “SSA”) office in Baltimore, requesting copies of the Social Security applications (“SS - 5s”) of three individuals: Mr. Harrison (“Harry”) J. Bounel, Mr. Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and Ms. Stanley Ann Dunham. See April 26 letter, ECF 7 - 2 at ¶¶1–3.

Plaintiff had not yet received a FOIA response when, on June 25, 2013, [after 60 days without a response from the SSA,] she filed suit in this Court requesting, inter alia, an order compelling defendant to respond to her FOIA request for Mr. Bounel’s SS - 5. ECF 1 at 3.(2) On July 8, 2013, [after ten weeks without a response from the SSA,] plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (ECF 3), which was substantively identical to the original complaint. Plaintiff served her Amended Complaint on defendant on July 10, 2013. See ECF 6. In her suit, plaintiff alleged
_______________________

1 Plaintiff apparently is a licensed attorney in California. See ECF 2 at 1 and n.1. She appears here as a self-represented litigant.
2 Plaintiff filed the original complaint on behalf of Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, a corporation or association of California, of which she is or was president. However, Dr. Taitz is the sole plaintiff in the Amended Complaint.
_______________________

that Mr. Bounel was born in 1890,(3) and therefore, under the “‘120 Year Rule’ implemented by the SSA in 2010,” pertaining to “‘extremely aged individuals,’” Bounel’s “Social Security applications have to be released under FOIA without proof of [his] death....” ECF 6 ¶ 12.

On July 29, 2013, Dawn S. Wiggins, a Freedom of Information Officer, replied to plaintiff’s letter of April 26. Wiggins acknowledged receipt of plaintiff’s letter and stated, id. at 2 – 3:

I have enclosed a copy of the SS - 5s for Mr. Tsarnaev and Ms. Dunham..

We were unable to find any information for Mr. Bounel based on the information you provided to us. Mr. Bounel may not have applied for a Social Security number (SSN)[, the SSN beginning with "042" as provided by the plaintiff notwithstanding,] or may have given different information on the application for a number.

“The Freedom of Information Act was enacted to facilitate public access to Government documents,” U.S. Dept of State v. Ray, 502 U.S. 164, 173 (1991) (citation omitted), and to vindicate the public’s right to know “what their government is up to.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice v Reporters Comm. for Freedom of Press, 489 U.S. 749, 773 (1989) (quotation marks omitted). Consistent with this objective, FOIA requires that “each [federal] agency, upon any request for records which (i) reasonably describes such records and (ii) is made in accordance with published rules stating the time, place, fees (if any) and procedures to be followed, shall make the records promptly available to any person.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A).(4)
________________________

3 Plaintiff’s claim that Mr. Bounel was born in 1890 is based on a United States Census record which, according to plaintiff, states that Mr. Bounel was 50 years old in 1940. See ECF 13-7. I note parenthetically that an individual who was 50 years old in 1940 could have been born in either 1889 or 1890.
4 If the agency uncovers responsive documents, its disclosure obligations are not unlimited. [ED.: If the agency uncovers NO responsive documents, it is equally obligated to make that known.] “While the FOIA generally authorizes disclosure of information contained in public records, it also expressly recognizes that the public interest is not always served by disclosure.” [ED.: And what part of "shall make the records promptly available to any person” does the SSA not understand? ]
_______________________

In a lawsuit seeking the release of documents under the FOIA, “[o]nce the records are produced the substance of the controversy disappears and becomes moot since the disclosure which the suit seeks has already been made.’” Jacobs v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 725 F. Supp.2d 85, 89 (D.D.C. 2010) (quoting Crooker v. U.S. State Dep’t, 628 F.2d 9, 10 (D.C.Cir.1980)); see also Perry v. Block, 684 F.2d 121, 125 (D.C. Cir. 1982). [ED.: Inversely, but similarly, "until the records are produced, the substance of the controversy probably has neither disappeared nor become moot, since the disclosure which the suit seeks still has not been made.”] Accordingly, on August 14, 2013, defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment (“Motion,” ECF 7), supported by a Memorandum of Law and exhibits. Defendant argues that the SSA has “produced all responsive documents that are not exempt from release under FOIA,”(5) and therefore, plaintiff’s claim for relief is moot. [ED.: This is more specious reasoning from the attorneys for the SSA. Inasmuch as the SSA has not produced any responsive documents whatsoever about Harrison J. Bounel, its production of nothing and acknowledgement of nothing proves nothing about the plaintiff's claim for relief being moot.]

Plaintiff filed a combined Opposition and Motion for Summary Judgment on August 21, 2013. (“Opposition” or “Opp.”, ECF 9). However, she did not address defendant’s argument regarding mootness. [ED.: Such a specious argument could have been recognized as void and invalid, even without dignifying it with a rational and reasoned response.] Rather, [based upon the Declaration of Dawn S. Wiggins - ED.,] she claimed that the SSA did not conduct an adequately thorough search for responsive documents and, alternatively, that the SSA possesses Mr. Bounel’s Social Security application but improperly withheld it. E.g., Opp. at 1–2.

In regard to the adequacy of the search, plaintiff’s arguments that the SSA has failed to meet its obligations under the FOIA may have merit. When the adequacy of a search is challenged, an agency may demonstrate the adequacy of its search by submitting an affidavit that is “reasonably detailed, setting forth the search terms and the type of search performed, and
____________________________

5 U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs. v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 833 F.2d 1129, 1134 (4th Cir. 1987). Thus, an agency may withhold information where a record falls within one of FOIA’s nine specific statutory exemptions. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b) (listing exemptions); U.S. Dep’t of Defense v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 510 U.S. 487, 494 (1994) (noting that FOIA incorporates “a general philosophy of full agency disclosure unless information is exempted under clearly delineated statutory language” (quoting Dep’t of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 360–61 (1976))).
____________________________

averring that all files likely to contain responsive materials (if such records exist) were searched so as to give the requesting party an opportunity to challenge the adequacy of the search.” Ethyl Corp. v. U.S. E.P.A., 25 F.3d 1241, 1246-47 (4th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Here, defendant has offered the Declaration of Dawn S. Wiggins, who avers, ECF 12-2 ¶ 6: “SSA conducted a search of the Numident for a record that matched the information provided by Plaintiff but could not locate a record for Mr. Bounel [no record found, whether exempt from release under FOIA or not - ED.].” Wiggins did not explain the manner in which the search was conducted, whether multiple searches were conducted using different combinations of the information provided by plaintiff (to ensure that a minor discrepancy in the information submitted by plaintiff did not sabotage the search), or any other details related to the thoroughness of her search.

However, any deficiencies in Wiggins’s affidavit may have been the result of the fact that the suit is not framed as a challenge to the adequacy of the search. Put another way, plaintiff’s contention on this point, and the factual allegations underlying them, do not appear in the Amended Complaint. [Nevertheless, the SSA's failure to respond does not require any further details from the plaintiff, only that a judge with competent jurisdiction orders the defendant to make the required response. - ED.] The Amended Complaint is premised only on the SSA’s failure to respond to plaintiff’s FOIA request, for which Dr. Taitz sought an Order requiring a response. Plaintiff first raised the issue of inadequacy in her Opposition.

A party cannot alter his or her claim through briefs. Instead, “the proper procedure for plaintiff[s] to assert a new claim is to amend the complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P.15(a).” Gilmour v. Gates, McDonald & Co., 382 F.3d 1312, 1315 (11th Cir. 2004). To be sure, when a party is a pro se litigant, the Court must construe her pleadings liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007). Nevertheless, the Court cannot add factual allegations to a complaint or otherwise advocate for a pro se litigant. See Weller v. Department of Social Services, 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990).

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint was filed before the SSA responded to her FOIA request [but only after a ten week delay - ED.], and has been rendered moot by the SSA’s response to her FOIA request [but only after a ten week delay - ED.]. If plaintiff takes issue with the adequacy of the SSA’s response, she must amend her complaint to add allegations that the SSA’s response was deficient. [ED.: SSA's response, even if it were not deficient, was certainly not rendered promptly, but only after a ten week delay.] Accordingly, I will dismiss plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, without prejudice [though not without bias - ED.], and with leave to amend within 21 days of the docketing of the accompanying Order, so that plaintiff may properly allege the claims she raised in her Opposition. I will also deny plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF 9), without prejudice [though not without bias - ED.]. An Order follows.

Date: December 13, 2013

/s/
Ellen Lipton Hollander
United States District Judge

www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Taitz-v-Colvin-order-to-file-an-amended-complaint1.pdf