Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

[A'isha]

This statement clearly explains why the 10 SSN numbers prior to and after Mr. Obama's were all for Connecticut applicants.

It clearly explains why that's irrelevant.

ALL SSN applicants have to appear in person to obtain a SSN unless it was issued at birth.

No they don't. And even if an applicant chooses to apply in person, the number they will be assigned has nothing to do with the location of the SSA office they apply at.

In which State did Obama apply for his SSN?

As the SSA site linked numerous times above says, it doesn't matter.

 

[Arus808]

This statement clearly explains why the 10 SSN numbers prior to and after Mr. Obama's were all for Connecticut applicants.

Yes it does. It explains exactly why he received the SSN number he did, because back then EVERY card that came to the SSA was entered by a live breathing human being.

You know, people who gets stacks of cards as they are receive and spend hours each day entering them into a record

And has been explained to you numerous times in this VERY THREAD: It could have simply been a clerical error.

96814= Obama's zip code in Honolulu Hi when he applied to work at Baskin Robbons

06814 = Danbury, CT

A clerk simply press the "0" instead of a "9" and voila, a SSN associated with CT would be issued.

Or a clerk couldn't read Obama's handwriting and thought the "9" was a "0" and followed suit.

ALL SSN applicants have to appear in person to obtain a SSN unless it was issued at birth.

Absolutely false. All SSN applications were processed through local offices by mail or in person up until 1972. YOU don't have to show up to get issued a SSN.

After 1972 (Obama was issued his in 1973) - they were all processed at the Baltimore offices. Tell me what hawaii person flies out to Baltimore to get their SSN ?


It was mailed in, like how people still do it today. There are still some local offices, but places who are rural and cannot get to an office, the applications are sent through the mail.

http://www.ssa.gov/ssnumber/ss5.htm

Where to Take or Mail the Application and Documents

Take (or mail) your completed application and necessary documents to your local Social Security office. If you live or receive mail in Bronx, N.Y.; Brooklyn, N.Y.; Queens, N.Y.; Orlando, Fla. (Orange, Osceola and Seminole Counties); Sacramento County, Calif.; Phoenix, Ariz. (Maricopa County and Apache Junction Area); Las Vegas, Nev.; Philadelphia, Pa.; or Greater Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, Minn., you must apply in person or by mail to a Social Security Card Center.

Why do you lie? Your lies are easily found to be lies by a quick look on the net.

In which State did Obama apply for his SSN?

He mailed his application like every American who couldn't get to the Baltimore offices.

 

[JayUtah]

Nothing seems...
<snip irrelevant nonsense>

Translation: "I just hate Obama so much!"

Yeah, that really improves the credibility of your arguments on the subject of his eligibility to be President.

 

[JohnnyG]

No they don't. And even if an applicant chooses to apply in person, the number they will be assigned has nothing to do with the location of the SSA office they apply at.

I'm not a birther so don't take this as defending their position, but your link does say you have to appear in person.

Anyone age 12 or older requesting an original Social Security number must appear in person for an interview.

 

[A'isha]

I'm not a birther so don't take this as defending their position, but your link does say you have to appear in person.

Hmm, you're right. You don't need to apply in person, though apparently there is some part that does need to be done in person. In which case Obama could still have gone to the SSA office right there in Honolulu and still been issued an SSN with the number he received, since that was determined solely by the ZIP on the application (see Arus808's post above), and would not have been affected one bit by what office he may or may not have visited for the interview.

 

[Arus808]

And the nitrous sniffing dentist lawyer files another doozy:

orlytaitzesq.com/?p=148762 <--- link purposefully borked due to constant malware that inundates her site

Breaking news! New 113 page complaint with exhibits class action filed on behalf of Christian and Jewish US Citizens:Healthcare Obama Tax is illegal as it violates Equal protection clause, Due Process Clause, Establishment clause and Free exercise of religion clause of the US Constitution, as it exempt Muslim citizens and places a heavy tax burden on Christian and Jewish U. S. Citizens to pay a de facto Judeo-Christian Obama Tax not only for themselves, but also for Muslim citizens, who are exempt

Press Release

Sent to 30,000 U.S. and International Media outlets

For Immediate Release

Breaking news!

New 113 page complaint with exhibits class action filed on behalf of Christian and Jewish US Citizens:Healthcare Obama Tax is illegal as it violates Equal protection clause, Due Process Clause, Establishment clause and Free exercise of religion clause of the US Constitution, as it exempt Muslim citizens and places a heavy tax burden on Christian and Jewish U. S. Citizens to pay a de facto Judeo-Christian Obama Tax not only for themselves, but also for Muslim citizens, who are exempt. Additionally, Plaintiff Attorney Orly Taitz, who is seeking a class action certification, is bringing forward a second challenge to Obama Tax, asserting that it is illegal, as it was signed into law by Barack Obama under false pretenses and by virtue of fraud, usurping the position of the U.S. President while using forged and fraudulently obtained identification papers: forged Selective service Certificate, forged Birth certificate and a fraudulently obtained Social security number. Additional cause of action is RICO, asserting thatObama doe America is a de facto RICO organization created to procure fraud committed by Obama. Additional defendants are Attorney General Holder, Registrar of the Department of health of HI Alvin Onaka, former director of Selective Service William A. Chatfield, Commissioner of Social Security Michael Astrue, former Chair Woman of Democratic National Convention in 2008 Nancy Pelosi, former chairman of the Democratic Party of Hawaii Brian Schatz and a number of other defendants.

While the case was filed in the Southern Division of the Central District of California, it was moved by the clerk of the court to the western Division in Los Angeles. When asked, why was the case moved, the clerk stated that it is a violation of civil rights case, which affects the whole district.

Both DOCX and PDF versions of the complaint are attached

Dr.Orly Taitz, ESQ

Here is her 113 page complaint (in several files):

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?attachment_id=148767
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?attachment_id=148768
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?attachment_id=148771
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?attachment_id=148772

 

[A'isha]

Orly should learn to read Snopes before filing debunked email spam as part of her court cases.

 

[Frank McLaughlin]

No. That would violate Hawaiian law.

A principle Birther argument seems to be that no one has examined the long form birth certificate, the paper sent from Hawaii to Obama. Of course, if there really is no original birth certificate in a vault, then the LFBC has to have been made up by Hawaiian officials, and they can print anything they want since they are making it up.

Having said that, has any group or jounalist examined the LFBC piece of paper that was given to Obama? Has the White House shown around the paper from Hawaii?

 

[JayUtah]

Having said that, has any group or jounalist examined the LFBC piece of paper that was given to Obama? Has the White House shown around the paper from Hawaii?

What would such an examination hope to discover?

 

[Arus808]

A principle Birther argument seems to be that no one has examined the long form birth certificate, the paper sent from Hawaii to Obama.

that would be false.

Savannah Guthrie held the LFCOLB in her hands and took pictures of it. She made the comment that she could feel the raised seal.

Of course, if there really is no original birth certificate in a vault, then the LFBC has to have been made up by Hawaiian officials, and they can print anything they want since they are making it up.

Which is much like Accusing the US MINT for making counterfeit bills.

Having said that, has any group or jounalist examined the LFBC piece of paper that was given to Obama? Has the White House shown around the paper from Hawaii?

Yes, Savannah Guthrie saw and held it.

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/05/be-sealed/

 

[A'isha]

Having said that, has any group or jounalist examined the LFBC piece of paper that was given to Obama? Has the White House shown around the paper from Hawaii?

Yes. NBC's White House Correspondent Savannah Guthrie actually got to handle it and feel the raised seal (3:48 into that video), and later posted some cell phone pics she snapped at the press conference.

Typically for birthers, though, this only fueled even more (and dumber) conspiracy theories.

EDIT: Scooped by Arus808! But I have links, so there!

 

[Arus808]

Typically for birthers, though, this only fueled even more (and dumber) conspiracy theories.

and of course this is done by the PUMA/known Obama hater, and inadequate Photoshop expert, Mara Zebest, who also wrote the Photoanalysis report for Jerome Corsi through World Nut Daily, Sherrif Joe Arapai's cold Case Posse Birth certificate investigation. All the while, not realizing that the LONG FORM was never scanned by any adobe Software (it was a native MacOS program).

Here, Mara shows that she is not the expert that she "claims" to be.

ETA:
Oh and Old Joe's cold case Posse is to have a "news conference" for his Posse's vacation investigative trip to Hawaii that tax payers in AZ's Maricopa county just had to foot to the tune of $10,000.

Expect the not-so new news on July 17th.

 

[Border Reiver]

And the nitrous sniffing dentist lawyer files another doozy:

<snip>

So, when is the hearing to have her declared a vexatious litigant?

 

[Arus808]

So, when is the hearing to have her declared a vexatious litigant?

The only court that has said they would pursue this has been Hawaii (in fact her last case there, the State AG was ordered to draft the findings of the court that included declaring the nitrous ditz a vexatious litigant)

But Hawaii has better things to do than worry about a woman who will not be visiting their state anytime soon. So, it's all on Hawaii right now (if Hawaii follows through, then I'm sure that other states will follow).


California Bar has done nothing, and by now I'm sure they have at least a box full of complaints addressing Taitz actions.

 

[KDLarsen]

Indiana might not be far off though, depends on how long she insists on stamping on their toes, demanding attention. The ID SoS recently upped the ante by proving to the court that Orly flat-out lied in court: http://www.scribd.com/doc/98673668/IN-2012-06-21-SOS-Supplemental-Motion-for-SanctionsFOFB (And damn, that website is confusing. I can't actually find the part where it's shown that she knew about the order).

Added to that, GA is still in play.

And I've repeat what I've said before, the CA bar doesn't care about Orly Taitz, until she gets a a) paying client and b) her actions cause said clients to lose the case and/or money. She's usually representing herself in most of her cases or representing one of the flying monkeys she's continually asking to email her, so she can represent them.

I can't remember if it takes a Vex Lit sentence or if a mere monetary sanction is enough, but the CA bar is obliged to take notice whenever she's slapped with those.

And I agree on Hawaii, the threat of vexlit+sanctions has caused her case over there to die out real quick, she hasn't mentioned it in ages.

 

[Arus808]

I can't remember if it takes a Vex Lit sentence or if a mere monetary sanction is enough, but the CA bar is obliged to take notice whenever she's slapped with those.

I'm not sure, but she's been sanctioned twice $20,000 in one and $200 in another.

And I agree on Hawaii, the threat of vexlit+sanctions has caused her case over there to die out real quick, she hasn't mentioned it in ages.

but she doesn't mind naming Loretta Fuddy and Alvin Onaka in her current Obamacare suit, so involving Hawaii DOH again.

 

[Arus808]

Docket Update for the Mississippi Ballot Challenge

http://www.scribd.com/doc/99243134/...AND-REQUEST-FOR-EMERGENCY-EVEDENTIARY-HEARING

RESPONSE in Opposition re [37] MOTION re [35] MOTION Motion to Supplement Counsel for MDEC's Response [ECF No. 30] in Opposition to Plaintiff Taitz's Motion for Sanctions [ECF No. 25] re [30] Response to Motion, MOTION Motion to Supplement Counsel for MDEC's Response MOTION for Hearing filed by Democrat Party of Mississippi

The Arpaio affidavit was only to be used for ONE court case : Voeltz case in the first Florida Ballot challenge, which was dismissed earlier this month.

The best:

At the same time, it is difficult to ascertain why Plaintiff Taitz believes the Arpaio affidavit is relevant to the instant proceedings, and further notes that the case in which the Arpaio affidavit was submitted has been dismissed, and thus requests that the Court deny Plaintiff Taitz’s motion.

Taitz has included the Arpaio affidavit (downloaded from the Florida case docket without permission to use in other cases) and has slapped it with the update to her Indiana case, Georgia case, and now the Obamacare case in California





ETA:

Voeltz has gone ahead and refiled for a new case, using his Second Amended complaint (which was submitted to his first case, but subsequently ignored by the court since the dismissal is based on his first complaint - that was Dismissed with prejudice)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/99146723/Voeltz-Complaint-for-Declaratory-Relief

I don't see how Voeltz will not be reprimanded for filing essentially the same case again.

 

[KDLarsen]

Quite a bit of this is taken from the Fogbow, but I thought I'd share it here.

Some of Susan Daniels' exhibits shows the letterhead of Tracers Information Specialists, who has some restrictions on what non-public information supplied by them can be used for.

One of things the info is not permitted to be used for is

f. May NOT be used to locate personal information on well known/high profile celebrities, government officials, etc

They also have a very interesting indemnification clause:

INDEMNIFICATION: Subscriber acknowledges that the data it obtains from Tracers is compiled by Tracers from numerous suppliers and that Subscriber has
been allowed access to the data because of its representations of its authorized use of this data. Subscriber shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless Tracers
and its suppliers from and against any and all liabilities, damages, losses, claims, costs, fees and expenses (including attorney fees) arising out of or related to
Subscriber’s use of the data obtained from Tracers. Tracers and its suppliers are entitled to enforce the data security, use, legal compliance, and
indemnification provisions of this and all other Agreements by and between Subscriber and Tracers directly against the Subscriber as third party beneficiaries.
If Subscriber knowingly and willfully obtains information for an improper purpose or without the proper consent under the FCRA, GLB or any other applicable law, or knowingly and willfully uses the report improperly, Subscriber agrees that such are material breaches of this Agreement and such a breach may result in
immediate termination of this Agreement and access. Subscriber further agrees that such an act would cause Tracers irreparable harm and that damages are not readily determinable and agrees to pay Tracers the sum of $100,000 as liquidated damages for such breach

Hey Ms. Daniels? Ouch.

 

[Robrob]

Some of Susan Daniels' exhibits shows the letterhead of Tracers Information Specialists, who has some restrictions on what non-public information supplied by them can be used for.

I've said it before, these credit check companies access national databases and find every time your SSN was reported on a form, any time, any place, any reason. Accurate, inaccurate, forged, mistaken, false, etc... it all ends up on your database record.

Every time an illegal alien uses a randomly chosen SSN on their W2, they are registering it on someone else's record. Every time you put a bogus number down on a registration form or mistakenly put a different number or the OCR reads your 5 as a 6 - it goes on someone's record.

Only a moron (or fanatic) would think such a database entry "means" something.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

I've said it before, these credit check companies access national databases and find every time your SSN was reported on a form, any time, any place, any reason. Accurate, inaccurate, forged, mistaken, false, etc... it all ends up on your database record.

Every time an illegal alien uses a randomly chosen SSN on their W2, they are registering it on someone else's record. Every time you put a bogus number down on a registration form or mistakenly put a different number or the OCR reads your 5 as a 6 - it goes on someone's record.

Only a moron (or fanatic) would think such a database entry "means" something.

Back in the 1980s my mother had to have a rather long battle with the IRS while living in Colorado, because according to the IRS she was also working in Arizonia. Someone managed to steal her SSN numer and it took her getting affidavits from her boss, and my father's CO. They finally dropped the action against her, but this goes to show that even back then it was possible to steal a SSN even if it were through a guess at a SSN.

Heck credit reports are screwy because me and my father share a similar name, and every so often parts of our credit history get basically shared for good or ill.