This is the troubling question. Lamberth didn't conclude that probable fraud by Obama in obtaining his SSN would provide “insight into the SSA’s operations.” Wouldn't failure to detect and prevent fraudulent SSN applications provide “insight” into failed internal controls at SSA?
To protect Obama’s privacy rights, Lamberth appears to have required proof of fraud from Orly, not just speculation from her that Obama’s SSN was probably obtained by fraud. In that sense, his ruling was “conservative” and narrow.
Remember that Astrue was the defendant, not Obama. Orly had to provide convincing evidence that SSA screwed up, not Obama.
As long as it is possible for a person born in HI to have an CT SSN (it is), then SSA is in the clear for Judge Lamberth. Orly is not entitled to a "fishing expedition" even if that would likely to produce evidence of fraud. Likely isn't good enough for Lamberth.
Per Lamberth’s ruling:
“The disclosure of an individual’s Form SS-5 would provide absolutely no insight into the SSA’s operations or activities. And plaintiff—for all her allegations—has produced no“evidence that would warrant a belief by a reasonable person that the alleged government impropriety might have occurred.” Nat’l Archives and Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157,174 (2004). Her vehement allegations of fraud consist of mere “bare suspicion[s]” and thus fail to satisfy the public interest standard required under FOIA.”
Well, I accept that in terms of this case, but I would like a detailed, step by step explanation of the process that resulted in his having a Connecticut SS#.
I mean, I certainly don’t believe that a man who lies 100 % of the time is telling the truth about his identity, nope, I really don’t.
But that being said, I have no expectation that any explanation will occur, and quite frankly, it doesn’t matter to my overall philosophy on this, because we are the ones who ignorantly voted his fraudulent ass in, and it will be we who vote his fraudulent ass out.
(Not that I actually voted for him, just speaking collectively as a citizen. This is our duty, not the duty of some judge).
Taitz can keep the ball rolling if she appeals.
If the only reason is to keep the issue alive and in front of the complicit OBots and their liberal media. To remind everyone including them that they are a bunch of scofflaws.
And new derogatory or hard information against Obama could surface to be used in any appeal.