Judge Rules: Obama Social Security Card Fraud May Finally Get Answers

It took years for Watergate to unravel fully. The controversy over Barack Hussein Obama and his past, along with fraudulent documents continues to make headlines. Yet, the items needed to actually verify who Obama is continue to be kept from the public eye. Well, that all may be about to change. Attorney Orly Taitz may have just found a chink in the federal government’s armor in protecting Barack Obama from scrutiny, following a judge’s ruling over her Freedom of Information Act request from the Social Security Administration.

Taitz has claimed that Obama uses the Social Security number of Harry Bounel and has submitted several Freedom of Information Act requests for the information from the Social Security Administration. Each time, she has been met with stonewalling by the Social Security Administration.

However, Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander has ruled to give Taitz “an opportunity to file a second amended complaint and add allegations of SSA not doing a proper search and withholding records.”

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 refile 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 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 of the file. Taitz will be very careful not to be Breitbarted or Fuddied in the next 21 days.

Additionally, there is an increased tampering with the web site of Orly Taitz and with her ability to send mass -emails. It seems her private server is somehow affected and Taitz is unable to send mass e-mails on two different programs.

It’s interesting that Taitz points out that she will be “careful not to be Breitbarted or Fuddied,” indicating that she believes that both Andrew Breitbart and Andrew Breitbart and Loretta Fuddy were targeted by Obama for assassination.” Breitbart died on the very day that he said he would begin vetting Obama for the 2012 elections, which raised suspicions. Fuddy, best remembered as being instrumental in issuing the Hawaii long-form birth certificate, was the only person to die aboard a small plane that crashed off the coast of Hawaii last week. Already, there are questions surrounding the narrative of her death.

Taitz alleged that Mr. Bounel was born in 1890, 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 . . . .”

The reason for the judge’s amendment seems to be a procedural one. Taitz filed suit with the court prior to receiving word back from her Freedom of Information Act request, which she did receive on July 29, 2013 from Dawn S. Wiggins, a Fredom of Information Officer. Wiggins replied to Taitz:

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) or may have given different information on the application for a number.

It appears that once the amendment is submitted, this may force the Social Security Administration to explain exactly what is going on with Barack Obama’s Social Security number.

http://cdn.freedomoutpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Taitz-v-Colvin-order-to-file-an-amended-complaint.pdf

It's unfortunate in nearly all of these eligibility cases internet posters firmly believe evidence or proof must be presented with an allegation.

Your reply reads like a copy and paste from some post you made some time past, since I didn't make this claim about allegations and proof which you're bemoaning. You offer up a bit of a primer on Civil Procedure that disregards what I posted (and is chock-full of error about what you do discuss).

You were suggesting that Orly file an amended complaint that demands the Court order Obama to prove his credentials. My reply (which you quote, but don't address) observes that Obama is not a party to the suit, so the Court can't and won't order him to prove anything.

I have no idea what your long digression was about. But it didn't address the point that non-parties aren't obliged to make proof.

Consequently, Orly must file an Objection with the Court stating Obama is ineligible to be President because he is not a natural born citizen and she objects to the appointments made by any ineligible President. The Court must sustain the objection or order Obama to prove he is eligible.

There is a third option you seem to consciously disregard: namely, the Court treats any such claim by Orly as just a variation on the theme of "an individual has no standing in a civil suit to challenge presidential eligibility," and it tosses out that claim as have the other courts.

Anyone in a dispute with the Federal government can object to the laws, rules, regulations and appointments of an ineligible President.

Since there has never been an instance of someone challenging an appointment due to asserted presidential ineligibility, you're obviously just pulling this rule out from your backside.

If so, the President must prove he's eligible or exempt the plaintiff from all laws, rules, regulations and appointments made by the ineligible President.

You and others might enjoy the dream that somehow Orly's case will proceed along the lines you suggest. The reality is that after Orly amends her complaint to allege the SSA did an inadequate search, the SSA will respond with renewed motion for summary judgment along with a more detailed affidavit explaining its search methodology and explaining (again) that the search criteria submitted by Taitz yielded no responsive records.

The Court will then toss out the case.

In a civil suit, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant once the defendant denies the allegations.

I don't know from where you get you information on civil procedure and evidence, but this statement is flat-out wrong.

In an Presidential eligibility civil suit, it would be expected Obama would present his BC as proof he's eligible.

Isn't the actual based-in-experience expectation at this point that any Presidential eligibility civil suit brought by someone NOT named Mcain, Palin, Romney or Ryan will be tossed out due to lack of standing?

The plaintiff does not have to identify the rebuttal witness or the evidence the rebuttal witness has available prior to trial.

Again, you're spouting nonsense here. It is standard discovery practice to ask the opposing party to identify both the witnesses expected to testify at trial and the documents which will be offered at trial. Often this information is made part of a pretrial order signed by the judge. Failure to disclose this may be grounds for excluding the witness or the documents from being used.

You’re confusing a criminal trial with a civil suit.

In a criminal complaint, the prosecutor submits charges of violations of law by the defendant. The Court assumes the defendant is innocent until proven guilty of the charges. It is up to the prosecutor to prove their case while the defendant pokes holes in the prosecutor’s case to create doubt.

In a civil suit, allegations are made by the plaintiff and those allegations are considered to be true until the defendant proves the allegations do not have merit by a preponderance of the evidence. The defendant has the right to move for dismissal of the civil suit without answering the allegations if the plaintiff does not have standing to sue the defendant.

If the case is not dismissed for standing, the defendant must deny the allegations before the defendant can prove the allegations are without merit. If the defendant denies the allegations, discovery can be requested. During the discovery, the plaintiff can request subpoenas to obtain certified copies of original documents from primary witnesses. Primary witness are the persons who control the original documents; such as, the Commissioner of SSA or Deputy Commissioner of the SSA.

Evidence from secondary witnesses are ignored until the primary witnesses have been deposed. A secondary witness is a rebuttal witness and will only be heard and have their evidence examined as a rebuttal to the primary witnesses.

If the primary witness claims evidence subpoenaed by the Plaintiff cannot be found or does not exist, the plaintiff informs the Court and the defendant a rebuttal witness will be called at trial. A rebuttal witness is not specifically named or the evidence that will be presented in rebuttal will not be identified to prevent the defendant from intimidating or interfering with the evidence to be presented by the rebuttal witness.

For example, Orly alleges Obama is ineligible to be President because he is not a natural born citizen. The Court will ask for relevance. Once relevance is established, under the De Facto Officer Doctrine, the Court must proceed as if Obama is a usurper unless be appears before the Court and proves he eligible. Obama is not a defendant in Orly’s case. He has a choice to appear or not to appear. If he does not appear, the Court must proceed as if the President is ineligible and his laws, executive orders, appointments and rule are objectionable by a defendant with standing.

Obama’s eligibility is relevant to Orly’s case because he appointed the SSA Commissioner who is a defendant in Orly’s lawsuit. If Orly objects to the appointments made by a usurper, then the objection must be sustained by the Court and an agreement will have to be negotiated between Orly and the SSA to search the records requested. If Orly does not object by making a motion of objection to the Court, then Obama’s laws, rules, regulations and appointments are valid and the Court must proceed as if the President is eligible for the Office under the De Facto Officer Doctrine.

You’re confusing a criminal trial with a civil suit.

No, I'm not.

The civil procedure rules used by all U.S. Courts require a plaintiff to prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence. http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/the-preponderance-of-the-evidence-in-civil-law.html

Sven, in addition to a law school degree, I have passed the Bar exam in 3 separate jurisdictions and have 20-plus years of private legal practice. So you're not wise to "school" me on these points. My interest in pursuing this point is not whether you're wrong (I know you are) but the "why and how" of how someone gets off-track. What is your source for claiming "In a civil suit, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant once the defendant denies the allegations?"

I'm genuinely curious. From where did you derive this (erroneous) notion?

Here’s a copy and paste from the link you posted ...

“Shifting Burden of Proof in Civil Cases: Who Gets To Prove What?

In civil cases, the plaintiff starts out with the “burden of proof.” This means that the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant did the wrong act. However, once the plaintiff has presented enough evidence to prove this, the burden then shifts to the defendant, who must offer more evidence that he more than likely did not do the act.”

As I said, the plaintiff makes an allegation in a civil suit. If the defendant files a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must prove standing, jurisdiction, etc. So far, all eligibility cases have been dismissed because the plaintiff cannot prove they have standing to overcome the Will of the People who have elected an ineligible President. If the case survives a motion to dismiss, the defendant must deny or affirm the allegations. If the defendant affirms the allegations, the Court rules the allegations have merit and the case proceeds to a hearing on damages.

If the defendant denies the allegations, the plaintiff may move the Court to have a Discovery Conference to begin the process of obtaining evidence from primary sources. It is in the Discovery process the plaintiff obtains evidence to prove their allegations. The Court ignores all evidence and testimony presented before Discovery because the chain of custody is suspect. The chain of custody is well maintained through the discovery process.

In the event primary evidence is unobtainable because a witness testifies it does not exist or cannot be found, a plaintiff can call a rebuttal witness to prove the allegations. A rebuttal witness is a secondary witness and not subject to deposition. A rebuttal witness is ignored by the Court until a primary witness testifies evidence does not exist or cannot be found.

It is common for supporters of the defendant to publicly demand a plaintiff present their rebuttal witnesses prior to trail. Ironically, the Court ignores rebuttal witnesses until primary witnesses, the people who have custody of the evidence, have testified under oath. As an officer of the Court, you know all of these statements are true and carefully explained in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Here’s a copy and paste from the link you posted ...

“Shifting Burden of Proof in Civil Cases: Who Gets To Prove What?

In civil cases, the plaintiff starts out with the “burden of proof.” This means that the plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant did the wrong act. However, once the plaintiff has presented enough evidence to prove this, the burden then shifts to the defendant, who must offer more evidence that he more than likely did not do the act.”

You're here confusing the pleading and evidentiary phases of a civil suit. Earlier you were trying to make it sound as if the defendant has the burden to rebut with evidence the allegations of the plaintiff, as if the mere allegations stand on their own once denied by the defendant. In your words:

"In a civil suit, allegations are made by the plaintiff and those allegations are considered to be true until the defendant proves the allegations do not have merit by a preponderance of the evidence."

Rather, the plaintiff has initial the burden of coming forward with some positive, credible evidence to support plaintiff's allegations. It can be the case that plaintiff's proof is found to be so wanting that the defendant need not make any evidentiary showing. Or even show up, for that matter. This has been the situation with Taitz on a few occasions.

But if a plaintiff does better than Taitz and actually puts some real evidence into play, then what you quoted above becomes relevant: the defendant then has the burden to offer contrary evidence. But the burden of proof ultimately rests with the plaintiff, as I showed earlier:

"The civil procedure rules used by all U.S. Courts require a plaintiff to prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence." http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/the-preponderance-of-the-evidence-in-civil-law.html

But I have little interest in continuing this lesson on civ. pro. The take-aways from this colloquy remain:

•The judge in Taitz's SSA case cannot and will not order a non-party (like Obama) to "prove" a matter in the case
•The SSA has already made clear to Taitz that there are no records under the "042" SS# pertaining to someone named "Bounel" born around 1890. Though Taitz is simply too stupid to understand this and will flail pointlessly with her Second Amended Complaint.

I'm happy to discuss either of these bullet points.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.