I just read Lamberth’s decision in Taitz v Astrue at http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2011cv00402/146770/33/ That is so maddening. Obama publicly released his tax return in a format that allowed the SSN to be seen. That is public disclosure. He has also claimed to be male and claimed to live in various places during his life. Those are the only things that Orly asked to remain unredacted on the requested SSN application.
If that SSN was for Barack Obama, then nothing that would be disclosed by the redacted form (showing only the gender, date, and location for the applicant) would be a violation of his privacy since he has already published claims about himself.
Royce Lamberth knows that the requested application form is not for Obama. He knows Obama is using a fraudulent SSN.
This is exactly the same thing that the HDOH is doing by saying they can’t release a copy of Obama’s long-form because of privacy interests. If Obama had actually published his genuine long-form, there would be no privacy exception to disclosure. Their claiming that there still exists a privacy exemption to disclosure is an indirect admission that what Obama published is NOT what they have in their office.
In the same way, the only way that application form would still have a privacy exemption to disclosure is if the applicant has never published their number, gender, date of application, or location. The only one of those things that has a significant privacy interest according to FOIA rules is the actual number itself or actual current home address of the applicant. Obama already published the number, and I guarantee the address he filed under is not the White House. Lamberth knows there is nothing requested that has a significant FOIA privacy interest UNLESS IT BELONGS TO SOMEBODY BESIDES OBAMA.
IOW, Lamberth has indirectly confirmed that the SSN Obama used on his tax return belongs to somebody besides Obama.
To counter Lamberth’s argument that this has nothing to do with agency actions, what SHOULD be requested is a record of the agency’s PROCESSING of that application - including when and where it was processed and any changes made to it. The entity that should actually be sued is the IRS, for failure to report and/or prosecute social security fraud or verify Obama’s SSN.
Lamberth tried to get rid of Orly’s suit by saying she didn’t properly redact the SSN’s. He alluded to Taitz claiming that somebody in his office had altered what she sent. Given what we saw by SCOTUS clerk Danny Bickel in Donofrio’s cases, anything is possible, but I haven’t seen her post copies of what she claims she sent so I don’t know. Anyway, Lamberth rebuked Orly on July 25th. If the DC Post article was published July 26 or 27th, that meeting may have taken place the same day as the rebuke or shortly after. About a month later was when Lamberth decided the case, indirectly admitting that the SSN doesn’t belong to Obama, but superficially getting rid of the case.
If that meeting was after Lamberth’s rebuke of Taitz it could have been Holder directing Lamberth to take the case head-on to dispose of it rather than allowing Taitz to properly file a new case somewhere else with a judge not as amenable to Holder’s control. On July 27th Lamberth allowed Taitz to file properly-redacted forms. That was hailed as a great breakthrough, a chance for justice to really be done - leading people to believe that Lamberth might be just after all, and making it seem like sour grapes when he was called a traitor after his final decision.
I think Lamberth had probably already been threatened into putty before this case ever came up, based on his earlier “tilting at windmills” ruling against Taitz. These meetings with Holder may well have been for devising a strategy though.
And I remember that in Rhodes v. MacDonald Holder was supposedly seen with Judge Land before his ruling.