Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.More ↓Less ↑
A federal judge in Washington has dispensed with a lawsuit by prominent California attorney Orly Taitz, who wanted to be able to examine Social Security system documentation regarding Barack Obama on the suspicion that he is using a number fraudulently.
The case had been dismissed by District Judge Royce Lamberth several weeks ago, and now this week he has refused Taitz’ motion for reconsideration. He also dismissed a separate action seeking access to information about Obama’s “Certificate of Live Birth” from the state of Hawaii that is in possession of the White House counsel.
In a footnote, Lamberth editorialized, “The court is loath to dignify plaintiff’s allegations of fraud with a response on the merits. However, suffice it to say that plaintiff’s argument is premised on the incorrect assumption that Social Security numbers assigned prior to 1973 have an correlation to the recipient’s residence… Plaintiff’s entire premise is totally defeated by a cursory examination [of a government website] … Plaintiff’s allegations lack any basis in fact.”
The case was filed by Taitz, who has brought many of the major court challenges to Obama’s eligibility based on a lack of evidence that he meets the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural-born citizen.”
The case was filed against the Social Security Administration because Obama’s number indicates a Connecticut residency, yet there is no evidence he ever lived in the state. He claims he grew up in Hawaii and apparently had a Social Security number there, as he reported he worked in a Honolulu ice-cream shop.
The judge originally stated there’s no real interest in determining whether the Obama Social Security number is genuine or fraudulent, arguing that the need for privacy for the president trumps all else.
“The SSA explained that the Privacy Act of 1974 … protects the personal information of social security number holders,” he wrote. “The SSA determined … the plaintiff had identified no public interest that would be served by disclosure.
“Plaintiff makes no secret of her intention to use the redacted Form SS-5 to identify the holder of social security number xxxx-xxx-4425 – or, as plaintiff puts it, to confirm her suspicion that the president is fraudulently using that number,” the judge wrote.
But Lamberth wrote in the case against Michael Astrue, Social Security commissioner, that whether Obama is using a fake number isn’t his concern.
“Even if plaintiff’s allegations were true, an individual’s status as a public official does not, as plaintiff contends, ‘make exemption 6 irrelevant to him and his vital records.’”
He said he would “disregard” documents from the Selective Service and the Social Security Number Verification System suggesting there are problems with Obama’s number, because he “concludes” they were obtained “under false pretenses.”
The judge’s rulings were posted online and publicized by the BirtherReport.com website, which monitors actions regarding questions over Obama’s eligibility to be president.
The Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against Astrue had been dismissed earlier, and now Lamberth has denied a motion for reconsideration.
Lambert also dismissed a case demanding information from Kathy Ruemmler, White House counsel, about the issue.
The request to Ruemmler concerned access to the two certified copies of the “original long form birth certifigate of Barack Obama currently in possession of [Ruemmler,]” the judge noted.
But he said the Freedom of Information Act procedures do not apply to that office of the presidency.
The judge, in a footnote, noted that a report in the New York Times explained that the image released on April 27 “confirms the president’s birth in Honolul, Hawaii.”
Taitz has maintained that by releasing his long-form birth certificate to the American public on April 27, Obama has waived all privacy restrictions that would prevent the Hawaii DOH from making public the original 1961 birth records the agency has on file.
Taitz charged that if the long-form birth certificate the White House released on April 27 is not on file in a 1961 original copy in the Hawaii DOH, then a criminal felony has been committed.
“I don’t believe there is any 1961 typewritten birth certificate document for Obama on file in the Hawaii DOH that looks anything like what the White House released,” she asserted. “Why else would the Hawaii DOH fight me so hard to keep us from seeing whatever birth records are on file?”
The image that was released by the White House:
Exhibit 1: Obama long-form birth certificate released April 27 by the White House
But a multitude of computer, imaging, document and technology experts have concluded that it is, in fact, a forgery.
Exhibit 2: Ron Polland forgery of Obama long-form birth certificate
Ron Polland, in a 58-page document titled “How I made Obama’s long-form birth certificate,” available in its entirety here, detailed step-by-step the methods used to make the long-form birth certificate that matches what the president released.