86 responses to “Obama’s Mama Had a Fraudulent Social Security Number Too!

  1. Other news: Orly served Loretta Fuddy, DOH, with a subpoena as of July 5.

    Taitz v Astrue
    Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects
    or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action

    Ms. Loretta Fuddy, Director of Health, State of Hawaii, Department of Health

    Production: You are commanded to produce at the time, date, and place set forth below the following documents, electronically stored information, or objects, and permit their inspection copying, testing, or sampling of the material: Original 1961 typewritten birth certificate #10641 for Barack Obama, III,[sic] issued 08. 08. 1961, signed by Dr. David Sinclair. Stanley Ann Dunham Obama and registrar CEe Lee [?] stored in the Health Department of the State of HI from 1961 until now.

    Place: Health Department, State of HI
    1250 Punchbowl Str. Room 325
    Honolulu; HI 96813

    Date and Time: August 8, 2011 10 AM
    Dated: 07. 05. 2011

    http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/

      • Does anyone know if Orly filled out that form or if the clerk did? Why in the world is his name given as Barack Obama III? Is this a built-in “out” for Fuddy to say there’s no such document?

        As usual, I find myself wishing very hard that Orly had a good proof reader.

        • If they say it doesn’t exist but don’t explain why (typical of the HDOH), then it will set off another round of stories about how the HDOH says there’s no birth certificate for Obama, even though he supposedly released it. I’m suddenly too suspicious. That’s what an obfuscating POTUS does to people–we have to doubt everything because the juvenile-in-chief and his immature, juvenile, obot supporters have been playing games with this issue (it is a new campaign season and they MUST make opponents look crazy) since the beginning. Alinsky. We can’t forget him and his influence on the whole ugly, evil tribe.

    • Atty. Orly Taitz Files Motion to Compel in Social Security Case
      July 7, 2011

      “Typically, people who don’t have a valid birth certificate resort to using fraudulent social security numbers. That’s why this is relevant, and that’s why I issued that subpoena to compel them.”

      http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/07/07/atty-orly-taitz-files-motion-to-compel-in-social-security-case/

  2. Bridge
    For teens born in the 1940′s it was common for them to get a social security card at age 16 when they were planning to get a part time job. Employers required it.
    I thought I saw a reference to an application submitted in 1959 that also had a different format than the one produced for Stanley …
    The real mystery is how it got into the SS files.

  3. Since they voluntarily made up that chart with the revisions, one must wonder if this is another case of obot Alinsky-type playing with the mouse (aka Orly). Will they let her swing on that rope and then own up to the “typo” in the chart? It’s hard to tell exactly WHAT that revision number is. Do we have a clearer image anywhere? So easy to let her expend time, money, effort and then… voila! It was just a typo. It was supposed to say 1956. Just human error, you see. No attempt to game Orly.

    • Didn’t anyone else notice that the form she had wasn’t even an “SS-5″ form? It’s an “MN-5″ (bottom left corner of the form; it’s much easier to see at the “webofdeception” link); I don’t know what that means, but I noticed it a couple of weeks ago when I was looking into this. Sooooooo, the list they gave Orly wouldn’t even pertain to this particular form, right?

      • Although in the FOIA response they refer to her “SS-5″ form…..

        • Very good point, SEO. You’re correct. Orly should take note. I wonder if there is such a thing as an MN-5 form?

          Reminds me of the “TXE” on Barry’s LFCOLB. Just off enough to make it “obviously a forgery” so nobody, arguably, can be accused of forgery.

          • I have been searching online and cannot find anything referencing a MN-5 form for either the SS administration or the IRS. I am stumped…considering asking the SSA on their “ask a question” online form.

          • I did send a query to the SSA on their website, I’ll let you know if I hear anything from them.

        • I added a better photo of the bottom of the form showing the Form number and revised information. As it gets larger, it doesn’t look like 55 either, it looks like a 68. The MM looks like it could be a MN-5 form too. I didn’t mention it in the article because I couldn’t really decipher it when I was making the jpg. (well, I still can’t with accuracy.) So I am glad you saw it elsewhere SEO.

          When Dawn calls it a specific form, is she talking in today’s language as to what it is now called, the SS-5? Or has it always been an SS-5? I don’t think that she would have gone to the trouble of creating a chart if she didn’t suspect something, or would she?

          I was surprised there were no redactions, like usual. Have they called off the “overseers”?

        • in reference to the SS-5 form verses MN-5 form. The absolute only things that made any reference to MN-5 were things relating to Minnesota, which of course doesn’t make any sense or relate, but I did notice sometimes SS administrations refering to Minors (under 18-14 depending on the state) must have someone sign for them and come in person. I thought maybe there was a form for MINORS ,i.e. MN form????? just a possibility but never found proof.

      • Also, for what it’s worth, the SS application I sent for on Kelly Ann Green (Dunham) doesn’t have the number typed in the space in the top right corner. In fact, why would there be a number on the application? I guess it could be a regional thing (they did it in Washington but not NY) or a change over time (Kelly’s was in 1973) but the number wouldn’t have been there when the application was filled out, obviously. Just thinking out loud.

        • I wondered about that number, too, and came to the conclusion, because it says don’t write in that space, that when the application is accepted and a number given, they type it there. But why wouldn’t Kelly Ann’s have a number? Did they refuse her application? Maybe policies did change between ’59 and ’73.

          • It would not be hard to get the SS applications for the two (dead) people issued in Washington that are the closest numbers before and after SAD’s application. The one before is Salomon Fox, 535-40-8517. One would expect it to be the same form.

      • The application on the Orly site has the far left side cut off. ( before the signature). So you don’t see the. ” form MN” or whatever. That is very troublesome as is the request for Obama lll
        Not sure what is going on but there seems to be glaring problems..

        • Very interesting point, AOne. I wonder why that is? WAIT! I checked her site (I don’t ordinarily go there on account of it crashing my browser sometimes). If you scroll up in the article, you’ll see a copy of the entire form, although turned on its side. The cropped images were there to show closeups of how the revision date is wrong. Apparently, she hasn’t noticed the difference in form number. Somebody ought to tip her off.

          Is Orly the only source of copies of the SS application?

          Orly seems to have glaring problems in a lot of her correspondence and filings. She needs a proof reader, for one thing. She makes unnecessary accusations in correspondence which should be cut and dried and simply lay out the facts. No need to add personal criticism of Barry (even though well founded) into letters requesting action on something because it might bias the people handling her request against her. Why do that? It plays into their hands.

          • I agree….. At times she is all over the place…but I actually saw he case be removed from the Supreme Court docket right after the inaugeration as I had been following all those cases. I never ever saw or heard anything like that happen to that docket before.
            I dont think she is aware of the “MN.”

    • As an official county recorder, I know “African” was not used in Box 9 during 1961 as displayed on Oboma’s birth certificate. Not until 1991 was “African” used in Box 9.

  4. Orly says, “My supporters have sent forms to me which were used in 1959, and the forms are different. This is not the same form used in 1959. So there is evidence that not only Obama, but also his mother are using fraudulent documents.”

    If she’s correct and other applications from 1959 (let’s hope at least one example before and one after SADOS’s application timeframe) don’t show that revision date, then she may be onto something. Because that obviates the need to worry about whether or not they’re punking her with a “typo” on the unrequested revision chart. (I got this quote from Post & Email story; not from Orly’s site. Has she ever published the other examples sent to her?)

  5. Courtesy of a link from Post & Email, here’s a larger version of the application and, I assume, an earlier one. http://webofdeception.com/obamamother%27sssapplication.html (Good link to save because it has links to many other documents of interest.)

    Remember when it was alleged that someone named Phyllis Albriktsen had the same SS# as SADOS? Whatever became of that story?

  6. Why is there no attorney’s signature on this subpoena? Is it enforceable? See rules of procedure: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule45.htm

    “The clerk must issue a subpoena, signed but otherwise in blank, to a party who requests it. That party must complete it before service.”

    Another interesting rule:

    “(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena.

    (A) When Required. On timely motion, the issuing court must quash or modify a subpoena that:

    (i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;

    (ii) requires a person who is neither a party nor a party’s officer to travel more than 100 miles from where that person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person — except that, subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(iii), the person may be commanded to attend a trial by traveling from any such place within the state where the trial is held;

    (iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no exception or waiver applies; or

    (iv) subjects a person to undue burden.”

    “If no exception or WAIVER applies.” Obama’s lawyer got a waiver in order to make certain birth information available to the public. Indisputable fact, unless the correspondence on the WH website is not real.

    Orly should have limited her request only to the information he’s already revealed. She should have asked to see or have them release the original documents with redactions of the information Obama has not already revealed. She should have listed the items of data he has released and then asked them to redact all other data from the original records and release the redacted copies to the court.

    If, for example, they supply a copy to the COURT where the parents’ names are redacted, or the birthdate, location, delivering physician, etc., are redacted, then we know he released false information to the public.

    • Perhaps it is electronically signed? Did she call the clerk and did the clerk make out the form? We don’t know.

      My gosh, it isn’t like the DOH doesn’t know what a vault copy is which is the original copy of the BC. They say it was in a book, and I don’t believe that is how they were kept. A log file or ledger book could hold basic information about the birth certificate and give the number to identify it, but to put them in a book?

      Miri, I don’t understand why you would want to see a redacted copy. ..

      • Electronically signed? Don’t know much about that. Do government entities accept that as legitimate? It’s not that important; it’s just that I never heard before that this is how the correspondence went from the WH to Corley to Hawaii.

        I don’t know why I’d want to see a redacted form, either. Good question, now that I think about it. I expect that they will refuse to give her all she asks for simply because there IS private information on the entire original long-form that may or may not be protected–like the medical information pertaining to SAD, etc. Specifics Barry did not release and so didn’t waive privacy on. Like his birth weight, etc. But if she asks for the original, meaning the very first one created but in redacted form (leaving in the elements that he’s already released under waiver in order to release to the public), if they REFUSE, then we must assume that something on the ORIGINAL is not the same as what he presented to the public. Of course, if they do release it to a COURT, it must be accurate or they’re in trouble. If they do release what they say is the original and it’s dated, say, 2008, then we’ve got him there, too, no matter what the data elements say. Because if he truly were born in Hawaii at Kapiolani in 1961, then there would be no original LFCOLB FIRST dating only to 2008. Asking for everything she’s asked for seems to be giving them an excuse to refuse. We know how HARD they look for ANY excuse to refuse, even when the law is clear that they MUST release the information. This is taking us way back to 2008. Remember when they had provisions to release letters of verification of the information on file if the requestor FIRST supplied the data to be verified? Can’t we go back to that? Give them the data and challenge them to verify it to a COURT of law. I suspect they can’t and won’t because THEY KNOW that what he had his peeps present on April 27, 2011 is NOT what’s on file in Hawaii and likely not what’s printed on the two certified copies that Corley did carry back to the mainland. I do believe she got certified copies of WHATEVER they have; I don’t believe they match what he released. Nobody but Corley’s seen them, except probably Barry. He got her to pick them up personally BECAUSE they couldn’t even risk a UPS or postal employee accidentally seeing the contents. That’s also why HIS vital records were removed to a vault in Hawaii where ONLY Onaka has access to them. Because they knew Trump was looking and Trump has enough money to get whatever he wants to get. In these days of cell phone cameras and RIM Blackberries, it takes only seconds for an employee to snap a pic and become an instant Wikileak-type celebrity.

        • Thinking about this more, I wonder IF Barry has seen what Corley picked up? Did they go through the motions so they could create a provenance for the to-be-released fake document but legally the waiver was for Corley, a lawyer and officer of the court, to get them but NOT share with anyone? In the same way that Onaka can see the vitals but not reveal what they contain?

          Some states legally forbid releasing information about the biological parents of adoptees, even to the adoptee. Even IF the biological parents are deceased. Some forbid releasing it to decendants of the adoptee, even if the birth parents and the adoptee are deceased. IF he was adopted and SADOS and BHO Sr. are not his biological parents, and IF he really was born at Kapiolani in 1961, then it may be that even Barry cannot see his ORIGINAL birth certificate. But there would still be no reason for him not to authorize release of the replacement birth certificate that would show SADOS and BHO Sr. as his parents, unless they weren’t the adoptive parents, either. Unless that birth certificate was also amended when Lolo Soetoro adopted him. Or when some other type of late filing, amendment, or “correction” was done on it. In that case, he wouldn’t release a copy of the original because it’s required to show the fact of amendment. As is the SFCOLB. Makes my head spin. How about you?

          • I think it would be a “hard sell” in a Federal Court to play the word game of what they said and what it was purported to be. They presented a copy to the world and whether Obama did it or his staff, they took ownership of the information that was on that forged form and the previous one as well as the form itself. A competent judge (is there one?) would see right through this game they are playing.

            Electronically signed documents are legal. I sent many of them for CEO’s and they went to lawyers. Other times, a new packet of information would arrive, and a notarized signature was required. I believe that when you send your tax forms to the government via email, they are signed electronically. You attest to it.

          • Is there a way to tell from looking at the copy of the WH correspondence whether or not it’s a legal signature? Notarized or “attested to?” Guess it would make sense to see if HDOH allows people to request vital records via electronic mail or if they require downloading, signing, and snail-mailing a form.

          • http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/vital_records.html

            Excerpts:

            “All applications requesting certified copies of birth, death, marriage, and divorce certificates must generally be made in writing (application forms may be downloaded from this site – see below). Requests may also be placed for birth and marriage certificates on a limited basis through the Internet (www.ehawaiigov.org/ohsm). Telephone, FAX, or e-mail requests are not accepted.” [I didn't get through the process for this because it asked for information I didn't have before it got to the form where one would presumably "sign" the request.]

            “All fees for certified copies are payable in advance and nonrefundable. If no record is found after a search is conducted, the fees are retained to cover the cost of the search.”

            “When applying in person, the applicant must show a valid government-issued photo ID, such as a State ID, driver’s license, etc. Certified copies are usually not issued on the day the application is made. Same-Day service may be provided upon presentation of written documentation establishing the need for urgency.”

            “When applying by mail, the applicant must include a photocopy of his/her government-issued photo ID, such as a State ID, driver’s license, etc.”

            “An applicant/requestor must provide the information needed to 1) establish his/her direct and tangible interest in the record and 2) locate the desired record. This will normally include:

            Applicant’s name, address, and telephone number(s);
            Applicant’s relationship to the person named on the certificate;
            Reason why you are requesting the certificate;
            Full name(s) as listed on the certificate;
            The certificate’s file number (if known);
            Month, day, and year of the event; and
            City or town and the island where the event occurred.
            For birth certificates, also provide the full name of the father and the full maiden name of the mother.
            If you are applying for a certificate on behalf of someone else, you must provide an original letter signed by that person authorizing the release of their certificate to you and a photocopy of that person’s valid government-issued photo ID.
            Valid government-issued photo ID. ”

            Looks like a lot of exceptions were made for Barry. Did that correspondence asking for the document specify all those data elements?

  7. It seems as if it would have been better if Orly had simply created a template for a blank “original long form” based upon what he did release and then ask for a copy of that form only, citing the birth certificate number and specifying she wanted the ORIGINAL, FIRST version of it for that number. Then she might have listed all the data elements he released. And she might have said they could redact anything on the form not released to the public under the waiver THEY gave him, but saying they could redact anything not yet released by the POTUS. As it is, if anything she specified differs, they’ll probably ask for the subpoena to be quashed based upon privileged data not covered by the waiver. Sheesh how I wish I were a lawyer. Even lawyers can’t out-Clinton these Clintonesque people.

  8. I looked up the other name that was close in the sequence so that perhaps we can get a copy of that guy’s application to see the date his application was completed. It would have to be after the date on Stanley Ann’s. This would be like what was done in locating Obama’s fake SS number.

    Yes I know employers required it, but it was interesting that the person didn’t acquire theirs until they were 33. Why would that be? Perhaps he/she was an alien and just arrived in this country? If a citizen, they he would have signed up when he first was able to work…like Stanley Ann. That family name of Henriksen appears to be of Danish origin, and I found some Danes living in King Co., WA with that surname. I was trying to locate more on them.

    Also, there was a note at the Rootweb site regarding Stanley Ann that stated, on “5-17-2010 This number is purported by some as being still active.” There was no additional information, but he left his name.

  9. I just realized that one of my paragraphs is missing in the article. I had lots of problems with WordPress when writing the article. But it was this.

    According to Miri’s Timeline, we find that the Dunhams moved to Mercer Island in 1956. “1956 SADOS and her parents move to Mercer Island, Washington; they live at 3206 East Lexington Way, apt. 216, where SADOS presumably attends Mercer Island High School; Stanley Armour works in Seattle at Standard-Grunbaum Furniture; Madelyn is an escrow officer in Bellevue.”

    The apartment number is not included as part of the address on Stanley Ann’s application, nor is the street name completed. Where she wrote East Lexington [Way], the Way is excluded as is the apartment number 216. Why wouldn’t she use the correct address? After all, she was 16 and had lived there for 3 years.

    (Miri – your move to Mercer Island citation is no longer there! Did you keep a copy of the information?) I put these two paragraphs back into the article.

    • http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=8897

      That’s the correct link NOW. They must like to mess with us, so they changed the links by one letter to screw it up. I am fixing it on the O Timeline. Let us know about any other broken links anyone finds.

    • The story about them moving to Mercer Island in 1956 so that SAD could attend MIHS is baloney. SAD could not have attended MIHS in 1956 or 1957. Likewise, she could not have graduated in 1960, as she was not old enough to enter 1st grade in September 1948, she did not finish the 4th grade when she was in Vernon, TX, and her photos in the Isla are bogus.

      IMHO, she never attened MIHS at all. At least, not the SADOS we knw from the stories.

      • I forgot to add that MIHSwas a THREE-YEAR HIGH SCHOOL, as in 10th, 11th, and 12th. Where was SAD for the 9th grade?

        Remember that Chicago Tribune’s Tim Jones said in a video that SAD had spent ONE YEAR in Seattle, and TWO YEARS on Mercer Island.

        The revised transcript that appeared in the Trib changed that, of course, with Tim Jones now saying she spent four years on Mercer Island.

        If so, then where was she for 4th Grade?

        How about MIA?

  10. I did the handwriting analyses for three of Taitzss SSN apps: one for Stanley Ann Dunham, one for Stanley Armour Dunham, and one for Shirlee Lee Applebee. They are identical.

    Don’t look at the signature – there is no reference sample. It has appeared on SSN apps, passport apps, divorce decrees, and even her own birth certificate!

    Whomever is signing it is obviously NOT SADOS – then again SADOS is NOT one person.

    Just, and FYI.

    • I do know who wrote the “To Max” salutation on her 10th grade Isla photo and who signed it.

      HINT: it was not SAD,as we know her, but the person who made the Photoshopped photo. Check the Exif data. The forger’s name is in it.

      • Well, we might do that if you could give us a link that still contains exif data.

        • what is Exif data. And so who is the forger that signed “Max” on the photo. Dr. Ron never says does he?

          • He likely is assuming that it’s MAXine Hanson Box, the woman who supposedly had the yearbook that SADOS signed “To Max”.

          • No, Dr. Ron never says. I wish he would, instead of giving hints. We can’t see the exif data on any of the copies we have because, of course, it’s been disappeared already. That’s why I asked for a link to the image that hasn’t been scrubbed.

            alfy, exif data is data that’s embedded within the photo. You don’t see it. It’s part of the description of the digital image. When you view the photo, you see only the image. But hidden within the file that contains the digital “instructions” for displaying the image, is other data that tells you when the photo was taken, by whom, if it was photoshopped, by which program, etc. It’s like when you have a photo on your computer, there’s the name given to the photo by you (and also the location on your drive so the computer knows where to find it). That’s a bad explanation. An analogy would be writing information ABOUT the photo on the back of a snapshot. When you look at the photo, you don’t see the info written on the back. But you turn it over and somebody has written the place, time, photographer, etc. (If you’re lucky!) In the case of digital photos, the camera records this information automatically. It’s called the EXIF data. There are programs that will extract it, which is what we did to find the creation date, for example, for the images of the LFCOLB. And that’s how they caught FactCheck prevaricating about when they took the photos of the SFCOLB. When caught, they just lied and said the photographer didn’t set the date and time on the camera, which might be true. However, the date/time is set at the factory, so if the photog never reset it, it would be correct. And coincidentally, or not, the date put it right before the passport break-in when somebody “cauterized” Barry’s file and (my guess) removed what was there and inserted a “corrected” version of what they wanted on file. Anyway, NOW they’ve mostly learned their lesson and they use software to REMOVE most of the EXIF data that would identify the creator and the time/place, etc. Dr. Ron is saying that the photo of SADOS signed for “Max” retains the EXIF data, and embedded in there is the evidence that it was created by or photoshopped by this person. I misread his comment, so now I’m not sure that it is Maxine that he suspects. We won’t know until he comes back and tells us or gives us that link to a photo that still has the EXIF data. I’m waiting, too, to learn what ISLA is. Anybody know?

          • Isla , I assumed he was referring to mercer Island. I sort of get what Exif data…..but the actual words that EXIF stand for help me better. Thanks.Ron does this kinda leaves ya hangin. Oh well, Ive not followed up on many things myself. I’ll give him a break, but it would be nice to know. Miri did you see my address find for some Dunhams relaing to a Goldie and Patricia Ann Dunham. I had more but dont’ know where it got posted. I’ll be back.

          • I did read that stuff about the Dunhams on one of the threads. If you have or find more, please post it. Thanks.

          • “EXIF stands for Exchangeable Image File Format, and is a standard for storing interchange information in image files, especially those using JPEG compression. Most digital cameras now use the EXIF format. The format is part of the DCF standard created by JEITA to encourage interoperability between imaging devices.”

            I don’t know that the meaning of EXIF exactly helps, but it’s a shorter explanation than mine!

            I thought perhaps ISLA meant Mercer Island, but thought maybe it means something else to Dr. Ron.

      • What’s “Isla”?

  11. Orly Taitz Files Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment in Obama Social Security Case
    WHY ARE PRIVACY CONCERNS AN ISSUE WITH A PUBLIC FIGURE SUCH AS OBAMA?

    July 13, 2011

    Jul. 13, 2011) — Atty. Orly Taitz told The Post & Email this evening that she has filed an Opposition to a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the government in the case of Taitz v. Astrue, which seeks a copy of the social security application issued with the number which Barack Hussein Obama II is currently using.

    On July 11, 2011, Taitz’s Motion to Compel in the same case was docketed by the U.S. District Court in Washington, DC, which is presiding over the case thus far. Taitz described the new development in this way:

    The government filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. This motion is usually filed when there is already standing in the case, but they want to dismiss it before trial. They filed, and I am responding. They are really misrepresenting the case. They are saying, “Attorney Taitz asked for an application for a social security number for a live person, of a ‘live holder’ of the social security card, and according to the guidelines, we cannot provide it.”

    My response was first that the “undisputed facts” which they cited are wrong, because I didn’t ask for the number of a live holder of the social security number; I asked for the application of the lawful holder of that social security number. I didn’t ask for the application of a live holder. As a matter of fact, according to their own records, the social security number in question was never issued. So even if we were willing to believe that it was issued, we see this number associated with an individual born in 1890 who would have been 121 years old now and presumably deceased at this time.
    cont.
    http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/07/13/orly-taitz-files-opposition-to-motion-for-summary-judgment-in-obama-social-security-case/

    • Dr. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ, PRO SE Plaintiff, v
      Michael Astrue, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Respondent
      Freedom of information violation § 5USC §552
      OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 11-cv-00402
      Honorable Royce Lamberth Chief Justice presiding

      Taitz v Astrue opposition to motion for summary judgment
      MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
      TABLE OF CONTENTS

      1. AGENCY PROFFERED A FRAUDULENT STATEMENT, CLAIMING THAT SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER 042-68-4425 BELONGS TO A LIVE PERSON, WHILE IT’S OWN RECORDS SHOW, THAT THIS NUMBER WAS NEVER ASSIGNED………………………………………………………………p5

      2. DEFENDANT PROVIDED THE PLAINTIFF A FORGED SS-5 FOR ANN DUNHAM, OBAMA’S MOTHER, WHICH SHOWS A PATTERN OF EITHER COVER UP OF FORGERY OR EXTREME RECKLESSNESS IN ALLOWING FORGED OR FRAUDULENT RECORDS TO BE FILED AS GENUINE RECORDS…………………………………………………………………….p6

      3. SSA DOES NOT SPECIFY THAT THE SS-5 FOR 042-68-4425 IS A VALID DOCUMENT, THAT IT IS NOT A FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINED OR FORGED DOCUMENT………………………………………………………………….p7

      4. SSA DID NOT PROVIDE ANY ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE, PROVING THAT SS-5 IN QUESTION EVEN EXISTS AND THAT IT WAS LEGALLY ASSIGNED TO A CURRENT “HOLDER” OF THE NUMBER……… p10

      5. Cover up by SSA and Selective service point to fraud………………. p13

      6. 4. 5USC§552(B)(6) RELATES TO FULL SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS, IT DOES NOT RELATE TO THE REDACTED NUMBERS AND REDACTED APPLICATIONS……………………………………………p14

      7. REDACTED SS-5 DOES NOT INVADE PRIVACY…………………………..p14

      8. THE RIGHT OF 311 MILLION AMERICAN CITIZENS TO HAVE A PRESIDENT, WHO IS NOT A FRAUD AND WHO IS NOT USURPING THE US PRESIDENCY BY VIRTUE OF FRAUD SUPERCEDES THE RIGHT OF BARACK OBAMA TO FRAUDULENTLY USE THE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER, WHICH WAS NEVER ASSIGNED TO HIM….p15

      http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Taitz-v-Astrue-opposition-to-MSJ.pdf

    • Would some lawyer chime in and tell us if this is normal that the judge won’t accept a corrected copy of the lawsuit from an attorney? This is why he won’t accept it? The judge used inflammatory words, hysterical claim and displaying her own stupidity.

      Taitz v Astrue – Order to Seal Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment – Possible Sanctions against Taitz – 7-25-2011 Snips

      Moreover, wasting the Court’s time with nonsense is not the way for Plaintiff to have any hope of prevailing in this case.

      She realized her mistake and sent a corrected copy to the Clerk’s office. The redactions are improper, so the document is hereby STRICKEN from the record.

      After making the somewhat hysterical claim in her motion for reconsideration that there may be “an employee in this court, who is intentionally sabotaging” her, plaintiff engaged the Court’s Courtroom Deputy Clerk in a lengthy, accusatory conversation.

      Plaintiff is either toying with the Court or displaying her own stupidity. She made the correct redactions when she re-filed her Complaint and Amended Complaint. There is no logical explanation she can provide as to why she is now wasting the Court’s times, as well as staff’s time, with these improper redactions.

      July 25th, 2011
      Royce C. Lamberth, Chief Judge
      United States District Court.

      http://www.scribd.com/doc/60911093/Taitz-v-Astrue-Rules-Violations-Memorandum-and-Order-from-Judge-Lamberth-7-25-2011

      • Seal means, that you cannot see it on the electronic docket, but the documents are there and will be considered. The seal will be removed, hopefully tomorrow.

        http://www.scribd.com/doc/60918118/Taitz-v-Astrue-Order-to-Seal-Opposition-to-Motion-for-Summary-Judgment-7-25-2011

        Update: Things are not what they seem, I have a record of all the phone conversations with the DC court, as well as records of all the faxes and e-mails sent to them

        Some employees of the DC court are lying to the judge. I kept record of all the phone calls, faxes and e-mails to the DC court and I have multiple witnesses as well. Some employee or employees of the DC court is/are lying and will be held accountable. On 07.21.2011 a fax was accepted in the DC court and was hand carried to the chambers of the chief judge. Sua sponte decision of the court on 07.21.2011 allowing me to resubmit the opposition was related to the fax received.

        I will resubmit the opposition and memorandum in support of the opposition to motion for summary judgment yet again. It will be done today.

        A lot is going on right now. Currently I am concentrating on doing everything I possibly can to inspect the original BC in HI and the original SSA application for Connecticut SSN 042-68-4425, which Obama is fraudulently using. So far there is no formal opposition from HI and the Department of Justice did not file a reply to my opposition brief. Both Attorney General of HI and the US attorney for the District of Columbia are out of time to file. I am not sure what is the explanation for lack of opposition on their part: maybe, they think that the fix is in or maybe they are afraid to be prosecuted later for the obstruction of Justice and aiding and abetting the SSA fraud or maybe there is some technical glitch. Another legal action will be filed soon.

        http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=24145

        http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/07/taitz-v-astrue-rules-violations.html

  12. OK , it finally posted. So how many things have you found with Bill Ayers and Ann Dunham Barack together. None, except this. My original that I have is more extensive but I can’t show that one so this is the best I can give you but if you click on Ann’s name it goes to Ann Baracks;if you click on Ann Dunham Barack, it goes back to Bill Ayers. You see he is or was part of Gamaliel and these were his contacts and associates. What more do you need to see that the two people are related. I’d say in a personal way. My more extensive site puts all of Ayer’s associates together as if these are his points of contact. what do ya think???

    • Alfy, I clicked on your link, but I did not see anything about Ann Dunham Barack. Click on the link and see what you see. Let me know if I’m missing something.

      • That’s what alfy is seeing. If you click the link alfy gave for Willie Ayers, then roll down to see all the people he’s associated with, “Ann Barack” is one. If you click that link, it goes to a page for Ann Barack. Down somewhere around the middle, is a link for “Ann Dunham Barack.” Click that, and you’ll see this page. We know all these people are associated. I believe it’s just an anomaly with the way these people search databases are created. There’s a lot of junk, assumptions, and errors (and some truth) in them.

        As for why comments go to spam: WordPress has a spam filter, just like email does. Sometimes, legitimate comments end up in spam, just like sometimes legitimate email messages end up in a spam folder. It’s the software program that, in alfy’s case, probably recognized the link to the people search as “spam-like”. So it sent that message to spam. If alfy were banned or placed in moderation, then nothing alfy posted would show up. That’s not the case. alfy’s comments telling us about the problem did post immediately. The WordPress spam filter just didn’t like that particular link, for whatever reason.

    • That is an interesting page. Yes, Obama was working with Gamaliel as was Valerie Jarrett.

  13. Will everyone at the DOH be off the island that week?

    The birth certificate please! Subpoena to be delivered
    Attorney, doc experts to show up at Hawaii Department of Health with court document

    July 28, 2011

    Computer scanning expert Doug Vogt and typesetting expert Paul Irey say they will accompany attorney Orly Taitz when she presents to the Hawaii Department of Health a subpoena that should allow her to examine Barack Obama’s original 1961 typewritten birth certificate.

    Vogt and Irey both told WND they are making travel plans to join Taitz in Honolulu when she goes to the state agency at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, Aug. 8, to present the subpoena in person.

    “We will plan to hold a press conference late in the day of Aug. 8,” Vogt said, “and if the document we see varies from the birth certificate documents the White House released, we plan to file criminal charges in Hawaii immediately.

    Vogt shared with WND a copy of a letter he has written to Hawaii Attorney General David Louie, putting Louie on notice regarding the reasons he believes the birth certificate released by the White House is fraudulent.

    “Quite frankly, I doubt the Hawaii DOH has anything to show us,” Irey said skeptically, “and if we do see a document, my guess is that it will have been forged for the purpose of showing us something.”

    Because Fuddy neglected to file opposition to the court-issued subpoena within the 14 days specified, the Hawaii DOH appears to have little recourse but to comply with the subpoena by producing the Obama original birth certificate for Taitz’s examination.

    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=327373#ixzz1TTJjanBr

  14. I am shocked to find this article in the Washington Post. Of course, he mentions that the Judge was upset with Orly. But still, reporting on the case regarding Obama’s fraudulent social security number!

    Lead birther Orly Taitz still on case, questioning Obama’s Social Security number
    July 28, 2010 Al Kamen

    It seemed that President Obama’s release of his full birth certificate a couple of months ago — and his brutal skewering of Donald Trump at the White House correspondents dinner in May — completely took the air out of the “birther” movement.

    Not so. None other than Orly Taitz, the Los Angeles lawyer, dentist and real estate agent, is still on the case, recently filing a Freedom of Information Act suit in federal court against Social Security Administration Commissioner Michael Astrue.

    Taitz is looking for information that would prove that Obama’s Social Security number was from Connecticut, not Hawaii, and is therefore fraudulent.

    (Memo to file: Send private note to Taitz to advise her that the last, the very last, federal judge she wants to provoke is Lamberth. Trust us on this. Or ask the Interior Department. Hapless Interior lawyers have appeared in his courtroom on countless occasions. )

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/lead-birther-orly-taitz-still-on-case-questioning-obamas-social-security-number/2011/07/28/gIQAZLQrfI_story.html

  15. ORYR – Jerome Corsi: Prominent Law Firm in Hawaii to Assist Attorney Taitz
    Aug. 6

    Rusty Humphries show. He is in Honolulu now on vacation, but broadcasts from Atlanta. Corsi asked Rusty to be there to talk about the case.

    Established law firms are helping Orly. Prominent law firms there. She will have good back-up.

    Supreme Court doesn’t want to take up Political causes. That is what the eligibility case is and why they don’t want to get involved.

    Wayne Sanders…Navy stripped him of his silver star..used political influence to get his star. He was the one who backed and lied about John Kerry during the Swift Boat controversy, and is now in prison for pornography. Why isn’t the Navy investigating John Kerry?

    http://1776nation.ning.com/- Jerome Corsi Website with all his articles

  16. Atty. Orly Taitz to Serve Court Subpoena at Hawaii Department of Health on August 8
    DEADLINE FOR HEALTH DEPARTMENT TO MAKE DOCUMENT AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION

    by Sharon Rondeau

    (Aug. 6, 2011) — If the Health Department has no records on Obama, how many current and former government employees are involved in a criminal conspiracy to defraud the public?

    Should the Health Department possess a document which is different from the April 27 White House release, what will that mean for Hawaii state employees, Obama, the White House press secretary and communications director, and the U.S. Congress, which has stood behind Obama despite evidence of many crimes having been committed?

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/08/06/atty-orly-taitz-to-serve-court-subpoena-at-hawaii-department-of-health-on-august-8/

  17. Judge rules on Obama’s Social Security number
    Tells attorney: ‘Today is not your lucky day’

    August 30, 2011 Snips

    Announcing it’s “not her lucky day,” a federal judge in Washington, D.C., has told an eligibility attorney he has dismissed her case demanding information from the Social Security Administration regarding President Obama’s Social Security number, sought because of suspicions it may be fraudulent.

    The judge, Royce Lamberth credits Taitz for her dedication to her cause, but boasted that “today is not her lucky day.”

    He concluded that there’s no real interest in determining whether the Obama Social Security Number is genuine or fraudulent, and the need for secrecy 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, 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.”

    Taitz told WND she is submitting a motion for reconsideration based on new evidence that includes an affidavit from an individual who obtained a government affirmation that the number Obama is using doesn’t match his name.
    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=339629#ixzz1WcX49fCp

    • They’re using “privacy” as an excuse, also, to avoid giving any information about Uncle Omar and his travails with ICE/DHS and deportation. How he got those fraudulent documents. They are also using “privacy” to flout the law and NOT respond when states request the feds to help determine the legal status of immigrants, for voting purposes. And now we have judges using “privacy” to possibly allow a POTUS to use illegally obtained or bogus documents, saying in effect that HIS privacy rights to commit fraud outweighs the interest of THE PEOPLE, HIS EMPLOYERS, TO KNOW WHO THE HELL HE IS! This is outrageous. It’s the camel’s nose under the tent. If this CONGRESS does not step up to the plate to stop this tyrant-in-the-making, this country is lost.

      • The whole thing makes my blood boil! Privacy only for the Usurper, anyone else is fair game and can be convicted of a felony. But to release his information, It could be embarrassing for him! Are there no judges willing to uphold the law? How do they sleep at night?

        Privacy for Omar…there is more to the story, that is why there will be silence. Omar might talk to a cell mate though. Bob Beckel the ubber Leftist said, so what, it is a non-story, a half brother..what is that? We all have black sheep relatives. No Bob, we don’t all have family members that are illegal aliens that were supposed to be deported and aren’t, and who live off the public dole, and who have fake as in fraudulent documents.

        If they got fake documents…it points to BHO having fake documents (No kidding…adds fuel to the fire about BHO’s real status, doesn’t it!) These rotten apples are all falling off the tree. Now lets find Yusef…who allegedly became a US citizen and arrived with his big brother, BHO.

  18. Are both parties scrapping Constitution?
    August 29, 2011

    Maybe now Americans will stop asking me why Republicans never challenged Barack Obama’s clear constitutional ineligibility for the presidency.

    The answer is one of the following:

    * They are too ignorant to understand that the definition of a “natural born citizen” is an American born to U.S. citizen parents; or

    * They are willing accomplices in the dumbing down of a simple constitutional requirement for their own political reasons – so their own ineligible candidates can run.

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=339105#ixzz1WcbULNx5

    • They are willing accomplices in the dumbing down of a simple constitutional requirement for their own political reasons – so their own ineligible candidates can run.

      Global family candidates….yes. What I think as well.

  19. Obama’s Relatives Commit Crimes Against America…Now What About Him?

    FEDERAL JUDGE DISMISSES EVIDENCE THAT IMPOSTER PRESIDENT HAS STOLEN SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER
    by Sharon Rondeau Snips
    Aug. 30

    On August 30, 2011, Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court in Washington, DC dismissed a case alleging that Barack Hussein Obama is using a stolen social security number which included the statement of a licensed private investigator asserting such. The first page of Lamberth’s opinion reads, in part:

    Ever persistent, plaintiff has once again come before this Court in an effort to uncover “the biggest cover up in the history of this nation…She believes that the President is using a “fraudulently obtained” social security number and that the Social Security Administration — among other agencies — is involved in a scheme to “cover[] up social security fraud, IRS fraud, elections fraud and possibly treason” committed by the President…As her numerous filings with the Court demonstrate, plaintiff will stop at nothing to get to the bottom of this alleged conspiracy. Unfortunately for plaintiff, today is not her lucky day.”

    Where did Lamberth obtain his legal training? Since when is a judge’s opinion based on his perception of the “luck” or lack thereof of one of the parties to the case? Is his sarcasm enough to show that he is not impartial?

    Where was Lamberth when the defendants’ allotted time to respond had elapsed and the plaintiff had requested a default judgment?

    His biography states, in part: “Judge Lamberth is also former Chairman of the Professional Ethics Committee of the Federal Bar Association. The Federal Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct for Federal Lawyers, finally approved in October 1990, were drafted by Judge Lamberth’s Committee.”

    But has Lamberth acted ethically in this instance? The plaintiff, Orly Taitz, did not seek the social security number of a living person, but rather, had requested a copy of the application filed by the original holder of the number which is now reportedly being used by Obama. Private investigator Susan Daniels has stated that the number has been used by Obama since 1977 but was not assigned to him.

    Was Lamberth’s opinion issued in a professional and ethical manner? Is he following all of the rules of judicial ethics? Are his sarcastic tone and character judgments about the plaintiff normal procedure? Is Lamberth using Saul Alinsky tactics to dismiss a case of identity fraud committed at the highest levels of government?

    On page 2 of his opinion, Lamberth stated that the Social Security Administration could not release Form SS-5 because the number in question belonged to a living individual. However, Susan Daniels, the licensed private investigator whose sworn affidavit stated that the number had been assigned to a person born in 1890 from the state of Connecticut, had stated that social security numbers are never reissued and therefore Obama was using it fraudulently. Why did Lamberth ignore this evidence of a crime?

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/08/31/obamas-relatives-commit-crimes-against-america-now-what-about-him/

  20. If I didn’t point this out on this thread, I’ll do it now. If I did, it’s worth repeating: Look at the SAD signature on the SS# application. How is it possible for a person to write so straight on an invisible line? It appears that the entire signature was imported and positioned on that line, but floating too far above it. Show me a person who can write that straight, but not ON the line. See this post for 14 examples of “her” handwriting. http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2011/07/25/top-fourteen-signatures-of-stanley-ann-dunham-obama-soetoro-doe/comment-page-1/#comment-77557 There’s a comment early on where I show her name, written either by one of her parents or a hospital employee, yet the handwriting looks very much like SAD’s herself. A miracle!

  21. Miri, unless I missed it, it’s mentioned once in the article, but then it’s kind of ignored in the rest of the discussion that her form is an MN-5 (or MM) form, not an SS-5. I wrote the SS administration and they told me they could find no records of an MN-5 form ever being used. However, somewhere in the research on this subject someone posted another SS application (a Bertha somebody, maybe Beatrice?) that also looked like it said MN-5, so I don’t know
    what to think about it.
    However, what strikes me most about her signature is that the one on the SS application, and the birth certificate, looks more like her father’s signature on HER birth certificate than it looks like her signature on her (Lolo) marriage certificate.

    • Exactly! In the comment I was referring to, I posted the image of that signature on SAD’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE. And it looks like signatures that were later on put onto documents that supposedly were signed BY SAD. So how is it that she writes just like her father/mother/or the hospital attendant, whichever signed her own birth certificate? I have a reason for bringing this up now. I’ve been reviewing old threads. It’s amazing how re-reading them, after learning new things (such as Arpaio’s posse’s report), items we noted before or questioned before fall into place.

      • Note: I removed my comment about Doug Vogt because I realized later that he was talking about the LFCOLB image and Bridgette and I noticed an August date on the letters that supposedly provided provenance for that LFCOLB. That in itself remains curious–that they wrote the draft asking for the waiver around the time Barry was wisecracking about how he can’t walk around with his BC plastered on his forehead. This was after Lester Kinsolving asked at a presser about the birth certificate. It was only after Trump jumped on board that suddenly, the LFCOLB appeared.

  22. Eleanor Jewell(Elle)

    The following comment was posted here by Alfy in March of last year. When I saw the name ‘Patricia’ I almost jumped out of my skin.

    “Miri did you see my address find for some Dunhams relaing to a Goldie and Patricia Ann Dunham. I had more but dont’ know where it got posted. I’ll be back.”

    Where can I find that address she is referring to? I am hoping I have a huge missing piece of the puzzle, and that address find could be the key.

  23. It is remarkable that the author of this story didn’t bother obtain a copy of Mr. Henriksen’s SS-5 application form to see what revision date was on it. It was done on the same day, the same office, and by the same clerk as Dunham’s form. Or perhaps the author DID obtain a copy and chose not to publish the fact that it bears the same 7-55 revision date as Dunham’s.

    • You say “it is remarkable.” Thank you for remarking, then. It’s not surprising, though, because Bridgette, despite what you wrote, did not personally obtain that record for Stanley Ann Dunham. It’s clear from her post that she’s reporting on what Dr. Taitz obtained from the SSA. It’s also clear that her information about Henriksen came from a genealogy website. The post simply raises questions. Obviously, we were unable to decipher the revision date. That’s why several different interpretations were mentioned. In fact, however, by obtaining that application for Mr. (I assume MR.) John Henriksen, you’ve merely confirmed there’s a problem. The list that Dawn Wiggins supplied Dr. Taitz is obviously wrong OR perhaps deliberately misleading. SEO, one of our commenters, pointed out that the form number on Stanley Ann Dunham’s application is NOT SS-5, even though Ms. Wiggins referred to her application as her “SS-5″. This site has a clearer image: http://webofdeception.com/obamamother%27sssapplication.html Note that the form number is one of these: MN-5, MM-5, or NN-5. Take your pick, but it’s not SS-5. That image does appear to say that the form, whatever its number, was revised in July 1955. For our readers’ edification, here’s the image obtained for Mr. Henriksen’s application (courtesy of the above commenter’s site):
      larger

      This blog has a story about the forms, too. Within the story, there’s an image for another person who obtained a SS# by application in 1959. That person’s form looks different from Henriksen’s and Dunham’s. I can’t make out the form number or the revision number, but like Dunham’s, it shouldn’t have a revision number unless it’s 9/42. Not if you go by the list sent to Dr. Taitz by Ms. Wiggins. Here’s another SS application, made by a woman in 1950. Her form looks like the one on the previous link. That appears to me to read “revised 7-44.”
      larger

      The form number, at the top left corner, might be SS-5; but it’s hard to say for sure. Note: If you click the image after you click “larger” above, it gets larger still; but you still can’t decipher some of the letters, because it’s a poor scan or copy.

      Within this story, http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~campber/archia.html, there’s an image of another person’s SS application. Ernest Archia’s application looks like the same form used above, but the revision date seems to say “April” of some other year. The form number looks as if it could be MM OR SS, stylized. Look at this one:
      larger

      Wilford Norris’s 1951 application does appear to be a SS-5 form, revised July, but again, I can’t make out the year. It looks like 44 or 45. Now the reason I said “stylized” above is that if you fade out those two letters (SS) they MIGHT appear to read MM or NN, depending upon the way they faded. Here’s another example:
      larger

      Do you see how the SS in the form number looks almost like 88? If you mentally fade out the tops and bottoms of the SS, you get what might look like NN.

      What seems clear is that the earlier applications had the form number and revision number in the top left, while later forms had that at the bottom. However, why does Stanley Ann’s form appear to NOT say SS-5? In fact, it appears as if someone printed over the form number, making it look like MM or NN or whatever that says. But then, again, maybe her SS is missing the tops and bottoms, so it looks like NN.

      As alluded to by Dr. Taitz with regard to Obama’s birth records, here different fonts seem to have been used on Stanley Ann’s application form, too. But that doesn’t necessarily mean anything. Note how the hand printing on her application seems cramped, as if the person took a long time making each letter, some of which are inconsistent with each other. The pen used to do the printing seems different from the pen used for her signature and the date. Compare that to Mr. Henriksen’s application. At least his penmanship seems consistent AND it looks as if he used the same writing instrument throughout. Bridgette noted that he was in his thirties when he applied for an SS#. We can now assume that’s because he was an immigrant from Norway. However, unless he’s a woman named John, he mistakenly checked the wrong sex and nobody corrected him. Now you might say that PERHAPS the form was replaced between February 1959 and May, when SAD got her application. However, I found a form online from 1960, and it’s still the older form, still in use in November 1960:

      larger

      • FWIW, here’s another that clearly shows that Ms. Wiggins’s list is a crock:
        larger

        There’s no 8/62 revision noted on her list.

        • Roloff? Do you think this person is related to the reality show Roloffs?

          If you search for “social security application” images on the Web, there are plenty of examples out there.

          What writing instrument do you think SAD used? It couldn’t be pencil, the instructions say right at the top to use black or dark blue INK to complete the form. Or TYPE it except for the signature. Now, we’ve already determined that THERE WERE NO FELT-TIPPED PENS in the 1950s. They weren’t invented until the 1960s and did not become available to the public until the 1960s. So what did she use to make those childish block letters? She didn’t follow the instructions, when she wrote out “unemployed” in the occupation. It’s obvious that the pen used to print isn’t the pen used to date and sign it, or to write “unemployed”. But what kind of pen was used? I’m thinking back to the late 50s and can’t remember anything that would make such a thick line. We had fountain pens, cartridge pens, and later on, Bic pens. But in 1959? Even if she used a BIC, it wouldn’t make such a thick line.

  24. No proof of birth was required to get a number back in 1959 if under 18.. She was not born in 1942 as her Dad was only 10 years old at the time. . Common for those under age to work to lie on the SS-5 to get a number as they mistakenly thought we would tell ther employer and other agencies, which we couldn’t as confidential When people filed for benefits later on we would have to ask and document why it was different than ther b/c. I; written the sentenced too many times to say, Lied to get a job as needed to be older.

    Comm sAtrue has caused me personal and financial and deadly problems when appointed as he was legally still my boss ( I;ve written about this extensively.) so its not mystery that this was handled worng and he should be up for chrges himself. One more corurpted officel that needs to be investigiated and charges. and he is gone now. The complaint was to be filed with SSA and sent to the SU justice dept and a special prosecutor named and still must. CONGRESS WHERe ARE YOU. OIG and SSA can;t legally handle this as its a criminal allegation against a high level official and must go to DOJ and Now Eric Holder has it qnd he ethically assigned an independent prosecutor to deceid aobut criminal charges which then go to congress. The Application to the SU senate in 2004 and all the 100+ ballot access papers- if knowingly used another;s number is a crime and serous. business, But it appears the simple act of filing a criminal comp isn’t just occurred.
    Linda Joy Adams

    • Supporting documentation for the claim that her father was born in 1932? So how old was she in 1959? Looks like an adult signature to me. If she had an employer then, what was she? An illegal child laborer? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_J._Astrue That’s a link about Commissioner Astrue. He’s no longer the SS commissioner; began as commissioner in 2007. Wow. You’d think someone with access could lay hands on some proof.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s