Attorney Taitz Files Emergency Stay Application with U.S. Supreme Court

Attorney Taitz Files Emergency Stay Application with U.S. Supreme Court

TAITZ

V

ASTRUE

APPLICATION FOR STAY OF CERTIFICATION OF THE 2012 VOTES FOR BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA PENDING CERTIORARI REVIEW BY THE SUPREME COURT OF THE APPEAL OF THE FOIA CASE TAITZ V OBAMA, DEMANDING RELEASE UNDER FOIA OF SS-5 APPLICATION TO CONNECTICUT SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER 042-68-4425, WHICH OBAMA IS USING ACCORDING TO HIS TAX RETURNS RELEASED BY OBAMA HIMSELF, BUT WHICH WAS NEVER ASSIGNED TO OBAMA ACCORDING E-VERIFY AND SSNVS

APPLICATION FOR AN EMERGENCY STAY BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE CIRCUIT OF COLUMBIA

case # 11-5304

QUESTIONS FOR THE COURT

1. Can the federal court allow usurpation of the U.S. presidency by a foreign citizen, by sealing his records and aiding and abetting his use of a stolen Social Security number from a state where he never resided.

2. Does criminality in the White House, use of a stolen social Security number by an individual occupying the position of the U.S. president, represent a matter of public interest?

3. Can one claim privacy in a stolen Social Security number or any other stolen property for that matter?

History of the case

1. This case is an appeal of a denial for information requested under FOIA 5USC §552

2. Taitz submitted to the Social Security Administration (Hereinafter "SSA") request for information under the Freedom of Information Act.

3. This request contained information that Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States, (Hereinafter "Obama") is using a stolen Social Security number xxx-xx-4425, which was issued in the state of Connecticut to another individual, resident of Connecticut, who was born in 1890.

4. Taitz provided the SSA affidavits from a licensed investigator Susan Daniels and retired senior deportation officer John Sampson, (Exhibit 2) which attested to the fact that the SSN in question started with digits 042, which were assigned to the state of Connecticut. Obama was never a resident of Connecticut and there is no possible reason for him to have a Connecticut CCN. Additionally, Taitz provided SSA with information that   in national databases such number is associated with two dates of birth: 1890 and 1961, which is an additional indication that Obama is illegally using a SSN, which was issued to a resident of CT, who was born in 1890, whose death was not reported to the SSA, and whose SSN was illegally assumed by Obama around 1980-1981. Taitz requested  a redacted SS-5 application to the aforementioned SSN. Taitz advised SSA that they are endangering the national security by withholding the information in question. SSA refused to provide the redacted application.

5. Taitz appealed. The case was assigned to judge Royce C. Lamberth in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

6. Taitz provided judge Lamberth with all of the above information as well as a sworn affidavit from  Deportation officer Sampson, which stated that in case of suspected theft of a Social Security number it is common for the law enforcement to request and receive from the SSA the original application to the number in question, which would show some of the information in relation to the identity of the lawful holder of the SSN in question. Such information would include gender, date of birth, zip code, race. For example, if it shows that the lawful holder was a white  woman, who resided in Stamford, Connecticut area and was born in 1890, but this number was appropriated by Obama, who is an African-American man, born in 1961 and resided in Hawaii, that would not reveal the actual identity of the lawful holder of the number in question, but would provide the ultimate proof in order for Congress to start the impeachment hearing of Obama and for the law enforcement around the country to start criminal prosecution of Obama.

7. Judge Lamberth refused to release the redacted SSN, claiming that it would infringe on Obama's privacy

8. Taitz provided Lamberth with yet another affidavit from Adobe illustrator expert Felicito Papa, showing that Obama posted his full un-redacted SSN on line in 2010 , when he posted his tax returns in 2010 on-line and forgot to "flatten" the PDF file, so the full SSN was visible to the public, was downloaded by millions of people until Obama realized his mistake and took down the file and re-posted it as a "flattened" redacted file. Due to the oversight by Obama, himself, he made his full un-redacted SSN visible and readily available to the whole nation. he no longer has privacy in the number in question.

9. Taitz provided Lamberth with a sworn affidavit by one Linda Jordan, who swore in that she personally ran the SSN in question through the E-Verify, official Social Security verification systems, and it showed that the number used by Obama and posted in his official tax returns, while in the White House,  did not match the name Barack Obama.

10. Taitz argued that at this point there was no privacy attached. Moreover, a thief does not have privacy rights in keeping private stolen identification papers. Actions by Appellee Astrue, U.S. attorneys defending him and judge Lamberth himself  are so outrageous, that they represent criminal complicity and collusion with Obama to defraud the whole nation.  Commissioner Astrue, U.S. attorneys defending him and Judge Lamberth himself are committing high treason against the United States of America, by allowing a criminal with a stolen Social Security number to continue usurping the position of the   President and Commander in Chief.

On January 26, 2012 at an administrative court hearing in Atlanta Georgia a licensed investigator Susan Daniels as well as a senior deportation officer John Sampson testified that Obama is using a Connecticut Social security number, which was assigned to a different individual, resident of the state of Connecticut, born in 1890 (sealed certified transcript was attached). On March 1, 2012 Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio held a press conference, where he announced results of his 6 months of investigation, where he confirmed that Obama is using forged identification documents, among them a forged computer generated birth certificate and a forged selective service certificate. Due to an enormous level of corruption and censorship there was very little reporting on Arpaio's press conference and so far the Attorney General of the U.S., Attorney General Holder is not taking any action.

11. Appellee in his Motion for Summary Affirmance simply tried to whitewash the Social Security fraud, omit any reference to the subject of FOIA, Barack Obama,  and continued the same debunked theory of privacy, even though as it was shown, the privacy no longer exist, as Obama himself released the number in question and a thief does not have a right in privacy in stolen identification numbers.

12. On 05.25.2012 Judges Rogers, Griffith and Cavanaugh came up with the decision that the redacted Social Security application should not be released for two reasons:

a. it would be an unwarranted invasion of privacy

b. appellant did not demonstrate any valid public interest in disclosure

ARGUMENT

A THIEF DOES NOT HAVE AN EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN STOLEN ITEMS

The court ruled that the disclosure would constitute  an unwarranted  invasion of personaI privacy.

The court did not explain, whose privacy? All of the evidence showed that Barack Hussein Obama is using a stolen Social Security number, which was assigned to a resident of Connecticut, who was born in 1890. The court did not provide any rule or precedent, where  a person has an expectation  of privacy in a stolen Social Security number or any other stolen property. Additionally, according to sworn affidavits of Senior Deportation  officer Sampson and licensed investigator Daniels, the individual, who was assigned this number, was born  in  1890, he would  have been 122  years old. Considering that  this number  was made public by Obama and became a matter  of public domain, if such an individual would have been alive, he would have come forward by now. It is safe to presume that the owner of this number is deceased, his death was not reported to the Social Security administration and it was assumed by Obama.

This court  did not explain, whose privacy it protects. The court  did not show why a person, who assumed a number  belonging to another,  has any expectation of privacy in a stolen property.

If for  example, one of the three  judges on the panel were  to encounter  a forger and a thief, who  were  to forge  a deed to their  house and were to demand  that they  leave the  house, would  judges  Rogers, Griffith and Cavanaugh simply give their  house to a forger  and a thief?  Or would  they demand  the  original  deed on file  with  the city or county  recorder? If a clerk in the recorder's  office  is corrupt and  colluded with  the  thief,  would  these  judges  simply  leave  their  homes  or would  they  fight  for  what  they  worked  for  many years? Would  they  go to  the court  and  demand  a Writ of Mandamus, directing the agency to  release the original  deed?

Similarly  we have an individual, who  took  over  the  White  House, the  People's house. Generations  of Americans fought  for the legitimacy  and sovereignty of this house.  Three  judges  have  in  front   of  them  evidence, that  this  house  is being usurped using a stolen Social Security number  and a forged birth  certificate.

Information at hand is no longer private as Obama personally posted it on WhiteHouse.gov and millions of people

downloaded it. Additionally, in Farrar et al v Obama et al  in the Administrative court of the state of Georgia presiding  

judge Michael Malihi allowed the full Social Security number xxx-xx-4425  to be presented in the open court during the   

examination by attorney Taitz and testimony of multiple witnesses. All of the major networks had their cameras in the

courtroom. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, FOX and others recoded all of the testimony and transmitted it. At this point it is a matter of

common knowledge that according to multiple experts and witnesses Obama is using a Social Security number that was not

attached to him. This matter is no longer a private matter. It is in public domain and a matter of  public interest.

NO PUBLIC INTEREST IN  KNOWING  WHETHER A CRIMINAL  WITH  A STOLEN SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER  IS USURPING THE POSITION OF THE US PRESIDENT AND COMMANDER IN CHIEF REPRESENTS AN INSULT TO THE INTELLIGENCE OF EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN.                                                                 

A ruling  by Circuit  judges Rogers, Griffith and Cavanaugh is a slap in the  face of each and every American citizen.

1. If we were talking about  someone who has a corner  bakery or someone who is a janitor somewhere, the judges would  be justified in saying that  there  is no public interest, however we  are  talking  about  an individual, Barack Hussein  Obama (hereinafter Obama)  who  is  using a stolen  Social Security   number, while usurping the position of the US President and commander in Chief, with  his finger on the  red  button, controlling all of our  nuclear  arsenal. How  can these three judges claim that  the  Appellant did not  demonstrate any valid public  interest  in disclosure?  If  not  the  legitimacy  of  the U.S. President,  what other issue would justify public  interest? How  can any judge, how  can any human  being  with  any measure  of brain activity  state that  there  is no public  interest   in knowing whether there is usurpation of  the US Presidency? This statement  completely defies any common sense and any logic.

In United States v. Nixon,  418 U.S. 683 (1974) the United States found that President Nixon did not have an expectation of privacy and had to release the Watergate tapes, which were actually:

a. his

b. private

Now in Taitz v Astrue  we are dealing with

a. a stolen property, Obama using a stolen CT Social Security number  xxx-xx-4425, which was

never assigned to him…

b. information at hand is  no  longer private as  Obama personally  posted  it on WhiteHouse.gov and millions f people downloaded it. Additionally, in Farrar et al v Obama et al in the Administrative court of the state of Georgia presiding judge Michael Malihi allowed the full Social Security number to be presented in the open court during the examination  by Taitz and testimony of multiple witnesses.  All of the major networks had their cameras in the courtroom. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, FOX and others recoded all of the testimony and transmitted it. At this point it is a matter of common  knowledge  that according  to multiple  experts and witnesses Obama is using a Social Security  number that was not attached to him. This matter is no longer  a private matter. It is in public domain and a matter of   public interest. According  to  multiple  polls  as  many  as  50%  of  Americans  are  questioning Obama's  legitimacy. Even if   nobody would be questioning Obama's legitimacy, this issue would still be the matter of public domain and public interest, as the US Presidency is at stake. The decision is completely void of any reason or common sense.  There  is a serious  suspicion  of   an undue  influence on the court  by the current  administration,  as there is no other explanation  and justification  for the decision…

Moreover,  if this decision  stands, this court will be complicit in violation of 18 USC§1028  Fraud  and  related  activity  with  

identification  documents  as  well as Social Security act 208 18 USC § 1028 -Fraud and  related  activity  in connection  with

identification documents, authentication features, and information…

During   Watergate   over  30  corrupt  high  ranked  governmental  officials   were indicted and  convicted  and  went  to  prison.  ObamaForgeryGate  is much  bigger than  Watergate, as a  number   of  corrupt  high  ranked  governmental  officials, corrupt US attorneys and  corrupt judges  are  complicit in  the  biggest  case of elections  fraud, forgery  and high treason  in the  history of the  United  States of America.

Judges of the  panel made a clear error  of law and fact and abused their  judicial discretion. Their  ruling  did  not  provide  for  any law or  precedent,  which  would state that one has an expectation of privacy in using a Social Security number that he stole  from  another  individual. The judges  of  the  panel  did  not  provide  any explanation or reasoning for their  decision, stating that there is no public interest in knowing whether  we have an individual, who is using a stolen Social Security number  as a basis for his legitimacy  in the position  of the President of the United States.  This decision  actually makes judges  Rogers, Griffith  and Kavanaugh

criminally complicit in the biggest case of Social Security fraud, elections fraud, forgery and treason. It is important that the full court en banc reverses this decision.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

10.01.2012