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
