Dr. Orly Taitz pursues Social Security Number fraud issue
WASHINGTON – On Dec. 30, 2010, the day after Hollister v. Soetoro, challenging the constitutional eligibility of President Barack Obama, was docketed for the Jan. 14, 2011 conference of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), retired USAF Col. Gregory Hollister’s Attorney John Hemenway filed a motion for justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, both appointed by Obama, to recuse themselves.
However, on Jan. 18, when SCOTUS summarily denied Hollister’s petition for a writ of certiorari, it failed to address the motion to recuse and had, in fact, docketed the motion simply as a “request.”
On Feb. 7, Hemenway filed a petition for rehearing and Hollister’s case was redistributed on Feb. 16 for the March 4 SCOTUS conference.
While it is generally understood that it requires four of the nine justices to grant a writ, or review, it is unclear if the recusal of two justices would reduce that number to three.
The order in Hollister’s case issued by U.S. District Judge James Robertson, for the District of Columbia, a Clinton appointee, has become most famous for what Hemenway says “has become and will remain his most infamous indulgence in bias and the appearance of bias from an extrajudicial source, referring to Robertson’s statement: “The issue of the President’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign for presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court."
In his May 2010 Motion to Recuse and request Robertson’s opinions be vacated filed with the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, “as a consequence of the recognition of his bias and appearance of bias under that statute," Hemenway wrote, “It would be difficult to find a more egregious example of bias with an extrajudicial source than this statement.”
Hemenway went on to point out Robertson’s “needlessly snide and less than honest aspersion cast upon the appellant and plaintiff Hollister” and noted a copy of Hollister’s discharge papers showing his honorable discharge from the Air Force after a full career of active duty was attached to the complaint.
He stated, “Yet rather than acknowledge this fact as clearly shown, the lower court feels it has to say that ‘The plaintiff says that he is a retired Air Force colonel who continues to owe fealty to his Commander-in-Chief …’ Clearly the plaintiff Hollister is a retired Air Force Colonel. He does not just say that he is. This gratuitous aspersion and insult starts the internal evidence of bias and certainly an appearance of bias at the very outset.”
Robertson also snidely stated appellee/defendant Soetoro has not proved his eligibility to Col. Hollister’s “satisfaction,” to which Hemenway responded, “The fact is that by the appellee/defendant’s own public statements he is not qualified under the Constitution, and he knows it.”
Hollister found Robertson’s bias and snide insults “particularly galling” and “particularly unjustified,” because as an active duty officer, under the presidency of William Clinton, Hollister raised an issue about the constitutional legitimacy of the orders given by Clinton.
Hollister addressed the fact that Clinton, after having sworn to preserve and protect the Constitution as an ROTC cadet and Senate staffer, had, while in Oxford, England, on the Rhodes Scholarship (which he never completed), gone to Eastern Europe and participated in communist demonstrations against the Vietnam War while we were at war with communism there.
Hemenway stated Hollister asked a number of government officials if this wasn’t considered “giving aid and comfort to the enemy in violation of the 14th Amendment.”
Letters Hollister wrote to then Secretary of Defense Perry and Rep. Amory Houghton, Hollister’s upstate New York hometown congressman were attached.
Hemenway stated, “This historical record makes it clear that Col. Hollister has for many years taken more seriously his oath, as an officer, to protect and preserve the Constitution than Judge Robertson did in the lower court in this instance.”
Meanwhile, Hollister has been following other challenges to Obama’s eligibility and noted Dr. Orly Taitz’s recent Freedom of Information Act complaint against Social Security Administration Commissioner Michael Astrue regarding the Connecticut-issued Social Security Number (042-68-4425) Obama has been using, based on sworn affidavits from two licensed private investigators, Susan Daniels and Neal Sankey, which she also verified the information with a third source, John Sampson, a retired Department of Homeland Security senior investigator.
Through various sources, in addition to Obama’s use of the number, they determined the same SSN was originally issued in Connecticut sometime around 1976 to another individual who was born in 1890.
Records indicate Obama didn’t start using this particular SSN until 1980, although there are several other numbers associated with his name, none of which were issued in Hawaii, or any other place Obama has ever lived or worked for that matter.
Obama’s use of the Connecticut-issued SSN can be readily verified by anyone as it is imbedded in his fraudulently created Selective Service System records.
Hollister provided this Examiner, with a copy of the results from the Social Security Number Verification System (www.SocialSecurity.gov) used by small businesses to verify employment eligibility, using Obama’s name, birth date and the Connecticut-issued SSN.
The results came back as “Failed” with a Verification Results Code 1, which is defined as: “SSN not in file (never issued).”
Time will tell if SCOTUS will ultimately be the ones to decide Obama’s constitutional eligibility.
Comments
Linda:
He was born in Hawaii, he is therefore elligible to be President. Four years of lawsuits that have gone nowhere and never will. Why don't you get a life.
It really doesn't matter where he was born because his father, if his father is who he says he is, was a foreign national, which Obama himself admits he himself was at birth, and therefore is not a "Natural Born citizen" as required by the Constitution to be POTUS.
Linda, that is absolutely untrue. The constitution mentions "natural-born citizen" in only one place and NEVER defines it. Therefore, it is open to interpretation of the legislative branch of gov't. We have two types of citizens= ones by birth, and ones that are naturalized. U.S. Code Sec. 1401, enacted by the U.S. Congress, explicitly states that ANY CHILD BORN ON U.S. SOIL is a citizen by birth (even if both parents are aliens). Furthermore, if the child is born outside of the U.S., only ONE parent needs to be a citizen for the child to be a citizen by birth.
Until Congress says otherwise, a natural-born citizen is a citizen by birth.
If a natural-born citizen meant having BOTH parents as citizens, Obama would never have been cleared to run for president by the FEC.
Tink:
He was born in Hawaii, he is therefore elligible to be President. Four years of lawsuits that have gone nowhere and never will.
Why don't you get a life.
========================================
Tink, why don't you think?
The putative POTUS is not able to release any valid long form birth certificate that matches up with
Name: BHO II
Father: BHO
DOB: August 4 1961
Birthplace: Honolulu, Hawaii
Race: African
The big lie from Barry and Billy Ayres will soon be exposed...Obama is a liar and possibly a felon due to use of mutliple (and if this report is true) an invalid SSN.
"POTUS is not able to release any valid long form birth certificate"
So what? A lot of people don't have "long form" BCs.
All of these states only issue a "short form": Hawaii, North Carolina, Washington, Florida, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, Wisconsin, Tennessee Maryland, Missouri, Arizona for births after 1989.
Do you think no one from those states should be able to run for POTUS?
"# Anyone who knowingly and willfully uses SSNVS to request or obtain information from Social Security under false pretenses violates Federal law and may be punished by a fine, imprisonment or both."
http://www.ssa.gov/employer/ssnvspamphlet.htm
I hope Hollister gets busted, but I'll bet he's just lying.
No one was using SSNVS under false pretenses, after all, the POTUS is our employee.
If you want to argue the "he is our employee" route, the SSA has and answer for that:
<blockquote>SSA returns all names and SSNs submitted. If the name and SSN do not match our records, SSA advises the following:
-This response does not imply that you or your employee intentionally provided incorrect information about the employee's name or SSN.
-This response does not make any statement about your employee's immigration status.
-This response is not a basis, in and of itself, to take any adverse action against the employee, such as laying off, suspending, firing or discriminating against the employee
</blockquote>
There is absolute proof that Obama was born in Kenya. Read the book: "OBAMA - INELIGIBLE TO SERVE - LIES, CRIMES & DEADLY AMBITION" (at Amazon). In this book there are Legal Facts that explain WHY Obama is NOT ELIGIBLE under the U.S. Constitution. There are also transcripts of testimony that state Obama was born in Kenya, Statements made by the Kenyan Ambassador confirming he born there, articles in Newspapers are quoted, and numerous other accounts by many people all stating Obama was born there, including his own Grandmother and other family members. Get your facts first, then argue -- if you can. Obama is a fraud -- and is perpetrating the biggest HOAX on the American people. (If anyone does not understand the legal cases and what they say -- this book will explain the cases and the concepts in clear, understandable terms.)
We'll see what SCOTUS does this time around. I don't have high hopes. However, it has become apparent that the issue is not going away any time soon.
Hey, Obama, I hear there may be an opening for a new dictator in Lybia
I guess we saw what SCOTUS did - denied.
One would think that any politician who wants votes would resolve this issue by being forthcoming with all necessary documentation above and beyond the call of duty >>> but not this guy>>....... hmmmmmm
What more PROOF does anyone need? The Selective Service Card is questionable, the social Security # is not questionable. It is VERIFIED PROOF of fraud. When is someone going to do something????
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/03/more-social-security-troubles-for...
What’s wrong with this picture? Simply stated, what Hollister claims to have done is a crime:
Some years ago I worked with SSA in developing an automated verification interface between state electronic death registration systems and the SSA, now used in several states. One thing I learned is that the SSA is extremely security conscious, and that every transaction they process is logged — both content and IP address of the submitter. The person who supplied that image above blanked out the employer identification number (EIN) used to obtain the information, but the EIN and the IP address are sitting in a log file at SSA. Somebody is in deep trouble, and it does not appear to be Barack Obama
There is no proof that the infamous SS# that birfers make a big deal about was assigned in Connecticut or to a resident of the state. The SS administration cautions that the prefixes are not to be assumed to be accurate indications of location. The explanation could be as simple as someone misreading a "9" as a "0" for the first digit of the ZIP code on the application. The birfers like the author continue to embarrass themselves by jumping to sinister conclusions on this. Of course, birfers are dumb asses so that is what they do regularly.
You're incorrect. The first three digits of a Social Security Number indicate the state in which it is issued. You must be a resident of the state to obtain a SSN in that state. There is no explanation other than fraud for Obama to be using a Connecticut-issued SSN, especially one that was previously issued to another person. The SSA does not "recycle" numbers.
It appears that Hollister is looking at some fraud charges.
http://rcradioshow.blogspot.com/2011/03/did-birther-gregory-hollister-co...
How Hollister could do something so stupid is astounding. And then, Orly mails all of this to the .... DOJ! To Eric Holder!
Hollister is looking at massive fines and possible incarceration.
Justice is sweet.
Ms. Bentley, if you are in touch with Mr. Hollister you would be doing him a favor by recommending that he immediately find a criminal lawyer with experience in federal law-- a competent lawyer, not a birther lawyer like Orly Taitz.
The Justice Dept. has a slam dunk case against him for several federal crimes, not the least of which are: identity theft, Social Security fraud, mail fraud and wire fraud.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!