Tag Archives: Social Security number

Not So Pretty Pleas???

little match girl

She Only Had A Few Matches Left, And This One Was About To Fizzle Out

Orly Taitz is about to strike out again, this time in Judge Lamberth’s court in her Taitz v. Colvin (once Astrue) action. The other day she was dancing about and high-fiving the Flying Monkeys because the government failed to answer her Motion For Reconsideration. There is an article here a few days ago about it, called Doing The Loco Motion (Doing The Loco Motion!!!)).

Now, the government has responded with a short 3 page reply, 2 of which follow. The third page was just the continuation of an address. Here are the two relevant pages from the brief. PDF’s of both the government’s Response and Brief are in Note 2 below.

Gov't Brief (Colvin) Page 1

(Click On Image To Make Larger.)

Page 2:

Gov't Brief (Colvin) Page 2

(Click On Image To Make Larger.)

Here is the link to Taitz’s page, where we find this ironic statement, from SHE Who Must Have Help Redacting!:

Department of Justice is asking Judge Lamberth to allow them to file a late answer after the notice of failure to respond was docketed because they were confused and did not understand that they need to answer the motion.

I kid you not, read the pleading. This is just unbelievable. Do you think they can be that stupid or are they suddenly got worried that Judge Lamberth might rule to release Bounel’s SS5, SSN application and the whole world will see that Obama is using a stolen Social Security number.

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=427179

To sum it all up, procedurally,  the government was one day late filing their response because they thought the judge had dismissed Taitz’s Motion for Reconsideration. So, they Motioned the Court to permit their response. What with all of Taitz’s various procedural screw-ups, and difficulties redacting Obama’s social security number, I suspect the Court will grant the government’s request.

Procedurally, the government points out that Taitz was late filing her Motion for Reconsideration. Substantively, they point out that Taitz’s,

In any event, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is meritless. In order to receive relief under Rule 60(b)(2), plaintiff must establish that she has identified “‘newly discovered evidence’ that could not have discovered through ‘reasonable diligence’” and that “must be admissible and of such importance that it probably would have changed the outcome.” Lightfoot v. District of Columbia, 555 F. Supp. 2d 61, 68 (D.D.C. 2008). Plaintiff has not demonstrated that any of the evidence she now relies upon could not have been discovered through reasonable diligence prior to this Court’s original order.

She relies in her motion for reconsideration primarily upon a report she claims was released to the public on March 7, 2011, more than five months before this Court issued its final judgment. See Doc. 45 at 6. Plaintiff also has not shown how any of the evidence she relies upon, even if admissible, is “of such importance that it would probably have changed the outcome.” Lightfoot, 555 F. Supp. 2d at 68. Rather, plaintiff’s motion is premised on “nothing more than an unsubstantiated ‘bare suspicion’ of wrongdoing.’” Memorandum and Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, Doc. 39 at 3 (quoting Nat’l Archives and Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 174 (2004)).

Based on this, Taitz’s Motion will be denied, and she will have one less match in her book. Nonetheless, our scrappy little match girl will go down swinging. She adds:

I am posting both a request to file  a late opposition and the opposition the want to file. I did not do research on it yet, as it was just posted, but after 3 seconds of looking at it, I already know that this is a total BS and a sign of dishonesty by the defendant and the Department of Justice

a. they are late with filing an opposition and they claim that my motions are late. If the judge were to rule based on lateness, than he should not consider their late opposition claiming that I am late

b. it was filed under 2 rules: 60b(2) and 60b(6) Motion under 60(b)(6) can be filed any time as long as it serves justice, 2 years from the ruling a 100 years after the ruling, so the whole argument is BS. Moreover the final decision came from the Court of Appeal in August of 2012, less than 1 year, so it is good under both 60(b)(2) and 60 b(6)

c.  The feds had a duty to advise the court that the new 120 year rule was instituted and that Bounel falls under this rule, they flagrantly and maliciously defrauded the court by hiding this rule, hiding Bounel’s identity and his DOB in 1890 and lying to judge Lamberth that the SS-5 cannot be released under the privacy rules. They now want to be rewarded for lyin,g for fraud on the court. Not only they should not be rewarded, they should be severely sanctioned.

Sooo, we will have a little sizzle before the fizzle.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is from Jean Renoir’s 1928 film, The Little Match Girl.

The Little Match Girl, a 40 minute adaptation of a Hans Christian Anderson story, is one of his best and most affecting films. The title character is a waif forced to sell matches on the streets in the dead of winter in order to earn her livelihood. While literally freezing to death, the match girl looks through a toy store window and fantasizes that she is inside and that the toys have magically come to life all around her. The dream-like visuals and fantasy element are atypical for Renoir, the humanism is not.

This image and the excerpt came from a great website:

http://whitecitycinema.com/tag/jean-vigo/

Note 2. PDF’s Of Government’s Response, and Brief:

Taitz-v-Astrue-request-for-leave-of-court

Taitz-v-Astrue-opposition


Doing The Loco Motion!!! (Or, When The Frug Gets Pulled Out!!!)

frug 1

At The Snap Of The Judge’s Fingers, The Birthers Had To Stop And Walk Back Their Claims

Orly Taitz is in for a big disappointment when the Judge Lamberth rules on her Motion for Reconsideration in Taitz v. Colvin (formerly Astrue). And, her related Motion For Default Judgement.  This whole thing started out as a Freedom of Information case seeking information about the alleged use of Obama’s social security number by a Harrison Bounel, who may have been born in 1890. She lost, and the case was closed.

Later, Taitz discovered the “120 year rule” permitting disclosures of social security numbers of extremely old people, whether dead or alive.

Sooo, Taitz filed a Motion For Reconsideration to resurrect the case because of this “new evidence.” It took several filings to actually lodge the Motion, because she incorrectly redacted Obama’s social security number. Eventually, one of her Flying Monkeys handed her a Sharpie Marker, and Taitz was able to properly color the number out. And, stay within the lines!

The Court allowed her to make her 74 page Motion. There was no answer to the motion, and now Taitz is convinced that she will prevail on a “default” basis.  That is very unlikely. She is confusing a Motion and a Complaint. If a person fails to respond in a timely fashion to a Complaint, there may indeed be a Default Judgement granted, subject to certain procedural safeguards. But MOTIONS are a horse of a different color.

Wiki defines a Motion as:

In United States law, a motion is a procedural device to bring a limited, contested issue before a court for decision. It is a request to the judge (or judges) to make a decision about the case. Motions may be made at any point in administrative, criminal or civil proceedings, although that right is regulated by court rules which vary from place to place. The party requesting the motion may be called the movant, or may simply be the moving party. The party opposing the motion is the nonmovant or nonmoving party.

I asked my BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq., an attorney, about them and she said that in a very limited, technical sense, the opposing side need never file an Opposition or Response to a Motion because the decision is firmly within the purlieu of the Court’s purview. In other words, to grant or not grant the Motion is up to the judge. Fabia said that in the practical sense, one almost always responds to a Motion, particularly those seeking Summary Judgement, where proof needs to be met with proof.  But, a court almost always has the full discretion to grant or not grant Motions.

She said that it is certainly better form, a whole lot safer, and much more professional to respond to Motions, but that there is no specific rule which mandates that run-of-the-mill unresponded-to motions are automatically granted. And, she said that Motions may  be made orally in court, and decided on the spot.

Also, there is no theoretical limit to what kind Motion may be filed, although they generally stay within well established precedents. For example, a Movant could file or make a Motion that a witness be prevented from smirking on the stand, or that another be prevented from wearing a red dress to court.  Here is an example where you could see the no automatic default rationale in action:

Plaintiff motions the Court, that since Justice is blind, the Judge should be required to wear a blindfold during the trial while the jury is in the room. The Defendant makes no response.  Does the Plaintiff prevail automatically through default, and must the judge then wear a blindfold? No. Not on your sweet life.

Here is another hypothetical, less bizarre:

Movant motions for an extension of time to respond to a Motion For Summary Judgement. The Non-Movant is silent, and makes no response.

Here, a judge may grant the extension, and probably will without disagreement from the Non-movant. Yet, the Court is not required to grant the motion. The Movant may have filed multiple motions for extensions of time prior to this, and the Court is within its rights to deny the motion whether or not the Non-movant responds. Even if there is some “local rule” which establishes that no response to a Motion For Extension constitutes assent, the  Court is free to grant or not grant the Motion. (However, some local rules require a written response in order to have oral arguments.)

You can read Taitz’s Motion here,

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=426841

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure No. 55 can be found at Note 3 below. That also makes it evident that “defaults” apply to Complaints, not Motions. To sum it all up, once again Orly Taitz makes a loco, or crazy, Motion, which causes some excitement among the Birthers, to be followed soon by yet another let down.

All in all, just another day in the Land of a Thousand Dunces.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is from Rich Man’s Frug number in Sweet Charity. Here is a youtube video of the beautifully choreographed Bob Fosse piece:

Note 2. The Frug. As you can see from this video, some people do pronounce it frug, as opposed to froog. This also provides an example of the Practical Frug, as opposed to the highly stylized Frug in Sweet Charity:

This was such an interesting video, I have included two more from the same series. Somehow I just feel that my readers will find this series as entertaining as I did, and will be unable to turn their attention away from the exciting and energetic presentations!

Note 3. F.R.C.P. 55.

Rule 55. Default; Default Judgment

(a) Entering a Default. When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party’s default.

(b) Entering a Default Judgment.

(1) By the Clerk. If the plaintiff’s claim is for a sum certain or a sum that can be made certain by computation, the clerk—on the plaintiff’s request, with an affidavit showing the amount due—must enter judgment for that amount and costs against a defendant who has been defaulted for not appearing and who is neither a minor nor an incompetent person.

(2) By the Court. In all other cases, the party must apply to the court for a default judgment. A default judgment may be entered against a minor or incompetent person only if represented by a general guardian, conservator, or other like fiduciary who has appeared. If the party against whom a default judgment is sought has appeared personally or by a representative, that party or its representative must be served with written notice of the application at least 7 days before the hearing. The court may conduct hearings or make referrals—preserving any federal statutory right to a jury trial—when, to enter or effectuate judgment, it needs to:

(A) conduct an accounting;

(B) determine the amount of damages;

(C) establish the truth of any allegation by evidence; or

(D) investigate any other matter.

(c) Setting Aside a Default or a Default Judgment. The court may set aside an entry of default for good cause, and it may set aside a default judgment under Rule 60(b).

(d) Judgment Against the United States. A default judgment may be entered against the United States, its officers, or its agencies only if the claimant establishes a claim or right to relief by evidence that satisfies the court.

Here is the link in case you wish to read the notes:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_55

Note 4. Land Of A Thousand Dances. Well, since I did a pun on it, I might as well make up for it by providing a youtube video of this wunnerful version!


Orly Taitz As “The Sorceror’s Apprentice”???

Morgan_le_Fay_Orly

From Merlin’s Database She Druid The Wrong Conclusions???

Well, now we all know the source of Orly’s power!  She is a witch who has access to Merlin’s Database! Here is a screenshot of her recent post:

Orly Plea For Help #897

Here is the link, where you can read some meaningless comments from her Flying Monkeys, if you so desire:

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=425045

Sooo, what is Merlin’s Information System? If you go to their main website, you learn nothing except that they are honest, committed, cost effective, etc. etc. etc. and when you finish reading it all, you still don’t have much of a clue what the heck they do. BUT, this website, put together by attorneys,  goes into much more juicy details! (WARNING! AVISO! ACHTUNG! The website is found at Justia, an online legal reporting service, which means this article may have been scrubbed or altered by evil and nefarious Obots!)

http://archive.virtualchase.justia.com/articles/merlin.html

Here is a screenshot of part of the page:

Merlin Blurb 1

(Click On Image To Make Larger.)

This excerpt is interesting:

Another reason Merlin is worth considering, is that Merlin is the last of the pay investigative research databases we’re aware of that will give access to full Social Security numbers to attorneys. However, this access requires lawyers to submit to an on-site office visit by a Merlin representative and incur a one-time $100 charge for the visit to insure that you fall within the Gramm-Leach-Bliley and Fair Credit Reporting Acts’ permitted uses for accessing Social Security number information. Each time you use Merlin, you must select a permitted use for the search. (After its purchase by LexisNexis, Accurint began to restrict Social Security number access only to attorneys whose practice is strictly in collections. Some attorneys report they still have access to full Social Security numbers if their Accurint account pre-dates the Lexis purchase.)

On this brief survey, The Merlin system seems professional enough, but like any tool, the user ought to know what they are using, and why. This excerpt sums up pretty well what happens when tyros get in over their heads:

That bit about identifying people by the wrong sex is directly verifiable in Neil Sankey’s low-quality list, which begins by listing Stanley Ann Dunham’s sex as “male” 10 times and as “female” 0 times. Stanley Ann Dunham is the name of Barack Obama’s mother. Was Barack Obama’s mother a man? Now that would be a really explosive revelation! Other clear errors find their way into Sankey’s list — the frequent misspelling of Barack Obama’s name is one and the placement of the White House in the states of Maryland and California is another. My favorite is the record which places Barack Obama’s residence at 1234 Happy Street, a street in Covington Washington that does not exist.

Finally, what does Neil Sankey think of his own list? The Guardian asked him:

Most recently, he carried out an exhaustive search of databases that he claims threw up 140 different identification numbers and addresses for “Barack Obama”. He admits the findings prove nothing — there is nothing to link the entries to the president…

Let’s sum up: an error-riddled search with repeated false genders, multiple false names, dozens of false street addresses, and a few false states for something as easily located as the White House, generated from databases that at times contain more inaccurate information than accurate information, somehow generates multiple social security numbers for Barack Obama. Meanwhile, the search is rejected as proving nothing by the very person who carried it out.

There are two conclusions you can draw from this:

1. This sure is one screwed up list.
2. Clearly, Stanley Ann Dunham was a man and Barack Obama does not actually exist.

I go with Option 1.

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2010/05/17/fact-check-neil-sankey-barack-obama-27-numbers/

So, this is a very old story, one going back almost 2,000 years . . .:

My apologies to Mickey Mouse for associating him with Orly Taitz!!!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. Well, this is strange indeed, and it must be MAGICK!!!  From the neck up it is Orly Taitz, aka Orly the Strange, Orly le Fay, Fatta Stupana, and “The More! Again!”.  From the neck down, it is the beautiful and talented actress M’el Dowd, in her dress as Morgan le Fay from the Broadway musical, Camelot. Here she is:

Morgan_le_Fay_Camelot m'el dowd

Note 2. Morgan le Fay. To understand more about Morgan, try this link. She is an utterly fascinating character:

http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/morgmenu.htm


Ohio Birther Gets Bowled Over!!!

“Miss Marble” Did Indeed Have One Marble, But Where Were The Others???

As the ObamaReleaseYourRecords blog reports, Ohio Birther Susan Daniels, P.I. got a reality check from Geauga County Prosecuting Attorney, David Joyce:

(Click on Image to enlarge.)

Here is where you can read the entire story:

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/10/prosecutor-responds-to-obamas-social-security-number.html

Daniels follows in the footsteps of other illustrious  Birthers, such as Orly Taitz,  Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and the entire Cold Case Posse, in failing to check out the criminal statutes BEFORE alleging a crime has been committing, and gathering the requisite evidence BEFORE running off to the fuzz.  Or running off at the mouth.

Daniels is the alleged private investigator whose sloppy investigatory skills help start the whole Obama has 39 social security numbers Birther claim several years ago:

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2010/05/17/fact-check-neil-sankey-barack-obama-27-numbers/

Her partner in stupid, Neil Sankey, had enough sense to realize that the database search didn’t prove anything because none of it could be linked to Obama.  But Daniels is the really slow learner of the pair, and has yet to grasp that  simple fact.  Compounding those failures is an inability to read and comprehend easy statements written in English. Daniels has been carrying on to beat the band that there is something fishy about Obama having a Connecticut social security number. My personal guess is that someone at the Social Security Administration made a typo back in 1977. It doesn’t matter because as the SSA states:

Since 1972, when SSA began assigning SSNs and issuing cards centrally from Baltimore, the area number assigned has been based on the ZIP code in the mailing address provided on the application for the original Social Security card. The applicant’s mailing address does not have to be the same as their place of residence.   Thus, the Area Number does not necessarily represent the State of residence of the applicant, either prior to 1972 or since.

In spite of this, Daniels went ahead and filed a Birther eligibility suit in Ohio. When she realized that the suit was about to be dismissed, and she would not be getting any more attention, she filed another claim with the courts requesting an identity theft criminal investigation because of the social security number.  Unfortunately for Ms. Daniels, The Geauga County prosecuting attorney CAN read and he told her the same thing as the SSA did, on page two of his letter. Here is a pdf copy in case anybody has problems with scribd at the link above:

David Joyce Letter

To add a little extra twist to the knife, David Joyce is a Republican. As she whines in the ORYR link above:

We are in serious trouble when a Republican prosecutor, David Joyce, who is now running for congress, does not care enough to look into a felony being committed by Barack Obama. The information in the letterfrom the SSA was added after I discovered that Obama is using a fraudulent social security number. The residence had to be in the state where the number was issued. They are lying. The issue could be cleared up by the prosecutor sending a letter to the SSA asking for a copy of the original application that goes with xxx-xx-4425. Apparently, that was too much trouble.

No. Actually, it is Daniels’ idiotic claim that is in trouble.  This is what happens every time that grown-ups have to deal with Birther silliness. But, she is way too much of an attention-whore to just shut up and go away. I wonder what she will try next???

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is Margaret Rutherford who played Agatha Christie’s Miss Marple in various films. This particular one is from the 1963 film, Murder at The Gallop.  Here is website with some history, and some clips:

http://www.squidoo.com/margaret-rutherford-miss-marple-movies

Note 2. Words. The hat in the Image is often called a  “Bowler.” In the Image Easter Egg, “Old Hat” means “repeated too often” or  over-familiar through overuse;

Note 3. Links to other posts about Susan Daniels.

http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/susan-desperately-seeking/

http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/mindless-blathering-stupid-drivel-from-susan-daniels-p-i/


Susan, Desperately Seeking!!!

In Spite Of Appearances, She Was Definitely NOT An Egghead

Susan Daniels, P.I. is desperately seeking some more attention.  Her ridiculous lawsuit alleging Obama was using a false social security number got bounced out of an Ohio court on Friday, September 7, 2012.  For good measure she was assessed costs. (See pdf below in Note 2.) This was no big surprise. I did a post about her silly claims earlier. (See notes for link.)

But darned if she isn’t right back in there trying to start a criminal investigation on Obama by filing a moronic Affidavit. I think she has gotten addicted to all the fuss and bother and drama, and just plain doesn’t want to be out of the Birther spotlight, or headlines. The story is reported at ObamaReleaseYourRecords.  Here is an excerpt:

Private Investigator Susan Daniels Files Affidavit Seeking 
Criminal Prosecution For Obama’s Connecticut Social Security Number

. . . I filed an Affidavit (EMBEDDED BELOW) yesterday in Geauga County Common Pleas Court. I am asking the court to issue a complaint that Barack Obama has committed a crime and should be prosecuted for identity fraud. Section “D” of ORC 2935.09 allows me the right to file. …

The court had never seen a filing like this before and to say they were upset would be an understatement. Two women kept insisting that nothing could be filed without a case number on it and I kept saying: read the statute. They were not happy and one woman said: “I’ve worked here twenty years and have never seen anything like this.” Oh well, now she has.

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/09/susan-daniels-seeks-criminal.html

There is a scribd of the Affidavit at the link, and a pdf in the notes below in case scribd doesn’t work right.  But here is a cut and paste job I did of the major allegations:

I bet she is right, and the people at the courthouse haven’t seen anything like this foolishness before. But do you notice that something is missing from the allegations??? Something kind of BIG and IMPORTANT??? How about like, who is the ANOTHER PERSON in sub-paragraph e??? How in the world can Daniels claim that the social security number is stolen, if she can not identify who Obama stole it from? Think about this for a minute.

She has no information from the Social Security Administration [SSA] which indicates it was stolen. Her only foundation for the claim is that the number has a Connecticut “area number”, without any backup for why it has that number. She provides no information about the inner clerical workings of the SSA. She can not discount the possibility that it was simply a typo on the zip code. In fact, the SSA clearly states that you can’t tie social security numbers into places of residence: (See original article for the link.)

Since 1972, when SSA began assigning SSNs and issuing cards centrally from Baltimore, the area number assigned has been based on the ZIP code in the mailing address provided on the application for the original Social Security card. The applicant’s mailing address does not have to be the same as their place of residence.   Thus, the Area Number does not necessarily represent the State of residence of the applicant, either prior to 1972 or since.

She is supposed to be a private investigator, and here she is with a social security number that she can’t link to anybody except Obama. Having someone’s social security number is the easiest way to identify them and find out things about them. Has she run any skip tracing software on the number? Has she checked with the credit reporting agencies?  Private Investigators usually have contacts on the police force and in government offices to run numbers like this for them. If she does, she obviously came up with NADA.  All of which means she has absolutely no basis for claiming the number is either stolen or misused. I hate to be mean, but considering her initial investigatory work, the lawsuit and the affidavit, she comes across to me as being pretty stupid.

This affidavit is nothing but another instance of farcical Birther Legal Theatre, and Susan Daniels, P.I. is out there hamming it up on stage for a few more minutes of attention.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is a woman entertainer in a wooden egg costume known as The  Human Roly Poly Dancing Dolly (1915).

Note 2. The Title. The title for this Article is based on the 1985 movie, Desperately Seeking Susan, starring Madonna, where:

Roberta (Rosanna Arquette) is an unfulfilled suburban housewife living in Fort Lee, New Jersey who is fascinated with a woman she only knows about by reading messages to and from her in the personals section of a New York City tabloid. This fascination reaches a peak when one such ad with the headline “Desperately Seeking Susan” proposes a rendezvous in Battery Park with the man who regularly seeks her. Roberta goes to Battery Park too, gets a glimpse of the woman (Madonna) and in a series of events involving mistaken identity, amnesia, and other farcical elements Roberta goes from voyeur to participant in an Alice in Wonderland-style plot, ostensibly motivated by the search for a pair of stolen Egyptian earrings.

For ESL’s, the term “egghead” in the caption, is a slangish term for:

A person who is highly academic or studious; an intellectual. A smart person, or brainiac.

The Riddle referred to in the Image Easter Egg is, “What is round on both ends and high in the middle???  Answer: Ohio.  This is where she filed the lawsuit.  The riddle also describes an egg. Apparently this riddle was used in a Broadway song:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071215111953AAkvOi8

Note 3. Pdf’s and Links. Here are pdf’s in case scribd doesn’t scroll well on your device:

Susan Daniels’ Criminal Prosecution Affidavit

Susan Daniels Dismissal Order 9-7-12

Here is the link to the previous Internet Article about Susan Daniels,  P.I.:

http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/08/22/mindless-blathering-stupid-drivel-from-susan-daniels-p-i/


Mindless Blathering Stupid Drivel From Susan Daniels, P.I.

Mr. Lumbergh told me to input the zip codes and I said, I don’t care if they lay me off either, because I told, I told Bill that if they move my desk one more time, then, then I’m, I’m quitting, I’m going to quit. And, and I told Don too, because they’ve moved my desk four times already this year, and I used to be over by the window, and I could see the squirrels, and they were married, but then, they switched from the Swingline to the Boston stapler, but I kept my Swingline stapler because it didn’t bind up as much, and I kept the staples for the Swingline stapler and it’s not okay because if they take my stapler then I’ll set the building on fire.

Well, over the years I have read some pretty stupid stuff from Birthers, but darn if Susan Daniels, P.I. hasn’t just made a meteoric sprint from the Stupid Basement, up the Stupid Stairs, to the Second Tier B-List Of Stupid Birthers alongside the likes of J.B. Williams, Dianna “The Dianna” Cotter, and Miki “The Mad Hawaiian” Booth.  Here is an excerpt from the Internet Article that done it:

Private Investigator Susan Daniels Debunks Obot Myth That Zip Code Clerical Error Caused Obama To Be Issued A Connecticut Social Security Number

Social security numbers, prior to June 2011, were assigned by the residential address of the person who was applying for a number. Hawaii’s zip codes start with 968 and, coincidentally, Connecticut’s start with 068. So it had to be a typo, right? Nope.

When Barack Obama was living in Hawaii, he had three zip codes: 96814, 96822 and 96826. The State of Connecticut has never had the zip codes 06822 or 06826. They did have 06814. It however, is referred to as a “Unique” number. When I contacted the post office in Danbury, where this number originated, I was told by a long-time employee that 06814 was assigned exclusively to the Union Carbide company. (The Union Carbide building opened in 1983 when construction was completed.) He said the post office took it out of service several years ago. Obama allegedly got his CT number of xxx-xx-4425 in March 1977, which can be proven since the person before him -4424 and after him -4429 both got theirs then.

Obama has a CT number. It could never have been legally assigned to him. As a resident of Hawaii, his number should start with 575 or 576. His sister’s starts with 575 and was issued at approximately the same time he started using the CT number: 1986.

Here is the link to the full article, and there is a scribd document included which is supposed to mean something, but I am not sure just what:

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/08/myth-busted-zip-code-clerical-error.html

Now think about her “proof” for a minute. She has laid out the fact that zip codes are laid out geographically, and then she has done her P.I. work to list all three of Obama’s possible Hawaii zip codes. And then she concludes that since none of the last two digits from the 968 Hawaii area zip code exist in the 068 Connecticut area zip code, then it could not have been a typo that caused Obama to receive a Connecticut social security number.

This is ridiculous and wrong. I will show how it is wrong below, but first I want to show the logical gaps in her ridiculous line of reasoning.  First, Daniels has not provided any factual foundation on the mechanics of entering  zip codes at the Social Security Administration (SSA).  Were the envelopes scanned, or were handwritten numbers coded in some way for computer input?  No answer.

Were all 5 digits of the zip code entered?  Did the SSA have any kind of  zip code validation process to keep up with newly issued zip codes? What were the SSA protocols relating to input errors? Did the entire system shut down if the Union Carbide zip code was coded in??? Daniels claims that she debunked the Typo Myth, but she has provided zero information on what would have happened at the SSA in 1977 if a typo occurred.  She says that zip code 06822 is invalid, but she doesn’t even try to explain what would happen at SSA if that number was input into the system. As explained below, it might have just sailed on through.

Daniels is pretty much just assuming that a typographical mistake could not not happened. Look at Milton Waddams, in the image above, and tell me mistakes don’t happen in offices. Heck, mistakes happen with doctors in operating rooms. They are constantly sewing up victims, I mean patients, with hemostats, golf balls, and the nurse’s left over french fries inside. And Daniels takes the position that typos can’t happen in a government office???

Further, Daniels has provided no information as to whether or not other such anomalies appear with other individuals. I have read that they have, but that is beyond the scope of this article. But, most importantly, she has not provided any information as to whether the SSA computers “talked to” the Postal Service’s computers in 1977. For example, would the SSA computers have any way of knowing that 06814 was assigned to Union Carbide? Or that o6822 and 06826 were unassigned by the postal Service.

How can anyone pretend to debunk the Typo Myth if they have not asked about the above clerical protocols, and have no answer as to how non-existent zip codes may have been treated by the SSA computers???  Why would any sane Birther not ask the same questions I have asked, or recognize that Daniels falls way short of proving her case??? Oops, I think I answered my own question. All the above proves Daniels’ methodology is totally flawed.

Now, let’s examine what obvious facts she overlooked because of her bias or idiocy, take your pick. Here is a zip code map from Wiki:

Notice how there are 10 regions, represented by the digits 0-9. Notice how the next 2 digits are state specific. For example, Alaska’s and California’s zip codes both start with “9″, but the next 2 digits are spread out over five states. Let’s do some math! 1 digit + 2 digits = 3 digits! From this map, a person would never need more than the first three digits to determine what state a person was applying from.

Therefore, the SSA would not need all five digits to assign a state to the applicant. “902XX” would equate to California just the same as “961XX.” Frankly, we don’t know whether the SSA input all  5 digits from the zip codes or not. We can definitely ascertain that they would have had the option of using only the first 3 digits. And that is enough to shoot down Daniels’ claims of debunking the Typo Myth with the particular argument she makes. She can’t prove the final 2 digits meant squat to the SSA.  And beyond that, she hasn’t even tried.

We also know that the SSA only cared about the state of application, and not any more detailed geographical birth or residence information. How do we know this??? Easy, the SSA tells us:

Prior to 1972, cards were issued in local Social Security offices around the country and the Area Number represented the State in which the card was issued. This did not necessarily have to be the State where the applicant lived, since a person could apply for their card in any Social Security office. Since 1972, when SSA began assigning SSNs and issuing cards centrally from Baltimore, the area number assigned has been based on the ZIP code in the mailing address provided on the application for the original Social Security card. The applicant’s mailing address does not have to be the same as their place of residence.   [Note: Daniels was flatly wrong above when she said, "Social security numbers, prior to June 2011, were assigned by the residential address of the person who was applying for a number."]  Thus, the Area Number does not necessarily represent the State of residence of the applicant, either prior to 1972 or since.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/geocard.html

As shown above, the first 3 digits of the zip code are all that was necessary for the SSA’s purposes. Susan Daniels, P.I. should have picked up on some of these facts from her own arguments. She was aware that it was the first 3 digits, 068 and 968, that were state specific. Any P.I. worth their salt would have questioned whether or not the final 2 digits had any significance at all.  Any reasonable P.I. would have wanted to know if the SSA had any kind of zip code validation process. Yet, she focuses in on the last two completely unnecessary digits in the zip code to create her Masterpiece of Debunkery. And then prisses around like she proved something.

UPDATE! Reader Gorefan just left this link in the comments section, giving some credence to the idea that states could be identified by the first 3 digits of the zip code. This document is from the IRS:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/zip_code_and_state_abbreviations.pdf

Thank you Northland10 (Note 2 below) and Gorefan!!!

Maybe for Susan Daniels, her P.I. stands for Pretty Ignorant???

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is the stapler-guy, Milton Waddams, from the 1999 movie, Office Space. Here is a youtube video of poor Milton clips.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91HQNAapgQ8&feature=related

Note 2. UPDATE. Reader Northland10 found some very interesting information about potential Hawaii zip codes that Daniels may have missed, so I am copying and pasting his comment here. Thank you Northland10!!!

So, Susan claims:

When Barack Obama was living in Hawaii, he had three zip codes: 96814, 96822 and 96826.

Yet, on a help page from http://books.google.com/books; Kiplinger’s Personal Finance magazine from Dec 1970, the Zip Code for the insurance commissioner in Honolulu is:

96811

Hmm, there is an 06811 in Danbury, CT.

And, in case she would claim that that was 1970, Google books also has results from the 1980s.

On the same Google Books search, I see the University of Hawaii had the zip code of 96813 in 1979 and 96810 was also active in the 1970s.

How does she know what zip codes Barack had or what mailing address he used on the form? For a PI, she is a very bad researcher.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 46 other followers