Bovine, Flatulating: wrote: http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=441603
Her [=Taitz's] specific reasoning is:
"In the prior case of Taitz v Astrue 11-cv-402 plaintiff provided the court with undeniable legal, competent evidence of Obama using a stolen Social Security number of a resident of Connecticut born in 1890."
Here's the "undeniable, legal, competent evidence" -- Taitz ran Obama's presumed SSN on the E-Verify internet program. E-Verify is a service provided, not by the Soc.Sec.Admin but by Homeland Security. Employers are supposed to use it to make sure that employees and applicants have real SSNs and therefore are not non-citizen foreigners. I do not know for sure, but very likely the Homeland Security program does not burden itself with every SSN ever issued; it probably omits all SSNs belonging to the deceased, it probably also omits those belonging to people (or at least some of the people) who are still alive but not in the running for being hired - folks who are confined to nursing homes, prisons, or kindergartens. In light of the purpose of that database and so forth, it probably does not carry the SSNs of living Presidents and other some others whose citizenship won't be doubted by an employer.
There is another internet service for checking SSNs, the SSN Verification Service (SSNVS), operated by the Soc.Sec.Admin. itself. Again, intended for employers to use to make sure they hire only US citizens. I do not know what the limitations of the database are - but I don't think I have heard of a birfer running Obama's SSN through this database.
Evidently both the E-Verify and the SSNVS process begin with questions that require the user to swear that he is a bona fide employer with a bona fide interest in hiring the person with this SSN (or that he is the applicant himself wishing to demonstrate the genuiness of his own SSN). So the birfers had to fib to get into those programs.
Although Taitz is all twisted up about her failure in Taitz v. Astrue (DDC Oct. 17, 2011) 806 F.Supp.2d 214 aff'd (DC Cir May 25, 2012) rehearing den. (DC Cir Aug. 9,. 2012), the District Court did give her SSN argument a thorough study. The court decision notes that the failure of E-Verify to confirm Obama's SSN "constitutes nothing more than an unsubstantiated bare suspicion of wrongdoing". The court also noted that to make use of E-Verify it was necessary to answer "a series of private questions", so either the birfers may have answered those questions wrong or fibbed to get into the system. The court also took issue with the "Connecticut connection" and noted that the Soc.Sec.Admin's own documents explained that the state prefix numbers only identified the state of issuance - which was not necessarily the state of the applicant's residence.
Text of DC District Court decision:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case? ... s_ylo=2009
