29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, STE 100

Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688

Tel: (949) 683-5411; Fax (949) 766-7603 

E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com, orly.taitz@gmail.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE  DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Dr. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ, PRO SE                     §

                             Plaintiff,                        §

                                                                   §       

                   v.                                             §    EMERGENCY    

                                                                   §    MOTION FOR 

Michael Astrue, Commissioner of the         §    RECONSIDERATION

     Social Security Administration,          §     11-cv-00402

                                                                   §

                                                                        §

                                                                     §  Honorable Royce Lamberth    

                             Respondent                            § Chief Justice presiding

Request FOR A JUDICIAL NOTICE FILED IN Conjunction with AN EMERGENCY MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Report of the Merlins Information systems acxiom.com /identity-solutions database generated under the Social Security number 042-68-4425. (redacted report is being posted on the public docket, unredacted report is being filed under seal)

Plaintiff Pro Se Dr. Orly Taitz (hereinafter “Taitz”) hereby requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following document attached as Exhibit 1.  

This request is made pursuant to Rule 201 (a), (b)1, (b)2, (c)2 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

RULE 201. JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ADJUDICATIVE FACTS

(a) Scope. This rule governs judicial notice of an adjudicative fact only, not a legislative fact.

(b) Kinds of Facts That May Be Judicially Noticed. The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it:

(1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or

(2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

(c) Taking Notice. The court:

(1) may take judicial notice on its own; or

(2) must take judicial notice if a party requests it and the court is supplied with the necessary information.

(d) Timing. The court may take judicial notice at any stage of the proceeding.

(e) Opportunity to Be Heard. On timely request, a party is entitled to be heard on the propriety of taking judicial notice and the nature of the fact to be noticed. If the court takes judicial notice before notifying a party, the party, on request, is still entitled to be heard.

Merlins Information systems acxiom.com /identity-solutions database is a database which provides information to licensed debt collector, investigators and attorneys. It provides a collection of data readily available in public records. by entering a specific Social Security number one can find names of individuals who used this Social Security number according to public records. Aforementioned report is being provided with an accompanying affidavit of a professional debt collector Albert Hendershot, who under the penalty of perjury attests to its authenticity.

(1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or

(2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

and under 201 C (2) must take judicial notice if a party requests it and the court is supplied with the necessary information.

The report in question is relevant to the proceeding as Petitioner Taitz is seeking  reconsideration of the decision by the SSA to deny her release of the SS-5 for the Social Security number 042-68-4425 due to privacy considerations.  In her motion for reconsideration Taitz provides newly discovered evidence showing that the Social Security number in question was assigned to Harrison J. Bounel, an immigrant from Russia, born in 1890. Part of the new information is 1940 census released to the public in 2011.  Fed. R. Evid. Rule 201. Under Fed. R. Evid. Rule 201(f) judicial notice may be taken at any stage of the proceeding. Government of Canal Zone v Burjan, 596 F.2d 690, 694 (5th Circ. 1979).

Aforementioned record is relevant for the request for the judicial notice as it shows that

1. Harrison J Bounel born in 1890 used Social Security number 042-68-4425

2. Barack Obama used Social Security number 042-68-4425 as well.

Official E-Verify and SSNVS  reports attached herein  show that 042-68-4425 was never  issued to Barack   Obama, therefore by process of elimination it was assigned to Harrison J. Bounel. Since Harrison J. Bounel was born in 1890 according to 1940 census (attached to the motion)  based on 120 year rule, the SS-5 for SSN 042-68-4425 should be released under FOIA 5U.S. 552

CONCLUSION  

This court should take the Judicial notice of

Report of the Merlins Information systems acxiom.com /identity-solutions database generated under the Social Security number 042-68-4425.

Respectfully submitted

/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ

President of the Defend Our Freedoms Foundation

05.18.2013

cc Inspector General of the Social Security Administration

cc senator Chuck Grassley ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee

cc Congressman Bob Goodlatte Chair of the House Judiciary Committee

cc Daryl Issa, Chair of the House Oversight Committee

cc Inspector general of IRS

Of course one of the insinuations by Gallops,is that I am somehow helping Obama by demanding that Arpaio file a criminal complaint.

As these were professional attacks on me, I m responding:

let me remind you that in the past 5 years some 45 licensed attorneys filed legal challenges against Obama. Out of 45 only 2 attorneys: myself and Attorney Klayman continue the fight.  If you count all the challenges and all the cases in the courts of appeals and challenges in front of elections commissions, I had some 40 cases. Mr. Klayman has only 2, both of which were dismissed by the lower courts and they are now being appealed.

In terms of my cases, 2 were not dismissed yet by the lower courts. One of the cases that is still going on, is a case in MS, where RICO (racketeering) cause of action is filed by me against Obama and his accomplices.

In terms of other cases, not relating to Obama, I had 6 figure settlements in my favor and large, including 6 figure judgments made in my favor.

Nobody won cases against Obama, as they were dismissed on technicalities: lack of standing and lack of jurisdiction, judges are simply looking for excuses as they are afraid to touch Obama.

Carl Gallops is stating that professionals no longer work with me. This is not true. In terms of professionals and investigators, I am still working with the same investigators: former Scotland Yard elite anti-organized crime and anti communist proliferation officer Neil Sanke, retired intelligence officer Pamela Barnett, investigator Albert Hendershot, former NSA employee Paul Irey, scanning expert Douglad Vogt, NATO relational data analyst George Collins and many others.

The oly witness that did not testify when asked in Indiana case, was former Deportation Officer John Sampson. This happened because of the direct interference, when  Corsi, Arpaio and Zullo inviting him to the ColdCassePosse meeting, Arpaio deputized him to be a part of the criminal case, asked him not to testify for me, because of the ongoing criminal case and only in the last couple of days Arpaio through his de facto spokesperson Carl Gallops admitted that he is not intending to file a criminal case because he believes that he has no jurisdiction and never had any jurisdiction to file a criminal case. Sampson believed that Arpaio will file a criminal case. He admitted on the radio that three of them: Arpaio, Zullo and Sampson made an agreement not to comply with the court subpoenas in my cases and not to appear at trial. Other witnesses appeared at trial. Sadly, after witnesses appeared and were deemed to be experts, Judge Reid ruled that there was no jurisdiction and she retroactively vacated the trial which already took place. Jerome Corsi, Joseph Farah, and other reporters from WND did not publish a word about this trial in Indiana, which was retroactively vacated. I suspect that they did not publish anything about my cases in the past year and a half because I was not sharing donations and not paying large mounts for advertising and promotion at WND. I suspect that WND received large amounts in advertizing fees or sharing of donations for promoting Arpaio.

To: Drew Zahn <dzahn@wnd.com>
Sent: Sat, May 18, 2013 10:27 pm
Subject: Fwd: Shocking Accusations

Adam Kokesh arrested at Philly “Smoke Down”
Submitted by JO4RP on Sat, 05/18/2013 – 18:05
in
Activism & Events
Adam has been arrested and is in jail in Philly… I can personally testify that he hadn’t even smoked yet… everyone please phone bomb the philly police and jail phone lines and demand adam be released amd able to make contact with us… other protesters were actually smoking and released after arrest but adam was taken away in a white chevy suburban… phone bomb them now!!! — Brother Lucas

From Facebook: Joe Pauli A nice gentleman answered the phone and asked me if this was about that “Adam Coken fellow” to which I replied yes, and he gave me “The Roundhouse” phone number to call. 215-686-1234

https://www.facebook.com/ADAMVSTHEMAN/posts/10151402203186260

Video of arrest:

http://youtu.be/NTHBC6JOc4M
http://www.dailypaul.com/285909/adam-kokesh-arrested-in-philly

29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, STE 100

Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688

Tel: (949) 683-5411; Fax (949) 766-7603 

E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com, orly.taitz@gmail.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE  DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Dr. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ, PRO SE                     §

                             Plaintiff,                        §

                                                                   §       

                   v.                                             §    EMERGENCY    

                                                                   §    MOTION FOR 

Michael Astrue, Commissioner of the         §    RECONSIDERATION

     Social Security Administration,          §     11-cv-00402

                                                                   §

                                                                        §

                                                                     §  Honorable Royce Lamberth    

                             Respondent                            § Chief Justice presiding

Request FOR A JUDICIAL NOTICE FILED IN Conjunction with AN EMERGENCY MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff Pro Se Dr. Orly Taitz (hereinafter “Taitz”) hereby requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following document attached as Exhibit 1.  

Sixteenth Census of the United States of America 1940

 Population schedule

State of New York,

 County -The Bronx,

Ward of city-7A-B

 915 Daly Ave

Apartment 311

SD No 24 E.D. No-3-1199

sheet No 13B

Enumerated Apri 16, 1940

Released by the U.S. Census in 2011

This request is made pursuant to Rule 201 (a), (b)1, (b)2, (c)2 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

RULE 201. JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ADJUDICATIVE FACTS

(a) Scope. This rule governs judicial notice of an adjudicative fact only, not a legislative fact.

(b) Kinds of Facts That May Be Judicially Noticed. The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it:

(1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or

(2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

(c) Taking Notice. The court:

(1) may take judicial notice on its own; or

(2) must take judicial notice if a party requests it and the court is supplied with the necessary information.

(d) Timing. The court may take judicial notice at any stage of the proceeding.

(e) Opportunity to Be Heard. On timely request, a party is entitled to be heard on the propriety of taking judicial notice and the nature of the fact to be noticed. If the court takes judicial notice before notifying a party, the party, on request, is still entitled to be heard.

Official census information is:

 (1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or

(2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Aforementioned report is easily obtainable from the U.S. Census

and under 201 C (2) must take judicial notice if a party requests it and the court is supplied with the necessary information.

The report in question is relevant to the proceeding as Petitioner Taitz is seeking  reconsideration of the decision by the SSA to deny her release of the SS-5 for the Social Security number 042-68-4425 due to privacy considerations.  In her motion for reconsideration Taitz provides newly discovered evidence showing that the Social Security number in question was assigned to Harrison J. Bounel, an immigrant from Russia, born in 1890. Part of the new information is 1940 census released to the public in 2011.  Fed. R. Evid. Rule 201. Under Fed. R. Evid. Rule 201(f) judicial notice may be taken at any stage of the proceeding. Government of Canal Zone v Burjan, 596 F.2d 690, 694 (5th Circ. 1979).

Aforementioned Census report attached herein as exhibit 1 shows

that Harry Bounel immigrant from Russia, 50 years old at the time of the 1940 census resided as a lodger at Apartment 311 of 915 Daly Ave, Bronx, New York.

This information is relevant to the case at hand  since Mr. Bounel was 50 years old at the time of the official 1940 census, it means that he was born in 1890 and he would be 123 years old today and according to120 year rule of the SSA, his SS-5 has to be released under FOIA 5U.S. 552.

CONCLUSION  

This court should take the Judicial notice of

Sixteenth Census of the United States of America 1940

 Population schedule

State of New York,

 County -The Bronx,

Ward of city-7A-B

 915 Daly Ave

Apartment 311

SD No 24 E.D. No-3-1199

sheet No 13B

Enumerated Apri 16, 1940

Released by the U.S. Census in 2011

Respectfully submitted

/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ

President of the Defend Our Freedoms Foundation

05.18.2013

cc Inspector General of the Social Security Administration

cc senator Chuck Grassley ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee

cc Congressman Bob Goodlatte Chair of the House Judiciary Committee

cc Daryl Issa, Chair of the House Oversight Committee

cc Inspector general of IRS

29839 Santa Margarita Parkway, STE 100

Rancho Santa Margarita CA 92688

Tel: (949) 683-5411; Fax (949) 766-7603 

E-Mail: dr_taitz@yahoo.com, orly.taitz@gmail.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE  DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Dr. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ, PRO SE                     §

                             Plaintiff,                        §

                                                                   §       

                   v.                                             §    EMERGENCY    

                                                                   §    MOTION FOR 

Michael Astrue, Commissioner of the         §    RECONSIDERATION

     Social Security Administration,          §     11-cv-00402

                                                                   §

                                                                        §

                                                                     §  Honorable Royce Lamberth    

                             Respondent                            § Chief Justice presiding

Request FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FILED IN Conjunction with AN EERGENCY MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff Pro Se Dr. Orly Taitz (hereinafter “Taitz”) hereby requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following document attached as Exhibit 1.   SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

                                           Chief FOIA Officer Report for 2011

This request is made pursuant to Rule 201 (a), (b)1, (b)2, (c)2 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

RULE 201. JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ADJUDICATIVE FACTS

(a) Scope. This rule governs judicial notice of an adjudicative fact only, not a legislative fact.

(b) Kinds of Facts That May Be Judicially Noticed. The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it:

(1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or

(2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

(c) Taking Notice. The court:

(1) may take judicial notice on its own; or

(2) must take judicial notice if a party requests it and the court is supplied with the necessary information.

(d) Timing. The court may take judicial notice at any stage of the proceeding.

(e) Opportunity to Be Heard. On timely request, a party is entitled to be heard on the propriety of taking judicial notice and the nature of the fact to be noticed. If the court takes judicial notice before notifying a party, the party, on request, is still entitled to be heard.

Social security administration Chief FOIA Officer report is

(1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or

(2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

Aforementioned report is posted on the official web site of the Social Security administration   www.ssa.gov

and under 201 C (2) must take judicial notice if a party requests it and the court is supplied with the necessary information.

the report in question is relevant to the proceeding as Petitioner Taitz is seeking  reconsideration of the decision by the SSA to deny her release of the SS-5 for the Social Security number 042-68-4425 due to privacy considerations.  In her motion for reconsideration Taitz provides newly discovered evidence showing that the Social Security number in question was assigned to Harrison J. Bounel, an immigrant from Russia, born in 1890. Fed. R. Evid. Rule 201. Under Fed. R. Evid. Rule 201(f) judicial notice may be taken at any stage of the proceeding. Government of Canal Zone v Burjan, 596 F.2d 690, 694 (5th Circ. 1979).

SSA Chief Foia Officer report in question in Section I, (1) (c) states

• We have revisited longstanding decisions regarding the withholding of certain frequently requested data, to determine if our recommended guidance is still applicable and reflects the presumption of openness.   For instance, we issued new guidance for disclosing extremely aged individuals’ original Social Security Applications (SS-5) when our records do not indicate a date of death.  We developed a new policy that establishes a “120 year rule” and assumes that an individual is alive unless their birth date exceeds 120 years or we have proof of the individual’s death.  This new policy enabled us to release more information and potentially reduced requests on appeal.
• Since Harrison J. Bounel was born in 1890, he would be 123 years old and according to aforementioned 120 year rule SSA was obligated to release his SS0-5 under FOIA 5US 552.
• CONCLUSION  
  • This court should take the Judicial notice of the SSA Chief FOIA Officer report

Respectfully submitted

/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz ESQ

President of the Defend Our Freedoms Foundation

05.18.2013

cc Inspector General of the Social Security Administration

cc senator Chuck Grassley ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee

cc Congressman Bob Goodlatte Chair of the House Judiciary Committee

cc Daryl Issa, Chair of the House Oversight Committee

cc Inspector general of IRS

1 day ago

beforeitsnews.com/obama-birthplace-controversy/2013/05/do… - Cached

“2. Zullo and Arpaio have filed no criminal charges because it is not within their jurisdiction to do so. Taitz should know this. Any first year law student or police academy attendee knows this. The citizens of Maricopa County felt they had been defrauded in an election – they asked their Sheriff to investigate. He did through the CCP.  They discovered that a document connected with the President of the United States had been forged, fabricated, and was 100% fraudulent. Arpaio has no authority to march to the White House and make arrests of the perpetrators and accomplices. However, Congress, the Federal Courts, Federal prosecutors, and Federal law enforcement do have that authority and responsibility.”

This sounds even more egregious.

a. Actually, Arpaio has jurisdiction to file a criminal complaint and I will explain further on  why. But if Arpaio and Zullo believed that they have no jurisdiction, why didn’t they state so to the donors from day one? They collected reported 7 million dollars from the public, most of the money donated to Arpaio came from outside AZ because the public believed that Arpaio will file the criminal complaint against Obama,  they made multiple radio appearances claiming that they are conducting a criminal investigation and a criminal case.

I had 4 cases, where there were actual hearings in trial courts: in GA, MS, IN, CA, where I subpoenaed them to appear. They could testify in trial courts and they refused to comply with subpoenas. Moreover, my strongest witness in GA was a retired deportation officer John Sampson. after Sampson testified in GA Arpaio, Corsi and Zullo invited him to travel to AZ to the cold case posse meeting. They paid for his airfare to AZ.  There Arpaio deputized Sampson as a member of the Cold Case posse. Later on Peter Boyles show, on the air, on the record, John Sampson stated that they asked him not to testify in my cases, as he is now a part of a criminal investigation. Sampson stated on the air that he and Arpaio and Zullo made an agreement not to comply with the subpoenas in the court case in IN because of an ongoing criminal case. It means that they actually interfered with my witness in a case, claiming that his testimony would jeopardize the criminal investigation.

So who can file  a criminal complaint, which is the result of a criminal investigation that they claim to have been conducting for nearly three years and solicited donations for nearly 3 years?

Now they are saying that it is up to the U.S. Congress, however the U.S. Congress cannot file a criminal complaint. They can impeach, but they can’t file a criminal complaint.

Next, they are saying judges: yet again, the judges can only hear the complaint that was presented to them.

Who files a complaint with the judges, with the courts?

Well, if it is a state court, then the District Attorney and Attorney General file a criminal complaint.

If it is a federal court, than the U.S. attorney, the federal prosecutor will file the complaint.

Who submits the results of his investigation and the complaint to the prosecutors? the sheriff.

So, you see even a rookie officer or a first year law student know that what Arpaio and Zullo are saying now through their de facto spokesperson and chief fundraiser Carl Gallops is simply not true. For nearly three years they have been conducting a criminal investigation. They have a duty to submit the results of their investigation to the prosecutors. As the issue involves both federal and state officials, they have a duty to submit their complaint to both state and federal prosecutors.

b. As you can see, more pressure we are applying  more truth is coming out. Now Arpaio and Zullo are admitting that they are not planning to file a criminal complaint and that they solicited donations for nearly 3 years while knowing that they will never file a criminal complaint. In my opinion this behavior is even more egregious than the behavior of corrupt judges, corrupt prosecutors and corrupt congressmen. All of them have been kicking the can, passing the buck and refusing to take any action, but Arpaio and Zullo collected donations for nearly three years, stating that they are conducting a criminal investigation and now they are saying that they believe that they never had any jurisdiction.

This would be akin to a lawyer collecting fees from a client for nearly three years only to tell the client that he will not file the case because he is not licensed in this state. If a case like this would be in front of Arpaio, he would file a criminal complaint for fraud against such lawyer, for accepting money from a client under false pretenses.

c.  Moreover, during CPAC convention I talked to Carl Gallops and I specifically asked him, why didn’t he question Zullo, as to why the criminal complaint was not filed. Gallops told me that Zullo told him that the complaint was filed.  When Zullo joined us, I questioned Zullo: isn’t it true that you and Arpaio never filed a criminal complaint. Zullo responded: Arpaio went to talk to AG, but AG was not interested in filing this case. I responded that this is not a meeting between buddies, regardless of whether AG is interested or not, Arpaio has a duty to file the complaint. Zullo responded that they are still investigating and that the complaint will be filed in 3 months or so. So, actually until now I believed that they will file the criminal complaint, Gallops believed that they will file the criminal complaint, the public believed it, as Zullo kept saying so. Only now, when Zullo said that the document is 100% forged and nearly 3 years past and hardly any evidence was actually discovered by the cold case posse on top of what was given to them to begin with, the public started demanding answers, why  are they not filing the criminal complaint. So now, after nearly 3 years of PR, interviews, and fundraising suddenly Arpaio and Zullo changed their tune and started claiming that they do not have jurisdiction.

Please, keep up the pressure. Arpaio definitely has jurisdiction to file a criminal complaint. He obtained evidence of forgery, he claims that Obama’s birth certificate is 100% forged, his selective service certificate is  100% forged. He has evidence that Obama defrauded the citizens of Maricopa county AZ in placing his name on the ballot fraudulently and establishing the eligibility and identity based on forged IDs. He  has to file a criminal complaint with the state and federal prosecutors. You, members of the public, and particularly donors have a very serious case. You have to keep up the pressure until Arpaio and Zullo file a criminal complaint with the DA, AG and U.S attorney.