Draft 7 of the reply to US District Court regarding Obama’s use of Harry Bounel’s CT Social Security number 042-68-4425. I am still working on it

Posted on | September 22, 2013 | 9 Comments

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

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

President of Defend Our Freedoms Foundation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE  DISTRICT OF Maryland

 Orly Taitz                                                                § Case # 13-1878

                                    Plaintiff,                                             § Presiding Hon. Ellen L. Hollander

                                                                                                     §       

                        v.                                                                        §   

                                                                                                    §  

Carolyn Colvin , Commissioner of the           §  

     Social Security Administration,                     §    

REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Under Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary
judgment is appropriate only “if the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law.” A fact is “material” if it “might
affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.” Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91
L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). In resolving a summary judgment motion, a court
must view all of the facts, including reasonable inferences to be
drawn from them, in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party. See  Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475
U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); see also
Dennis v. Columbia Colleton Med. Ctr., Inc., 290 F.3d 639, 645 (4th
Cir.2002)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff, , President of Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, Dr. Orly Taitz Esq, filed the legal action at hand under 5 US 552, Freedom of Information Act, seeking release under SSA 120 year rule of SS-5, Social Security application of one Harry Bounel, aka Harrison J. Bounel, born in 1890. Defendant, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Carolyn Colvin, responded and submitted a sworn declaration of Dawn Wiggins, Deputy Executive Director for the Office of Privacy and Disclosure (OPD), claiming that the responsive  records could not be located.

Plaintiff responded and sought a Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and presented a prior letter from the same Dawn Wiggins, dated November 16, 2012, where Wiggins stated that records of Harry Bounel could not be released due to considerations of privacy of Mr. Bounel. Plaintiff argued that the first time they searched for records, when request was submitted by another individual, they  somehow did not look at the name of the person, whose records they were searching and stated that the records could not be released due to consideration of privacy of Harry Bounel. Second time, when  the request was made, they claimed that some secondary information submitted by the plaintiff did not match the record, which in itself confirmed that there is a record for Harrison J. ( Harry) Bounel, but there was some discrepancy in some secondary information plaintiff believed to be correct, such as date of arrival of Bounel to the U.S. and the date of his receipt of the SSN. They also claimed that they could not read the census record provided, due to the fact that the copy was not so good, but if they could read it, and it indeed stated that Bounel was born in 1890, they claimed that they needed Bounel’s death certificate. They did not provide any explanation, why did they need the death certificate, in light of the fact that Taitz quoted 120 year rule verbatim and it clearly stated that the death certificate is not needed for release of SS-5 of extremely aged individuals, like Bounel who were born 120 years ago or earlier.

ARGUMENT

1. Defendant, Acting Commissioner of Social security, is confirming the position of the plaintiff and authenticated November 16,2012 letter by Dawn Wiggins submitted by the Plaintiff as exhibit 1 of the MSJ.

a. Commissioner of SSA admits that Dawn Wiggins indeed sent November 16, 2012  letter where SSA stated that they cannot provide the Social Security application of Harry Bounel due to considerations of privacy. (Exhibit B to the opposition to MSJ).

b. If SSA did not have records for Harry Bounel, they would have responded that they do not have any records for Harry Bounel. They did not state that.

c. If they were to have records for Harry Bounel and his Social Security number was different from the Connecticut number xxx-xx-4425, they would have stated that they have records for Harry Bounel, however they do not have records for Harry Bounel with this specific Social Security number, that this number was not issued to Harry Bounel. They did not state that.

If they were to seek by the SSN only and it was the SSN that was assigned to Harry Bounel, they would have responded that there is no record for Harry Bounel under this Social Security number

d. Response by Social Security administration indicates that  they do have records for Harry Bounel and that the number indeed was issued to him.  The fact that another individual is fraudulently using Bounel’s Social Security number today does not relieve Social Security administration from their obligation to release the records for Harry Bounel, as he was born in 1890 and according to the 120 year rule the Social Security administration is obligated to release his SS-5, his Social Security application.

120 year rule 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.

(emphasys added) Social Security Administration, Chief FOIA Officer Report, 2011.

Because 1940 census shows that Harry Bounel was 50 years old in 1940, it means that he was born in 1890 and his birth-date exceeds 120 years.

TAITZ IS NOT REQUESTING RECORDS BASED ON A NUMBER, SHE IS REQUESTING A RECORD BASED ON A NAME OF AN INDIVIDUAL BORN 123 YEARS AGO, WHICH SSA IS OBLIGATED TO RELEASE.

Currently worldwide  there are only two men over 110 years old. The oldest living male in the world is Arturo Licata in Italy, born in 1902, 111 years old and second oldest is Dr. Alexander Imich, born in 1903, 110 years old.  There are no 123 year old men residing in the U.S. today or anywhere else in the world for that matter. Harry Bounel might be listed as a living individual in the SSA databases because his death was not reported to SSA. However, 120 year rule specifically prescribes SSA to release the SS-5 even without a proof of death, without a death certificate.

120 year rule was enacted specifically because we have a rampant Social Security fraud which costs tax payers billions of dollars, when individuals steal Social Security numbers of individuals, who are deceased and whose death was not reported to SSA and who fraudulently receive benefits or use those numbers for illegal financial transactions, for hiding under the table  incomes, donations, non-profit  contributions, campaign contributions  and so on.

Social Security and Death Information: Hearing Before the H.
Comm. on Ways and Means and Subcomm. on Social Security, 112th
Cong., Feb. 2, 2012 (statement of Michael J. Astrue, Comm’r, Social
Security Admin.), Reply Ex h. 5 (E C F 42–5) (“Identity theft is a
spreading plague on our Nation…. Unfortunately, public access to
the DMF has created opportunities for criminals. The media has
reported incidents involving the use of death data to commit tax
fraud.”). For this reason 120 year rule exists and the SSA has to release SS-5, Social Security application of individuals born 120 years ago or earlier, even if other individuals, who are alive today, fraudulently using this number. By refusing to release Bounel’s SS-5 Commissioner of Social Security, FOIA officer and their attorneys become complicit in Social Security fraud and should be criminally prosecuted for it.

e. Defendant is making a fraudulent statement Though Plaintiff’s April 26, 2013 FOIA request seeks information about Mr. Bounel, her appeal makes clear that Plaintiff’s request is yet another attempt to obtain SSA records about this SSN, which belongs to a living individual.

TAITZ IS NOT ASKING FOR RECORDS BASED ON A SPECIFIC NUMBER.   TAITZ IS ASKING FOR A SS-5, SOCIAL SECURITY APPLICATION FOR HARRY BOUNEL, BASED ON HIS NAME, WHICH SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION IS OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE FOR HER BASED ON 120 YEAR RULE, AS HE WAS BORN IN 1890.

If upon release of SS-5 it is found that another individual fraudulently obtained Social Security number that was Assigned to Harry Bounel, then this individual has to be criminally prosecuted.

Let’s imagine Your Honor and her husband is going on vacation and upon coming back Your Honor finds a squatter in her house, who is using a fabricated deed to her house  and who paid off a crooked clerk in the city hall to keep the original deed and recording sealed. When Your Honor tries to get an original deed on file, a corrupt clerk refuses to release it, because the thief is squatting in the house and claiming that the house is his. The difference between this hypothetical and what is happening in the case at hand is that we are talking about the White House and the National Security of these United States is at stake.

1. It is quite telling that the SSA is not stating that the SSA xxx-xx-4425 was not issued to Bounel, that it was issued to another individual, they are conveniently stating that another person is “holding” the number now. They are not saying that the SS-5, the original application, was filed by another person. They are not saying that the number was originally assigned to another person. they are saying that someone is using it now. Firstly, just because someone else is illegally using the number now, does not give SSA any right to violate the law, commit fraud and not release Harry Bounel’s application. Secondly, as stated previously, Taitz is not requesting a record by number, she is demanding a record based on a name of a 123 year old individual, which SSA is obligated to release to her, no matter what is the number on this record.

h. Defendant is defrauding the court or misrepresenting the case that is now in front of Judge Lambeth in DC. Very conveniently the defense is not telling the court that Judge Lamberth gave Taitz a leave of court to file a motion for reconsideration based on new evidence (Exhibit 1 Leave of Court given by Judge Lamberth). Further, they are not mentioning the fact that Taitz v Astrue 11-cv-402   was based on a different premise this is a case dealing with Barack Obama’s SSN and his use of a SSN which failed E-Verify and SSNVS, it was not filed in relation to Harry Bounel. Taitz v Astrue was filed after Barack Obama posted his tax returns on line and forgot to flatten the PDF file and the full, unredacted number he is using became available to the public and this number FAILED BOTH E-VERIFY AND SSNVS. When Taitz initially filed this case, she did not know to whom the number was issued, she only knew that the number used by Obama failed both E-Verify and SSNVS and she had sworn affidavits of experts and high ranking law enforcement officials that showed that Obama used other fabricated IDs as well, among them a fabricated Selective Service certificate with a fabricated cancellation U.S. stamp affixed to it, fabricated birth certificate and evidence of Indonesian citizenship. (Exhibit 6). Originally request by Taitz to release an application for a specific number (just by the number, without the name of an individual to whom it was assigned, was denied due to consideration of privacy). In 2013 Taitz received a sworn affidavit from a researcher  and professional skip tracer and debt collector Albert Hendershot, who found in Merlins Information Systems database evidence that the number in question was assigned to Harry Bounel. ( See Exhibit 2 Declaration and a sworn affidavit of Albert Hendershot.) Taitz filed a motion for reconsideration with the presiding judge, Royce C. Lamberth. Judge Lamberth does not automatically grant leave of court to file motions for reconsideration after the case was closed and went through the court of Appeals, he does so, when there is a justifiable reason and good cause. Judge Lamberth reviewed the motion and attached documents and granted the leave of court to file and he did not rule on the motion yet. Motion for reconsideration with new evidence has not been rued upon yet. Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Norman and attorney for the Social Security administration Jessica Vollmer had an ethical obligation to disclose this fact. They violated their ethical obligation by hiding these facts from this court. Even if arguendo Judge Lamberth will deny this current motion for reconsideration, it has no bearing on the case at hand, as 11-402 Taitz v Astrue,  is related to Obama’s use of a Social Security number which he himself made public by posting it on whitehouse.gov and which failed  E-verify and SSNVS. Obama is not 120 years old and SSA does not have an obligation to release his SS-5 under the 120 year rule. case at hand is different as the request is related to Harry Bounel born over 120 years ago and SSA is obligated to release his SSA application.

IN COMPARING 2012 AND 2013 RESPONSES BY DOWN WIGGINS, IT IS CLEAR THAT 2013 RESPONSE IS A COVER UP AND DOES NOT HOLD WATER.

On November 16 2012 Dawn Wiggins signed a FOIA response where she stated that she cannot release Harry Bounel’s SS-5 due to privacy. (exhibit 1 MSJ and Exhibit B, opposition to MSJ) Now she claims that she in 2012 she searched only by Social Security number and did not look at the name of the person whose record she is searching, and for that reason she cannot locate the record now.

This is the most ridiculous response one can imagine.

It is suffice to read the response itself to see that Wiggins is simply not telling the truth.

November 16, 2012 letter starts:

“This letter is in response to your Internet request   for a numident of Harry Bounel” She is not stating that this is a response for a request for numident for Social Security number xxx-xx-4425. She states that it is in response for a request relating to Harry Bounel, which shows that she clearly searched under the name Harry Bounel. She goes on in saying:

Clearly the wording of the letter indicates that Wiggins found the SS-5 of Harry Bounel and using the privacy excuse.

Explanation by Wiggins that she originally did not look at the name, but later in 2013 looked at the name and did not locate the record is simply totally unreasonable based on the wording of her own letter.

More reasonable explanation is that Wiggins indeed found the SS-5 based on the name Harry Bounel and saw that at a later date this number was illegally used by Obama, just like thousands of other Social Security numbers are being illegally used by others. Wiggins was either intimidated or received a consideration to cover this up.

The original inquiry was submitted by someone who is not an attorney, 120 year rule was made available to the public only recently,  in 2011in an obscure publication by SSA and Wiggins believed that she can get away with claiming privacy, she believed that the requester is not aware of the 120 year rule. When Taitz resubmitted the request and Wiggins saw that the request came from a licensed attorney who knew the birth-date of the subject, she realized that she cannot rely on privacy due to the 120 year rule. She did not respond timely and only when the law suit was filed, she responded by claiming that she cannot locate the required document, as this is the only excuse she could come up with. Wiggins did not think that Taitz would submit to the court the prior letter, sent to another petitioner, where Wiggins refused to release Bounel’s SS-5 due to privacy consideration. Taitz believes that the administration applied pressure on the woman who made the initial request and believed that 11.16.2012 letter will not be submitted to court.

It is telling that the main information under which the searches are done, was the same in both request: first and last name of the subject and his Social Security number. Other information  submitted in the 2013 request is secondary, but it is clear that Wiggins is using one of the additional parameters as an excuse to claim that she cannot find the records. For example, Plaintiff provided Wiggins information in regards to the approximate date when the SSA was issued, Taitz wrote that the date of issuance of the SSA was in and around March 28, 1977. Taitz estimated that date as the SSN for Thomas Woods, who is deceased and whose Connecticut SSN    xxx-xx-4424 was immediately prior to Bounel’s xxx-xx-4425, was issued around that date. (Exhibit 3 SS-5 and numident of Thomas Woods) If, for example, Wiggins has in her records that Bounel’s SSN was issued in April of 1977, she feels she can hang her hat on it, and due to additional information, which does not match (April 1977 instead of “in and around March 28, 1977”) , she can state that she did not find a matching record. She is simply playing games and claiming that she cannot find a matching record due to some minor discrepancy in secondary information.

Due to this obvious game, on 08.08.2013 Taitz    submitted to Wiggins yet another FOIA request seeking SS-5 based on limited information: SS-5 of Harry Bounel, born in 1890, no other secondary information. Based on FOIA guidelines  Wiggins was supposed to respond within 20 business days by August 31^st. As of September 22, 2013, no FOIA response was received from Wiggins. This is yet another piece of circumstantial evidence that the only basis for Wiggins’s claim of not locating matching record, was a minor glitch, typo or some other minor discrepancy in one of the secondary indicators, such as date of receiving the SSA or the date of arrival to the U.S. Without these secondary indicators, based only on the name of the individual, Harry Bounel, and his date of birth, Wiggins can’t find an excuse to refuse the release of the SS-5 and for this reason she is not responding to the 08.08.2013 FOIA request for SS-5 of Harry Bounel born in 1890. Considering importance of the matter to the U.S. National security, Wiggins is obligated to disclose in which specific indicator did she find a discrepancy and she is obligated to respond to 08.08.2013 FOIA request.

HARASSMENT, INTIMIDATIONAND BULLYING BY THE FBI OF THE WHISTLE BLOWER AND INVESTIGATOR WHO DISCOVERED HARRY BOUNEL’S INFORMATION.

As stated previously,  Barack Obama himself published his unredacted tax returns with Social Security number xxx-xx-4425, which failed E-Verify and SSNVS. Two licensed investigators: Neil Sankey and Susan Daniels using national databases, such as Choice Point, Lexis Nexis, SSN Verifier Plus  and others were able to establish that this number was originally issued to an individual born in 1890, later used by Obama born in 1961, however Taitz did not know the name of the individual, who was born in 1890 and whose SSN Obama was illegally using. (SEE EXHIBITS 4, 5 affidavits of Neil Sankey and Susan Daniels. Due to the local rule of  total of 50 page limitation for pleadings and exhibits, plaintiff submits only pertinent pages out of total of 45 pages of Sankey exhibits and out of 14 pages of Daniels exhibits).   In 2011 US Census released 1940 census data and during the same time Investigator and debt collector Albert Hendershot located in Merlins information systems a record of Harry Bounel  with SSN xxx-xx-4425 . Cross check with 1940 census showed only one and only Harry Bounel, who was 50 in 1940, at the time of the census, therefore born in 1890.(see declaration of Orly Taitz attesting to the fact that there is only one Harry Bounel in census records).  This provided additional confirmation and match  with the findings by investigators Daniels and Sankey who used different national  databases such as Choice Point, Lexis Nexis, SSN Verifier Plus and others. In February of 2013 Hendershot provided Plaintiff herein, attorney Orly Taitz, a sworn affidavit in regards to his findings and attached November 16, 2012 letter from Dawn Wiggins, which showed that  SSN xxx-xx-4425 was issued to Bounel, and that Wiggins wrongfully denied release of SS-5, as Bounel was born 123 years ago and Wiggins was obligated to release the number without a death certificate and had no right to use privacy exemption. In April of 2013Taitz made all of the above public and submitted another request to Wiggins and submitted  the documents to court in a different case dealing with Obama’s records. Shortly thereafter Hendershot was visited by the FBI. (Exhibit 2,  Declaration by Albert Hendershot and exhibits.)  Hendershot states in his declaration that he was thrown to the ground was handcuffed.   While having him handcuffed, FBI agent Jacob U. Blair and his superior, who did not provide Hendershot his name, demanded that Hendershot sign a “consent” to search his computers and give the FBI agent Jacob U. Blair the pass-code to his computer, to make it easier for the FBI to search it. Hendershot was threatened that if he does not cooperate, he will be hauled to jail and was told that they can do it in “easy way or the hard way” id, exhibit 2, Declaration by Albert Hendershot. Such actions by the FBI represent an unthinkable violation of civil right against unwarranted searches and ceizures done  under the color of authority, which is a criminal offense. FBI would not be told by their superiors to act in such a criminal manner resembling NAZI Gestapo, to risk their careers and risk being sent to prison for violation of civil rights, unless findings by Hendershot were indeed correct and extremely harmful to Obama. If Hendershot were to be wrong in his findings, he would be simply ignored, SS-5 for Bounel would be issued and it would have exonerated Obama. The only reasonable explanation for fraud, misrepresentation and stonewalling by Wiggins and her attorneys and harassment, intimidation and bullying by the FBI is because Hendershot was correct in his findings, Obama is indeed fraudulently using Bounel’s number and high ranking employees of the Obama administration are criminally complicit in the cover up. Furthermore, typically FOIA responses are signed by one attorney. Current opposition was signed by two attorneys: one from the Department of Justice and one from the SSA, which might be an indication that Wiggins is apprehensive of being ultimately prosecuted for fraud and misrepresentation and she demanded an extra protection and extra buffer in the form of a signature by the second attorney, legal counsel from the SSA. Further, when the affidavit by Susan Daniels is examined, it shows that at some point Obama used the Social Security number of deceased Lucille Ballantyne, who just happens to be the mother of Harry Ballantyne, long time chief actuary of Social Security administration. Obama woulod not be using a stolen SSN of the mother of the Chief Actuary of SSA, if he was not certain that he has the cover and would not be criminally prosecuted. Taitz believes that Ballantyne was the one or one of several individuals who made the switch in the SSA computer file,  which allowed Obama to start using Bounel’s number since 1980s, however neither Ballantyne nor anyone else can replace the SS-5, which is the original application, which was hand written. This is the reason, why Wiggins and Colvin and their attorneys refuse to release the SS-5 for Bounel, that is why FBI was harassing and bullying Hendershot. Plaintiff hopes that this court will not become complicit in this cover up.

PRECEDENTS QUOTED BY THE DEFENSE ARE IRRELEVANT FOR THIS CASE AND QUOTATIONS MISREPRESENT THE LAW AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE.

Defense provided the court with several precedent case, which can be summarized to two fact patterns:

1. cases, where the plaintiffs sought an unreasonably  large number of documents or the document release would have undermined national security, such as CIA documents. MILITARY AUDIT PROJECT, Felice D. Cohen, Morton H. Halperin,
   Appellants,  v.
   William CASEY, Director of Central Intelligence, et al. 656 F.2d 724, 211 U.S.App.D.C. 135 relates to FOIA request of sensitive CIA records, which is not the case here. 614 F.3d 1070, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,814, 2010  Binyam MOHAMED; Abou Elkassim Britel; Ahmed Agiza; Mohamed Farag
   Ahmad Bashmilah; Bisher Al–Rawi, Plaintiffs–Appellants,
   v. JEPPESEN DATAPLAN, INC., Defendant–Appellee, United States of America, Intervenor–Appellee. No. 08–15693. On rehearing en banc, the Court of Appeals, Fisher, Circuit Judge, held that foreign nationals’ action would be dismissed pursuant to state secrets privilege under Reynolds. Case at hand is related to the request for release of the SS-5 for an individual born 123 years ago, which does no0t involve any state secrets.

Havemann v. Astrue Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2012 WL 4378143 (D.Md.)

This is the case where Your Honor presided. In Havemann social Security administration has provided the LA Times reporter with some 140 million records and argued that further disclosure would violate privacy consideration. In Havermann your Honor painstakingly analyzed pros and cons of the release in light f the balancing test of privacy versus public interest. the case at hand deals with the release of one page record and not 140 million records and the record requested SSA is obligated to release under their own 120 year rule. SSA cannot claim privacy. Further, Taitz, as the president of Defend Our Freedoms Foundation is seeking this information due to tremendous public interest, namely identity theft, illegal use of Bounel’s SSN by another individual and criminal cover up by high ranking employees of the SSA and their attorneys.

1. cases, were affidavits by employees of the SSA were considered to be true and correct and uncontroverted account of truth and were considered to be sufficient for summary judgment in favor of the SSA

This case is different. Plaintiff is not seeking millions of records and is not seeking records which relate to CIA activity. She is seeking one record, a Social Security application of an individual born 123 years ago, who was just a poor immigrant with three years of elementary school education, a helper in a fruit store, whose application SSA is obligated to release under its’ own 120 year rule. There is no justification in withholding the record.

1. The court cannot accept the declarations by Dawn Wiggins as a truthful statement, as her own letters and declarations conflict with each other and Wiggins and her attorneys are flagrantly misrepresenting the facts and the law and defrauding the court.

In her 11.16.2012 letter Wiggins claimed that she cannot release the SS-5 for Harry Bounel due to considerations of privacy. In her 2013 letter she originally claimed that she could not locate the records, even though she located them in 2012. In her second, supplemental declaration she further contradicts herself.

She claims that the census record is not legible, she could not verify the age. Well, if it is not legible, how did she determine that the additional information provided to her did not match her records? If she could not read the record, how did she know that what is written there does not match? In the abundance of caution plaintiff submits herein yet another copy of the 1940 census, which clearly shows that Harry Bounel was 50 in 1940, which means he was born in 1890. (Exhibit 7, enlarged 1940 census record)

Further, Wiggins claims that even if she could read the record   and it stated that Bounel was born in 1890, she needed his death certificate in order to release his SS-5.

This is a flagrant lie, flagrant fraud on the court. Aforementioned 120 year rule expressly state that there is no need to provide a death certificate for extremely aged individuals who were born a 120 years ago or earlier. So, even if SSA does not have a death certificate for Bounel, and for that reason it states in their records that Bounel is alive today, Wiggins still was obligated to release his SS-5 under the the 120 year rule, as an executive director of the Office of Privacy and Disclosure she was well aware of the rule set by her own office and she acted with malice, seeking to defraud the court and cover up an egregious crime, namely Social Security fraud and possibly treason. If this court does not order release of the SS-5, Social Security application of Harry Bounel, which SSA located and referred to in November 16, 2012 letter from Dawn Wiggins (exhibit B of Supplemental Declaration of Dawn S. Wiggins), this court itself will become complicit to the aforementioned cover up of Social Security fraud, identity theft and possibly treason.

Conclusion

Due to all of the above Social Security Administration is obligated to release under the 120 year rule , SS-5, Social Security application of Harry Bounel, born in 1890, which SSA located and referred to in November 16, 2012 letter from Dawn Wiggins, Exhibit 1 of the Motion for Summary Judgment and Exhibit B of Supplemental Declaration of Dawn S. Wiggins affixed to the opposition to the Motion for summary Judgment.

Respectfully submitted

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

09.22.2013

Declaration of Orly Taitz

I, Orly Taitz, am over 18 years old, plaintiff herein, I am an attorney and an officer of the court. I have personal knowledge of facts listed herein, I can and will competently   testify to the following

1. Only one Harrison J. (Harry) Bounel was found in the Census and other databases which are connected to www.geneology.com. I personally searched www.geneology.com, which lists all U.S. census records and there is only one Harry Bounel listed there.

2. The only Harry Bounel found in census data, is Harry Bounel, residing in Bronx, N.Y., and being 50 years old in 1940, which means that he was born in 1890 and falls under the 120 year rule.

3. Declaration by Albert Hendershot regarding records of Harry Bounel is a true and correct copy of the original declaration received by me.

3.  I work with multiple licensed investigators and researches. Among them Licensed investigator Susan Daniels and former Scotland Yard anti-organized crime and anti-communist proliferation unit office, Neil Sankey. They did not find any other Harry Bounels in National databases.

4. affidavits and excerpts from the exhibits of investigators Neil Sankey and Susan Daniels are true and correct copies of aforementioned affidavits and excerpts of exhibits received by me.

5. Affidavit of Jeffrey Stephan Coffman, Former Chief Investigator of Special Investigations unit of the U.S. Coast guard is a true and correct copy of such  affidavit received by me.

6. affidavit of Sheriff Arpaio is a true and correct copy of such affidavit published by Sheriff Arpaio.

I declare under the penalty of perjury that all of the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and informed consent.

/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

09.22.2013

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

Proposed order

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE  DISTRICT OF Maryland

 Orly Taitz                                                                § Case # 13-1878

                                    Plaintiff,                               § Presiding Hon. Ellen Hollander

                                                                                    §       

                        v.                                                         §   

                                                                                    §  

Carolyn Colvin , Commissioner of the              §  

     Social Security Administration,                     §  

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff,  President of Defend Our Freedoms Foundation, Dr. Orly Taitz Esq, filed the legal action at hand under 5 US 552, Freedom of Information Act, seeking release under SSA 120 year rule of SS-5, Social Security application, of one Harry Bounel, aka Harrison J. Bounel, born in 1890. Defendant Carolyn Colvin,  Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, responded and submitted a sworn declaration of Dawn Wiggins, Deputy Executive Director for the Office of Privacy and Disclosure (OPD), claiming that the responsive  records could not be located.

Plaintiff responded and sought a Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and presented a prior letter from the same Dawn Wiggins, dated November 16, 2012, where Wiggins stated that records of Harry Bounel could not be released due to considerations of privacy of Mr. Bounel. Plaintiff argued that the first time they searched for records, when request was submitted by another individual, they  somehow did not look at the name of the person, whose records they were searching and stated that the records could not be released due to consideration of privacy of Harry Bounel. Second time, when  the request was made, they claimed that some secondary information submitted by the plaintiff did not match the record, which in itself confirmed that there is a record for Harrison J. ( Harry) Bounel, but there was some discrepancy in some secondary information plaintiff believed to be correct, such as date of arrival of Bounel to the U.S. or the date of his receipt of the SSN. They also claimed that they could not read the census record provided, due to the fact that the copy was not so good, but if they could read it, and it indeed stated that Bounel was born in 1890, they claimed that they needed Bounel’s death certificate. They did not provide any explanation, why did they need the death certificate, in light of the fact that Taitz quoted 120 year rule verbatim and it clearly stated that the death certificate is not needed for release of SS-5 of extremely aged individuals, like Bounel who were born 120 years ago or earlier.

DISCUSSION

This court rules in favor of the plaintiff for following reason: Defense provided different, often conflicting explanations, which were not credible and not reasonable and conflicted with the rule of law.

Firstly, defense claimed that the first time it refused the release of the records of Harry Bounel due to privacy, it did not look at the name of the individual whose record they were searching. Response by the defense own witness, Dawn Wiggins, clearly showes that Wiggins searched under the name Harry Bounel and Social Security number xxx-xx-4425. If this Social Security number belonged to another individual, they would have stated that there is no record for Harry Bounel with Social security number xxx-xx-4425. The fact that they did not state that indicates that they indeed located a record of Harry Bounel with Social Security number xxx-xx-4425. In 2013, when second request was provided with the 1890, as the date of birth of Harry Bounel,  SSA was cornered with the fact that they cannot use the excuse of privacy any more due to 120 year rule, as Bounel was born 123 years ago, they sought another excuse, claiming that due to a discrepancy in some secondary information, such as Bounel’s date of receipt of the Social Security number or some other secondary information, they have justification to claim that they could not find records responsive to the request. The court does not have in front of it the required document and does not know if there is any discrepancy in any secondary information.

In order to resolve the dispute the court orders the Social Security administration to release the Social Security application for Harry Bounel that the SSA already located in its first search, and which it is obligated to release based on census data showing Bounel being born in 1890. Defendant is obligated to release  SS-5, Social Security application of Harry Bounel, SSN xxx-xx-4425, who based on 1940 U.S. Census was born in 1890 and whose records have to be released based on 120 year rule.

Claim by SSA that the death certificate is needed, is not credible, as it contradicts the SSA own 120 year rule, which compels SSA to release the SS-5, Social Security application of individuals born 120 years go or earlier.

Signed Ellen L. Hollander

US District Judge

________________________________________________________________

Dated

Comments

• Search for:
• Tweet

• EVIDENCE AGAINST OBAMA — YouTube Indiana Trial of Obama !

• EVIDENCE AGAINST OBAMA — Indiana Trial of Obama, 2nd Copy

• Evidence on Barack Obama

  Obama File with Exhibits
  Affidavit of Paul Irey
  Obama file Exhibits 1 - 7
  Obama file Exhibit 8 - Part 1
  Obama file Exhibit 8 - Part 2
  Obama file Exhibits 9-13
  Obama file Exhibits 14-21
  Request for Docs under FOIA and Emergency Motion for Reconsideration
  Exhibits sent to Inspector Generals and Congress

• RSS Feed: Subscribe for Free RSS Feed

  

• ---

  PETITION TO CONGRESS:
  Ban importation of 200,000 Syrian migrants into the US

  

  ---

• Petition the White House to institute Edward Snowden, National Whistleblower – Patriots against Government Corruption Day

  

• URGENT! PLEASE SIGN PETITION TO CONGRESS

• OrlyTaitzEsq.com

  • Untitled

• TAITZ REPORT

  Subscribe today to stay in touch with our progress. Send this channel out to your email lists. Thank you for your support. CHANNEL (Google Plus) SUBSCRIBE TO YOUTUBE
• 

• Official Facebook

  
  

• Recent Posts

  • Aside from expulsions of students who riot on campuses, there should be trespass charges and restraining orders against half of the rioters who are not students

• IMPORTANT NOTICES – PLEASE READ!

  Historic DVD Now Available! DVD of the historic trial in GA and DVD of a historic testimony in NH, where evidence was provided showing Obama using a forged birth certificate and a stolen social security number. The DVDs are in a beautiful commemorative case with personal autographs from attorney Dr. Orly Taitz $22.50 each +$2.50 for shipping and handling. --------- To order these DVDs, donate $25.00 by credit card on the website RunOrlyRun.com and email orly.taitz@gmail.com with you name and address. Or send a $25.00 check with your name and address to: Orly Taitz for US Senate 2012, 29839 Santa Margarita ste 100, RSM, CA 92688.

• Advertisement / Sponsors

  
  29839 Sta Margarita Pkwy,
  Ste 100
  Rancho Sta Margarita, CA 92688
  orly.taitz @gmail. com
  (949) 766-7687
  
  
  --------------------------------------
  
  Videography by Barbara Rosenfeld
  --------------------------------------
  
  

  Bumper Sticker
  $9.99 thru PayPal

  --------------------------------------
  
  
  --------------------------------------

  Orly Taitz Photo Collections

  
  

• May 2024

  M	T	W	T	F	S	S
  		1	2	3	4	5
  6	7	8	9	10	11	12
  13	14	15	16	17	18	19
  20	21	22	23	24	25	26
  27	28	29	30	31

• Pages

  • #409755 (no title)
  • …Defendant Obama defaulted in Grinols et al v Obama et al
  • …Grinols Subpoenas
  • ..Grinols Order, Summons, TRO, Complaint
  • .Affidavit of Mike Zullo
  • 1. Judd v Obama
  • 2. Farrar v Obama
  • 3. Taitz v Sebelius
  • 4. Taitz v Indiana, IN Judge Orders Trial
  • 5. Taitz v Astrue
  • 6. Mississippi Filed Complaint Update
  • 7. Taitz Walters v Sec of State Kansas
  • Videos
  • Video: Orly before NH Election Committee