The complaint in Taitz v Astrue was filed by Dr Orly Taitz against the Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. The complaint pertained to refusal of the Social Security Administration to release information, which was requested as part of efforts to ascertain the validity, or lack thereof, of various Social Security numbers linked to President Barack Obama.

The complaint includes as exhibits two affidavits by licensed Private Investigators:

• Susan Elizabeth Daniels from Ohio, who located a total of nine (9) Social Security numbers linked to President Obama, and
• Neil Sankey from California (former Detective Sergeant, New Scotland Yard), who located a total of thirty nine (39) Social Security numbers linked to President Obama.  While the significance of these findings is at present unclear, Dr Zernik claims that treatment of the case by the US District Court in Washington DC is alarming.

Review of commencing records in the litigation shows that:

• A civil docket was initiated in the case with invalid Civil Cover Sheet in disregard of the Civil Litigation Management Manual of the Judicial Conference of the United States; [iii]
• Summons was issued by the Office of the Clerk, but was not docketed, in apparent violation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
• Since the Summons was not docketed, no electronic certificate of authentication/attestation (NEF  Notice of Electronic Filing) [iv,v] could possibly be issued for the Summons, which would therefore render the Summons an invalid court record;
• Chief Judge of the US District Court, Washington DC Royce Lamberth is listed as Presiding Judge in the case, with no valid Assignment Order.

Combined, the records indicate that from the outset the litigation of Taitz v Astrue has been set up by the Office of Clerk Nancy Mayer-Whittington and Chief Judge Royce Lamberth as pretense litigation.

Pretense litigation is the practice of the US courts of conducting court cases, where all records are deemed void by the court itself, but are published in the online public access system in a misleading manner as valid court records.  Minutes, orders, and judgment are not entered, or entered with invalid electronic certificate of authentication/attestation by the clerks of the courts.  In other cases, the offices of the clerks of the courts deny access to the electronic certificate of authentication/attestation in alleged violation of First Amendment rights.  Therefore, the US courts leave the public unable to distinguish, whether the court records are valid or void.  

The conduct of pretense litigation has been documented in the US courts from coast to coast, including cases of high public policy significance. [vi,vii] Some of the cases were extensively covered by US media and international media, which failed to report the invalidity of the litigation records. The practice is facilitated by the electronic public access and case management systems of the US courts (PACER and CM/ECF). [viii]

The case at hand is characterized by the relatively simple underlying facts and law.  The Chief Judge of the US District Court in Washington DC Royce Lamberth may proceed to dismiss the complaint under pretense of judicial review.  However, the practice of pretense litigation undermines any remaining credibility of the US justice system.

Los Angeles, March 28LINKS: