Breaking news! More criminal compicity in one of the highest courts in the nation!

Posted on | July 27, 2012 | 27 Comments

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

29839 Santa Margarita ste 100

RanchoSanta Margarita,CA92688

Ph.949-683-5411 Fax 949-766-7603

US COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THEDISTRICT   OF COLUMBIACIRCUIT

_____________________________________________________________

Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ,

Appellant,

V

Michael Astrue,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Appellee

Demand to withdraw/revoke unlawfully issued mandate.

Demand to investigate nefarious activity/corruption in the US Court of Appeals for the District of   Columbia

Appellant herein Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ filed an appeal of the decision by the US District Court judge Royce C. Lamberth to refuse her Freedom of Information 5USC 552 request for release of the SS-5 (application) to a Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425. Taitz provided affidavits of a licensed investigator Neil Sankey, licensed investigator Susan Daniels and former Senior Deportation officer with the department of Homeland Security John Sampson  showing that this Connecticut Social Security number was issued in the state ofConnecticutto a resident ofConnecticutand later illegally assumed by Barack Hussein Obama. Obama also released his tax returns in 2010 and forgot to flatten the PDF file, whereby the full Social Security number assumed by Obama became visible to millions of people. It was indeed the Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425, which was previously reported by the three investigators, listed above. Taitz also provided the court with evidence, showing Obama using other forged identification papers, such as a forged birth certificate, which is a circumstantial evidence confirming Social Security fraud and illegal use of a Social Security number of another, as people with forged birth certificates have to resort to using stolen Social Security numbers. Taitz argued that the application for the number in question needs to be released, as it is being fraudulently used and it is a matter of national security. Judge Lamberth became de facto complicit with Obama and denied the complaint by Taitz. Later three judge panel of this court rubber stamped the decision by Lamberth.

Taitz received the notification of the court that the final mandate will not issue until the petition  for reconsideration or en banc hearing is submitted and heard. Taitz submitted a timely petition for an en banc hearing. She also submitted a supplemental brief. In flagrant violation of its own notification of July 25 2012 some unidentified employee of this court issued a mandate before the full court had an opportunity to hear the case en banc and issue its’ opinion.

1. I.                  Mandate is unlawful, as issued while petition for hearing en banc was under consideration and before the decision  was issued.

This court issued its’ ruling on May 31^st, when it specifically issued  an order stating that the mandate is being withheld pending submission of the petition for rehearing or petition for hearing en banc. “The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc.  See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.” Exhibit 1 Order by panel Rogers, Griffith Kavanaugh.

On May 31^st Taitz filed a timely petition for an en banc hearing. (Exhibit 2, Docket of Taitz v Astrue 10-5304) Before the full court had an opportunity to issue its’ decision on a Petition for En Banc Rehearing, some employee of this court went ahead and issued a mandate and violated the prior order of this court, the Appellants right for an en banc hearing and usurped the right of this court to actually issue a ruling en banc, which this court is currently considering. This appear to be an unprecedented level of corruption by some employees of this court, the second most important court in the nation after the Supreme Court of the United States. Just based on the violation of this courts own rules and standing order, an unlawful mandate needs to be nullified/ reversed. Moreover, there has to be an investigation in identifying an individual who took it upon himself to illegally issue a mandate, while the case is still before the full court and no decision was made. An individual, who engaged in such act needs to be relived of his duties of an employee of this court and needs to be criminally investigated, as this is a matter of national security. Taitz provided an undeniable evidence showing  Barack Hussein Obama usurping the U.S. Presidency while using a stolen Social Security number from a state where he never resided. A court employee, who issued such mandate is complicit in Social Security fraud, elections fraud and committed an act of treason, as he/she aided and abetted   in the usurpation of the US Presidency by virtue of use of forged and fraudulently obtained identification papers.  After an unlawful mandate issued by a clerk is nullified, this court needs to expedite the en banc hearing on the matter of Obama’s use of a stolen Social Security number.

II Full court needs to expedite en banc reversal of order by Rogers, Griffith and Kavanough.

The order issued in the case by the panel of Rogers, Griffith and Kavanaugh represents a clear error of fact, abuse of judicial discretion and a judicial misconduct exposing this very court to charges of complicity with the Social Security fraud, identity fraud, elections fraud and use of forged and stolen identification papers, committed by Barack Obama, it also represents an act of treason, of a high court aiding and abetting usurpation of the US Presidency by virtue of use of stolen and forged identification papers.

Judges Rogers, Griffith and Kavanaugh confirmed the ruling by the lower court  that the Social security application 042-68-4425 should not be released as expectation of privacy exceeds the right of public to know.

“The district court correctly concluded that disclosure of the requested information “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6).  Appellant has not demonstrated any valid public interest in disclosure to balance against the substantial privacy interest at stake. See Horowitz v. Peace Corps, 428 F.3d 271, 278 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (“If there is no public interest in the disclosure of certain information, ‘something, even a modest privacy interest, outweighs nothing every time.’” (quoting Nat’l Ass’n of Retired Fed. Employees v. Horner, 879 F.2d 873, 879 (D.C. Cir. 1989)). Order by JudgesRogers, Griffith, Kavanough.

a. This court erred in asserting that there will be an unwarranted invasion of privacy. This court wrongfully completely ignored the evidence provided by Taitz that Obama himself released this full Social Security number to the whole world, when he posted his tax returns on line, on WhiteHouse.gov and did not flatten the PDF file. The whole world could open above mentioned file with an Adobe Illustrator program and see the full Social Security number Obama is using.   At this point Obama lost any expectation of privacy. Moreover, Taitz provided the printouts from E-Verify and SSNVS, two official Social Security verification systems, which showed that this number that is being used by Obama in his tax returns, was never issued to Obama. So whose privacy are these judges protecting? A thief, who stole a Social Security number of another person does not have an expectation of privacy in a stolen number.  This argument is an assault on common sense, an insult to intelligence of 311 million American citizens.

b. Further notion by the court “Appellant has not demonstrated any valid public interest in disclosure to balance against the substantial privacy interest at stake” goes beyond an insult to intelligence of every American, it constitutes an act of criminal complicity and treason against every American citizen and theUnited States of America. As stated before, Obama released this number himself and there is no invasion of privacy and the number is not his according to E-Verify and SSNVS, but most importantly Obama is not a private individual, he is not a cleaning lady, who is cleaning toilets in the White House, he is sitting in the White House in the position of the President of the United States, he holds in his hands the lives  of millions of Americans. How can any judge in his right mind state that use of a stolen Social Security number by a person in a position of the President of theUnited States does not represent “substantial public interest”. If usurpation of the U.S. Presidency does not represent a matter of substantial public interest, what does represent it?

The answer is simple, there is no matter that represents a higher level of substantial public interest than the usurpation of theU.S.residency. The ruling is so outrageous and unthinkable that one is left to wonder, how can any judge put his name and signature on such ruling? Taitz is at a loss to begin to identify a reason for such a ruling. It seems a person has to be either completely brain dead or utterly corrupt and on the take to even suggest that there is no substantial public interest in knowing whether a thief with a stolen Social security number is usurping the US Presidency. As it typically takes some measure of brain activity to become a lawyer and a judge, the only logical conclusion, is that there was some type of a sizable consideration for these three judges to rule that there is no considerable public interest in knowing that the US Presidency was stolen by a thief with a stolen Social Security number. This is particularly shocking as Taitz submitted a supplemental brief, where she provided a sworn affidavit by Sheriff Joseph Arpaio, who announced the results of his 6 months investigation, where he confirmed findings by Taitz and found that indeed Obama is using a forged birth certificate, forged Selective service Certificate and forged Social Security number.

During Watergate over 30 high ranking officials of the U.S. Government were found to be criminally complicit and went to prison, among them Attorney General of the U.S. ObamaFraudGate and ObamaForgeryGate is at least 10 times bigger than Watergate, more individuals are being complicit in the elections fraud, Social security fraud, forgery and treason, which allowed a foreign national with forged and stolen IDs, Barack Hussein Obama, to usurp the U.S. Presidency. Taitz hopes that the rest of the judges of this court will not be complicit in these crimes and will reverse an unlawful decision.

Summary

This court should reverse/nullify a mandate issued in case Taitz v Astrue by the clerk, as it was issued erroneously and unlawfully while the full court was deliberating over the petition   for an en banc hearing and did not reach its decision yet.

The court should reach an en banc decision in reversing the ruling of the lower court and order release of the SS-5 application to the Connecticut Social Security number 042-68-4425, which is being illegally used by Barack Hussein Obama, even though is was not assigned to Obama according to E-Verify and SSNVS

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ

Appellant pro se

07/26/2012

Certificate of Service,

I, Yulia Yun, am over 18 years old and attest that I served the above pleadings on the Defendant, Commissioner of Social Security Administration Michael Astrue through his attorney Deputy US Attorney Helen Gilbert

Signed_____________________________________________________

Yulia Yun

Dated______________________________________________________

Cc

Chairman of House Committee on the Judiciary Congressman Lamar Smith

Chairman of the House Oversight Commission Congressman Darryl Issa

Public Integrity Unit Department of Justice

International Criminal Court Bar panel

InterAmerican court for Human Rights

UN Nations commission for civil rights defenders

Z hopest

USCA Case #11-5304     Document #1375820           Filed: 05/25/2012     Page 1 of 1

United States Court of Appeals

FOR T HE D ISTRICT OF C OLUMBIA C IRCUIT

No. 11-5304                                                   September  Term 2011

1:11-cv-00402-RCL Filed On: May 25, 2012

ODr., Appellant

v.

Michael James Astrue, Commissioner of the

Social Security Administration, Appellee

BEFORE:     Rogers, Griffith, and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance and the opposition thereto; the motion for summary reversal, styled as a “motion for summary judgment in favor of the appellant,” which includes a request to appoint a special prosecutor; and the motion for default judgment, it is

ORDERED that the motion for default judgment be denied.  It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for summary reversal be denied and the motion for summary affirmance be granted.  The merits of the parties’ positions are so clear as to warrant summary action.  See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819

F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam).  The district court correctly concluded that disclosure of the requested information “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6).  Appellant has not demonstrated any valid public interest in disclosure to balance against the substantial privacy interest at stake. See Horowitz v. Peace Corps, 428 F.3d 271, 278 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (“If there is no public interest in the disclosure of certain information, ‘something, even a modest privacy interest, outweighs nothing every time.’” (quoting Nat’l Ass’n of Retired Fed. Employees v. Horner, 879 F.2d 873, 879 (D.C. Cir. 1989)).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.  The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc.  See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

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

  • (no title)

• 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

  
  

• November 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

• 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