• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Morning Wrap | Main | Former Hill Staffer Fights To Stay Out Of Prison »

July 26, 2011



Good job making it appaer easy.

Atticus Finch

Oh you mean that bogus FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) complaint she is going to file seeking Obama's birth certificate from his White House Counsel, Kathy Ruemmler ?

Here is the pertinent paragraph in her FOIA complaint:

16. While 5 USC 552 excludes “central offices of the White House”, this exclusion will not apply in this case, as term “central offices of the White House” relates to the documentation obtained and generated by the President as part of his duties. A copy of a birth certificate from 1961, 50 years ago, does not relate to the duties of the President, which commenced only two and a half years ago, this document relates to legitimacy of Mr. Obama and his right to be in those “central offices of the White House” in the first place. If he was never eligible to be there in the first place, he is not eligible to claim the privilege.

In her FOIA complaint against Kathy Ruemmler,White House Counsel Taitz admits that FOIA doesn't apply to "central offices of White House" then makes a bizarre claim that what she wants doesn't come under FOIA because the birth certificate wasn't generated by Obama while he is in the White House.

The problem with her FOIA complaint is that Taitz admitted that the records she seeks is not cover by FOIA since FOIA applies to only those agency records created during the course and scope of the employee's employment with a federal agency and that the record was relied upon by others in the federal agency. "An inquiry is therefore required into the purpose for which the document was created, the actual use of the document, and the extent to which the creator of the document and other employees acting within the scope of their employment relied upon the document to carry out the business of the agency. Bureau of Nat. Affairs v. US Dept. of Justice, 742 F. 2d 1484, 1493 (D.C. Cir. 1984)

In this case, Obama's birth certificate that Taitz is seeking to examine was definitely not created during Obama's term as President; moreover, the other employees in the White House definitely are not relying on the birth certificate to perform their duties as government officials.

As such her FOIA complaint is fatally flawed and will not survive a Motion To Dismiss under FRCP Rule 12(b)(6)(failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted)

Ron Cram

Orly Taitz may not be a polished lawyer but she perseveres. The truth is no media outlet has found one expert who would say the long form birth certificate released by the White House on April 27, 2011 is authentic. FOX News did a story claiming expert Jean Claude Tremblay said the birth certificate was authentic but Tremblay says he was misquoted and has demanded FOX retract or correct the story. FOX has refused.

I wish Orly the best of success.

Reality Check

I see Taitz, the dentist, faux-attorney, ex-real estate agent, and chicken has decided to post and run.

T. Fenton Bowersox

What's the over/under on Orly getting sanctioned on her latest Fail-File? Can Terminal Sanctions carry monetary penalties as well? When will Yosi cut off her funding? Can Charles Lincoln III find his way back into Orly's heart...and her dental chair o' love? Stay tuned for the next steamy, notrous-soaked episode of "As The Moonbat Turns."


@Reality Check re: "... Does it make me a brain dead, vial [sic], Obama lackey to point out that the White House is exempted from the Freedom of Information Act? Ms Ruemmler works for the White House. ..."

And lets not forget that while Ms Ruemmler may be Obamas secretary at the WH, the two copies of his long form birth certificate are his personal belongings at not government documents.


Knock Knock Orly...that is obscurity calling.

Mary Adams

@ Orly

Keep digging those holes and digging them deeper.

President Obama will go down in history as the President who guided the country through terrible economic times while dealing with RWNJs that oppose everything just to be oppositional.

That fabulous week when he roasted Trump while directing the Bin laden operation and showed his "long form" BC to the press and the world is what will be remembered.

YOU will be nothing but a maggot on a cowpie, if you are remembered at all.

Mary Adams

@ RS

Oh, I understand better than OK,
No, you don't.
and there is a very large public interest in Obama's Connecticut SSN
No, there isn't. There are only a handful of you fools that think there is anything wrong with his SSN.
that totally outweighs any privacy expectation in this case.
LOL! Obviously, the SSA disagrees.
You should know that Taitz blah, blah, blah... We know more about what Taitz has done than any stupid birther.


"RS" is an "honest and decent attorney" for unattributed cut-and-pasting yet failing to understand the meaning of what lifted from the DOJ?

Who knew the bar was so low?

Reality Check

@Mrs. Taitz

Does it make me a brain dead, vial [sic], Obama lackey to point out that the White House is exempted from the Freedom of Information Act? Ms Ruemmler works for the White House.

Would you care to opine on whether Greg Hollister broke the law when he impersonated Barack Obama to obtain a copy of his draft record? I would be interested in the opinion of such a famous attorney as you.


Oh Orly, you say the sweetest things about people who commit the heinous crime of disagreeing with you. I love how much you fantasize about those of us who laugh at your tax dollar wasting 'legal' antics as "go[ing] down with Obama." We don't live in the Soviet Union Orly, no matter how much you wish for such things. It isn't a crime to support the President, especially against frivolous lawsuits based on conspiracy theories.

Good job at failing yet again to properly redact the SSN. Since Judge Lamberth asked, i figure it is appropriate to quote him again and ask are you "toying with the Court or displaying [your] own stupidity"?

As for your latest lawsuit, well, I'm sure it will be as successful as all your attempts to undo a democratic election. I do though hope the court recognizes you for the vexatious litigant that you are.


I've seen only one honest and decent attorney and human being on this blog: someone posting as RS
the rest are vial and brain dead Obama lackeys, who will go down with Obama.
For anyne, who cares about the truth, see more cases and pleadings coming in Taitz v Ruemmler
all the info will be posted on my blog on


"You see the words, but they don't have any meaning for you.

A person has a privacy expectation in his or her own social security number. (Exhibit A: The federal courts even made a rule preventing their disclosure in pleadings!) There is no public interest that is going to outweigh that privacy interest."

Oh, I understand better than OK, and there is a very large public interest in Obama's Connecticut SSN that totally outweighs any privacy expectation in this case. You should know that Taitz did ask for a redacted Obama SSN application so any 'privacy expectation' would be satisfied. The intransigence here by the government makes no sense. They should have nothing to hide but they do.

Taitz has formally motioned the court that is written on page 9 in document 17. Following the hyperlink below to see.

"1. To order defendant to release limited redacted information from SS-5 application for the Social Security number XXX-XX-4425"


PS she is admitted to the California Bar.


Sadly, this dentist who added law to her CV for reasons we may speculate on, has also driven away most of her patients. Yes, I do have some personal knowledge of this, but who knows what she reads so I will say no more.

She is probably very bright--and she was much more personable when I watched the video of her on The Colbert Report than I would have guessed--but maybe growing up in Russia messed with her mind. As a grandchild of Russian Jewish immigrants I cringe when she starts up.


"It is ironic that the DOJ has put out a 'one stop shop' of past cases that so easily skewers the government's case."

You see the words, but they don't have any meaning for you.

A person has a privacy expectation in his or her own social security number. (Exhibit A: The federal courts even made a rule preventing their disclosure in pleadings!) There is no public interest that is going to outweigh that privacy interest.

(And, in the future: Acknowledging -- up front -- that you are cutting-and-pasting from the DOJ will enhance your credibility.)


Um, RS, even if your copy and paste were true, well, you are well and truly screwed. "if she can get out of the starting blocks by consistently redacting the SSN number as required by the rules in her motions." I'm going play it straight to you: Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. couldn't follow rules if it would actually get the Great Usurper out of the White House. It took her almost two years to learn to sign a pleading. You know how you do that? You type /s/ If it took her two years to do that once per pleading what hope does she have at properly and repeatedly redacting a SSN she's plastered all over the interwebs anyways?

In this case, she's admitted on her website that she is aware of the rule, but has claimed among other things that she's exempt from the rules because the number is fraudulent. Her redaction of the last four numbers (and a poor magic marker job at that)), the complete opposite of what the rules require, was invented entirely in her brain because her entire "case" revolves around making sinister and dark inferences from the first three digits with some fun help from illegally obtained documents. So she just does things her way. Rules Schmules! There's a Constitutional Crisis and Our Lady Liberty is here to save the day.

She's an absolute disgrace.


"@RS: No need to pass off the DOJ's work as your own:"

Oh I didn't. There are quotes around what is not is mine, and I said my comments are in brackets. I see it was easy for you to find the DOJ guidelines. It is ironic that the DOJ has put out a 'one stop shop' of past cases that so easily skewers the government's case.


@RS: No need to pass off the DOJ's work as your own:

Despite your impressive ability to cut-and-paste, a person's privacy interest in their own social security number is sufficient for Exemption 6 purposes.


Orly Taitz has a chance to make a sold case if she can get out of the starting blocks by consistently redacting the SSN number as required by the rules in her motions. Even with a cursory look at past FOIA cases, shows us that her hand v. SSA is solid. Here is just a few excerpted examples among many. I made some comments about the excerpts seen in brackets...

-- “38 Multi Ag, 515 F.3d at 1229-30; see, e.g., Barnard v. DHS, 598 F. Supp. 2d 1, 11 (D.D.C. 2009); Schoenman v. FBI, 576 F. Supp. 2d 3, 9 (D.D.C. 2008); Unidad Latina En Accion v. DHS, 253 F.R.D. 44, 48 (D. Conn. 2008); Schoenman v. FBI, 573 F. Supp. 2d 119, 148 (D.D.C. 2008); Schoenman v. FBI, 575 F. Supp. 2d 136, 160 (D.D.C. 2008).

the public interest in disclosure outweighs the individual privacy concerns.'"39 Thus, as the D.C. Circuit has held, "a privacy interest may be substantial -- more than de minimis -- and yet be insufficient to overcome the public interest in disclosure."40

[The public interest about Obama's hidden past is close to the zenith among the public]

The D.C. Circuit has also emphasized the practical analytical point that under the FOIA's privacy-protection exemptions, "[t]he threat to privacy . . . need not be patent or obvious to be relevant." 41 At the same time, courts have found that the threat to privacy must be real rather than speculative.42 In National Ass'n of Retired Federal Employees v. Horner [hereinafter NARFE], the D.C. Circuit explained that the "relevant point" of its prior holding in Arieff v. United States Department of the Navy was that "mere speculation" of an invasion of privacy "is not itself part of the invasion of privacy contemplated by Exemption 6."43 “

-- “115 See Forest Serv. Employees for Envtl. Ethics, 524 F.3d at 1025 (noting that "while the privacy interests of public officials are 'somewhat reduced' when compared to those of private citizens, 'individuals do not waive all privacy interests . . . simply by taking an oath of public office.'" (quoting Lissner v. U.S. Customs Serv., 241 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir. 2001))); Kimberlin, 139 F.3d at 949 (stating that ''although government officials, as we have stated before, may have a 'somewhat diminished' privacy interest, they 'do not surrender all rights to personal privacy when they accept a public appointment'") “

[We see that public officials have less rights to privacy than private citizens. Obama was not an appointed official as he was elected, and no ‘public official’ is more public than the president]

-- “66 See Keys v. DHS, 570 F. Supp. 2d 59, 68 (D.D.C. 2008) (stating that "'[o]ne who serves his state or nation as a career public servant is not thereby stripped of every vestige of personal privacy, even with respect to the discharge of his official duties. Public identification of any of these individuals could conceivably subject them to harassment and annoyance in the (continued...)

state or nation as a career public servant is not thereby stripped of every vestige of personal privacy, even with respect to the discharge of his official duties. Public identification of any of these individuals could conceivably subject them to harassment and annoyance in the

discussion of the privacy protection accorded law enforcement personnel, see Exemption 7(C), below.) Unless the information has become "practicably obscure," as discussed below, there is generally no expectation of privacy regarding information that is particularly well known or is widely available within the public domain.67 Likewise, an individual generally does not have any expectation of privacy with respect to information that he or she has made public.68 The D.C. Circuit has held that under the public domain doctrine, information that would otherwise be subject to a valid FOIA exemption must be disclosed if that information is preserved in a permanent public record or is otherwise easily accessible by the public.69 "

“Balancing Process for Names & Addresses”...

The D.C. Circuit addressed the question of whether disclosure of mailing lists constituted a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy in National Ass'n of Retired Federal Employees v. Horner, and, while stopping short of creating a nondisclosure category for all mailing lists, the D.C. Circuit held that mailing lists consisting of names and home addresses of federal annuitants are categorically withholdable under Exemption 6.242

-- "242 NARFE, 879 F.2d at 879; see also Retired Officers Ass'n v. Dep't of the Navy, 744 F. Supp. 1, 2-3 (D.D.C. May 14, 1990) (holding names and home addresses of retired military officers exempt); cf. Reed v. NLRB, 927 F.2d 1249, 1251-52 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (categorically protecting "Excelsior" list (names and addresses of employees eligible to vote in union representation (continued...)
484 Exemption 6

In these types of cases, courts have frequently found the asserted public interest too attenuated to overcome the clear privacy interest an individual has in his name and home address. Nevertheless, several lower courts have ordered the disclosure of such information in certain contexts. Some of these courts have found little or no privacy interest in the names and addresses at issue. 243" ... "

[The privacy claim concerning ‘name and address’ that apposes the FOIA request for Obama's 1977 Connecticut SSA application, if it is his SSN application or if the application actually exists, would be a frivolous argument. Obama’s domicile address is the most publicly known in the world at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, DC, and his Chicago address is well-known. And to expect privacy for a decades old former address from 35 years ago is practically non-existent.]

It is Tiatz's case to win if she plays her cards right.

Turning the Scale

For the uninformed, Birfers yelling "Fogblow!" and then giving that goofy URL means they've run out of things to write and are figuratively sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "lalalalala I can't hear you!"


It does bring one to wonder, why oh why is she allowed to practice law? I've never seen a person so obviously flout the law and procedures of the court. She has never, ever filed a lawsuit with merit, and uses the court strictly to (attempt to) further her "political" agenda. This person needs to be stopped, by the courts and by the Bar.


Alas Zoe,

Fully expect that Mad Old Orly will now attempt to sic her dwinding band of Flying MOnkeys on you.

I can see it now, a classic in screeching and foaming at the mouth, posted on her web site.

"UsUrperator...OBOT..NWO...lies all lies, is traitor to me and I am Lady Liberty, scary black man in Whit House, Ebil Mooslem. Demand MUST publish my TRUTH...SCREEEEEECH....CT Social Security Number, forgery....fake not real joke birth certificate"...etc etc etc.

Suggest you put an email filter in place for all emails inbound with Orly, Obama, Hawai'i in them..... 8-)

Pat Riot


Reality Check

Here is some detail on those "illegible exhibits" that were included in Orly's motion (and in another case in Louisiana on the offshore drilling moratorium in which Orly tried to intervene). They were obtained illegally by COL Greg Hollister (RET) from Colorado. Mr. Hollister himself was an unsuccessful Birther plaintiff in Hollster v Soetoro.

Hollister obtained a reprint of President Obama's Selective Service record by pretending to be Obama on the Selective Service web site and changing the address to his own address in Colorado Springs. He pretended to be Obama's employer on the Social Security Verification System to obtain a copy of the record for the SS# that is believed to have been the President's at least at one time. Since the record returned a "Not issued" result it is likely that the SSA assigned the President a new number after his original was made public.

This shows the extent to which these deluded haters of the President known as Birthers will stoop to attempt to discredit Obama. It is unlcear why Hollister was not prosecuted for his apparent attempt at identity theft. Hollister removed his address from the Selective Service record before giving it to Orly but left the bar code that revealed the address to which the record was mailed.


And poor Judge Lamberth: In 2009, a group of birthers calling themselves the "Super American Grand Jury" (really!) "presented" the judge with an "indictment" they wrote themselves. (And who was the "legal advisor" to this "Super American Grand Jury"? Why Taitz, of course!)

Turning the Scale

Oh, Orly, every time someone disagrees with you, you claim they've misrepresented the facts.

The problem is, Orly, you have no facts, just wild suppositions and outright lies.

Are you even a citizen Orly? I have seen no documentation that you've been naturalized. Please provide the same on your web site, so we know that we are in fact dealing with an American citizen.

And while you're at it, please provide proof that you -- not a substitute -- actually took and passed the California bar exam.

Orly has been rebuked too many times to count. The pattern is predictable: a Court rejects her filing, she calls them traitors and urges her minions to do the same, Judges sanction her.....and yet, she is still allowed to practice law in California? How is this possible?


So even after a Judge throws the book at her for haphazardly filing motions with un-redacted Social Security numbers, Orly Taitz thinks it's okay to post those same un-redacted Social Security numbers on websites? This woman doesn't get it, and frankly never will.


Please, BLT, redact the full social security number posted on your site by "Orly". This is precisely the type of behavior that has caused Judge Lamberth to note her stupidity.

Mary Adams

No Orly YOU are the liar and the person defrauding the nation.

You have no evidence whatsoever that President Obama has ever USED any SSN but the xxx-xx-4425 one, and anyone with half a brain would realize that since you have plastered it all over the internet for years, the SSA has issued him a new one so that one now comes back as unissued. What number do you think he put on his tax return all of these years?

Also, there is NOTHING illegal about having a number with a prefix that doesn't "match" a particular state. You have been told how that typo happened (HI ZIP 96814, CT ZIP 06814) and yet you continue with your LIES.

Orly, the only person who has committed any crimes here is YOU!

I hope the Judge sanctions you big time!


One should note that Orly Taitz attended and apparently graduated from an online law school. The fact that she passed the California Bar Exam, reported to be one of the more difficult bar exams, is beyond belief.

Frank Barnett

Legal Times has reported the facts of their story exactly correctly.

The only fraud being perpetrated on the nation is by birthers and their ilk.

The bottom-line truth about Judge Lamberth's ruling yesterday is that if Orly would bother to read, comprehend, and apply the Rules of the Court there would have been no need for such a ruling.

Similar things happen in virtually every case Orly is involved in. She was sanctioned in the Central District of CA for repeatedly violating court orders in Liberi, et al. v Taitz, et al.

She was sanctioned $20,000 in a case in GA.

She's clueless.


Ms. Tillman doesn't misrepresent anything. Judge Lamberth's orders speak for themselves. Taitz can try to spin this anyway she wants, but it's curtains for Taitz and this frivolous lawsuit (her specialty).

L. Tony Rollins

Orly - why do you contniue to insist on displaying your own stupidity by repeatedly posting unredacted SSN's? What part of "you can't do that" is most confusing to you?


Orly has been threatening people with prison since forever. Sadly, she's not a prosecutor and never will be one. She's the worst lawyer in the history of the Planet Earth.

To laugh and joke about this horrible, horrible so-called "attorney" who got her law license from a box of CrackerJack®, go visit

We are the #1 birther debunking site on the Toobz. We rule, and birthers drool.


A selective service registration card that one of your cohorts obtained illegally Orly. Tut, tut, tut, introducing an illegally obtained exhibit into Federal Court pleadings. People go to prison for that you know Orly.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad