While Taitz Is Stalled In Court By Corruption, A British Barrister Steps Forth And Helps Fit The Pieces Together On Obama's Identity Fraud

There has been another stall and blanket federal corruption cover-up in the Court System; and this time it is by Federal District Judge Ellen L. Hollander, who feels she owes her job to the Obama Administration, and isn't about to jeopardize the gravy-train (and a hope to advance higher in the judiciary) in exchange for doing what is morally - ethically and legally correct in redering a correct Court Decision regarding an enforcement of the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution, which trumps all other off-shoots of U.S. Law.   


http://www.scribd.com/doc/224411309/Taitz-v-Colvin-Memorandum-Opinion-Bounel-Social-Security-Number-FOIA-Case-5-13-2014

In spite of the fact that Obama is shown to be using a fraudulent Social Security Number, which California Attorney Orly Taitz ( a Naturalized Citizen and Immigrant from the U.S.S.R.) shows to be as being exclusively issued to a "Mr. Bounel  [who] was an “immigrant from Russia, born in 1890, [and who] arrived in the U.S.  in and around 1912, received Social Security number in the state of CT in and around March 28, 1977, SSN xxx-xx-4425” , the Federal District Judge ruled that because the stolen and fraudulently used by Obama Social Security Number “was listed in full in plaintiff’s letter , and  plaintiff did not redact the SSN when she submitted the letter as an exhibit, in violation of the Privacy Policy for this District Court”, the judge could be dismissive of the whole case being presented and ‘wink, wink’ at Obama’s continued felonious actions and identity fraud. Judge Ellen L. Hollander then proceeds to attempt to cite justification to ignore the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution, and place lesser law and even temporary agency policies on the same judicial weight as the Supreme Law of the Land.  

Page 11:

"Of relevance here, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6), also known as FOIA Exemption 6, provides that agencies are not required to disclose “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”   See Havemann v. Colvin , 537 F. App'x 142, 146 (4th Cir. 2013). Exemption 6 permits a federal agency to withhold records where (i) the disputed records constitute “personnel,” “medical,” or “similar files,” (ii) the disclosure of which would amount to a “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal

Page 12:

privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6).   SSNs are exempt from disclosure under Exemption 6.  See Smith v. Dept. of Labor, 798 F. Supp. 2d 274, 283  – 84 (D.D.C. July 26, 2011);  Prison Legal News v.  Lappin , 780 F .Supp. 2d 29, 39  –  41, (D.D.C. 2011);  Taitz v. Obama, 754 F. Supp. 2d 57, 60 (D.D.C. 2010); Coleman v. Lappin , 680 F. Supp. 2d 192, 197 (D.D.C. 2010). The purpose of this exemption is “to protect individuals from the injury and embarrassment that can result from the unnecessary disclosure of personal information.” Core v. U.S. Postal Serv., 730 F.2d 946, 947 (4th Cir. 1984) (citing Wash. Post Co. , 456 U.S. at 599);  see Havemann, 537 F. App ’x at 147. When seeking to withhold information, the agency bears the burden of showing that the records fall within one of FOIA’s specific exemptions to disclosure. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B);   Am. Mgmt. Servs., LLC , 703 F.3d at 729; City of Va. Beach, Va. v. U.S. Dep’t  of Commerce,  995 F.2d 1247, 1252 (4th Cir. 1993). “The government can meet this burden by describing the withheld material with reasonable specificity and explaining how it falls under one of the enumerated exemptions.”  Hanson , 372 F.3d at 290 (citation omitted). No deference is owed to the agency’s determination to withhold records, however. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B).”

Page 13:

Also relevant in this case is an SSA policy known as the “120 - year rule.”

As a general matter, and for obvious reasons, SSA does not release SS-5s of living individuals in response to FOIA requests. See Sherman v. U.S. Dept. of Army,  244 F.3d 357, 365 (5th Cir. 2001) (“[A]n individual’s informational privacy interest in his or her [social security number] is substantial.”).  However, SSA does “not consider the disclosure of information about a deceased person to be a clearly unwarranted invasion of that person’s privacy.” 20 C.F.R. § 401.190. Accordingly, SSA  “will not disclose information about any person in [its] records . . . , except in those cases where [it has] acceptable proof of death (e.g., death certificate, obituary, newspaper article, or police report).”   Social Security Administration, Freedom of Information Act website, available at  http:// http://socialsecurity.gov/foia/request.html#a0=0

Proof of death is not required in one circumstance, however. Under the 120-year rule, SSA presumes dead anyone born more than 120 years prior to the date of the FOIA request. Thus, SSA will  release information about the subject of a FOIA request, without proof of death, if the individual was born more than 120 years ago.      Id.

[Notice, that someone born in 1890, would be 124 years old in 2014...but this fact is not sufficient for Judge Hollander, who then attempts to rationalize away that fact, even when addressing the 120 year rule which allows the release of Fredom of Information Act (FOIA) request without having to prove any death of the Social Security Number owner as irrelevant - of no value - moot, in full contradiction to the stated "rule" allowing such an FOIA release. -- Brianroy]

Page 15: 

Plaintiff presents several arguments in support of her claim that SSA has acted in bad faith.

First, plaintiff argues that Wiggins’s representation that she was unable to find an SS-5 for Mr. Bounel contradicts a previous letter sent by Wiggins on November 16, 2012. That letter (“November Letter,” ECF 32-1), was also sent in response to a FOIA request for information about Harry Bounel. 4

 The addressee of the letter is not visible. See id.

 In the November Letter, Wiggins wrote,id.: 

    This letter is in response to your Internet request for a Numident 
    for Mr. Harry Bounel. The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a)
    restricts disclosure of the information you requested. The only
    exception that might permit us to disclose these records to you
    without consent would be the exception for disclosure required
    by the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. § 552). 

    When we receive a request from a member of the public to
     release  personal information about another individual from 
     our records, we must balance the individual’s privacy interest
     in withholding the information against the public interest in 
     disclosing the information . . . There is clearly a substantial 
     privacy interest . . . . [D]isclosing records containing personal 
     information about named individuals would not shed light on 
     how the [SSA] performs its statutory duties. Therefore,
     disclosing this information would be a clearly unwarranted
     invasion of  personal privacy, 
    [of a dead individual and the person fraudulently using that 
     Social Security Number]
     and the FOIA (5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6)) [5]  does not require disclosure.

[In other words, it is against the public interest to expose a felony identity fraud occupying the Presidency of the United States, potentially having the ability to launch nuclear missiles that could obliterate tens of millions of people and cause a retaliation that kills tens of millions of U.S. Citizens were the military to obey his launch orders as lawful, rather than to say they are unlawful and refuse to launch.  This judge is hallucinogenically pinning her hopes that a military will always be just disobedient enough to be responsible for our good, rather than just compliant, when the illegal Obama Administration is on a purge of all mature and rational Generals and Colonels from the military who would resist an irrational launch order by the White House Dribbler illegally occupying the Oval Office. -- Brianroy]

[Footnotes]

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

4     The FOIA request to which Wiggins responded in November of 2012 is not in the record.

5   As noted, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) exempts an agency from disclosing information that would cause an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy

On Page 18, after the let us “imagine” scenario she presents, which is tantamount to singing "The joker ain't the only fool who will do anything for you" 

http://youtu.be/P0DK-0fIKCw

Midnight,
And I am a-waiting
On the twelve-oh-five
Hoping it will take me
Just a little farther down the line

Moonlight,
You are just a heartache in disguise;
Won´t you keep my heart from breaking
If it is only for a very short time

Chorus:
Playing with the queen of hearts,
Knowing it ain't really smart
The joker ain't the only fool
Who will do anything for you

Laying out another lie,
Thinking ´bout a life of crime
That is what I will have to do
To keep me away from you

Honey, you know it makes you mad
Why is everybody telling everybody
What you´ve done
Baby, I know it makes you sad
But when they are handing out the heartaches
You know you got to have you some

Chorus:

Lovers, I know you have had a few
But hide your heart beneath the covers
And tell em they are the only one
And others, they know just
What I am going through
And it is a-hard to be a lover
When you say you are only in it for fun
Playing with the queen of hearts,
Knowing it ain't really smart
The joker ain't the only fool
Who will do anything for you

Chorus:

Playing with the queen of hearts

as she probably, in the privacy of her home, drools over Obama's picture on her DNC Card (judging by her actions in this apathetic to the Constitution and anti-Constitutional decision of hers).    Judge Hollander essentially acknowledges that the Social Security Administration can withhold the Social Security Number release, and  although the original holder is deceased, it is able to be with-held from release because that deceased individual's Social Security Number is currently being used by a living individual…which, excuse me judge, is precisely the POINT.    If a Social Security Number is stolen and reused as a Tax Identification Number for another person, there is NO UNWARRANTED INVASION OF PRIVACY FOR EXPOSING THE ACT OF A FEDERAL FELONY CURRENTLY IN PROGRESS.

However, on another front, the Court (in the State of New York) is having to deal with the fact of the charge of a reliable and trustworthy British Barrister and member of the Intelligence Community, one Michael Shrimpton, who has blown the lid off that Obama has NO DNA CONNECTIONS to any United States Citizenship, and was known by MI5 (the British external Security and Counter-Intelligence Agency for outside of Britain itself) as having been born to a Mau Mau terrorist group sympathizer in August 1960.   While the father is Barack Hussein Obama Sr., his mother was possibly surnamed "Soebarkah", 
cf.  http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2014/03/obamas-mother-was-not-his-mother-video.html
who was a direct relation of Mohammed Subu, 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Subuh_Sumohadiwidjojo
of the Indonesian Subud cult, of which Loretta Fuddy (who vetted a non-extant document and was recently killed, likely to cover it up) was a high ranking U.S. member along with Obama's adoptive mother, Stanley Ann Dunham - Obama - Soetoro.

   Strunk v Paterson - British Intel Expert Michael Shrimpton Obama DNA Affidavit w/Exhibit - 5/12/14

Page 8:

16.     I deal firstly with my role in tendering informal advice to the CIA and the DIA. As the court will understand, with respect, intelligence agencies work on a quite different principle to courts and lawyers. Whereas the latter emphasize transparency and rightly so, the intelligence community (INTELCOM) favors deniability. When the CIA invite you to lunch they do not usually send out an embossed invitation. By the time President Obama joined the 2008 presidential race, on February 10^th  2007, I would like to think that I was well-known to the CIA. It was not, I suspect, a secret inside INTELCOM that my opinion was that Senator Obama, as he then was, was born in Mombasa in what is now the Republic of Kenya. My success in relation to a paternity test on a British politician was also probably widely known inside INTELCOM. The lunch was held at Claridges Hotel in Brook Street, Mayfair, London on Wednesday October

Page 9:

10^th  2007. A senior DIA officer was also present. Officially this was purely a social occasion. I would not be offended were either the CIA or the DIA to deny that the lunch had ever happened, or that I had tendered advice on the desirability of a DNA test and how best to conduct it, indeed that would be standard operating procedure. In fact however, although the advice I gave has been in the public domain since 2008, there has been no denial from either the CIA or DIA.

17.   I do not name the names of Allied intelligence officers with whom I have had dealings. There are several reasons for that. I could not function as an intelligence expert if intelligence officers felt they could not repose trust in me not to blow their identities. It is also discourteous and thoroughly bad practice and can expose the officers with whom you are dealing to unnecessary risk. In relation to American intelligence officers it might also involve a breach of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA). I am familiar with IIPA as the act was abused in a with respect misconceived prosecution, United States v. Libby,  during the Bush-Cheney Presidency in relation to a CIA analyst, Valerie Plame, who was not in fact protected by IIPA. As she had had dealings with the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) and I was aware that the prosecution was without foundation I passed a warning on to attornies for Karl Rove, whom I believed was the primary target for the operation, and Lewis Libby, the ultimate defendant. Just because a CIA or DIA officer does not happen to be operating undercover when you have dealings with them it does not follow that they are not undercover at the present time. I would be most unwilling to name the officers and if I were to be asked that question I would be grateful for the courtesy of notice, so that I might consult with the offices of General Counsel to the CIA and General Counsel to the DIA. I am known to a number of former General Counsel to US intelligence agencies, including that very nice man with respect William Allard, formerly a distinguished General Counsel to the DIA, and the excellent American Bar

Page 10:

Association Committee on Law and National Security, who were kind enough in 2010 to invite me to one of their working breakfasts in Washington DC.

18.    Some years prior to the lunch I had tendered informal advice to the Security Service (MI5) after concerns arose that a senior member of the Labour Government, B, might be a blackmail risk, as a result of claiming a child, L, to be his. To preserve deniability, not least in circumstances where the advice was politically sensitive, the informal advice was given over lunch at a military facility to retired officers of the Service. I gave my analysis as to the true father and suggested a means by which the intelligence might be verified, verification of course being critical. A dinner was held to which myself, the mother, Mrs B, and the suspected father, F, were invited. I believe that MI5 had an asset inside the caterers, a Sikh. The operational concept was that this asset would secrete the wine glasses used by Mrs B and F for DNA comparison with DNA retrieved from L (the baby’s) saliva. I had a fair understanding of DNA testing by this time and readily appreciated that you did not need to draw blood, which might be distressing for baby and might amount to a criminal assault upon a minor, something I advised MI5 against. So far as I am aware the test excluded B as a candidate for the father of L. At any rate MI5’s budget went up shortly thereafter, two brief later encounters with the then Director-General of MI5 were surprisingly amicable and I heard no more about it, except that F sought to cause me professional difficulties and B did not place me on his Christmas card list.

19.    I explained all this to the intelligence officers at the Claridges lunch. My recollection is that the DIA officer was surprised and that the CIA officer just smiled. The technique, which was non-invasive, lawful and quite simple, provided not just sufficient DNA for a reliable test, but a chain of evidence, as the glasses also had the user’s fingerprints. Senator Obama’s purported mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, sadly had died, aged 53, on November 7^th  1995. Maternity was of greater interest then than paternity, as the claimed father, Barack Hussein

Page 11:

Obama Senior had no claim to citizenship of the United States, that is to say then Senator Obama’s claim to be a US citizen rested on his claimed relationship with Stanley Ann Dunham. My respectful suggestion, therefore, was to acquire the DNA of Stanley Ann Dunham’s mother, Madelyn Lee Dunham, along with that of Senator Obama. That could most easily be done, in my opinion, by using the glass technique successfully trialed by MI5. I also advised checking for photographs of Stanley Ann Dunham, whom I believe was known to the CIA in any event from her days in US AID, in particular from the summer of 1961, when she was supposed to have been pregnant, and her medical records, and Madelyn Dunham’s FBI file, which I believed dated from 1944, and Boeing security file, if extant, in connection with Abwehr sabotage activities on the B-29 Superfortress line at Boeing’s Wichita, Kansas plant.

 20.   To the best of my knowledge and belief the DNA test was done and Senator Obama’s claim to be the son of Stanley Ann Dunham could not be supported. I cannot say to the court that either CIA or DIA came back to me and said so in terms. I would not expect them to and it would be contrary to good intelligence practice. I would however expect to be told if my advice had led to either agency wasting time or resources, not to mention the cost of a good lunch.

 21.  The outcome of the DNA test, as I understood it to be, was consistent with what I knew of then Senator Obama’s background. It was my understanding then, and still is, that he was born in Mombasa in what was then the Kenyan Protectorate, on or about August 4^th  1960.

 So far as I know that is the internal view of both MI5 and MI6.

The President’s claimed father was known to British intelligence in 1960 due to his connection with the Mau Mau terrorist organization.

There is no evidence that Stanley Ann Dunham went to Kenya in 1960, that is to say she cannot have been the mother, assuming the intelligence about the birth in Mombasa to be correct.

22. I should explain to the court that in 1960 the Kenyan Protectorate was not part of

Page 12:

the British Empire proper. It was not a British imperial possession, but formed part of the territory of His Highness the Sultan of Zanzibar, who very sensibly had placed his territory under British protection. His Highness’s subjects as a consequence enjoyed the status of British Protected Persons. The Protectorate was a narrow coastal strip, about ten miles wide, from the Ruvuman River in the south to the Tana River in the north. Kenya Colony lay to the west. The two were merged into modern Kenya by the Kenya Independence Act 1963 (Imp.), citizenship of Kenya being conferred on former British Protected Persons by reason of Section 1(1) of the Independence Constitution of Kenya.

 23.   I did not have cause to change my opinion when the White House promulgated a purported long form birth certificate online in 2011. I am not a computer specialist but I was not surprised when the document was questioned by forensic computer experts. Long experience as an immigration judge caused me to approach free-standing birth certificates, that is to say without a counterpart, with caution. A genuine birth certificate should have a counterpart entry in the register of live births. Of course any intelligence analysis must be reviewed in the light of new developments, but the electronic facsimile copy of the birth certificate, in my albeit humble expert opinion, was not a material development.

…

Page 13:

…

26. I am aware that Stanley Ann Dunham later married an Indonesian citizen, who appears to have adopted Barack Hussein Obama Junior. It would not be unusual for a minor step-child to take the step-father’s nationality, in addition to that of the mother, on re-marriage. Whilst I am not an expert on US nationality law I am an expert in UK immigration and nationality law and am used to considering other countries’ immigration and nationality law. Stanley Ann Dunham was a minor when she allegedly gave birth to the president and the claimed father’s alleged marriage to her was admittedly bigamous, as he had married a Kenyan woman, Kezia, in 1954. I cannot take the court to a record of a divorce between Barack Hussein Obama Senior and Kezia Obama. It would have been unusual in 1961 for an unmarried minor, applying the definition of minor then in force (21, in Hawai’i), to have been able to transmit her nationality to her child. That is a matter requiring expert evidence on US nationality law and the laws of Hawai’i on majority, but it is right that I should flag up the issue. On the president’s own account there appears to me to be a triable issue as to whether or not he was a US

Page 14:

citizen at birth. To my knowledge he never naturalized, that is to say his claim to US citizenship rests in its entirety on his claim to have been born to Stanley Ann Dunham on US soil in 1961, and that claim may not be sufficient in any event having regard to his claimed father’s subsisting marriage to Kezia Obama and the age of his claimed mother at the material time.

27.    In my opinion the nationality status of President Obama at birth was that of a subject of His Highness the Sultan of Zanzibar and British Protected Person, becoming a citizen of the Republic of Kenya on December 12^th  1963. In my further opinion there was a subsequent acquisition of the nationality of the Republic of Indonesia, following the marriage of Stanley Ann Dunham to an Indonesian national. I am respectfully unable to support the president’s claim to be a citizen of the United States. I express no view as to the claimed paternity, which is not material to any issue which I believe to be before the court.

28.   The following space is left blank deliberately, so that my verification statement and the signatures of both myself and the notary public appear on the same page.

Page 15:   The above was notorized by James Ricahrd Couzens under oath by Michael Shrimpton on May 12, 2014.


[Post last updated on May 18, 2014, to correct single spelling error and add one link]