[Red Steel]

I’ll explain.

The court granted the government’s motion to make her follow court Fed rules to redact Obama’s alleged CONnecticut SSN in further submitted court documents like this XXX-XX-4425. Dr. Taitz argued against the ruling since she made the case that she had enough evidence that it was not really Obama’s SSN, and therefore resisted. Furthermore, the evidence supports (conflicting evidence) that Obama’s SSN was never issued to anyone or to Obama in a Social Security Administrator SSN database query. In the end, she complied as it was jeopardizing the case.

[Red Steel]

Furthermore, the evidence supports (conflicting evidence) that Obama’s SSN was never issued to anyone or to Obama in a Social Security Administrator SSN database query.

The "conflicting evidence" is that the Connecticut SSN was issued to someone in 1977. It's very possible that the SSN was removed from the query database.

[LachlanMinnesota]

Thanks for the details. Doesn’t seem such a big hairy-a**ed deal to me, so she made a rooky mistake. It can be corrected.

Orly better be a perfectionist, or she will certainly receive lots of flack here...

Makes one wonder why a more experienced attorney hasn’t offered to assist her, even if behind the scenes.

To the point, though, does she have a case? or is there no credible evidence to warrant the action in the first place?