Bob Unruh does his best to turn a summary judgment against birther lawyer Orly Taitz into a conspiracy in an Aug. 30 WorldNetDaily article.
Not only does Unruh not explain what a summary judgment is -- a finding of facts by a judge where the outcome is obvious -- he attempts to paint Judge Royce Lamberth as obstructionist in Taitz's lawsuit attempt to release Barack Obama's Social Security files:
He concluded that there's no real interest in determining whether the Obama Social Security Number is genuine or fraudulent, and the need for secrecy for the president trumps all else.
"The SSA explained that the Privacy Act of 1974 ... protects the personal information of social security number holders," he wrote. "The SSA determined ... the plaintiff had identified no public interest that would be served by disclosure."
"Plaintiff makes no secret of her intention to use the redacted Form SS-5 to identify the holder of social security number xxxx-xxx-4425 – or, as plaintiff puts it, to confirm her suspicion that the president is fraudulently using that number," the judge wrote.
But Lamberth wrote in the case against Michael Astrue, Social Security commissioner, whether Obama is using a fake number isn't his concern.
"Even if plaintiff's allegations were true, an individual's status as a public official does not, as plaintiff contends, 'make exemption 6 irrelevant to him and his vital records.'"
Lamberth's ruling is much more clear, and less conspiratorial, than Unruh portrays it. Lamberth stated that Obama's status as a public official does not make him exempt from privacy regulations that govern release of Social Security documents and the "secrecy" every other American expects from Social Security:
Plaintiff’s allegation that the requested Form SS-5 is associated with a public official does not diminish the privacy interest at stake here. Even if plaintiff’s allegation were true, an individual’s status as a public official does not, as plaintiff contends, “make exemption 6 irrelevant to him and his vital records.” ... To be sure, a public official’s “privacy interests may be diminished in cases where information sought under FOIA would likely disclose ‘official misconduct.’” ... But plaintiff’s unsubstantiated allegations, without more, do not persuade the Court that therequested information “would likely disclose” official misconduct, id., and thus do not affect thecalculus here.
WND thus proves once again that it hates Obama so much that it cannot tell the honest truth about any birther-related issue.