Browse By

Fact Check: Neil Sankey, Barack Obama and 27 Social Security Numbers?

There’s a new e-mail message making the rounds that makes all sorts of claims about the illegitimacy of Barack Obama’s claim to American citizenship, and indeed the illegitimacy of Barack Obama’s claim to actual existence.

Last night, I received a message from one Simone Tanz, a devotee of a Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine who claims to be able to cure cancer at a rate of nearly 100%. You can read the full text of Tanz’s message here; it is part of a cut-and-paste sending spree that appears to have originated in mid-April of 2010.

Here at Irregular Times we’ll take the time to fact-check the new anti-Obama message over the next week or so, updating what we find in individual posts and accumulating those findings here.

Tonight let’s start the fact-checking with this doozy that Barack Obama “has 27 Social Security numbers“:

Is is possible that just like the “Big Brother” image that he is trying to assume, he never really existed?…

There is only one Barack Hussein Obama according to the U. S. Census and he has 27 Social Security numbers and over 80 aliases.

The Collins Report connects this assertion to a source named Neil Sankey:

According to a search done by former British police detective Neil Sankey, now a U.S. citizen and a licensed private investigator in Los Angeles, Barack Obama reportedly has 27 different social security numbers under 21 different personal and/or familial name variations in 22 different states plus the District of Columbia.

Along with PI Susan Daniels, Sankey generated a large social security public data base in his lengthy research project, titled “List of Properties associated with Barack Obama and his family.”

Sankey’s research is featured in a web video entitled Dossier2MP4 produced by Jim Przybowski. The Sankey/ Daniels social security investigation segment alleges Obama currently is using a social security number of someone born in Connecticut in l890.

When asked, “How long does a social security number have to be set aside after a [death] . . when can it be used again after someone dies?” a Social Security agent named “Kathy” said “it can’t be used again. . once it’s been assigned, it can’t be used again. . .”

Neil Sankey is a private investigator in Los Angeles who sent prominent “birther” Orly Taitz a list of various names, some with supposed social security numbers (read here) that he located. How did he find these names and social security numbers? Sankey explains in an affidavit for one of Orly Taitz’s many lawsuits:

During the course of the work that I was doing in the latter part of 2008, regarding the activities and qualifications of Mr. Obama, I have compiled a record of all of the addresses in regards to which I have seen the use of his name. The records and databases which I use are many and varied having been accumulated for many different reasons but all are Public Record and the documents I have used are available to the General Public with, or without the payment of fees.

What are these public records? Orly Taitz names them in another lawsuit:

Exhibit 3 is an affidavit from a licensed investigator and retired Scotland Yard elite anti organized crime officer Mr. Neil Sankey, who has compiled from the most reputable National databases: Lexis Nexis and Choice Point a list of multiple addresses under the names of Barack Obama and Barry Obama, those addresses are connected to 39 different social security numbers, none of which were issued in the state of HI.

Inaccuracy in the Lexis Nexis database is enough of an issue that it maintains a special link for people who are interested in correcting false information about themselves. And then there’s Choice Point. What do we know about the Choice Point database service?

At Privacy International’s Big Brother Award ceremony held in Cambridge, MA on March 7, 2001, ChoicePoint received the “Greatest Corporate Invader” award “for massive selling of records, accurate and inaccurate, to cops, direct marketers and election officials.”…

EPIC argued that companies like ChoicePoint are returning people to a pre-Fair Credit Reporting Act era, one marked by “unaccountable data companies that reported inaccurate, falsified, and irrelevant information on Americans…” these public records reports sold by Choicepoint have been shown to be highly inaccurate. According to a report by Pam Dixon of the World Privacy Forum, Choicepoint’s public information reports have a very high error rate. In her sample, 90% of the reports obtained contained errors; frequently these errors were serious, such as individuals being identified by the wrong sex….

Elizabeth Rosen, a victim of the Choicepoint privacy breach, found that five of the six pages of her report contained errors. Rosen’s report erroneously indicated that she was the officer of businesses in Texas, that she maintained a private mail box at “Mailboxes Etc.,” and that she owned businesses, including a “Zach’s Cheese and Deli.” Privacy researcher Richard Smith obtained his Choicepoint report and wrote that his report “contain[ed] more misinformation than correct information.”

That bit about identifying people by the wrong sex is directly verifiable in Neil Sankey’s low-quality list, which begins by listing Stanley Ann Dunham’s sex as “male” 10 times and as “female” 0 times. Stanley Ann Dunham is the name of Barack Obama’s mother. Was Barack Obama’s mother a man? Now that would be a really explosive revelation! Other clear errors find their way into Sankey’s list — the frequent misspelling of Barack Obama’s name is one and the placement of the White House in the states of Maryland and California is another. My favorite is the record which places Barack Obama’s residence at 1234 Happy Street, a street in Covington Washington that does not exist.

Finally, what does Neil Sankey think of his own list? The Guardian asked him:

Most recently, he carried out an exhaustive search of databases that he claims threw up 140 different identification numbers and addresses for “Barack Obama”. He admits the findings prove nothing — there is nothing to link the entries to the president

Let’s sum up: an error-riddled search with repeated false genders, multiple false names, dozens of false street addresses, and a few false states for something as easily located as the White House, generated from databases that at times contain more inaccurate information than accurate information, somehow generates multiple social security numbers for Barack Obama. Meanwhile, the search is rejected as proving nothing by the very person who carried it out.

There are two conclusions you can draw from this:

1. This sure is one screwed up list.
2. Clearly, Stanley Ann Dunham was a man and Barack Obama does not actually exist.

I go with Option 1.

19 thoughts on “Fact Check: Neil Sankey, Barack Obama and 27 Social Security Numbers?”

  1. Bob S-K says:

    1234 Happy Street. I want to live there.

    1. Jim says:

      Doesn’t it just make you want to break out into a jig?

      If I were wanting to have any more children, I’d avoid living on “3 Multiple St.,” another one of the addresses (supposedly in Denver Colorado) that does not exist.

  2. Jollity says:

    The SSN’s are part of the Birther Bible: they preach about them everywhere.

    Good article exposing the idiocy, though.

  3. Robrob says:

    ChoicePoint links multiple uncorroberated databases together into one massive data dump. If someone ever used a phoney or erronious SSN, phone number, DL number, address, etc… matching yours on an application or registration form it ends up here. Only an idiot would take everything on the prinnt out as 100% accurate fact.

  4. Neil SANKEY says:

    What an incredibly bad piece of reporting and research YOU have done. About one tenth of what you state here is the truth.

    1. Jim says:

      Says you, and yet I link to sources of documentation. If I am incorrect, Mr. Sankey, I suggest that you document my factual errors with citations to relevant sources. If you’re right, I’ll be happy to retract my claims.

  5. Kate says:

    Thanks for providing the info you did on this ridiculous rumor. I’d not hold my breath waiting for Sankey to provide you with any fact-based evidence to prove you wrong. He makes his claim then runs off when challenged. I don’t know what these people are trying to accomplish but the only thing they have done so far is to humiliate themselves.

  6. Anonymous says:

    It seems to me that the inclusion of Lexis Nexis as a matter of discrediting the said investigator is a legitimate tactic, considering the errors abound there. Any researcher will tell you that the Internet is a great location to BEGIN that research, but certainly isn’t any kind of final stop in the course of it. Considering we are talking about the Taitz vs. Obama case, I considered a further review is in order, since the only ‘evidence’ of discrediting the testimony of this individual is a single statement made about exhibit-3. I went further.

    “Exhibit four is an affidavit from a licensed document expert Sandra Ramsey Lines, which states that the short version (abbreviated) COLB- Certification of Live Birth of Barrack Hussein Obama cannot be viewed as genuine without examining the original, currently sealed in the Health Department in HI, which Mr. Obama refuses to unseal in spite of over 60 Federal and multiple State actions brought by citizens, State Representatives and highly ranked members of the military from around the nation. None of the above actions were heard on the merits, but rather were dismissed on technical procedural grounds, such as standing and jurisdiction. All of the above facts cast a doubt as to the legitimacy of Mr. Obama to serve as a President due to his lack of qualification as a Natural Born citizen per Article 2, section 1, §5, making him ineligible to sign H.R.3590.” And so on in the other exhibits.

    Why are these not legitimate?

    1. Druthulhu says:


      the first and most appropriate answer is that our nation’s judicial system is a procedural one, and that thus cases brought without jurisdiction or standing don’t get heard. as a matter of economic selection, then, the apparent fact that none of the over 60 cases that your quote refers to have managed to pass this rubric tells me that no professional legal council of even the minimal expected competency has viewed these cases and considered them to be at all winable, nor perhaps even valid.

      but the second answer should in fact be the game closer. it took me under five minutes to find back in 2009. unfortunately none of the national news media have ever, in my witness, tried to bring it to the attention of the American people.

      Article 2, section 1, §5 does indeed require that “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.” What it does not do, however, is define that term.

      Not much research into the history and legal opinions on this matter should inform any honest person that a child born to an American citizen is born an American citizen. Prior to the passage of the 14th amendment, in fact, simply being born within the USA was not sufficient to ensure citizenship. Thus it is reasonable to assume that citizenship of an infant at birth was not matter of location at all, and if not that then what else? All that is left as a possible determining factor is to whom the infant was born.

      Well, actually, we need not assume ay all. 8 USC § 1401 tells us what the constitutional definition of “natural born Citizen” is to be. Its various subsections are descriptions of various sets of conditions that cause a child born in them to be a natural born citizen.

      So, 8 USC § 1401 (g) tells us that “a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years” is to be considered a member of the set of people who are to be legally considered “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth”.

      So, Mr. Sankey and Ms. Taitz, you’ve been barking up the totally wrong tree. Time to get busy trying to “prove” that Stanley Ann Dunham was not a citizen of the USA when Barack was born.

      – Dru

  7. David says:

    Sorry, that’s me above. Given that exhibit three is not the only evidence brought, and that Lexis Nexis is not the only source of information, why does exhibit three constitute the totality of credibility?

    If our case here is to be based totally upon discrediting the evidence, then simply discrediting one portion of it does not remove doubt on the legitimacy issue. Given there is doubt, and that we are talking about the highest political power in the land, I would expect nothing less than for the judicial system, as well as the People, to move for a full investigation – to unseal all documents and get to the bottom of it once and for all. I for one would accept the findings of any legitimate investigative sources with authority to pass final judgment on the issue, whichever way the wind blows.

  8. Neil SANKEY says:

    Now that the eternal Obama-lovers have vented their spleen, and since current events are quickly proving what a flawed myth the whole story of “The One” really is. I would suggest to you that the whole reason that I put this list forward to begin with was to indicate that there is good cause and many reasons to investigate this individual further. The “Errors” you say existed on the list were because that was the information e3xactly the way it was discovered ‘I agree totally, and have always agreed with your statement
    ” I would expect nothing less than for the judicial system, as well as the People, to move for a full investigation – to unseal all documents and get to the bottom of it once and for all. I for one would accept the findings of any legitimate investigative sources with authority to pass final judgment on the issue, whichever way the wind blows.”
    Neil SANKEY
    If you had asked ME in the first place, I would have told you the same. Why do you people always have to have your vitriolic, “kill the messenger” dance first?

  9. bioqubit says:

    The CT SSN is obama’s. There is no question about it. If you would like to find out the hard way, just take that CT number to a SS office and see what happens when you submit it. That is fact checking for you. The other numbers may or may not be correct. A history of errors in that database raises questions, but it does not eliminate the possibility or the probability. Instead, groups like FactCheck continue to blow smoke and divert attention so as to avoid having real discovery done in order to finally and authoritatively answer these questions.

  10. 2RogoS says:

    “alleges Obama currently is using a social security number of someone born in Connecticut in l890”

    Um, what’s wrong with that statement?
    1890 — way before social security. .

    1. Melvin Richardson says:

      It said the person was born in 1890. It doesn’t say he was issued the SSN when he was born.

  11. Al Thompson, R.E.A., C.E.I. says:

    12) –> TO: BIOQUIBIT –> You are incorrect and you masy already know it but will throw it out anyway to prop Obama up like the media and Congress has done since 2008.. The Obama SS# has been flagged by eVerify. Nice try –> SMOKING GUN? Obama’s aunt worked at the State of Hawaii where she had access to the state’s database including death & birth certificates, marriage licenses and SS#s of those who DIED in Hawaii. The man was born in 1890 and was LATER issued a CT SS# – moved to HI and DIED in HI in 1957. You can figure the percent chance that Obama having this man’s SS# and his Aunt working at a State of Hawaii agency and had full access to the state’s vital records should be an immediate RED FLAG — unless you are a Obama supporter and do not care about the truth. The probability that there could be a serious breach of security should be enough to warrant an official investigation to get to the truth.

    2) –> TO: 2ROGO S –> You need to read the statement and respond to what it actually says. It states: “… issued to someone born in CT in 1890 -way before SS”. wrong with that statement? It , it merely states he was born in 1890. (NOTE: Going off memory, the man was born in 1890 (in Europe?) and moved to CT where he was issued a CT SS#. The man eventually moved to Hawaii where he lived and eventually died in HI in 1857. This doesn’t state or suggest the owner of Obama’s SS# got the SS# in 1890, it merely states he was born in 1890.

    The problem with many of these naive Obama supporters who are in denial but still attempt to defend Obama, even though there is overwhelming evidence that, at the very least, increases the possibility that there could be multiple issues with Obama’s identity that need to be thoroughly investigated. An investigation needs to be conducted to OFFICIALLY confirm or reject Obama’s claimed identity and his credibility.

    If you know or SUSPECT that Obama has been using someone else’s SS# and using someone else’s credit card and he can’t produce a valid original long form birth certificate and wont allow anyone to perform a forensics analysis of the bogus SS# he claimed was his official original birth certificate, then you should are as corrupt as Obama and should not be allowed to vote in an election that can change the form of government in the USA forever. I think there should be a test before you are allowed to vote to make sure you are voting on the issues and the character of the candidate and not solely on the color of his skin.

    1. Jim Cook says:

      Er, he did produce a valid birth certificate. But right, I remember now, that one was definitively determined to have been constructed from Zebra spit, and as we all know, Zebras are from Africa.

    2. Al Thompson, R.E.A., C.E.I. says:

      CORRECTION in one a date: The man who has Obama’s SS# died in Hawaii in 1957 (not 1857). I know some libs or others will attempt to discount my entire statement based on a typo, but
      noting that known typo to make an excuse to deny the truth. DISCLAIMER: There may be another typo or two (keyboard keys too small) but the facts are clear and I’m sure you know that.

    3. Druthulhu says:

      did you even read what you wrote? anyone who suspects Obama of wrongdoing in this matter is as corrupt as Obama and should never be allowed to vote in the USA? wow!!

      that’s hardcore!! I have seen such dedication to democracy and liberty as suggesting that those who vote differently from the speaker should not have equal rights, but you want to disenfranchize people who agree with you? that is SO radical!! 😀

    4. Bob Rice says:

      Has your research on this issue advanced any further. It occurred to me that Neal Sankey’s research could be easily confirmed if the documentation relating to Obama’s Chicago residences (many) each of which contains the 042 SS# could be reviewed. We do know Obama’s two main Chicago addresses (5450 S EAST VIEW PARK and 5046 S GREENWOOD AVE). Whatever source Sankey used for these two addresses and others also revealed the 042 SS# which was also reported at a number of other Chicago addresses. What source/forms did Sankey use to tie these addresses to the SS@#? Those forms would prove that Obama actually used 042. I have not found any source info on those forms. Probably they are Chicago City records.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!