State court judge, SSNs federal government, SC nonsense stand, Secret SSNs DOJ silly, Federal government issues SSNs.

This was a big ole FA from a state court judge last night in SC. It is purely nonsense — and it won’t stand! Guess who issues the SSNs?? The federal government! The idea they are secret from the DOJ is silly at best. https://t.co/OrCBcdUN94

• Check out these discounted items on Amazon

— Harmeet K. Dhillon (@HarmeetKDhillon) September 5, 2025

In a recent tweet, Harmeet K. Dhillon, a prominent attorney, expressed disbelief at a decision made by a state court judge in South Carolina. The judge’s ruling, described as a “big ole FA” (Final Adjudication) by Dhillon, was deemed nonsensical and unlikely to hold up under scrutiny. Dhillon questioned the judge’s assertion that Social Security Numbers (SSNs) are secret from the Department of Justice (DOJ), pointing out that SSNs are issued by the federal government and are not inherently confidential.

The tweet, shared on September 5, 2025, sparked a discussion about the jurisdiction of state courts versus federal agencies, as well as the implications of privacy laws related to SSNs. Dhillon’s argument centered on the idea that the federal government has access to SSNs and that the notion of their secrecy from the DOJ is unfounded. This statement suggests a lack of understanding on the part of the judge regarding the handling of sensitive personal information by government entities.

The tweet also alludes to potential legal challenges to the judge’s ruling, with Dhillon expressing confidence that the decision will not stand. By bringing attention to the federal government’s role in issuing SSNs and the lack of secrecy surrounding this process, Dhillon highlights what she perceives as a fundamental flaw in the judge’s reasoning.

From an SEO perspective, this tweet and the ensuing discussion provide valuable insights into current legal debates and interpretations of privacy laws. By analyzing and addressing misconceptions or inaccuracies in legal decisions, individuals like Harmeet K. Dhillon contribute to a broader understanding of complex legal issues and their implications for individuals and government agencies.

Overall, Dhillon’s tweet serves as a reminder of the importance of legal expertise and critical thinking in evaluating judicial decisions. It also underscores the need for clarity and accuracy in legal interpretations, particularly when it comes to sensitive personal information such as Social Security Numbers. As the debate continues, it will be interesting to see how this issue unfolds and whether any further developments shed light on the complexities of privacy laws and government oversight.

In a recent tweet, Harmeet K. Dhillon called out a state court judge in SC for what she deemed a “big ole FA.” The judge’s ruling was deemed nonsensical by Dhillon, who pointed out that Social Security Numbers (SSNs) are issued by the federal government, making the idea that they are secret from the Department of Justice (DOJ) essentially absurd.

The federal government is responsible for issuing Social Security Numbers to individuals, a fact that seems to have been overlooked by the state court judge in question. The very nature of SSNs being issued by a federal entity makes it clear that they are not secret from the Department of Justice. This oversight by the judge highlights a fundamental misunderstanding of how SSNs operate within the legal system.

It is crucial to understand the context in which Social Security Numbers are issued and utilized. These nine-digit numbers are assigned to individuals by the Social Security Administration for the purpose of tracking their earnings and benefits. They are a vital component of the US government’s social security program and are used for various identification purposes.

The idea that SSNs are somehow secret from the DOJ is simply not grounded in reality. These numbers are an integral part of an individual’s identity and are widely used for verification and authentication purposes. Any suggestion that they are shielded from government agencies like the DOJ is misguided at best.

Dhillon’s tweet serves as a poignant reminder of the importance of factual accuracy and legal understanding in judicial proceedings. Judges hold a position of authority and responsibility, and it is essential that their rulings are based on a sound understanding of the law and relevant facts. In this case, the judge’s ruling appears to have been based on a misunderstanding of the nature of SSNs and their relationship to federal agencies.

The legal system relies on a foundation of knowledge and understanding to ensure fair and just outcomes. When judges make decisions based on misinformation or faulty assumptions, it can have serious implications for the parties involved in the case. In this instance, Dhillon’s swift critique of the judge’s ruling highlights the need for clarity and accuracy in legal proceedings.

As we navigate the complexities of the legal system, it is crucial to rely on accurate information and a sound understanding of the law. The issuance and use of Social Security Numbers are governed by federal regulations and procedures, making them far from secret entities. Judges and legal professionals must be diligent in their research and understanding to ensure that their decisions are based on facts and legal principles.

In conclusion, the tweet from Harmeet K. Dhillon sheds light on a significant misunderstanding in a recent court ruling regarding Social Security Numbers. The federal government issues SSNs, making the notion of their secrecy from the DOJ unfounded. This serves as a valuable lesson in the importance of legal knowledge and accuracy in judicial proceedings. It is essential for judges and legal professionals to ensure that their decisions are grounded in facts and legal principles to uphold the integrity of the legal system.

State court judge ruling, South Carolina, Social Security Numbers, Federal government, Department of Justice, Legal nonsense, Court decision, Secret information, Security breach, Identity theft, Judge’s ruling, Legal dispute, Government authority, Federal jurisdiction, Legal challenge, Confidential information, Judicial decision, Courtroom drama, Legal controversy, Privacy rights