As a follow-up to my recent Selective Service update posting, I received the following information from a concerned citizen by the name of William along with further analysis from a Plaintiff in some of the eligibility lawsuits.
This link pulls up a snapshot of the FOIA letter that William received on April 1, 2009. He relayed the following information to me regarding his query with the Selective Service:
I am a computer network specialist free lance here in … CA.
I have been following the BHO Birth Cert issue and cases for a year.
I don’t necessarily believe that the SS Form is a forgery, nor do I necessarily believe that BHO is of foreign birth. The fact is we simply don’t know anything because no one is allowed to have complete access to any documents of substance for examination.
I am investigating this [the SS issue] and others because I am a believer in government accountability and open access. Further, on something as simple as a birth certificate, or rather, proof of native or natural born status, should be a simple matter, but it is not.
It is quite possible that BHO was born in HI; just as it is possible that he was born in Kenya. It is also possible that, even if BHO proves that he is natural born, that he attended Occidental college under an Indonesian passport while also having registered for Selective Service as an American citizen.
The bottom line is– what is the truth and how do we find it?
When I first heard about Coffman’s internet results in succeeding in acquiring a FOIA copy of the SS Form 1 for BHO, I was skeptical [as I always am]– so I requested my own copy of the form via FOIA from the same Selective Service source, Mr Flahavan.
As to questions of forgery, who knows? I am not a document expert, and no one has access to any original docs. I just find it curious that there is an effort to assert with certainty [ by Mr Flahavan] that “Mr. Obama did indeed register”–
Well, how does he know that? And of course, he doesn’t know. He doesn’t have any personal knowledge of the fact. All he knows is based on what information he is able to extract fro the database(s) or records he can copy. For him to assert knowledge of certainty is foolish or calculated. It would have been well better for him to simply comply with the FOIA and remain silent.
But, there it is. And what I have just told you is all I know about this matter.
On another but related topic:
Factcheck and other pro-Obama, “anti-birther” sites were claiming that the HI statute 338.71.8, having been enacted in 1971, proved that a 1961 Certificate could not have been registered in HI with Records by a non-birth-event registration process and therefore the Certification information was derived from an actual birth certificate, thus claims to the contrary would be false.
I was tasked by Mario Apuzzo [Kerchner v Obama] to research the existence of HI Territorial Act 96 passed into law in 1911, which I was able to find.
Thus 338.71.8 is supported by Act96 and there was a procedure available at the time  for Stanley Ann Dnham to register BHO without witnesses or a standard live-birth certificate. [brackets original]
The Act to which William refers can be found here:
Just follow the free download buttons. Avoid downloading any software.
I will amend my article and ask volunteers to see if they can contribute anything else.
This link pulls up the PDF that compares the Coffman and William Selective Service scans. The following commentary from one of the eligibility lawsuit Plaintiffs will help explain inconsistencies that they see:
[William]‘s copy of “Obama’s Regsitration card “appear to be identical with the year being “08″ not “80″. There is no missing “8″ at the front of the number that the scanner “missed”. It’s an utter lie.
Comparing Coffman’s and [William]‘s print outs.
1. The Last Action Dates are different. Why would they be?
2. Registration Date is missing from Coffman’s print out.
3. Permanent address is missing from [William]‘s
4. The DLN’s are different and should be the same and reflect the DLN stamp number at the upper right hand corner of the form.
Why is the stamp date, one day before Obama supposedly signed the Registration Form??? Government agencies stamp forms after receiving them, not before.
Coffman knows what he is talking about. He used to work for ICE and the Federal Government for 30 years.
Don’t know if you caught this or not from Orly’s site and Dossiers, but the Selective Service Head is getting investigated for sexual harrasment and wrongful termination of a former woman employee. I’m sure that Obama set it up to cover for him, if he would ignore his forgery.
You can’t get around wrong forms for the dates the forms were supposedly completed. You also can’t get around the wrong stamps used.
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
Mario Apuzzo, attorney for Plaintiffs in Kerchner v. Obama, had filed a Declaration Opposing Defendants’ Motion to Extend Time to Answer or Otherwise Move as to the Amended Complaint Returnable June 1, 2009 (a brief background can be found here). He posted an update concerning the status of this case today:
There are many who want an update on what is going on with the court in the Kerchner case. The court listed the defendants’ (Obama, USA, Congress, Senate, House, Cheney, and Pelosi) motion for a second extension of time to answer or otherwise move as to the amended complaint for June 1, 2009. Not receiving any decision from the court as of June 5, 2009, I contacted Judge Schneider’s law clerk on June 5, 2009. She advised me that the June 1, 2009 date was a tentative date, with the court being able to decide the motion either before or after the date. She told me that the defendants’ motion was still pending and that “they” were working on it. She was not able to give me any more specific information as to when we can expect a decision.
I know that many of you are frustrated and have lost faith in the integrity of our legal system. I know that many of you do not believe that, given that we are so far post election and the lack of any support from our political leaders, institutions, and mainstream media, a court will have the moral and legal courage to do what you believe to be justice. But at this point, we can only believe and hope in a court honoring the Constitution and the rule of law by upholding the original intent of the Founding Fathers on the question of what is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” …
Under the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama’s father became a British subject when he was born in Kenya. When Obama Jr. was born in 1961, his mother was a U.S. citizen and his father a British subject. At the time of his birth, his father, being in the U.S. only on a temporary basis to study, was not even a permanent resident or immigrant. When Obama was born, under the same British Nationality Act of 1948, he automatically became a British subject by decent from his father. Obama Jr., having a British father and being born a British subject himself, along with presumably being a United States citizen under a liberal and probably erroneous interpretation of the 14th Amendment (if he was born in the U.S.), was born with multiple allegiances and therefore fails the law of nations test and is not eligible under Article II to be President.
Moreover, given how Obama has so far comported himself and poorly represented the interests of the United States internationally, I doubt that he knows and appreciates that he “ought therefore to love [America] . . .” and “express a just gratitude to it, and requite its service as far as possible by serving it in turn.” Vattel.
Only our courts and eventually the U.S. Supreme Court are able to tell America what a “natural born Citizen” is, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers. The fate and future of and what type of nation America is going to be is all in their hands. In our Constitutional Republic, we have to allow due process to take its course and wait for their decision.
A primer on eligibility can be found here; Mr. Obama’s “sealed from public view” background documentation can be found here; a current listing of citizen grand jury updates and eligibility lawsuits can be found here.
There are two categories of documents used in determining eligibility: primary and secondary.
The primary documents used to show you are of age and a qualified native Hawaiian are:
A certified copy of Certificate of Birth;
A certified copy of Certificate of Hawaiian Birth, including testimonies; or
A certified copy of Certificate of Delayed Birth.
You will need the certified birth certificates for:
Your biological father; and
Your biological mother
The state Department of Health, (DOH), Vital Records Section, records documents by island and district (geographically) and by the date of the event (chronologically).
If your biological parents’ documents don’t clearly prove that you have at least 50 percent Hawaiian ancestry, you will also need certified birth certificates for:
Your biological father’s parents; and
Your biological mother’s parents.
In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL. [final paragraph emphasis mine/TheObamaFiles']
Hawaii Home Lands won’t take it, but Obama insists it certifies him to be Commander-in-Chief.
Here is an example what a long-form, Certificate of Live Birth looks like:
The final paragraph of the above “Primary Documents” section ends accordingly:
If you are adopted, your biological birth record is probably sealed. In this instance, DHHL staff may be able to assist you in getting the ethnicity of your biological parents. [emphasis mine]
So much for the opposition fighting over the use of the word, “sealed” to allegedly “falsely” describe the fact that Mr. Obama doesn’t allow public access to his background documentation.
There’s more. The Star Bulletinreports that you cannot receive a certificate of live birth from the great State of Hawaii any longer:
The state Department of Health no longer issues copies of paper birth certificates as was done in the past, said spokeswoman Janice Okubo.
The department only issues “certifications” of live births, and that is the “official birth certificate” issued by the state of Hawaii, she said.
And, it’s only available in electronic form.
Okubo explained that the Health Department went paperless in 2001.
“At that time, all information for births from 1908 (on) was put into electronic files for consistent reporting,” she said.
Information about births is transferred electronically from hospitals to the department.
“The electronic record of the birth is what (the Health Department) now keeps on file in order to provide same-day certified copies at our help window for most requests,” Okubo said.
Asked for more information about the short-form versus long-form birth documents, Okubo said the Health Department “does not have a short-form or long-form certificate.”
“The birth certificate form has been modified over the years and decades to conform to national standards and models,” she said.
Okubo also emphasized the certification form “contains all the information needed by all federal government agencies for transactions requiring a birth certificate.”
She added that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the state’s current certification of live birth “as an official birth certificate meeting all federal and other requirements.”
The issue of what constitutes an official Hawaii birth certificate received national attention during last year’s presidential campaign. Those who doubted Barack Obama’s American citizenship called the copy of the Hawaii birth document posted on his campaign Web site a fake.
Asked about that document, Okubo said, “This is the same certified copy everyone receives when they request a birth certificate.”
We found a discussion of “the truth about Obama’s birth certificate” on the Web site FactCheck.org — www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html.
The organization describes itself as “a nonpartisan, nonprofit ‘consumer advocate’ for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics.”
It says a “certification of live birth” is, in fact, a short-form official birth certificate. Information included in the document might differ from state to state.
…Obama’s “citizenship” was never the question raised during the campaign or after the election. The issue raised by WND has consistently been that Obama failed to prove he was actually born in Hawaii and thus constitutionally qualified to become president as a “natural born citizen” – which requires that the birth took place in the United States.
The qualifications for the Hawaiian Home Lands program require a certified copy of a standard birth certificate – also known as the “long-form certificate” filled out in the hospital and including details such as the name of the hospital and the attending physician. …
According to Hawaii’s Department of Health spokeswoman Janice Okubo, the state only issues “certifications” of live births since 2001 when the health department went paperless. It is only available in electronic form, she said. …
She did not explain how those needing a standard long-form birth certificate to qualify for programs such as those offered by the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands or to establish proof of eligibility to be president could be fulfilled. She said the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the state’s current certification of live birth “as an official birth certificate meeting all federal and other requirements.” She did not, however, cite any specific rulings, and the Supreme Court has not taken up the issue of whether the certification of live birth would qualify a presidential candidate as eligible under the “natural born citizen” clause.
Many of members of the public commenting on the Star Bulletin column raised similar questions:
“I’m fifty years old and I need to apply for a passport,” wrote one. “So I scan some representation of COLB onto my Facebook page. If I take my laptop to the DMV, can I just open my laptop to show my web page to the clerk who will then verify my citizenship and issue me a legal passport? I’m sorry but some documents need a paper trail.”
“To be president you need to be a ‘natural born citizen,’” said another. “That means you are born in this country of ‘parents that are citizens.’ Note that both ‘parent’ and ‘citizen’ are plural. His father was a British subject and, yes, under the laws of both the United States and the UK at the time [when] he was born, Obama’s citizenship was passed by descent of the father. These are the facts. We have laws and no one is above them.”
“There seems to be a great deal of secrecy surrounding this whole situation,” said another. “I’ve read that he has three legal teams keeping his info private. He has also had all hiscollege records sealed. So this is transparency and change? Why all the mystery?”
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
The following posting from TenthAmendmentCenter.com is so poignant to today’s federalist struggles that it warrants being re-posted in its entirety. As you read it through, keep in mind the absolute importance of the 9th and 10th Amendments to the American Constitution, in that rights are conferred by the Creator upon the individual and not the State:
Editor’s Note: June 8, 2009 marks the 200th anniversary of the death of a hero. Thomas Paine was actively involved in both the American and French Revolutions and is best known for his major worksCommon Sense, The Rights of Man and The Age of Reason.
But, Paine was more than just a pamphleteer for the cause of freedom. He was a serious political philosopher, as the following excerpt from The Rights of Man demonstrates.
Society is a Blessing, But Government is Evil by Thomas Paine
A great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It had its origin in the principles of society, and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has in man and all the parts of a civilized community upon each other create that great chain of connection which holds it together.
The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from the whole. Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their laws; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government. In fine, society performs for itself almost everything that is ascribed to government.
To understand the nature and quantity of government proper for man it is necessary to attend to his character. As nature created him for social life, she fitted him for the station she intended. In all cases she made his natural wants greater than his individual powers. No one man is capable, without the aid of society, of supplying his own wants; and those wants acting upon every individual impel the whole of them into society, as naturally as gravitation acts to a center.
But she has gone further. She has not only forced man into society by a diversity of wants, which the reciprocal aid of social affections, which, though not necessary to his existence, are essential to his happiness. There is no period in life when this love for society ceases to act. It begins and ends with our being.
If we examine, with attention, into the composition and constitution of man, the diversity of talents in different men for reciprocally accommodating the wants of each other, his propensity to society, and consequently to preserve the advantages resulting from it, we shall easily discover that a great part of what is called government is mere imposition. …
Government is no further necessary than to supply the few cases to which society and civilization are not conveniently competent; and instances are not wanting to show that everything which government can usefully add thereto, has been performed by the common consent of society, without government.
For upwards of two years from the commencement of the American war, and a longer period in several of the American states, there were no established forms of government. The old governments had been abolished, and the country was too much occupied in defense to employ its attention in establishing new governments; yet, during this interval, order and harmony were preserved as inviolate as in any country in Europe. There is a natural aptness in man, and more so in society, because it embraces a greater variety of abilities and resources, to accommodate itself to whatever situation it is in. The instant formal government is abolished, society begins to act. A general association takes place, and common interest produces common security.
So far is it from being true, as has been pretended, that the abolition of any formal government is the dissolution of society, it acts by contrary impulse, and brings the latter the closer together. All that part of its organization which it had committed to its government, devolves again upon itself, and acts as from reciprocal benefits, have habituated themselves to social and civilized life, there is always enough of its principles in practice to carry them through any changes they may find necessary or convenient to make in their government. In short, man is so naturally a creature of society that it is almost impossible to put him out of it.
Formal government makes but a small part of civilized life; and when even the best that human wisdom can devise is established, it is a thing more in name and idea than in fact. It is to the great and fundamental principles of society and civilization – to the common usage universally consented to, and mutually and reciprocally maintained – to the unceasing circulation of interest, which passing through its innumerable channels, invigorates the whole mass of civilized man – it is to these things, infinitely more than anything which even the best instituted government can perform, that the safety and prosperity of the individual and of the whole depends.
The more perfect civilization is, the less occasion has it for government, because the more does it regulate its own affairs, and govern itself; but so contrary is the practice of old governments to the reason of the case, that the expenses of them increase in the proportion they ought to diminish. It is but few general laws that civilized life requires, and those of such common usefulness, that whether they are enforced by the forms of government or not, the effect will be nearly the same. If we consider what the principles are that first condense man into society, and what the motives that regulate their mutual intercourse afterwards, we shall find, by the time we arrive at what is called government, that nearly the whole of the business is performed by the natural operation of the parts upon each other.
Man, with respect to all those matters, is more a creature of consistency than he is aware of, or that governments would wish him to believe. All the great laws of society are the laws of nature. Those of trade and commerce, whether with respect to the intercourse of individuals or of nations, are laws of mutual and reciprocal interest. They are followed and obeyed because it is the interest of the parties so to do, and not on account of any formal laws their governments may impose or interpose.
But how often is the natural propensity to society disturbed or destroyed by the operations of government! When the latter, instead of being engrafted on the principles of the former, assumes to exist for itself, and acts by partialities of favor and oppression, it becomes the cause of the mischiefs it ought to prevent.
If we look back to the riots and tumults which at various times have happened in England, we shall find, that they did not proceed from the want of a government, but that government was itself the generating cause; instead of consolidating society, it divided it; it deprived it of its natural cohesion, and engendered discontents and disorders, which otherwise would not have existed. In those associations which men promiscuously form for the purpose of trade or of any concern, in which government is totally out of the question, and in which they act merely on the principles of society, we see how naturally the various parties unite; and this shows, by comparison, that governments, so far from always being the cause or means of order, are often the destruction of it. The riots of 1780 had no other source than the remains of those prejudices that the government itself had encouraged. But with respect to England there are also other causes.
Excess and inequality of taxation, however disguised in the means, never fail to appear in their effect. As a great mass of the community are thrown thereby into poverty and discontent, they are constantly on the brink of commotion; and, deprived, as they unfortunately are, of the means of information, are easily heated to outrage. Whatever the apparent cause of any riots may be, the real one is always want of happiness. It shows that something is wrong in the system of government, which injures the felicity by which society is to be preserved.
Having thus endeavored to show, that the social and civilized state of man is capable of performing within itself, almost everything necessary to its protection and government, it will be proper, on the other hand, to take a review of the present old governments, and examine whether their principles and practice are correspondent thereto.
It is impossible that such governments as have hitherto existed in the world, could have commenced by any other means than a total violation of every principle, sacred and moral. The obscurity, in which the origin of all the present old governments is buried, implies the iniquity and disgrace with which they began. The origin of the present governments of America and France will ever be remembered, because it is honorable to record it; but with respect to the rest, even flattery has consigned them to the tomb of time, without an inscription.
It could have been no difficult thing in the early and solitary ages of the world, while the chief employment of men was that of attending flocks and herds, for a banditti of ruffians to overrun a country, and lay it under contribution. Their power being thus established, the chief of the band contrived to lose the name of robber in that of monarch; and hence the origin of monarchy and kings.
The origin of the government of England, so far as it relates to what is called its line of monarchy, being one of the latest, is perhaps the best recorded. The hatred which the Norman invasion and tyranny begat, must have been deeply rooted in the nation, to have outlived the contrivance to obliterate it. Though not a courtier will talk of the curfew bell, not a village in England has forgotten it.
Those bands of robbers having parceled out the world, and divided it into dominions, began, as is naturally the case, to quarrel with each other. What at first was obtained by violence was considered by others as lawful to be taken, and a second plunderer succeeded the first. They alternately invaded the dominions which each had assigned to himself, and the brutality with which they treated each other explains the original character of monarchy. It was ruffian torturing ruffian.
The conqueror considered the conquered not as his prisoner, but his property. He led him in triumph rattling in chains, and doomed him, at pleasure, to slavery or death. As time obliterated the history of their beginning, their successors assumed new appearances, to cut off the entail of their disgrace, but their principles and objects remained the same. What at first was plunder assumed the softer name of revenue; and the power they originally usurped, they affected to inherit.
From such beginning of governments, what could be expected, but a continual system of war and extortion? It has established itself into a trade. The vice is not peculiar to one more than to another, but is the common principle of all. There does not exist within such governments a stamina whereon to engraft reformation; and the shortest and most effectual remedy is to begin anew.
What scenes of horror, what perfection of iniquity, present themselves in contemplating the character, and reviewing the history of such governments! If we would delineate human nature with a baseness of heart, and hypocrisy of countenance, that reflection would shudder at and humanity disown, it is kings, courts, and cabinets that must sit for the portrait. Man, as he is naturally, with all his faults about him, is not up to the character.
Can we possibly suppose that if government had originated in a right principle, and had not an interest in pursuing a wrong one, that the world could have been in the wretched and quarrelsome condition we have seen it? What inducement has the farmer, while following the plow, to lay aside his peaceful pursuits and go to war with the farmer of another country? Or what inducement has the manufacturer? What is dominion to them or to any class of men in a nation? Does it add an acre to any man’s estate, or raise its value? Are not conquest consequence? Though this reasoning may be good to a nation, it is not so to a government. War is the faro table of governments, and nations the dupes of the game.
If there is anything to wonder at in this miserable scene of governments, more than might be expected, it is the progress that the peaceful arts of agriculture, manufactures, and commerce have made, beneath such a long accumulating load of discouragement and oppression. It serves to show that instinct in animals does not act with stronger impulse than the principles of society and civilization operate in man. Under all discouragements, he pursues his object, and yields to nothing but impossibilities.
Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
The trade of governing has always been monopolized by the most ignorant and the most rascally individuals of mankind.
Thomas Paine (1737–1809) was an English pamphleteer, revolutionary, radical, and classical liberal. Born in the market town of Thetford, England, he migrated to the American colonies at the age of 37, just in time to take part in the American Revolution. His main contribution was as the author of the powerful, widely read pamphlet, “Common Sense” (1776), advocating independence for the American colonies from Great Britain. He is also known for “The American Crisis” (1776–1783), a series of pamphlets supporting the American Revolution, and “The Rights of Man” (1791) defending the early French Revolution.
The previous essay is an excerpt from the writings of Thomas Paine which can be found in the third chapter of Liberty and the Great Libertarians, edited by Charles T. Sprading.