Selective Service Update: Another FOIA Request
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 [1961] 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:
HI ACT 96
This book has been digitized by Google and is available for download here-
http://books.google.com/books?id=0PjvG3BkcBACI am placing a copy of this document a free ftp download website for download as a backup:
http://www.4shared.com/file/107920470/13beb66e/Laws_of_the_Territory_of_Hawaii_Passed_b.html
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:
- Obama’s Presidential Eligibility: What You Need to Know
- Obama’s Sealed Background Documentation
- Citizen Grand Jury Updates and Eligibility Lawsuit Listing
-Phil
[...] Selective Service Registration — Released – Counterfeit – Document Locator Number update – another FOIA request [...]
Phil:
I must assume you have never managed anything.
Mr. Flahavan communicated public information very effectively here, and what he wrote was absolutely true. Quit being a baby and Move on.
If the truth is biased, deal with it. He absolutely complied with the request for information with great accuracy, informativeness and aplomb.
I see you are still running as fast and as hard as you can away from Mr. Flahavan’s evisceration of your little theory. I see you are frantically trying everything you can to distract from another Birther goose egg. It’s not working. we are all still confronted with the conclusive and authoritative refutation of your conspiracy theory.
Mr. Flahavan did not make public communications via private email, so no heat is warranted there. He made a public communication over public e-mail, and in the process properly and correctly labeled the folks pushing the SSS forgery theory conspiracy theorists. he then went on to prove it by exposing your fantasy and error.
I applaud him and wish more public officials were as forthcoming.
You should not expect him to treat “even handedly,’ because that would be absurd. You should expect him to treat fairly. Exactly as he did.
Nice dodge. I will ask you again: Do you not feel his obligation is to speak the truth? Calling you guys “conspiracy theorists” is no more personal bias than calling Kobe Bryant a basketball player.
That is what you are.
HistorianDude,
There’s a very big difference here between a private or a public manager, HistorianDude. We are talking about a government bureaucrat; an unelected government official; someone who has responsibility over public information.
I am absolutely suggesting that Mr. Flahavan must absolutely comply with any legitimate request for information that appears before him in such a manner that he is responsible to fulfill, without bias.
I am also absolutely suggesting that if Mr. Flahavan cannot conceal what bias he otherwise has every right to possess over government communications facilities and not save it for private communications, then perhaps Mr. Flahavan should be taught proper decorum and etiquette when officially representing the United States government to any citizen who makes a legitimate request.
If Gov. Palin takes heat for making public communications via private email facilities, then so should Mr. Flahavan; he should save his personal views for private communications. Perhaps he should also get a clue from Hawaiian State officials; through all of their public correspondence that I’ve seen, they’ve only ever stated the facts; they have never showed their personal bias in public communication.
Maybe sometime you can share how expecting a government bureaucrat to even-handedly answer any legitimate request is somehow “politically correct,” because I certainly don’t see it. I call it doing what he’s supposed to do.
Nice try, HD. I’ve already mentioned that my theory is just that. Secondarily, just because “the Birther blogosphere constantly calls for e-mail and letter writing campaigns” doesn’t mean it’s actually happened, so both of us are speculating on this point (as usual).
Again, open your brain and read what I actually say. I said that his job description presumably requires him to accurately and completely fulfill any legitimate request that comes his way. I don’t think it says, “insert your personal bias in governmental communications in any response to obvious nut-jobs that might cross your path.”
-Phil
Phil:
What a goofy thing to say, Phil. Are you suggesting that a manager (any manager, private or public) does not have the responsibility to consider the source of an issue before determining how to act on it? Are you honestly suggesting that Mr. Flahavan should hide his informed judgments because… why? It hurts somebody’s feelings?
Who’da thunk that a “right wing extremist” like yourself would jump so enthusiastically on the bandwagon of political correctness?
My hope is that you will get over your bruised ego and read again the content of his e-mail. It is a direct and authoritative refutation of the “SSS forgery” theory. Stop whining about the envelope and read the Dear John letter.
And your basis for speculation is… what exactly? We already know for a fact that the Birther blogosphere constantly calls for e-mail and letter writing campaigns, and “bombard” is their word, not mine.
So… you don’t think speaking the truth is part of that job? You guys are “conspiracy theorists.” Surely by now you understand that, right?
i am not a whiner, and I am not as thin skinned as you. I would fully understand how this response slam dunked my theory and move on.
Black Lion says:
June 9, 2009 at 11:56 am
syc1959 says:
June 8, 2009 at 11:32 pm
Question that I have posted elsewhere. Why would Barack Obama sign up for the Selective service in 1980? When his Kenyan citizenship expired in 1982, two years later? and one year after his trip to Pakistan [on what passport]. As a foreign exchange student, Obama was NOT required to sign up, nor at this time, was using his legal name – Barry Obama aka Barry Soetoro. We do have the divorce papers from that time period, not the Obama/Durham divorce papers, but the Soetoro/Durham divorce papers [just clarifing to keep the Obot's from trying to confuse the issue]
Hence another false trail.
Where to start. Let us take every falsue point one at a time…
According to the law, all US males are required to sign up for the Selective Service at the age of 18 or after, so that is why he did it.
Where is the proof that Obama was ever a citizen of Kenya? Have you seen some proof that he was born there? Becuase unless he was born in Kenya, he could not be a citizen of Kenya. Unless you are claiming citizenship through his father and the Supreme Court has already ruled that a minor cannot lose his US citizenship through possible dual citizenship.
Pakistan, another birhter falsehood. There was NO US Travel Ban to Pakistan. You could travel there as a US citizen in 1981.
Where is the proof that he was a “foreign exchange student”? Since the COLB shows that he was born in HI, that makes no sense.
Where is the proof that he was ever known as Barry Soetero? That is another birther falsehood. On one unauthenticated document was ever produced that showed that he went by that name, and that same document shows that he was born in Honolulu. Secondly no where was it ever shown that he was adopted by Soetero and that was his legal name. Throughout his school time in HI, he was knows a Barry Obama. The divorce papers do not designate children, just dependents and does not prove that Soetero ever adopted Obama.
The only false trail is that you are reintorducing evidence that has already been proved to be false. Amazing.
****************************************************************************
Black Lion—-Why is it that there is NO Proof to these questions posed???? RELEASE the legal documents and we won’t be having these conversations any longer!!!!
earl says:
June 9, 2009 at 10:42 am
Pete says:
June 9, 2009 at 8:12 am
” There just isn’t enough verifiable data on Obama, and what is available is conflicted. ”
There is more information available about Barack Obama than any other President in history. The only information that is conflicted is the unsubstantiated speculations, innuendos and inferences fabricated by the “he’s not eligible”ers.
*****************************************************************************
Earl—-This is the best you have??? Please post everything you have on Obama here for all to see….It must be legal and not an electronic copy!! WE will all be waiting to view the “more information available about Barack Obama than any other President in history”…You are a JOKE!!!
HistorianDude,
Your interpretation of Mr. Flahavan’s attitude towards any segment of the American citizenry is absolutely, categorically and undeniably irrelevant unless, of course, you can show me in his job description where he is to hold any sort of bias against any sort of American citizen.
Besides, how many claims has he actually fielded with respect to Mr. Obama’s Selective Service records? I doubt it would be more than a dozen. Even with this theory, that’s hardly “bombard[ing]” the guy with requests.
Yet, it is not Mr. Flahavan’s job to render such bias against a segment of American citizens. It is his job to fully and completely fulfill the job description to which he is assigned.
Wow. Could you imagine if you, HD, had this kind of a response from a government bureaucrat over an issue about which you fervently cared? I could only image how you would take that.
-Phil
Civis naturaliter natus
As far as I can tell, the objection to the school record is not that it is forged. It is that it is second (or third?) generation hearsay and of no evidentiary value whatsoever. It is the testimony of an unknown person recorded by an unknown person.
Obama would be no less than the third US President to have used a step father’s name without having been adopted. The other two are William Clinton and Gerald Ford. The use of Lolo Soetoro’s name is no evidence whatsoever of an adoption.
nyc conservative gal:
You seem to have not read the e-mail from the SSS themselves.
1. DLNs were changed in the run up to Y2K with the addition of a single digit to the original DLNs.
2. SSS DLNs never used sequences that had anything to do with calendar year in the first place.
Phil:
1. Too bad neither “Polarik” nor Lines have ever examined the document.
2. “Polarik” has never gone on record, period.
Phil:
Another, simpler and more obvious explanation is that he is sick and tired of being bombarded by Birthers regarding an issue that has already been settled. He has a first hand and authoritative basis for declaring the Birther claims “conspiracy theories” as he has direct and unfettered access to the truth.
The Birther claim regarding the Document Locator Numbers on the FOIA response is authoritatively refuted by his e-mail.
Forgive me for noting that this is little more than frustrated whining in the attempt to distract from the core fact that the SSS itself has directly debunked the Birther claim.
I am not sure if this my explain some issues with the whole selective service issue with President Obama but in 1979 there was no requirement to file with the Selective Service. From a link at the Department of Defense
“The end of the draft in 1973 didn’t end draft registration or the Selective Service System. Draft registration continued through 1975 and then restarted in 1980. By law, all young men must register with Selective Service upon turning 18.”
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=45102
So he may not have registered until he was 19 in 1980 or afterwards. Either way he would not technically be in violation of the statute. So maybe that is why the number may be a bit skewed. He may of not filled it out at 18. However without examining the actual document, whatever is stated is pure speculation.
sus,
Then you’re going to have to apologize again, because even that posting I wrote referenced another blogger who referenced the “Jumping in Pools” posting which subsequently led them to think more fully about the issue at hand, which is the general federal government take-over of large swaths of the American economy. Even the blogger from whom I directly posted excerpts specifically said this (which folks like you obviously and intentionally ignored).
Again, context is the name of the game; unfortunately for the American left, the ends justify the means.
-Phil
Civis naturaliter natus says: Greg, can you say that again in layman’s terms….you lost me after RIMS History….
Both versions have the computer screen shot included. Those screens shot have different headings. In other words that could be different software versions, or if one believes the first version a forgery then the heading is mis-typed.
But the DLN’s are the same. Except they do not reflect the actual document number printed in the upper right hand corner. I see a “5″ where the screens shots indicate an “8″
Black Lion,
Are you claiming that Barry’s school registration at the Franciscan Elementary School in Jakarta is forged?
What basis do you have to doubt that document, which has been in the public pervue for more than a year, and which no one previously has doubted as to its authenticity?
And if you apply those same principles of doubt of yours to the COLB or any other document, does that not put you in the patriots camp and set you up to doubt Zero?
Or is doubt only a legitimate tool in favor of Zero?
You contradict yourself with your comment.
Zero went by the name Barry Soetero in Jakarta: the school registration, as required by law, is prima facie evidence of the same. It is reasonably inferred, if we do not suppose Soetero Sr or Anne were liars or document forgers, that Barry was adopted and bore that name legally.
That he was a muslim.
That his parents presented him as born in HI.
As far as we may suppose, they may have even showed a document which claim Barry’s natural father was Soetero Sr., Obama Sr., or anyone else…but that is supposition not fact.
Apologies, Phil. I meant the “Jumping in Pools” satire piece. My mistake.
sus,
Site the specific posting where I did any such thing.
-Phil
Greg, can you say that again in layman’s terms….you lost me after RIMS History….
“If what you say in this pulled quote is true, then I suppose it’s no wonder there’s so much waste in government. After all, if the government is going to get dates wrong “as a matter of course” (my phrase), then what else are they going to get wrong?”
I don’t know Phil? We have already debunked the whole Selective Service thing. Yet, you run it. Again.
You ran the April Fool Hoax article.
What else will you get wrong? Sloppy? How hard would it have been to google the Hoax story? How hard to verify?
syc1959 says:
June 8, 2009 at 11:32 pm
Question that I have posted elsewhere. Why would Barack Obama sign up for the Selective service in 1980? When his Kenyan citizenship expired in 1982, two years later? and one year after his trip to Pakistan [on what passport]. As a foreign exchange student, Obama was NOT required to sign up, nor at this time, was using his legal name – Barry Obama aka Barry Soetoro. We do have the divorce papers from that time period, not the Obama/Durham divorce papers, but the Soetoro/Durham divorce papers [just clarifing to keep the Obot's from trying to confuse the issue]
Hence another false trail.
Where to start. Let us take every falsue point one at a time…
According to the law, all US males are required to sign up for the Selective Service at the age of 18 or after, so that is why he did it.
Where is the proof that Obama was ever a citizen of Kenya? Have you seen some proof that he was born there? Becuase unless he was born in Kenya, he could not be a citizen of Kenya. Unless you are claiming citizenship through his father and the Supreme Court has already ruled that a minor cannot lose his US citizenship through possible dual citizenship.
Pakistan, another birhter falsehood. There was NO US Travel Ban to Pakistan. You could travel there as a US citizen in 1981.
Where is the proof that he was a “foreign exchange student”? Since the COLB shows that he was born in HI, that makes no sense.
Where is the proof that he was ever known as Barry Soetero? That is another birther falsehood. On one unauthenticated document was ever produced that showed that he went by that name, and that same document shows that he was born in Honolulu. Secondly no where was it ever shown that he was adopted by Soetero and that was his legal name. Throughout his school time in HI, he was knows a Barry Obama. The divorce papers do not designate children, just dependents and does not prove that Soetero ever adopted Obama.
The only false trail is that you are reintorducing evidence that has already been proved to be false. Amazing.
Regarding the comment about different DLN numbers for the same document, this is an issue as far as I am concerned. I am an accountant and have had over 20 years of experience with government beaurocracies.
First, when it comes to the government, the left hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing. One could call them many times with the same question, and get different answers. [This is why big government running our lives is a very bad idea].
Second, and more importantly, is the DLN. With any government agency using DLN’s, a DLN is assigned to a document, and that is the number that remains as a unique identification for that document for it’s entire existence. Otherwise, with all the millions of documents on file, no one there would be able to find anything. Also, the DLN’s are conseceutive in assignment, for audit purposes. A number is not randomly assigned and out of sequence. Therefore, a DLN assigned would not be changed, and the sequence of numbers utilized in the 1970s would in no way be within a sequence for 2008.
If you ask me, this whole things just smells. If it were just one document that were missing from BHO’s past, ok. But the fact that he has not shown any original documents and gone through great lengths and expense to avoid doing so, just tells me that he has something big to hide, no matter what it is. I suspect he didn’t think it would gain any momentum, and he thought he could bury it under a rug. But now I think of the phrase….”what a tangled web we weave from which we practice to deceive”……if he didn’t have anything to hide, he would have shown the original documents last year when requested, and any doubts would have been resolved. All the folks here who keep making excuses for BHO, just don’t want to open their eyes and admit that there is a legitimate doubt that when someone refuses to be open with the truth that they have something to hide. It is human nature, and the Obots need to admit that BHO is actually human as far as I can tell.
Pete says:
June 9, 2009 at 8:12 am
” There just isn’t enough verifiable data on Obama, and what is available is conflicted. ”
There is more information available about Barack Obama than any other President in history. The only information that is conflicted is the unsubstantiated speculations, innuendos and inferences fabricated by the “he’s not eligible”ers.
The system screens are different. One is titled RIMS History Inquiry Screen and the second is Registrant File Inquiry Report. The DLN numbers on the screen shot show an 8 in the middle but in the upper right hand coner that number seems to be a 5. If it were and 8 it would appaer the same as the first 8 in the sequence.
Pete,
Of course, and this is something that has been true ever since Ms. Lines and Dr. Polarik weighted in via their affidavits, the only document examiners that have actually gone on record concerning the eligibility issue.
-Phil
sus,
If what you say in this pulled quote is true, then I suppose it’s no wonder there’s so much waste in government. After all, if the government is going to get dates wrong “as a matter of course” (my phrase), then what else are they going to get wrong?
Even beyond that, why accept such sloppy bookkeeping on the part of the government?
Then again, I think you’re giving way too much leeway to there being things that while possible could have occurred, likely have not occurred in the manner in which you speak.
Obviously Mr. Flahavan has a dog in this race, as it were. And maybe I’m wrong about your suggestion that the government is this sloppy. After all, if some bureaucrat is taking an exceptionally biased position on something as simple as a Selective Service registration card, what other kinds of corruption on the “bigger issues” would there be?
Mr. Flahavan’s job is to produce documentation per any legitimate request that comes his department’s way; it is not his job to provide editorial commentary on said requests. It unfairly biases what he produces and calls into question his own motives for overseeing his responsibilities.
That’s scary no matter what political leanings one has.
-Phil
Phil,
I followed this item for almost a year. The selective service registration has items that strongly suggest forgery, but the author and I agree that the lack of documentation prevents gaining the truth. However, the irregularities in the SS documentation and the almost impossibility of the birth announcement address, combined with ‘alterations’ in the original released Obama COLB, suggest as widespread disinformation and forgery of the past. Should Obama allow verification of documents such as his registration in colleges and Harvard law, these items would have been put to rest.
In reference to our New Age Birthers, who want the truth, I would advise now that the truth can only be obtained by review of original documents in an independent investigation. There just isn’t enough verifiable data on Obama, and what is available is conflicted. Echoing what I have said for months, the person holding the big Nuclear Trigger needs to have some verifiable documentation and history. I hold that truth to be self evident.
THE article should read Statute 338-17.8 NOT 338-71.8.
Read or Glance at many of the Laws on Hawaii Statutes:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0578/HRS_0578-.htm
or complete list of laws
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov (search HRS0338)
Dan,NY
I believe the “Statute” in the article above should be 338-17.8,
NOT 338-71.8.
HR 338-17.8
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0017_0008.htm
also see:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0578/HRS_0578-.htm
or complete list of laws
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov (search HRS0338)
or
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/
Dan,NY
“Native Born” should not be cofused with “Natural Born”.
One could be “native born” to “parent’s” or “parent” who are
NOT u.s. citizen’s which make’s a child NOT “natural born”
To be “natural born” BOTH PARENT’S must be u.s. citizen’s with
no alligance to another country.
If a “natural born” citizen change’s alligance to another country,
such as Indonesia, the citizen loses “natural born” status and
can only become a “naturalized” citizen after swearing an Oath
to the proper Official’s. The person would not be eligible to
be President under Article II, section I, clause 5.
Dan,NY
Native Born (jus soil) is merely born on the soil.
The discrepancies between the two FOIA supplied documents is glaring.
In addition to those already noted, I would point out that each FOIA supplied print out has the same date
09/09/08
Are we actually to believe that on Sept. 9, 2008, and not after, when the new FOIA request was made: someone printed out this document and the attatched textual information relating to it?
That means, that when the new FOIA request was made, they merely fotocopied a paper print out or copy from the previous one?
But if they did, there would be no discrepancies with the text generated report. And there are…
Is this a case of one of these being the true print out, and the other a print out made after the data on file was modified by someone on Sept. 9, 2008?
As for the stamps: I try to keep an open mind. They look like a 1980 stamp, which was operating badly or inked poorly. I have seen Govt. offices give me blank forms already stamped the same day or previous day. They do so to avoid having to stamp them at the end of the day, which would prolong their shift, or to avoid wasting forms that they stamped the previous day. So I put no particular emphasis on the stamp.
The question is why is the registration number different?
Finally, I remember that when I registered in those same years, all you needed to register was a photo id and a SSN card. I do not remember ever been asked for a BC or passport. In fact I did not have a passport then…
“Yes, and the link with the new FOIA proves the numbers on the registration form and the computer printout agree. Coffman’s accusation of a forgery have been disproven by both this second request and Flavahan’s letter (see below).
Coffman received a “RIMS History Inquiry Screen” printout requested on 09/09/08. That is the present database information, where the DLN number has been updated as shown (with 80 as the first two digits) as explained in a letter from Richard S. Flahavan, Associate Director, Public and Intergovernmental Affairs, Selective Service System National Headquarters.
The recent William FOIA request shows an older computer printout, from 06/25/91, that shows the original 1980 DLN number, which agrees with the registration form. This printout was called a “Registry Inquiry File Report”, and has some different fields of information since it was the 1991 format, not the 2008 format. It is a historical record, also retrieved on 09/09/08, with the historical locater box.
There is no discrepancy in the DLN’s when you know the history of the DLN numbering system used by the Selective Service. The other questions (1. – 3.) above are simply because a different data request format was sent to Coffman and William. Had the Selective Service sent Coffman the older format in 2008, he would have had no case at all.
“Why is the stamp date, one day before Obama supposedly signed the Registration Form??? Government agencies stamp forms after receiving them, not before.”
Two possibilities – young Obama entered the wrong date on his form, in this case one day off in the future, OR the postal employee used a round stamp that had not been updated to the correct date.
I suspect it was the post office’s fault. These round stamps must be updated manually by pulling the prior rubber type out and placing in the correct date every morning before the post office opens. Sometimes even government employees screw up and forget to change every round stamp. I’ve had that happen to me at the P.O., except I caught the stamp date error and made the postal worker change the stamp to the right date. In any case, it’s simple human error.
You all realize that round stamps with USPO were used up to the 1990’s, even though the post office became the USPS in 1972. They kept using the older round stamps until they wore out, and only then replaced them with USPS stamps. Many examples have been posted on the internet. Strike out another Coffman/Schlussel false assumption.
Of course Orly Taitz continues to spread the Coffman accusations even though everything in them has been explained, and the Coffman/Schlussel accusations debunked.
E-mail from the Selective Service in response to DLN number discrepancy:
Dear Mr. Arduini:
Facts will never trump speculation by conspiracy theorists. But the reality is the following:
a. The 10-character Document Locator Number (DLN) was placed on Selective Service Registration Forms beginning prior to the establishment of our current Data Management Center on 31 August 1981.
b. Prior to 1981, the DLN configuration was different from what is used today.
c. At that time when Mr. Obama registered, the first three characters (089) indicated that the form was keyed in by one of the contract keying centers – in this case 089 equated to the Internal Revenue Service.
d. Later, an 11th digit was added to the DLN just prior to Y2K to differentiate another decade.
Thus, the first three characters of the DLN do NOT represent the year the form was keyed into the SSS registrant database, despite what some may hold dear.
Richard S. Flahavan
Associate Director, Public and Intergovernmental Affairs
Selective Service System National Headquarters
rflahavan@sss.gov“
Question that I have posted elsewhere. Why would Barack Obama sign up for the Selective service in 1980? When his Kenyan citizenship expired in 1982, two years later? and one year after his trip to Pakistan [on what passport]. As a foreign exchange student, Obama was NOT required to sign up, nor at this time, was using his legal name – Barry Obama aka Barry Soetoro. We do have the divorce papers from that time period, not the Obama/Durham divorce papers, but the Soetoro/Durham divorce papers [just clarifing to keep the Obot's from trying to confuse the issue]
Hence another false trail.