Who is lying, and who is telling the truth?

WHY ARE THE STATE DEPARTMENT AND GSA SAYING DIFFERENT THINGS ABOUT PASSPORT RECORDS?

by Sharon Rondeau

The purpose of the GSA is "to help manage and support the basic functioning of federal agencies"

(Sept. 9, 2010) — Mr. Christopher Strunk had filed a FOIA request late in 2008 for the passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro. When he was denied the records, he filed a request for a Writ of Mandamus with Supreme Court Associate Justice  Ruth Bader Ginsberg asking for a “Temporary Restraining Order under 28 USC §1651 of the New York Electoral College pending issuance of an order by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia of records demanded of the U.S. Department of State under the Verified Complaint and Petition for Writ of Mandamus under F.O.I.A…”

Strunk later filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Washington, DC on January 5, 2009, which eventually yielded some of the records he had requested on July 29, 2010.

There is a 30-day appeal period for FOIA information recipients. Regarding appeals of FOIA decisions, the Department of Justice states:

In order to appeal a denial, promptly send a letter to the agency. Most agencies require that appeals be made within 30 to 60 days after the denial. The denial letter should tell you the office to which your appeal letter should be addressed. For the quickest possible handling, you should mark both your appeal letter and the envelope “Freedom of Information Act Appeal.”

Simply ask the agency to review your FOIA request and its denial decision. It is a good idea also to give your reason(s) for believing that the denial was wrong. Be sure to refer to any pertinent communications you have had with the agency on the request and include any tracking number the agency may have assigned to your request. It can save time in acting on your appeal if you include copies of your FOIA request and the agency’s denial letter. You do not need to enclose copies of any documents released to you. Under the FOIA, the agency has 20 working days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and federal holidays) to decide your appeal. Under certain circumstances, agencies may extend the deadline for responding to your appeal by up to 10 working days. At some agencies, as with initial requests, some appeals may take longer to decide.

What can I do if my appeal is denied?

If the agency denies your appeal, or does not respond within the statutory time period, you may file a lawsuit. You can file a FOIA lawsuit in the U.S. District Court where you live, where you have your principal place of business, where the documents are kept, or in the District of Columbia. In court, the agency will have to prove that any withheld information is covered by one of the exemptions or exclusions listed in the FOIA or is prohibited from release by some other law. If you win a substantial portion of your case, the court may require the government to pay your court costs and reasonable attorney fees.

Mr. Strunk filed an appeal of the FOIA decision on August 25, 2010 which includes the affidavit of Mr. William Richardson, who related his story to The Post & Email below.  The affidavit concerns a statement made by a State Department employee to Mr. Strunk in a letter dated July 29, 2010 which accompanied the FOIA release.  In an attempt to explain why some records had not been released, the letter stated,“Many passport applications and other non-vital records from that period were destroyed during the 1980s in accordance with guidance from the General Services Administration.”

On August 9, 2010, Strunk filed a Supplemental Declaration to his appeal which alleged that no such directive was ever issued by the GSA as well as “a pattern of misstatements by DOS to the Court and Congress contrary to 18 USC §1001(2)” and ” That DOS in the matter of destroying documents must show this Court that by a specific directive of Congress that it has authority to destroy documents in contravention to the express mandate of Congress.”

Mr. Richardson decided to investigate the statement about the alleged GSA directive for himself. With his background in quantitative analysis, he wanted to find out why the GSA might have ordered passport records “destroyed” when the website of the National Archives states that they are maintained for at least 100 years.

Mr. Richardson provided a signed affidavit which was included with Strunk’s appeal to the State Department’s release of records.  Here Mr. Richardson related to The Post & Email the chronology and results of his investigation.

MRS. RONDEAU: Mr. Richardson, tell us about your investigation and what you did with the information you gathered.

MR. RICHARDSON: The Post & Email had published an article about Mr. Strunk’s FOIA request which included the letter from the State Department explaining why certain information hadn’t been released. I read through it, and there was something that didn’t seem right. Given my background, something really bothered me about it. It wasn’t the information that people were alleging as to why the information might have been missing and the possible ramifications of it. What was really perturbing to me was the cover letter itself. It seemed that the State Department was blaming the GSA for their lack of information, if you will, and not having the information requested in the FOIA. So I decided to do some research on that.

I contacted the GSA on August 2, and the GSA was very quick to respond. First I received an automated response, and the very next day, I received an email from them stating that they were trying to get in touch with the right person to answer the question for me. I’ll send all of that to you. This is all listed in the affidavit with day-by-day email  and phone call responses.

In any event, I was first asked to file a FOIA request. I had asked for all the GSA directives from January 1, 1980 to December 31, 1989.

MRS. RONDEAU: Because that covers the entire decade of the 1980s based on the statement in the letter?

MR. RICHARDSON: That is correct. So I asked for all records that pertained to the retention program, the destruction, or what they would retain within that time period. I then received an email from the Program Management Officer, Elizabeth Kelley, stating that I would need to file a FOIA.

Instead of filing a FOIA, I called her because her contact information had been on the email. What she had told me was that she didn’t fully understand my request, and so I explained it to her again over the phone. When I had conducted and researched everything and I got the final resolution, I said, “This has to go somewhere.” So I had an intermediary forward it to Mr. Strunk.

What I found out is that the GSA has never given a directive to the U.S. State Department of how to handle U.S. Citizen passports.

MRS. RONDEAU: Did they actually come and say, “We never gave any such directive?”

MR. RICHARDSON: Oh, absolutely. It’s documented, in my hands, and contained in emails, and the GSA’s directives are a matter of public information and are on the GSA website.

The chronology of events is as follows:

On August 2, my question was acknowledged. On August 3, they were trying to find me someone to answer my question, which was the Office of Communication and Marketing. On August 11, I spoke in person, for the first time, with Elizabeth Kelley, and she clarified my request. On August 12, there were several emails back and forth.

When I contacted the GSA, I explained to her that the State Department was saying that the GSA gave a directive back in the 1980s, but not saying which one it was, that caused them to destroy records, and she was fanatic about it. Her exact words were, “You’re the second person who has called this week, and I am trying to get in touch with our attorneys. They are looking to the U.S. State Department to find out exactly why they’re blaming us and sending everybody over to our area.”

MRS. RONDEAU: Are you saying that they were taken by surprise?

MR. RICHARDSON: Exactly.

MRS. RONDEAU: I think many people found it surprising that the General Services Administration would have issued a “directive” to destroy passport records when the National Archives website states that passport records from 1925 and forward are maintained by the State Department.

MR. RICHARDSON: Before it became the NARA, the National Archives was part of the GSA.  It was established in 1949, and in 1985 the NA broke off from the GSA and was renamed NARA.  So now they’re completely separate divisions of the government in regard to reporting.  And the U.S. State Department is separate, just like the U.S. Department of Agriculture or Education.

However, the GSA is saying that the statement in the cover letter to Mr. Strunk is absolutely not true.  Everything that the GSA has done in a directive is not only a matter of public record; they post it on their website; but the GSA, as Ms. Kelley has said, does not in any way post anything pertaining to a passport other than that which applies to its own employees.  Its retention program and destruction of application program pertains only to their employees, not to the public at large.  So in speaking with the program management officer, who was in complete shock that I was saying this, she said, “We issue directives about the passports issued to GSA employees only.  That’s it.  We have done that since 1949 to the present.  It doesn’t pertain to your passport, Mr. Richardson; it doesn’t pertain to anyone else’s passport; only our employees’ passports.  The retention program, the destruction of the original application was implemented in 1985, but it applied only to our own employees.”

MRS. RONDEAU: So they do order the destruction of passport applications of their own employees?

MR. RICHARDSON: Yes.

MRS. RONDEAU: Does it appear to you that the letter from the State Department was deceiving in that it obliquely referred to destruction of passport application records, but not to members of the general public, presumably including Stanley Ann Dunham?

MR. RICHARDSON: Yes, because of a GSA directive, which is false.  Unless Stanley Ann worked for the GSA, then the directive would not have included her.

MRS. RONDEAU: Is it possible that she worked for the GSA and her passport application therefore fell under that directive?

MR. RICHARDSON: That is a question I cannot answer, because it would depend on what happened before 1965.  Because if you look back from 1965 when you filed your original application, that original application prior to 1985 meant that you had to have worked for the GSA.  On the cover letter, it said “GSA;” it didn’t say NA, NARA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the CIA, or any other independent agency; it said “GSA.”

MRS. RONDEAU: Did the GSA exist under that name in 1985?

MR. RICHARDSON: Yes, it has existed since 1949.  If you use reasonable deduction analysis, given that there was a renewal of Stanley Ann’s passport in 1965, then in 1960, she would have been 17 years old.  Now I don’t know if anybody at 17 or 18 years old would be employed at the GSA while going to school.

MRS. RONDEAU: It would appear very unlikely.

MR. RICHARDSON: Absolutely.  So the whole point of this is to provide my research in a sworn affidavit to Mr. Strunk and Mr. Ken Allen, and to say, “Look, you guys need to get in touch with an FOIA attorney because the State Department is absolutely misstating or lying.  Because the GSA has never, ever told the U.S. State Department how they need to handle passports.  I have the emails and policies and everything else to prove that.

When I got in touch with Chris Strunk, I told him, “You need to do the same research I did, and here are the number, the person you need to get in touch with, and the policy.”  But Chris said, “I don’t have time for that, because I have only four or five days left before the end of my allowed response time.”  Then he asked me if I would sign an affidavit swearing to what I had learned, and I agreed.

Initially, I wanted him to do the research; I did not want to be involved with it.  But with the time line closing in on him, because he had only 30 days to respond from the release, there wouldn’t have been enough time to do it himself.  It took me two weeks.  So he asked if I would sign a sworn affidavit under penalty of perjury, and I said, “Absolutely, I’ll go ahead and do that since you’re under time constraints.”

So I did that and sent it all off; he took it to Washington, DC himself and hand-delivered it to the court.  It is now there, plus I had to send him the notarized original under penalty of perjury.  The whole point is to compel the court to have the State Department come forward and certify a true copy of what they allege was the GSA directive from the 1980s  which would have looked something like “CV5-1347-1985:  We, the GSA, ordered the State Department to do ‘this’…”, which of course, does not exist.  I know that now; Chris knows that now; the judge knows that now, and the State Department is caught in quite a pickle.

Hopefully, it will force the State Department to support its own allegations of the destruction of the requested passport documents in the FOIA.  They’re going to have to specifically say the date, the time; everything.

This is why it stuck out at me so strongly:  In manufacturing operations, when I point out where they’re losing money, the quality deviations and things of that nature, I always get the response, “If it’s the upstream department’s fault, then  I can’t do anything.”  And I’ve seen one department blame another for things.  So when I saw this broad stroke of a brush on the part of the State Department, it was an eye-opener.

MRS. RONDEAU: So that begs the question, “Why would someone from the State Department have said that?”  which I imagine you can’t answer.

MR. RICHARDSON: I believe it’s a simple thing, the same thing we do in the private sector:  to blame someone else for the lack of information to simply do what you need to do.

MRS. RONDEAU: I know this is conjecture, but could the reason the State Department gave the answer it did to Mr. Strunk be because there is something in Stanley Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro’s passport records from before 1965 that they don’t want the public to see?

MR. RICHARDSON: Absolutely, and without doubt.  There is no reason, just as in my professional experience, why someone would come to you and paint such a broad stroke with a brush, stating that I cannot do something and blame somebody else and give such a deviated account.  That’s just passing the buck.

MRS. RONDEAU: It makes one wonder why at least some of her records from 1965 and after were available, but none before that time, and the information just so happens to be from the time her son was allegedly born.

MR. RICHARDSON: I’m a very quantitative-driven person.  I am not a conspiracy theorist; I deal with engineers in manufacturing operations.  My opinion is that if you’re going to blame someone else, show me the data.  You cannot come to me and ask me to put in for a $1,000,000 capital funding expenditure to expand your equipment without your first showing me the data.  Don’t tell me that it’s somebody else’s fault.  I can’t go to the vice president of operations and ask for $1,000,000 and tell him that somewhere during this decade, there was something that went wrong.  That’s just not going to work; it’s a cop-out.

MRS. RONDEAU: The State Department did not enclose any proof with their letter supporting the statement.  The Post & Email has also submitted a FOIA request on the same issue and has received no response at all.

MR. RICHARDSON: I had many conversations with Ms. Kelley on the same day, and she expressed to me, “Why in the world would the State Department say this?” and she told me point-blank:  “We are in touch with our attorneys trying to find out why the State Department is telling people to contact me.”  So they’re frantic and trying to figure out why the State Department is saying this.  It appeared to me that everyone was starting to call them, and they had no idea what was going on.

MRS. RONDEAU: So that might indicate that the person who signed the letter to Chris Strunk was not telling the truth.

MR. RICHARDSON: Absolutely, which also carries an eight-year prison sentence if the judge decides to do that.  Chris sent me the information on that.  It’s an eight-year prison sentence, but the person could come clean and give the exact directive of which he’s accusing the GSA of having made, which at that point in time appears not to have existed.  So they’re going to have to come up with some other excuse.

MRS. RONDEAU: Sometimes they say the cover-up is worse than the crime. If they’re trying to protect Obama by refusing to release his mother’s passport records because he might be “embarrassed” by the information, then they could be committing crimes.

MR. RICHARDSON: Again, I’m not much on qualitative data, so I don’t read a lot into it.  With my training in engineering, I’m a very quantitative person.  As human beings, we tend to over-analyze things, and it can be misleading.  Sometimes the answer is looking right at you.  My whole point is for the truth to come out.

MRS. RONDEAU: The fact that you received a response from the GSA is excellent, because I cannot get one.

MR. RICHARDSON: Well, you probably can’t now because you’re probably three weeks too late!  I can only make an assumption, but the State Department is probably in touch with the GSA saying, “Keep your mouth shut.  Force them to file a FOIA.”

The following is the email exchange between Mr. Richardson and GSA personnel:

Sender          :William Richardson
Tracking Number : T201008020027Z1047934
Pool            : GSA.gov
Sent to         : gsa.gov@mail.fedinfo.gov
Date            : 8/2/2010 10:44:38 AM
———————————————————–

Failed search and need assistance. I am seaching for all GSA directives pertaining to passports from Jan. 1980 to Dec. 1989. These directives would include but not limited to, policy retention changes, management and handling of passport records, destruction of passport records policy, derived from the GSA during the aformentioned time frame. You may send me the link for such review and/or email me the GSA Directives pertaining to the said date and timeframe requested. Sincerely, William [FORMGEN]
The GSA initial response was:

From: <gsa.gov1@mail.fedinfo.gov>
Date: Aug 2, 2010 10:44 AM
Subject: Auto-Acknowledgement from gsa.gov [T201008020027]
To:  William Richardson

Dear GSA.gov Visitor,

Thank you for contacting GSA. The GSA.gov Response Team will reply to your e-mail message within two business days.

If you contact GSA regarding your message, please include this unique message ID number: T201008020027.

Please do not reply to this e-mail. Inquiries or additional messages are accepted only from the response form on the gsa.gov website:

http://www.gsa.gov/contactus/

If you prefer, call the National Contact Center at 1.800.FED.INFO (1.800.333.4636), Monday through Friday,
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. eastern time.

GSA helps federal agencies better serve citizens by offering, at best value, superior workplaces, expert solutions, acquisition services, and management policies.

GSA appreciates your inquiry.

Regards,
GSA.gov Response Team

and Mr. Richardson replied:

From:  William Richardson
Date: Aug 3, 2010 12:32 PM
Subject: Re: your inquiry
To: <eleni.martin@gsa.gov>

Thankyou Eleni,

I was having difficulty identifying the approprate department for my request as it is not listed on the GSA website.

If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.

Thank you for your continued efforts.

William

to which the GSA responded:

From: eleni.martin@gsa.gov
Date: Aug 3, 2010 10:24 AM
Subject: your inquiry
To:  William Richardson

Greetings, I wanted to let you know that I am trying to find someone who can answer your questions about directives.

Then Ms. Elizabeth Kelley, mentioned above, responded:

From: <elizabeth.kelley@gsa.gov>
Date: Aug 3, 2010 3:47 PM
Subject: Your request for information from GSA
To:  William Richardson

Good afternoon, Mr. Richardson — Ms. Eleni Martin forwarded your request to me — I apologize for the delay in responding to your e-mail.  To respond to the questions in your e-mail, we will need you to submit them as a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the following e-mail address: On-Line FOIA Request. If you’d rather fax us, you can fax your request to (202) 501-2727 (or you may also write to us by regular mail at the address below.

Please state that the request is being made under the Freedom of Information Act and include your name, address and sufficient contact information so that we may contact you if there is any clarification needed about your request. FOIA requests may, themselves, be made available for public inspection (including through responses to FOIA requests). Accordingly, please do not submit information regarding trade secrets, confidential or proprietary commercial or financial information, or other information that you do not want to be made available to the public.

Thank you and please let us know if you need any further assistance.  Beth Kelley (202) 208-2963

Submitting FOIAs via regular postal mail:

General Services Administration
FOIA Requester Service Center (ADE)
1800 F Street, NW, Room 6001
Washington, DC 20405
(202) 501-2727 Fax
EFOIA: gsa.foia@gsa.gov

Elizabeth I. Kelley
Program Management Officer
Office of Program Performance (CD)
Office of the Chief People Officer (C)
General Services Administration
1800 F Street, N.W., Room 3133
Washington, D.C.  20405
Phone:  (202) 208-2963
Blackberry: (202) 527-3040
Fax:  (202) 219-1141
e-mail:  Elizabeth.Kelley@gsa.gov

Mr. Richardson then replied to Ms. Kelley:

From: “william richardson”
Date: Aug 12, 2010 12:21 PM
Subject: Thank you Beth,
To: <Elizabeth.Kelley@gsa.gov>

I dearly thank you for your time and responces Beth.

I may have one last question after reviewing the NARA site and policies.

As you stated (if I understood correctly), the GSA only deals with passports and policies pertaining to GSA employees, and not the general public at large.

Having said that, my review of the NARA link you provided, also states that the passport policy for them pertains to NARA Employees only.  This would be similar to the GSA, employees only, within their branch of government and not to the U.S. citizens public, or non-NARA employees.

Is this the same interpretation that you have derived?

Thanks again Beth

William

and Ms. Kelley replied:

From: <elizabeth.kelley@gsa.gov>
Date: Aug 12, 2010 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: Thank you Beth,
To:  William Richardson

Hi William — you are correct — that NARA regulation pertained to NARA employees, but the general records retention schedules provided by NARA to all federal agencies are the same as these.

I think I found the reference to the “100 years” that you were mentioning.  In the attached website (http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/07/breaking-stanley-ann-dunhamobamasoetoro.html), the Departrment of State says “many passport records were destroyed in the 1980s per guidance by GSA”.  That was the time period that the National Archives was under GSA (before they became a separate agency in 1985).  On that website, a “Note” (above the State letter) says that “according to government regulaton, passport files and records must be retained for 100 years” and it gives the following website: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/96122.pdf.  I couldn’t open that pdf file, so not sure what that is linked to!

http://www.gsa.gov/portal/category/26564

Elizabeth I. Kelley
Program Management Officer
Office of Program Performance (CD)
Office of the Chief People Officer (C)
General Services Administration
1800 F Street, N.W., Room 3133
Washington, D.C.  20405
Phone:  (202) 208-2963
Blackberry: (202) 527-3040
Fax:  (202) 219-1141
e-mail: Elizabeth.Kelley@gsa.gov

Page 1 of William Richardson's affidavit
Page 2 of William Richardson's Affidavit. There are 19 pages in total.

35 Responses to "Who is lying, and who is telling the truth?"

  1. Bill Gerard   Sunday, September 12, 2010 at 10:27 PM

    @Broseph,

    The Schengen passport is the new diplomatic passport. The visa was issued in Jan 2009 so the passport had to be issued at that time ( Plus it has on the last page that he is the President of the United States ). The other passport was issued in March ( year unknown ). An interesting thing about the biometric. You see the symbol on the cover of the diplomatic passport ( the Schengen one ). They never show the cover of the other passport. If it is was issued earlier than 2007 ( his Senate one for example ), then it wouldn’t have the symbol on the cover – another indicator that it is not the photopage of the new diplomatic passport. So they are showing the entry stamps from his current new diplomatic passport, but not the photopage with the personal info on it. For that , they are showing a passport that was issued in March ( or even May ) of some year. So there is something on the perosnal page of the new diplomatic passport that they don’t want to be seen

    Reply
    1. Broseph Maine   Monday, September 13, 2010 at 5:48 PM

      Or, and we do have to be honest about the possibilities, they showed the Passport with the March or May issuance (it would have to be 2008, btw, because August 2007 was the last non-biometric and this has the look of a new one) because IT said Hawaii and that was the point of this whole escapade. I guess this would mean one is personal and one is diplomatic, and he travels on the diplomatic.

      I don’t know, but can’t that explain it?

      Reply
      1. Bill Gerard   Monday, September 13, 2010 at 10:15 PM

        Sure. Technically, you can only use a diplomatic passport when traveling on official government business and you have to use your personal when on private. But lets face it, no matter where he travels overseas, it is technically official.

        But that is the whole point. They are showing two separate passports and trying to pass it off as one. You are right. They are showing the March or May one for the closeup because it says Hawaii. Hence the blurring of the dates ( especially the year. We all know he was sworn in in 2009 ). They couldn’t explain that away One can only surmise why they didn’t show the photopage from the diplomatic one if it had the same info on it. It would be much easier than all the editing they had to do in the video. Obviously, there is a piece of info on there that doesn’t match their story.

        Reply
    2. Broseph Maine   Thursday, September 16, 2010 at 6:41 PM

      Or the diplomatic personal page shows nothing and they just wanted to show the personal passport. Why would the diplomatic one show anything?

      The only question that remains, really, is the blurring … hmmm

      Reply
  2. Bill Gerard   Sunday, September 12, 2010 at 2:17 AM

    @Broseph
    You said :
    “Perhaps his real passport DOES NOT say HAWAII under place of birth, while ever since becoming president (his diplomatic one) it does?”

    I think it may be the other way around. They are not showing the photopage on the diplomatic passport. The other passport that they show the closeup of his photo, there is no telling if that is a personal one, or his old Senate passport. One thing I noticed is when they show the closeup of his picture, they NEVER show the full passport. That is significant since if it was an old expired one, the bottom right hand corner would be clipped off ( which we never see that part )

    Reply
    1. Broseph Maine   Sunday, September 12, 2010 at 12:17 PM

      Yeah, I may be confusing things. I’m not sure. — but I just re-read and you seem to be correct. How are we distinguishing the two different passports? The one with the Schengen Visa is the old “Senate” diplomatic passport? Is this new one (Presidential) still not “diplomatic”? I guess I’m just asking more detailed questions which we probably don’t know.

      The editing of the video is so obvious and substantial it is ridiculous. It is SUPER choppy at the point where the analyzer talks about the change from 1/100s frame. It’s almost a half second edit, easily, and just blatantly bad given that this is the meat of what they are trying to prove (ie He’s legit).

      I can’t even make a hypothesis, though, I’m so confused now.

      I guess right now all we know is that the Schengen was probably an old senate diplomatic passport (on which it was affixed). The other passport is of unknown origin but was issued in March of some year.

      I just reviewed passport changes since I last asked for one that was issued in late 2007. It was after August 2007, when the last passport was “non-biometric”. His March issue could not have been from earlier than 2007, because it is the new e-passport, the biometric (the one I have). So it was likely created in 2009 or even this year. Why? Why wouldn’t he have been traveling on his senate diplomatic earlier? We already know he was (the Schengen Visa one).

      So, what does this tell us? The diplomatic passport has something on it, or not on it, that leads most probably to a conclusion they don’t want us to know about.

      Just to cover all the possibilities, what if they are just showing his “old” diplomatic passport to show that he traveled, period. And he doesn’t travel on the new one, possibly? I guess that gets us back to … why does the president not have a passport he can travel on within 1-2 months after being president … he has to travel on his old senate diplomatic one?

      Yes, given all the editing and hiding, that is indeed a valid question.

      This likely is huge.

      Reply
  3. Bill Gerard   Saturday, September 11, 2010 at 11:21 PM

    Something new was added to the passport page since I last viewed it. It is about the editing they did on the video ( at the bottom of the page )

    Reply
  4. William1   Saturday, September 11, 2010 at 4:20 PM

    Seizethecrap,

    Allow me to explain it in this manner. First, Chris Strunk is absolutely correct when he states that time will tell, ie., on 9/16 from their response. Who knows what they will say or claim, it is not a predictor.

    We do know that the State Dept. Will not be able to claim its the GSA’s fault we destroyed records not released in the FOIA as they initially claimed, that’s now a proven fact. They either misstated or outright lied, either way, it is not without reason.

    As for my comments on a renewal; that part is pure speculation and an opinion whether or not it was a renewal. I do know from reasonable analysis that the 1965 passport was not the beginning. What year applied prior too that is unknown, at this time. (Reason I dislike qualitative data, too much room for margin of error).

    According to the cover letter from the State dept, they stated “We did not locate a 1965 passport application referenced in an application for “amendment” of passport that is included in the released documents.”

    What they have just said, qualitatively speaking, is yes, Chris, we are giving you the 1965 passport, but there was a reference to the 1965 passport application whereby it was an “amendment”, and unfortunately, we cannot locate the prior recorded passport showing what it was amended from.

    The U.S. Dept in the next paragraph, then supports its own allegations for not having an amended passport prior to the realeased 1965 passport, “Many passport applications and other non-vital records from that period (1960’s) were destroyed during the 1980’s in “Accordance with Guidance” (emphasis mine) from the General Services Administration (GSA).

    Now certainly we can speculate if the 1965 passport, which was an amendment, could be for various reasons. A name change, a change of address, a marriage, relocation from one State to Another or even a Country. It could have shortly before a renewal, or even the renewal itself, but needed amended for other various reasons.

    The short truth is we know this. The State Dept. was not truthful in blaming the GSA. The 1965 passport was a result of an amendment (meaning one existed prior to, otherwise could not amend).

    I hope this answers some of your questions.

    Reply
    1. Broseph Maine   Saturday, September 11, 2010 at 7:08 PM

      William, do you have any thoughts on the analysis of the “passport(s)” from the West Wing video by the link below?

      http://www.whpassfraud.cjb.net/

      Speculation is just impossible these days. Everything seems possible:

      1) S. Armour is the real dad
      2) Obama really isn’t “black”
      3) Born in any number of countries, we don’t know for sure

      If the passport analysis is right, and it seems it is, the “hidden” information would seemingly have little or nothing to do with parents, since those aren’t on a passport

      Perhaps his real passport DOES NOT say HAWAII under place of birth, while ever since becoming president (his diplomatic one) it does?

      What does it say, then? What could possibly be damning in a passport BUT that?

      Reply
      1. William1   Sunday, September 12, 2010 at 6:01 AM

        Broseph Maine,

        Thanks for the video link. I reviewed the analysis made here in the video and walked away with the similar question. Why block out non-relative data, its not logical?

        However, there is always a logical reason behind non-logical actions! It is true, that correlation does not prove causations, it depends on the measured strength of the correlation, but it begs the question, why do that unless you know there is a strong relationship of the date issued and expires?

        Anyone that has children, especially teens, can think of many examples of the question above.

        Reply
    2. Seizethecarp   Sunday, September 12, 2010 at 11:27 AM

      William1:

      My reading is that the “application for amendment of passport” referred to in the cover letter is the same application for amendment of the 1965 passport in which Soebarkah was entered and crossed out. I do not think the any pre-1965 amendment of a pre-1965 passport is being referred to in the cover letter.

      I am hopeful that if (when) the GOP takes control of the House there will be subpoenas to Hillary’s DOS that will get to the bottom of the claim that the GSA ordered destruction of the application and supporting documents for the 1965 passport. That appears to be a completely bogus claim.

      Reply
  5. Broseph Maine   Saturday, September 11, 2010 at 10:17 AM

    RON POLLAND

    Do you agree with the passport analysis?

    I always wondered why you would have to blur out date of issue. This admin is so full of crap it’s crazy.

    Reply
    1. Dr. Ron Polland   Saturday, September 11, 2010 at 7:02 PM

      During Bush’s eight years in the White House and Daddy Bush’s four years, the State Department has been working against them as if they were their own entity that does not have to answer to the Executive Branch. Now, for the first time since Clinton, the State Department and the Obaama White House are on the same page.

      This is to say that they are actively concealing information about Obama, his parents, and his grandparents.

      Look at the barely readable copy of SAD’s birth certificate they supplied. It’s the same mentality as blurring out the date of issue.

      However, I took it from this:

      to this, with annotations:

      Reply
      1. Dr. Ron Polland   Saturday, September 11, 2010 at 7:06 PM

        Well, my links are being labeled as “SPAM” so let me post the direct links:

        The BC as it was:

        http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/Misc/_2010_101210.png

        The BC as it is now
        :
        http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/Misc/SAD-BIRTH-CERTIFICATE.jpg

        BTW, the State Department dummied up SAD’s passport photo – it is a composite image

        Guess whose eyes they added to SAD’s

        http://s305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/Misc/?action=view&current=SAD-BHO-1.mp4

        Reply
  6. Chris Strunk   Saturday, September 11, 2010 at 9:22 AM

    Only time willl tell Seizethecarp. The DOS must provide a chain of custody and index of records on 9/16/10. I am not into speculation. TOOOO much of that going around.

    Reply
  7. oldsalt79   Friday, September 10, 2010 at 12:18 PM

    Well Done William

    Reply
  8. Bill Gerard   Friday, September 10, 2010 at 4:16 AM

    It is not just her passport record that still has questions.Remember when they released the video of his passport a few weeks ago and the close up of the passport photo page had the Date of Issue blurred out ? People could not understand why they did this since it is not protected info like the passport number. An analysis of the video was just done and the probable Date of Issue is revealed. It raises MANY questions and shows why they had to blur it out. Here is the link of the analysis:

    http://www.whpassfraud.cjb.net

    Reply
  9. Thomas Morato   Thursday, September 9, 2010 at 10:03 PM

    How convenient that Hillary Rodham Clinton was approached, offered and accepted the position of Secretary of State. Makes one wonder what the secret meeting between BHO and HRC prior to the election was really all about. What deal was struck between these two?

    I believe the State Department and other government agencies were/are working together to keep a lid on this fraud against the Republic. Only time will tell if the theories are correct that our Constitution is under attack from enemies from within. A paper trail for all the gag directives to all federal agencies must exist… and one thing our government is not good at is keeping a lid on “embarrassing information” for an extended period of time.

    Interesting now that HRC is criticizing the administration’s of out control debt spending and the security threat it poses to our nation. Will HRC now do the right thing and seize the opportunity to remove the usurper or will she continue to be complicit in the cover up? Whose side are you on Hilary?

    Thank you again P&E for such an informative interview. Through your efforts and many like yours, the truth will prevail… let’s only hope that our Republic can survive long enough to see it through.

    Reply
    1. Chance   Friday, September 10, 2010 at 1:40 PM

      I will never trust Hilliary. She should have blown the lid off this before the election. She knew he was illegal and said nothing.

      Never ever let her get on the ballot in 2012!

      Reply
    2. Bob1943   Sunday, September 12, 2010 at 10:20 AM

      ”Interesting now that HRC is criticizing the administration’s of out control debt spending and the security threat it poses to our nation. Will HRC now do the right thing and seize the opportunity to remove the usurper or will she continue to be complicit in the cover up? Whose side are you on Hilary?:Interesting now that HRC is criticizing the administration’s of out control debt spending and the security threat it poses to our nation. Will HRC now do the right thing and seize the opportunity to remove the usurper or will she continue to be complicit in the cover up? Whose side are you on Hilary?”

      May be too late for Hillary and others suspected of being involved in the cover-up of Obama’s inelgibility to fess-up. Perhaps if they believe the lid is about to blow off of the charade, at least one of the closely involved participants will chose to cut a deal to prevent possible ”misprision of treason” charges…or worse.

      Don’t expect anything from Hillary beyond a continued effort to gain the one lifetime goal her and Bill have so far been denied, Hillary’s turn as president.

      Reply
  10. A pen   Thursday, September 9, 2010 at 8:27 PM

    It is nice to document the exercises in futility regarding the illegal and destructive form of government we are now enjoying. An old friend said to me “maybe it is better to be red than dead”. Obviously he is losing faith and I suspect he isn’t alone.

    Reply
  11. ch   Thursday, September 9, 2010 at 8:00 PM

    If a government refuses to perform its role and respond to the public, isn’t that a crime, guilty of obstructing justice and failure to comply with the legal role of their office? A group of people seems to have started disassembling things in the 1980s to work towards their own goals….especially getting control of passport information and “destroying applications of employee passports” which is a little beyond belief!! Evidently the employees are infiltrators and covering their own tracks as they dish out free passports. That would be one of the most powerful offices to get hold of, the Passport Office, if you wanted to sneak into a country and have a disguise. Interesting. No I am not a conspiracy theorist….more of a practical person who has a gut feeling.

    Reply
  12. mganzi   Thursday, September 9, 2010 at 7:48 PM

    To Matt re “Why Stanley Ann applied for a passport in 1965?” We learn from William 1 that it’s a renewal of her former passport, (likely issued in 1960 or 1961 which would expire in 1965 or early 1966.) Many countries at the time refused to honor passports which had only 6-12 months left. Stanley Ann wouldn’t need a passport to travel to Hawaii or Washington State or Canada, but in July/August 1961 as a minor showing 8 months or so, she would have needed one to go to Kenya unescourted by her adult parents traveling in the company of a Kenyan. Just a thought.

    Reply
  13. William1   Thursday, September 9, 2010 at 7:14 PM

    That should read,

    Bob, I do not see a single quote refering to a new world order. Please post

    Reply
  14. B. Johnson   Thursday, September 9, 2010 at 7:07 PM

    Remove the Radical Communist Muslim Usurper B****** now so he can be removed to prison for treason & fraud

    Reply
  15. William1   Thursday, September 9, 2010 at 5:10 PM

    Thank you Sharon for bring forth Mr. Chris Strunk FOIA and showing to the public that Mr. Strunk was not in fact given the true and absolute information that he, as a diligent American Citizen was indeed entitled too.

    We can only hope that the court will in fact be compelled to force the State dept. To release the exact GSA order for reasoning of destruction. Unfortuntuantely for the State dept., that order does not exisit.

    Reply
  16. Matt   Thursday, September 9, 2010 at 4:53 PM

    I have a question. Why did Stanley Ann apply for a passport in 1965???

    She would not have needed a passport while growing up in Seattle – no passport was required to cross into Canada.

    Was a passport required to travel between Hawaii and the mainland at the time? I would think not, since Hawaii was a state at the time.

    She didn’t marry Lolo till much later in 67, so she didn’t need it go back to Indonesia with him.

    Could it be that she filled out the application because her previous passport had expired?

    Did passports expire after 5 years for minors, and 10 years for adults back then? Might the fact that she was filling out an application for a passport in 65 indicate that she had previously been issued a passport in 1960 that was expiring? Why might she have needed a passport back in 1960???

    Is there a legitimate reason that Stanley Ann required a passport in 1965? Is there any way we can see if the 1965 application was a renewal vs a new passport?

    Matt
    —————–
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Stanley Ann presumably married Lolo Soetoro in 1965, although she provided two different dates on her passport applications. At some point, she joined him in Indonesia, reportedly with her young son, Barack Hussein Obama. Hawaii became a state in 1959.

    Reply
    1. William1   Thursday, September 9, 2010 at 6:06 PM

      You must take into consideration that the 1965 “end” passport, was a renewal, not an original beginning. It is the destruction of original passport information that is in question.

      Reply
      1. Seizethecarp   Friday, September 10, 2010 at 4:29 PM

        William 1, could you please clarify which specific information from what has been released (which field on which document, for example) leads you to conclude that the 1965 passport was a renewal and not an original.

        Mr. Strunk, do you agree that the 1965 passport is conclusively a renewal? If so, or if you disagree with William1, what is your conclusion based on?

        I couldn’t come to a conclusion myself, looking at the documents, but it seems clear that failure to produce the application, which could include as backup an earlier expired passport that could have been issued prior to a trip to a 1961 trip to Kenya for example, (perhaps with notations regarding BHO II) is very suspicious.

        Reply
  17. Bob1943   Thursday, September 9, 2010 at 4:16 PM

    Quote:
    “If the truth is told this is all about Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth) and when viewed throught the lens of the Hegelian method of thesis / antithesis equals synthesis by a left and a right discourse that leads to the NWO with Glenn Beck rubbed against BHO to give us the Genni of NWO.”

    You took the words right out of my mouth! lol

    Reply
    1. William1   Thursday, September 9, 2010 at 7:08 PM

      Bob,

      Enlighten me,

      I dol not see a single comment refering to your claims of a new world order? Please quoure..

      Reply
  18. ObamaReleaseYourRecords   Thursday, September 9, 2010 at 2:41 PM

    I have no trouble opening the link, it is a State.gov link, can Ms. Kelley read?

    http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/96122.pdf

    Reply
  19. AttilasDaughter   Thursday, September 9, 2010 at 2:37 PM

    better than fiction!

    and even if the Obama ineligibility cover up continues for two more years, the truth will come out.

    Reply
  20. Chris Strunk   Thursday, September 9, 2010 at 2:16 PM

    The three submissions in opposition were done by my:
    (1) Declaration in opposition filed on 8/9/10 as signed 8/8 with exhibits 1 thru 5 including Mr. Jacobsen’s Affidavit; (2) the First Supplement Declaration with exhibits 6 thru 10 filed 8/18 signed 8/18 which includes the McCarran Walter Act issue of SAD (the girl in the Beirut Lebanon NDJ Jesuit School uniform) being in the US for ten years continuously before BHO was born to SAD at 18 years with a majority age British Citizen who was in HI on a student visa; and (3) the Second Supplement Declaration with exhibit 11 (William A. Richardson Affidvait) thru 12 filed by hand in Wash DC 8/25/10.

    If the truth is told this is all about Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth) and when viewed throught the lens of the Hegelian method of thesis / antithesis equals synthesis by a left and a right discourse that leads to the NWO with Glenn Beck rubbed against BHO to give us the Genni of NWO.

    Reply

    Reply
    1. Lizard   Friday, September 10, 2010 at 2:01 AM

      Dear Mr. Strunk,

      You, sir, are a true hero! Kudos for your tenacity and efforts!

      The wagons continue to be circled, but there is a sense at least with me that things are starting to unravel. The politcal and media boycott to avoid all things “birther” is looking more and more like a scorched-earth defense. For example, we learned through your efforts that our President was referred to by his mother as “Barack Hussein Obama (Soebarkah)” in her passport application. Has there been even one politician or media person to ask even a single question about it? At this point, I believe that they are simply scared of what the truth may hold … because, when the truth is ultimately revealed, what possible excuse will there be for the current crop of politicians, media, judges, government personnel, etc. remaining silent and incurious? NOTHING.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.