If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!

Welcome Back!


by Sharon Rondeau

The U.S. State Department is responsible for issuing passports and requires specific documentation of identity and citizenship in order to do so

(May 23, 2011) — A retired Army captain and plaintiff in the lawsuit Barnett, Keyes et al v. Obama, about which The Post & Email reported previously, is filing a lawsuit against the State Department for failing to disclose information on Stanley Ann Dunham’s passport records requested almost two and one-half years ago.

Barnett began her search for “all United States Passport and all consular records for Stanley Ann Dunham aka Stanley Ann Obama aka Ann Dunham aka Ann Obama for the years of 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962” through a routine Freedom of Information Act request submitted electronically on January 2, 2009, prior to the faux swearing-in of Barack Hussein Obama on January 20, 2009.

Similar FOIA requests were submitted by Ken Allen of Arizona and Christopher Strunk of New York which also culminated in lawsuits against the State Department.  Final responses to both actions were released on the same day, July 29, 2010, which contained some, but not all, of the information requested on Dunham.  All records not released predated 1965.

The applications which were made public revealed that Dunham had used several names, provided two different dates and locations for her marriage to Lolo Soetoro, and had originally written in the name “Barack Hussein Obama (Soebarkah)” on one of them, an entry for a child which was crossed out at some point.

Page 1 of Capt. Barnett's original FOIA request made on January 2, 2009 for the passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham
Page 2 of the FOIA request

A letter from Jonathan Rolbin to Christopher Strunk accompanying the materials released on July 29, 2010 claimed that “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.”

Barnett requested different information than Strunk and Allen.  In addition to passport records, she specifically requested consular records which would include foreign birth registrations.  “The DOS is stalling.  They do not want to come up with another story for what happened to SAD’s consulate records, like they did for her 1965 and possibly earlier passport records. If they did not have any consulate records for SAD, they easily could have said so 2.5 years ago.  The DOS also should have included passport index data on SAD.  Indexes are on microfilms and are listed in order of issuance.  If unaltered, they would tell us whether or not SAD had a passport during the time period Barack Obama was purported to be born.”

The Post & Email conducted its own investigation into the missing passport applications in which the General Services Administration and later, the NARA, were not able to substantiate Rolbin’s claim.  In fact, the GSA denied that any such directive had been issued by the agency at any time.  A citizen researcher had received the same response from the GSA in November 2010.

The recent release of visa applications for Barack Hussein Obama Sr. suggest that he did not acknowledge Obama II as his son and that Stanley Ann Dunham might have been in the Philippines during the early 1960s.  In a recent interview with Alex Jones, Dr. Jerome Corsi stated that Barack Hussein Obama Sr. and Stanley Ann Dunham were never legally married and that the arrangement was one of convenience so that Obama could stay in the United States.

On December 10, 2010, Barnett received the exact same SAD passport information released to Strunk.  This release did not include any of the original requested information.  In fact, she did not request any SAD information after 1962, and all of the documents she received were from 1967 and later.  On January 19, 2011, she wrote a letter to the Chairman of the Appeals Review Panel at the State Department in which she requested that he “order U.S. Marshalls [sic] to immediately secure all of the remaining paper passport and consular documents, microfilms, and indexes regarding records for Stanley Ann Dunham (aka Obama, further on to be referenced as SAD) before they disappear as well.  The processing of my original FOIA request is not complete as my request for SAD’s consular and passport records was not addressed at all by the DOS.”

Capt. Barnett has advised The Post & Email that the date “January 19, 2010” should have read “January 19, 2011.”

Page 1 of Capt. Barnett's 73-page appeal with numerous exhibits
Page 2 of the 73-page appeal to the State Department

In her appeal, Barnett had referred (last paragraph of page 2 above) to documentation which she described as “unsworn, uncorroborated alleged ‘communication’ that discussed an alleged ‘purge project’ into federal court in response to the lawsuit Strunk v. State Department DCD 08-cv-2234 (RJL). (Exhibit 2)  I bring this to your attention because this alleged correspondence and alleged ‘purge project’ affects my FOIA request directly and DOS entered it into evidence in a court of law.”

In a letter dated May 11, 2011, the State Department responded to Barnett that “Some applications were destroyed in accordance with guidance from GSA.”

May 11, 2011 response from Appeals Officer Lori Hartmann, whom Barnett is naming in the lawsuit
Typewritten information labeled "Unclassified" included in Pamela Barnett's FOIA appeal filed on July 29, 2010, the same day on which Strunk and Allen received some of the information they had requested
Second typewritten page which stated that some passport applications of a "routine" nature had been purged. Barnett referenced this information in her appeal as having been presented by the State Department as evidence in court in Christopher Strunk's lawsuit

The text of that documentation reads, in part:


A list of the “Records Being Retained” included:


A second such typewritten page indicated that “4. RECORDS BEING DISCARDED” consisted of:


Section “5. CURRENT STATUS” reads:





Capt. Barnett made the following statement regarding her decision to file a lawsuit against the State Department:

It clearly states in my original request that I request all passport and Consular records.  The DOS is obstructing justice on the information that would prove a foreign birth of Obama through the consular birth index records. It is frightening that our federal government is so corrupt that they continue to hide and destroy information that would prove whether his mother was out of the country when Obama was born. If there was nothing to hide regarding the birth of Obama, the federal government would have answered my FOIA request and not played games with my right to information under the FOIA laws. At this point, after almost 2.5 years of stonewalling and obstructing, I have received what I accept as the DOS’s final answer on Obama’s mother’s passport and consular records.

Barnett continued:

DOS sent me information they had already released to Christopher Strunk, information that  I didn’t request to try to placate me.

I have exhausted all avenues so now I have standing to sue the State Department.  I will file myself, but money and time are both on low supply.  I would like to file within two weeks; it would be great if someone could help financially contribute to file the lawsuit.

The U.S. State Department’s new requirements for obtaining a passport read:

Beginning April 1, 2011, the U.S. Department of State will require the full names of the applicant’s parent(s) to be listed on all certified birth certificates to be considered as primary evidence of U.S. citizenship for all passport applicants, regardless of age.  Certified birth certificates missing this information will not be acceptable as evidence of citizenship.  This will not affect applications already in-process that have been submitted or accepted before the effective date.

Capt. Barnett stated that anyone wishing to help defray the $350 filing fee for her lawsuit may contact her directly via email at pb_realestate@comcast.net.

Update, May 23, 2011, 1:08 p.m. EDT:  Capt. Barnett has been able to obtain a foreign birth registration document shown below:


Does Barack Hussein Obama II have one of these?

Of the document, Capt. Barnett stated, “If Obama was born abroad, his mother would have gotten the same exact form if she registered Obama’s birth with DOS.”

Information on registration of foreign births with the U.S. State Department can be found here.

Join the Conversation


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

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

  1. I became convinced in 1967 that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. I still believe it today.
    I am sure that LBJ knew who and why JFK was killed. What possible reason could he have had to cover it up (well, assuming he had nothing to do with the conspiracy, of course)
    The people that are masterminding the Mombasian Candidate have reason to keep it as secret as possible because they stand to benefit by it. If the JFK murder was worth keeping a secret, look at the value of the Mombasian Candidate.
    Why are all congressmen, senators, supreme court all co-conspirators? What’s in it for them?
    Well, I’m not gonna answer that question. Maybe I shouldn’t even know the answer.

  2. If I remember correctly, DUAL CITIZENSHIP is not recognized as part of Natural Born Citizen status. This should be played up more often in addition to his lack of NBC status.

    Obama is definitely a Dunham, one way or the other. Look at photos of him as a boy. There are some with him, Stanley Sr. and Stanley Ann together. They all had the same prominent jaw. Of course, Obama no longer has that prominent jaw as it appears his jaw may have been modified at some point and a chin implant inserted to give him a more angular, photogenic look. Compare his teen photos with those of him now. He still had the same Dunham prominent jaw as a teen. So who was grooming him for higher office way back when? If you look at the photo of him teaching Alinsky tactics at a blackboard, he already had the line under his bottom lip that he does now. The line is prominent and extends around and under his chin and back up again. He didn’t have that as a teen. Call me crazy, but that’s my observation.

  3. Jedi Pauly .. ah yea it does matter. To be natural born one must be born within the Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States of America… Defined in part as the 10 mile square, military bases, all navigable waters rivers and streams and other needful buildings. 18 USC Like you, I was born in Japan at Tokyo Army hospital, father in the corps. mom was Air force OSS attachment. I’m NBC because the hospital was within that jurisdiction. Same as Mccain in Panama.. and the rational behind the Senate resolution saying as much.
    Though ‘piling on’ and ‘icing on the cake’.. it is a pertinent component of the NBC clause and, case law and subsequent congressional resolutions reflect as much.
    We know exhibit A is the the British father… and the very rational for the letter to Washington requesting the NBC inclusion in the prerequisite for POTUS. i. e. To prevent precisely what we have now.. A British Nation infiltrating the command of the Military.
    By the definition you present… a person born of an American father, in communist China… could live there for most of his life, with the inherent foreign influences, return to America for the required years of residence… and become POTUS.

    1. I agree. And unless Jedi Pauly was born on U.S. territory in Japan (US Embassy, military base, etc.) and his mother also was a U.S. citizen when he was born he is not a “natural born Citizen”. The gist I get from Jedi’s posts is that he’s been trying his best to define “natural born Citizen” such that he is one.

      1. Sorry RacerJim, but you have got it wrong. Everyone seems to have an opinion, but only one of us is talking facts and not opinion. You appear to have only read one sentence of Vattel, taken out of context, and now you are a legal expert qualified to give your opinion on the meaning of nbC and whether or not I am one. AMAZING!!!!

        For your information, I have never defined anything at all. I am only reporting to you how nbC is already defined by Vattel that you obviously have not read. I cannot speak to your opinions of what you believe except to say that you are totally wrong in your analysis of nbC and in your analysis of my motives and actions.

    2. McCain is not a natural born citizen (born in the country to citizen parents) but probably would have been ruled eligible to be President by the Supreme Court.

      McCain was born to citizen parents, but is not a natural born citizen because he was not born on US sovereign territory. Panama, not the US, was the sovereign of the Panama Canal Zone, which included our military bases. The US paid Panama an annual rent – something we would not have done if we were the sovereign.

      However, McCain was not born with a foreign allegiance, which is also the case for a natural born citizen. According to Panamanian law, children born to foreigners in Panama are not Panamanian citizens at birth. It is McCain’s lack of a foreign allegiance at birth that probably would have resulted in a Supreme Court ruling in his favor.

      1. McCain was born to a citizen father. That makes him a “natural born Citizen” end of story. Try reading Vattel and the Declaration of Independence. They both make this abundantly clear.

    3. Sorry Duke but your analysis is wrong legally and is just an opinion not fact. Your analysis not only runs contrary to Vattel and established legal principles of Law, but also runs contrary to natural reality.

      First of all, Obama’s father is NOT a British National, he was a Kenyan National who just happened to fall under British jurisdiction as a member of the commonwealth. That does not make Obama’s father to be British in any way. He might not even speak English or drink tea (ha ha), and black people are not native to England (a fact that proves Obama Senior is not a native of England even if he is born a British “subject”).

      Now I quote you to show how far off of understanding this issue you are. You say….

      “By the definition you present… a person born of an American father, in communist China… could live there for most of his life, with the inherent foreign influences, return to America for the required years of residence… and become POTUS.”

      The part that shows that you do not understand what you are talking about is “with inherent foreign influences”

      There are no “inherent” foreign political allegiance influences just because you are born some place other than the United States. By being born to a citizen father, you INHERIT sovereign U.S. political rights as natural unalienable rights as a function of the Laws of Nature. Chinese Positive Law has no bearing whatever on your natural inherited political rights. Unalienable rights cannot be taken away from you just because you are born one place or another or live there for years. You obviously have not read any of Vattel at all and are just relying on the one sentence taken out of context. You certainly do not understand anything about political rights and where they come from and how Natural Law and Positive Law defines these rights. Don’t feel bad, most of those who are trying to expose Obama, don’t understand or know about these details of law either or have bothered to even read Vattel past the one sentence of section 212.

      It is amazing to me how people read one sentence out of context from Vattel and then think that they are legal experts who know what “natural born Citizen” means. You cannot read one sentence and become a legal expert and conclude that nbC means what you say it means. Anyone who reads the rest of Vattel section 212 and 215, and studies Natural Law and Positive Law, will see that Vattel does not define nbC the way you believe he does. Anyone who reads that one sentence from Vattel and ignores the rest of Vattel and concludes that nbC is defined by place of birth and two citizen parents are making a HUGH MISTAKE and are looking like ignorant fools.

      The fact is, that the situation that you describe is in fact perfectly acceptable and is exactly what the Constitution allows. All you would have to do is move back to the U.S. as a U.S. citizen, and meet the other requirements of Article II, and you would qualify for President.

  4. Breaking News: It is Reported that a Subpoena Issued for Loretta Fuddy, Director of Hawaii Health Department; Must Show Original 1961 Typewritten Birth Certificate For Obama | @ Birther Report: Obama Release Your Records

    CDR Kerchner (Ret)

    P.S. Obama needs to be investigated for his many criminal activities!

    1. Atorneys…. As officers of the Court, we have the right and power to have subpoenas issued in connection with litigation in an ongoing case. The attorney decides what documents s/he wants to see and then prepares the subpoena form. We take that completed subpoena form to the clerk of the Court who “issues” it – i.e., stamps it with the Court’s official seal and signs it. When an attorney comes in with a prepared subpoena, the Clerk has no discretion – the Clerk must “issue” it. If the form is correctly filled out, the clerk must stamp and sign it and return it to the attorney. We then get a sheriff or other process server to serve it on the person from whom we are seeking the specified documents.
      Once the subpoena is stamped & signed by the Clerk’s office, it becomes a Court Order. So, whoever is served with it must respond or face a contempt of court citation. The person who is served with the supboena “responds” in one of two ways: (1) By producing the requested documents at the time and place stated or (2) Filing a motion in the litigation to quash the subpoena. If the person who was served with the subpoena files the motion to quash, a hearing is conducted before the Judge in the litigation and the Judge decides whether to quash the subpoena or order the person served with it to produce the requested documents.
      So far all the subpoenas for zero’s personal documents I have heard of have been quashed by the judges before whom the “birther” litigation is pending.

  5. Jedi Pauly,

    Your arguments are clear and concise. Anyone with any sense can easily understand the intent of the Founding Fathers.

    Unfortunately, those same arguments have been made to numerous courts and been shot down without comment. While you and I may disagree with these court actions, they have the force of law right now.

    We MUST come up with a coherent strategy to force SCOTUS to hear the Vattel argument on the merits. And we have a big hill to climb. The Ankeny Decision in Indiana defined NBC as being born on U.S. soil regardless of parentage. While this is not a SCOTUS opinion, unless we get that decision reversed it holds the force of law.

    As I said earlier, what we must do is get a different federal judge to rule oppositely of the Ankeny Decision. Once this happens, SCOTUS is forced to decide between the competing decisions. Then at least we have a 50/50 chance. Right now every single court case has gone against us. It’s inexplicable.

    If the Ankeny Decision holds, we have to show proof that Obama was born outside the USA. Right now the Ankeny Decision is holding. We have to shake it up some.

    1. SCOTUS met with Hussein ‘privately’ so, our highest court for some ‘strange’ reason has sided with the fraudster.. unfortunately the American peoples are forced to REVOLT, if we are to keep our rights!!

  6. We researched this back prior to the election. In 1961 the only airline that flew into Mombasa was BOAC which eventualy turned into British Airways and they only flew one flight per week, on Tuesdays. Our attempt to find airline manifests were unsuccessful since in these days before airline computerization passengers did not even have to give a name if they were buying their ticket at the airport. All BOAC records were destroyed in the 1970s.

    But, you should contact the British authorities. Any flight from Mombasa would go through London, Heathrow and the British would have kept her customs information. England does not have the strict privacy laws the US has especially for non-citizens and I am fairly certain they could give exact days of Stanley going through London or the way to and from Kenya. Remember the Dag situation and how they handled it.

    1. I spent years in East Africa in the 50’s/60’s. Offhand, I can think of at least 4 airlines other than BOAC that ran regular international flights into Nairobi and there were MANY ways to get from there to Mombasa, which was a popular tourist destination.

  7. I commend Pamela for her patriotic efforts however, I fail to comprehend the relevancy of her inquiry. It makes no difference where Obama is born. We already know he was born to a foreign father. That is what disqualifies him from “natural born Citizen” status, not where he was born. I was born in Japan to a U.S. citizen father and I am a “natural born Citizen” that can qualify for President. Your place of birth has no bearing on Article II whatever or on your status as a “natural born Citizen”. If a person just bothers to read the rest of Vattel, he makes this clear. Pamela has not read the rest of Vattel or made the discovery yet of what “natural born Citizen” actually means or what its purpose and intent is. It is not just about insuring allegiance to the United States. That is only one part of its purpose and intent.

    The main purpose is to insure that those who would be President are born as natural sovereign political authorities that can represent those of us who are born to citizen fathers so that we will not be ruled over by a privileged class. The President is the guy who gives his consent to the Bills from Congress. He is supposed to represent the consent to the laws on behalf of those who are not a privileged political class at birth (those born to citizen fathers). The entire issue is the securing of the recognition of the sovereign political authority of the People that is a function of the Laws of Nature that is declared as a self evident truth in the Declaration of Independence which is the reason we fought a war in 1776.

    Obama was not born being able to claim that he has a natural political right to citizenship and the natural political right to represent the non-privileged political class of those who are born to citizen fathers. Mr. Obama was born to a foreign father meaning that his right to citizenship is strictly a legal privilege of soil, or statutory authority due to his mother, or if both of those fail, he can just be an immigrant citizen but in any case, his citizenship and political rights are strictly a function of Positive Law privileges and not Natural Law as a Natural Right. That was the entire point of “natural born Citizen” requirement is so that the natural sovereign rights of the people to a sovereign representative who can pass laws on behalf of the sovereign People will convey the consent that was not present in the Colonies with British monarchy rule.

    The entire point of Article II “natural born Citizen” is to remove the authority from Congress to bestow artificial sovereign authority upon a privileged ruling class. The entire point is to force the President to obtain his sovereign political authority to be a representative of the People, naturally from the Laws of Nature (inheritance from a citizen father because it is males who naturally secure our rights, see Declaration of Independence and Vattel) and not from statutory authorities from Congress (soil or place of birth or mother or immigration). Your place of birth has no bearing on Article II qualifications at all. Even Vattel says this in the rest of section 212 and in section 215 Book 1, Chapter 19, The Law of Nations.

  8. Right Maria I agree The Republicans need to bring forth Obama’s ineligiblity to be Pres and arrest the fraud. But no they are doing nothing. It should not be up to We The People to do their job for them.

    O’Bama is an illegal communist muslim usurper and it would be easy to unseat him as he has committed so many high crimes and open treason against the USA, along with Eric Holder of the Dept. of Injustice. Few legal cases would be so easily won if these cowards/Rinos would just do their job.

    Hats off to Pamela Barnett for all of her hard work, we are with you Pamela 100%.

    May the truth set America free from the grips of tyranny.

  9. Oldsalt79,

    You think like me. I tried that route. In 1961 only one airline visited Kenya bi-weekly: British Airways. They flew into Nairobi. And the fact is that Mombasa was a part of Tanzania in 1961 and had no international airport until 1979.

    That’s why I’m of the belief that the date ranges for SAD’s trip have to be reckoned differently. I don’t believe that an 8-month pregnant American girl would traipse off to Kenya at the last moment. No pediatrician would authorize the immunization shots necessary to travel to Africa to a third trimester teenager.

    I believe she went there earlier in her pregnancy, IF SUCH PREGNANCY EXISTED.

    And I don’t believe she rushed back to Hawaii on August 6 after giving birth, either. That would have been impossible if she’d just had a baby, since she would have had to travel 150 miles north to Nairobi just to catch a bi-weekly flight and then travel halfway around the world in 2 days.

    But it IS possible if she went to Kenya to ADOPT a baby already born. There are no pictures of pregnant Stanley Ann. There’s no record of her being in Hawaii during that time (unlike Obama Sr. who apparently was in Hawaii in 8/61). She shows up in Washington State a few weeks later, baby in tow.

    We wouldn’t need British Airways records for that flight. Arriving in New York from London in mid August 1961, she undoubtedly transferred to a domestic flight for the trip to Washington state. The most likely airlines for such a trip in 1961 would have been Pan Am or TWA.

    Knowing her schedule, her parents undoubtedly tipped off the newspapers ahead of time.

    1. Young girls sometimes have a lot of energy and do things that don’t make any sense. Maybe she did travel to Kenya much earlier, so determined to give birth in the home land of her son’s father.

      When was the last time she was known to have been in Hawaii?

      Maybe she lived in a home for unwed mothers and gave birth there, then the records would be private.

  10. when I was at the site earlier the FB shares were 40, and I came back in the afternoon and they went back down to Zero..????? what’s FB up to?

    Thank you for your support everyone.. You can reach me through my website unlawfulpresident . com or pb_realestate @ yahoo.com (spaces included to avoid spam) this address is a better address as i’m getting rid of comcast in a couple days.

  11. Sharon, thank you for the wonderful work that you do. Considering our weather happenings, I have been concerned if you were okay because I didn’t know where you live. I’m not asking for where you live, but I’m so glad that you’re here now.

    For all the people in the Mid-west, I hope many of you are safe and sound. So sad to hear of the terrible tornadoes, which I know that they can be bad.
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Thank you; I am in a safe place. My prayers are extended to everyone affected by the terrible tornadoes.

  12. Has anyone attempted to locate the airline manifests for the month of August in 1961. I have a gut feeling that while it would require a great deal of research that the airline manifest still exists,and is stored away in a warehouse somewhere. Perhaps Susan Daniels will begin looking for the flight records. In 1961 there was only one or two airlines flying in to Kenya. Any that were flying to Mombassa might still be holding the flight records,and passenger manifest. Wouldn’t it be the ICING ON THE CAKE if Stanyel Ann Dunham’s name appeared on the passenger list. Certainly worth hunting for.

  13. We are all so indebted to you, Mrs. Rondeau, Capt. Barnett, Orly, Mr. Corsi, Mr. Farah et al.

    Blessings and America’s collective gratitude are due you all.

    1. ..and you forgot to mention Lt. Col. Terry Lakin who served jail time for asking for proof of his Commander-In-Chief’s eligibility. You know that birth certificate that’s perfectly fine in every way?.. What a tragedy that 0bama would see Lakin do some jail time rather than release his birth certificate which he eventually did anyway. I guess it took longer than expected to fabricate that bogus piece of paper.

  14. Sue them and sue them until they comply.

    One other thing about the birth cert.

    If he was born in the hospital and there was no adoption, then there is a long form bc that could be copied.

    But there is no long form bc, only notes in the file that is protected in fort hawaiin knox.

    Which means he either wasn’t born in the hospital or he was adopted or both.

    And that’s what they are hiding.

    1. It is on the internet and Fox news that Obama is checking the back ground of Chris Crisity, he will use this only if Chris decides to run for president – why doesn’t any of the republican candidates bring up Obama and his back ground or anything he has done in the past – they could win the election if they would stand up and ask for an investigation on his back ground – the senate, congress no one asks anything – Why, why, why, please someone help me understand…………I just don’t get it…….Why