Skip to comments.The Whopper That Got Away
Posted on 08/26/2010 9:48:40 AM PDT by butterdezillion
Summary: The Passport Office claims in a memo submitted with an affidavit in the Strunk case that in a 9-month period in 1984-85, 40 workers sorted through 125 million passport files and destroyed all the "routine" records from 1925-1961. Four big problems:
1) somebody was able to get routine records from that time period which were obviously not destroyed,
2) there appears to be no record of that destruction ever being authorized.
3) the sorting they claimed is physically impossible in the timeframe they claimed.
4) the Passport Office charges $50/person (or $150 for a third party) to search the records and doesn't say that most of the records for 1925-1970 don't exist.
There appears to be a high likelihood that this memo, submitted with an affidavit, is a complete fabrication - an excuse for not showing Stanley Ann Dunham's pre-1967 passport records.
The full report is at my blog at http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/08/26/the-whopper-that-got-away-4/ In the first comment I will try to post the entire post with links. We'll see how that works.
The Whopper That Got Away
Last week an article entitled, Look Here, Birthers! drew attention to a video which showed what was claimed to be Obamas passport. That article and video came shortly after 2 FOIA requests for the passport records of Obamas mother had been answered with the release of some documents. While the FOIA responses and passport video were being analyzed in the blogosphere a necessary venture a much bigger story was being ignored: what Ill call The Whopper That Got Away.
Among the documents the State Department released to Chris Strunk was a 1967 amendment to a passport issued to Stanley Ann Dunham in 1965. In the official FOIA response it was explained:
We did not locate a I965 passport application referenced in an application for amendment of passport that is included in the released documents. 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.
Later, an affidavit was filed by Alex Galovich (see at http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/08/02/strunk-v-d-o-s-doc-37-2-declaration/ ), the supervisor in charge of FOIA responses for the State Department. The affidavit described how Strunks request was processed and included a memo cryptically dated Feb 6, 1985 which claimed that
1) Sometime between the late 60s and 1982, passport file retention requirements were changed from 100 years to 15-20 years, and
2) A project begun in June of 1984 had resulted in the destruction of records from 125 million passport files dating through November of 1961. The 40 workers, if full-time, would each have processed about 2,170 files/hour (taking about 2 seconds apiece), sorting out records in Class A from Class B (below). I think you can see why I call this The Whopper:
A listing of the primary documents being retained is
REPORTS OF BIRTH
CERTIFICATES OF WITNESS TO MARRIAGE
CERTIFICATES OF LOSS OF NATIONALITY (WITH
REPORTS OF DEATH
APPLICATIONS WITH DELAYED BIRTH CERTIFICATES
OR SPECIAL REGISTRATIONS ATTACHED
APPLICATIONS (NATIVE BORN) WITH SECONDARY
EVIDENCE OF BIRTH/IDENTITY ATTACHED
APPLICATIONS OF FOREIGN BORN CITIZENS
APPLICATIONS INCLUDING FOREIGN BORN CITIZENS
APPLICATIONS OF WOMEN ACQUIRING CITIZENSHIP
APPLICATIONS TO RESUME CITIZENSHIP (VOTING IN ITALIAN
ELECTIONS BETWEEN 1/1/46 AND 4/10/18)
APPLICATIONS TO TAKE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE AND
RENUNCIATION (SERVICE IN CANADIAN ARMY)
APPLICATIONS FOR REGISTRATION, INCLUDING
APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OR CARDS OF IDENTITY,
OR CARDS ISSUED FOR BORDER CROSSING PURPOSES.
ALL PHILIPPINE PASSPORT RECORDS
POSSIBLE LOSS, NON-ACQUISITION, NOR-RETENTION,
DENIALS, LIMITATIONS, REVOCATIONS, QUESTIONABLE
CITIZENSHIP CLAIMS, ETC (WITH ATTACHED FILED)
FRAUDULENT CITIZENSHIP CASES OR CASES INVOLVING
FRAUDULENT USE OF PASSPORT
A listing of the primary documents being eliminated follows:
ROUTINE PASSPORT APPLICATIONS FOR NATIVE
BORN CITIZENS (WITH OR WITHOUT BIRTH
CERTIFICATES OR PHOTOSTATIC COPIES OF
BIRTH CERTIFICATES ATTACHED)
ROUTINE RENEWAL APPLICATIONS
ROUTINE APPLICATIONS FOR FOR PASSPORTS FOR
NATIVE BORN CITIZENS WHERE PREVIOUS
PASSPORT USED AS EVIDENCE
CORRESPONDENCE OF NON-CITIZENSHIP NATURE
CHARGE-OUT SHEETS BEFORE 1969
That Got Away
And this alleged passport retention change and destruction of records got away without leaving any evidence in the official records. Agencies such as the State Department are required to schedule all their records (see http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/publications/disposition-of-federal-records/chapter-5.html#V.Obtaining ) that is, to determine whether each record is to be kept, for how long, and in what form. The instructions for specific records is their disposition. Changing the disposition requires a formal process which is documented in the Federal Register, numbered, and posted (See 3303a at http://www.archives.gov/about/laws/disposal-of-records.html ).
A search of the Federal Register failed to locate a change from a 100-year retention to a 15-20-year retention for passport records. Further inquiries are being made.
The State Departments listing of dispositions is at http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/rcs/schedules/index.html?dir=/departments/department-of-state/rg-0059 . Those records include disposition changes for passport records that took place:
1) In 1978 when microfilming was required and paper records were allowed to be destroyed 15 years after microfilming (see at http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/rcs/schedules/departments/department-of-state/rg-0059/nc1-059-78-01_sf115.pdf ),
2) In 1979 when vital records were required to be kept separate from passport applications (see http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/rcs/schedules/departments/department-of-state/rg-0059/nc1-059-79-12_sf115.pdf ),
3) In 1982 when disposable statistics records were created (see #27 and #28 at http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/rcs/schedules/departments/department-of-state/rg-0059/nc1-059-83-04_sf115.pdf ) ,
4) And in 1997, when the dispositions of all the records, by years, was clarified and reiterated with passport applications and associated records from 1925-1970 required to be retained for 100 years. (see at at http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/rcs/schedules/departments/department-of-state/rg-0059/n1-059-96-005_sf115.pdf ).
That latest request, in 1997, lists the previous dispositions which were to be superseded - including #1-3 above and the agencys records transfer orders for implementing those dispositions. Nothing on this even applies to passport files from 1925-1970, which is probably why the section on 1925-1970 is crossed out since the instructions there are just a reiteration of the disposition still in effect and not a change at all. If there had been a change from a 100-year retention to a 15-20-year retention in the 1980s which has since been changed back (explaining the current disposition on the Passport Offices site see Jacobsen Exhibit E), that is where it should be listed. Its not.
The only trace of this alleged change is this memo submitted for Strunks FOIA case, to explain why the Passport Office didnt disclose Stanley Ann Dunhams 1965 passport application. This begs the question of why neither Galovich nor the memo he cited included either a copy, reference number , or date for the actual disposition change being claimed.
In the entire set of records dispositions for passport documents (found at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/128494.pdf ), the only retention periods less than 100 years are for:
A) Paper records from 1983-1999 which have already been microfilmed (which are to be retained in paper form for 15 years)
B) Abandoned and expired registrations and applications
C) Surrendered passport books.
D) Passport authorization lists which have already been microfilmed (retain paper copies 50 years)
E) Disposable statistics and accounting records
F) Routine correspondence and UIPA Requests
The only reference to a 15- or 20-year retention period is for paper copies of passport records that have already been microfilmed. Microfilming was made mandatory in 1977 for passport files (see http://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/rcs/schedules/departments/department-of-state/rg-0059/nc1-059-78-01_sf115.pdf ) .
The Evidence to Refute the Whopper
Unfortunately for the Passport Office, Phil Jacobsen requested and received his mothers passport application from 1953 a routine application which would have been destroyed along with Dunhams if the records from those dates had actually been destroyed as claimed in the memo.
Alex Galovich said in his affidavit that the Passport Office searched PIERS (Passport Information Electronic Records Service), an electronic database of passports issued in 1978 and later, using Dunhams various name combinations for the search. Although Galovich said, The Department of State also maintains paper records of some passport applications, he never said they searched the paper records.
In his affidavit and supporting Exhibits, Jacobsen shows that paper index records were required to be retained permanently. A search of those index cards would have revealed the status and location of the missing 1965 passport application as well as any other passport applications within the timeframe Strunks request covered (1960-1985).
1. The claim that Dunhams pre-1967 passport records were destroyed is contradicted by the existence of Jacobsens mothers passport documents from 1953.
2. Currently no record of change of retention periods has been found, and efforts to locate any such changes are continuing. Passport Services was contacted by phone and asked if passport records before 1970 had been destroyed; they refused to state whether they had or had not been destroyed, suggesting that would have to be answered by writing to the State Department.
3. The Passport Offices website lists a 100-year retention requirement for passport files from 1925-1970 and has no warning or disclaimer that records before 1969 may have been destroyed as Galovich alleges. There is a charge of $50/person (or $150 for a third party) to search for passport records. If they are charging people to search for records from 1925-1970 that they falsely told people exist, and in fact have been destroyed, that appears to be a continuing fraud.
4. The claims on the memo in Galovichs Declaration are not only unsupported by the documentation, they are physically impossible. The great probability is that this memo was totally fabricated as an excuse to keep from having to disclose Stanley Ann Dunhams pre-1967 passport records. The State Department should either produce the required disposition change records to substantiate their claim, or refer this case to the DOJ Inspector General for an investigation of potential wrong-doing.
5. The permanent paper index cards would show ALL passports that were issued to Dunham, allowing those passport applications to be located. Those should be released immediately.
Here’s a clickable link for the blog (sorry, humblegunner)
Nicely done, thanks for not excerpting!
It’s a pleasure to see the entire content posted.
I just wish I knew how to get the formatting to copy so it would be more readable.
I guess I’ve been busy with stuff besides learning HTML. lol
Just wanted you to know I respect your concerns and don’t want to needlessly blog pimp. I just want the info out there.
Lucy, can you ping the list on this thread?
Hmmmmm. Thanks for posting this information.
I shall observe: the reason the world has been able to prosecute German War Criminals after the end of WWII is that the Nazis kept meticulous records of their crimes. Is someone messing with our records in order to forstall further investigations? Seems like it.
And Clinton and Berger showed the way by lifting documents from the National Archives without getting any more than a slap on the wrist for it.
If there were more like you the world would be a better place.
I guess I've developed an obsession about such things this past year or so. ;-)
I guess I can’t throw any rocks at people for having an obsession. lol
My family wishes my obsession was something like which way the toilet paper roll is placed, not something like saving the country. lol.
Hopefully we can get back to the days where I care which way the TP rolls.
Pinging for Butterdezillion.
Check out article, and comments # 1 through # 8 .
[Thanks, Butterdezillion; good work as usual.]
your work IS appreciated by many, THANK YOU
BUMP to read later.
Thanks, butterdezillin for your dedication to NOT letting this whopper get away!
Wasn’t Brennan’s company ivloved with searching the State Dept. records of Obama, McCain, and the clintoons? ... We all assume deletions occur when such tampering happens (for which the bastard has been promoted of course). But planting of documents fabricated for planting is a real possibility. Democrats are famous for illicit handling of protected docuemtns ... never trust a democrat or their operatives. The Democrat Party is a criminal enterprise.
‘ivloved’ ... wow, my old fingers are inventing words! ... That should be ‘involved’ of course.
Thanks for the ping Lucy. Butter, thank you for your work! In the end, he’s going down. Not a doubt in my mind. They weren’t able to get to some things before others got to them. Close to 2012 it will ALL come out. tick tock The goal is to slam them with it all at the right time to make sure he never sets foot in that WH for 4 more years.
Just messin' with ya...it's almost Frieday.
Yup, I believe that's right MHGinTN.
And thanks butterdezillion for your hard work and dedication. There's a reason this issue hasn't gone away and more people doubt his "life story" than ever before (at least, as measured by "polls").
Thanks, and I’ll make sure that Phil knows you thank him too. He’s put in an incredible amount of work, effort, and investment in getting to the bottom of this. I’d be nowhere on this one without him - even if he is too shy to reveal himself. =)
I think it’s hilarious (though maddening at the same time) that the White House’s office of disinformation put up a post about Obama’s eligibility and “archived” it after 3 comments.
Methinks they didn’t want to get an earfull.
People are realizing what’s going on.
This particular claim (destruction of passport records) is critical because it is in an affidavit in a lawsuit that has to be resolved. And the law requires a paper trail for both a change in disposition and the actual destruction documents. We’re still looking, but the places where that paper trail should be have shown up nothing. The claim itself gives no citation. The retention schedule seems to show a continuous retention period of 100 years, with no intervening temporary changes referenced at all.
butterdezillion, thank you so much for all the hard work that you have done and are doing. You are a true patriot.
Did I ever tell you I think you are absolutely BRILLIANT?
This is a huge whopper.
This is mostly Phil’s baby; I’m just the typist (and getting by on that with some help from my friends too. Thanks, NB 54! lol). But thanks so much to everybody for the encouragement. It makes it a little easier as I watch the dishes piling up and wonder if I’m wasting my time. lol.
This definitely is a big whopper. I can get dizzy just riding a swing; I can’t imagine how I’m going to feel after the Passport Office spins this. lol
The mystery giving up it’s secrets, the OBOTS and the trolls will be in for a whirl of a surprise and stupor when they find out the truth.
Bump for later read. :0)
Lets see if I have this right, there was a 100 year retention period for passport records, they were taking up too much storage space and sometime before 1984 they divided those records into two groups and changed one group to 15 or 20 year retention.
Then they had 40 superclerks go through and sort through millions of records at lightning speed (these are govt employees) and destroy the new class of records between 1984 and 1985 and then they changed the retention period back to 100 years for records that were already destroyed?
Why change it to 100 years and not keep it at 15 or 20? Why microfilm the same type of newer records before destroying them if the records were determined not needed? Why not just microfilm the old records and save space that way instead of destroying them? Would it be cheaper and cost less in the long run to microfilm the old records and store those instead of sorting through them and seperating them?
The State Department charges for searches so apparently its not a losing proposition for them.
Imagine a few hundred Freepers requesting their old passport records..or maybe just records of deceased celebrities or politicians...hmmm, by jove I think I’ve got something there, we know Congressmen & celebrities travel lets take a peek at their records, find out if they have been destroyed! Somebody start a wish list so we don’t duplicate. Instead of paying the $150 just FOIA them...ROFLMAO Lets See FDR, Nixon, JFK....
Wouldn’t geneology groups like the Mormons want to preserve those records and offer to take them off the govt’s hands and store them themselves?
Sounds like Hawaii uh 0 and long form birth certificates well we dont have them anymore but the law says we have to keep them so the truth is we really have them but don’t want anyone to know. Then Hawaii changes requirement for long form for Hawaii Lands without noticing the public as required by law....why all the chicanery?
curioser and curioser..
Is one man worth all this?
It is reaching a saturation point.
Butterdezillion: Thank you for your perseverance and hard work. It will pay off.
Messing with records, and LYING about records.
Thanks again for the incredible work that you have done.
Number one: it seems to me very likely that the 1965 passport application is hidden for the following reason: she first got a passport in 1960 Born in 1961 for travel to somewhere — for example Kenya or Canada.
Passports at that time were valid for three or five years so the time periods could have been 1960 up to 1965, or 1961 to 1964 or up to 1966 depending on the validity — whether it was valid for three years or five years. This is why the data cannot be released for the 1965 application, because it would show what was happening in 1960 and 1961.
Number two: shouldn’t some people now request for copies of their first passports or their parents passports to see what comes back for the period 1950 to 1970. Clearly, one person has already received information from the 1950s, but it would be better to use information from the 1960s.
Just a few would be required.
Lt. Harris didn't get away THAT easy!!!
Nazi Pelosi issued two notarized different affidavits of the usurper's eligibility forms, hmmm???
Thank you butter!!!
Thank you again. Stay away from wasting productive time “dialoging”(???) with “AFTER-BIRTHERS,” they are here to tear you down with usually talking points!!!
There doesn’t seem to be a very loud response back against what we’ve found on this. lol
I imagine that the archives at the Clinton Library in Little Rock have experienced a thorough cleansing. I also remember that during the campaigning for the presidency in the 1992 election someone in Bush's passport office checked on Slick Willie's passport and all Hell broke loose from the media. They screamed bloody murder and wanted Bush impeached. The reason there was interest in his passport was to try to determine where he went after he was booted out of Oxford. He spent several months in Eastern Europe and the USSR and no one seems to know who arranged it, who paid for it, exactly where he went or who he saw. Lots of similarities between the Clintons and Obama.
January of 2011, Republicans will begin the process. January of 2011, Democrats will need him to announce his intentions.
2011, the heat gets turned up every month on this issue.
So far, he has not indicated if he will run. US law forbids him from holding more than one office, so I think he would need to resign the American presidency in 2012.
I think it would be appropriate that we start a campaign for him, here in the states, in 2011.
“Number one: it seems to me very likely that the 1965 passport application is hidden for the following reason: she first got a passport in 1960 Born in 1961 for travel to somewhere for example Kenya or Canada.”
Funny you should say that.....
Didn’t he go out of his way to note within his ‘dreamer book’ that he and mommy went to get BOTH of their first passports TOGETHER prior to the departure for Indonesia!!
Not that I’ve read the book, but that is what I’d heard.
Always remember that every single line Ayers inserted was for a very good reason.
Interesting observation. Does anybody remember reading that part? I’ve read parts of the book but had a hard time not gagging, to be honest.
There are other things I believe Ayers put in there deliberately as well, including an alleged birth weight. Someday those things are going to come back to haunt him and Obama.
The folks at the Passport Office already know, right now, whether SAD had a passport in 1961. They’ve got the index records for all passports ever issued. They’re not telling, and I’m sure there’s a reason they’re not telling.
I agree with your comments and want clarify. From memory, I recall others siting an excerpt where he deliberately stated that it was his and her FIRST time to ever get a passport.
Now why would anyone include such comments? Certainly it wasn’t with the intention of boring the reader!
Who writes about their BC to begin with? Or recites their birth weight to back up the odd comment with detail? Or informs the reader about walking the neighborhood with “Pops” past the hospital mentioning where he was supposedly birthed? Funny how Pops didn’t remind his dear son about the fond memory of carrying the sweet baby bundle from that same hospital 10 years before. It would have been an obvious ground of commonality following a ten-year period of child abandonment.
Who includes those kind of details? Only someone with a deviant ulterior motive that is seeking desperately to substantiate a fabricated past that is intended to deceive the reader (voter).
But the brightest red-flag (no pun intended) of the candidacy period was when it became well known that Hill-Bill’s people were attempting to verify his Kindergarten attendance and records. And he publicly taunted Hillary for this during his primary campaign.
It must be very frustrating to be Hill-Bill. She should have recognized his star-power in 2004 and noted his super-tracked ascension up the party ladder. They should have shelled out some good money and investigated him at that earlier time while there were still some scraps of evidence around. They know he’s a fraud, had the means to investigate him, yet failed in their attempts to ferret out the truth.
Now that we can look back at the D primary and the race, it is obvious that the financiers used her for cover since she was presented to be the face of the party and forerunner of the race. While she was spot-lighted, the big D money and foreign money was on him right from the beginning. It was well solidified and basically complete after his trip to Damascus. The organizational structure and design to cheat her out of caucuses and primary elections in selected states was very well orchestrated by certain someones. hmm..hmm..hmmm.
Otherwise, do it the other way - it is easier to find the end.
There is only one exception - the Bachelor's Exception - TP must be on floor, preferably so it can roll behind the tank and sop up the leakage that you meant to fix last . . . last year yeah that's the ticket . .
This concludes Freedomlover’s TP Etiquette Tip of the Day. That is all.
Yeah, I think the whole thing was orchestrated long before most people had any idea what was going down.
One question that your response elicits: Do you know what records might still exist for kindergarten attendance? Are people able to get records from that far back still? Do you know anything about that?
Ah, you made me laugh, freedomlover. I love it!
In days gone by I used to like to have it roll under rather than over the top but my husband prefers it the other way so I graciously submitted.
Now I’m just glad if somebody besides me puts the roll on the holder at all. lol
NS always has a computer template answer to roll out with!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.