Thursday, May 10, 2012

Sheriff Joe Demands Obama Draft Registration

It is no coincidence that DOJ has now decided to sue Sheriff Joe.  Comrade Obama and the rest of  his regime does not like law abiding Sheriff's nosing around causing trouble and throwing a little thing like the constitution in his Progressive face.  Not at all.  See this story to learn that it is Radical Department of Justice attorney's that are, get this, pro VOTER FRAUD behind the Sheriff Joe lawsuit. 

WND

Providing proof that Sheriff Joe Arpaio intends to continue his investigation of President Obama’s eligiblity, his Cold Case Posse has pressed the director of the Selective Service System not to destroy any microfilm records that may yet exist of Obama’s 1980 draft registration form.

In an emergency letter Wednesday to Selective Service System Director Lawrence Romo, Mike Zullo, the lead investigator in the Cold Case Posse, asked for reassurance that the microfilm records still exist.
“We would like to be assured of the disposition of the microfilm reel or reels containing President Obama’s Selective Service registration form,” Zullo wrote. “Please indicate whether or not you have possession of the microfilm reel or reels containing President Obama’s records or access to them.”
The concerns were raised after Arpaio’s office received official confirmation from the Selective Service System that Obama’s paper draft registration records have been destroyed after being microfilmed.
In addition, an article published Monday by the Washington Times “Communities” social journalism section reported new Selective Service privacy rules might allow existing microfilm records to be destroyed as well.
Zullo expressed concern the microfilm records of Obama’s draft registration form might already have been destroyed.

“In the unfortunate event the microfilm reel or reels containing President Obama’s Selective Service registration form has been destroyed, can you please advise of the date the records were destroyed and the location at which they were destroyed,” he asked.
Zullo’s letter gave Romo 10 business days within receipt of the letter to respond.
Romo, who was appointed director to the U.S. Selective Service System in 2009 by President Obama, reports directly to the president.

Selective Service admits destruction
On March 28, Arpaio wrote Romo a letter directly asking if the Selective Service System still retained the original paper and ink copy of Obama’s draft registration form.
“If your office has the original, authentic Selective Service registration form for Barack Obama from July 29, 1080, please indicate whether or not you have possession of this document,” Arpaio wrote. “If the document is in your possession, please make it available for inspection by my Sheriff’s Office investigators. We will travel to your facility to analyze it.”
On April 3, Richard S. Flahavan, associate director of public and intergovernmental affairs for the Selective Service System, responded to Arpaio with a letter indicating the agency had destroyed Obama’s original paper and ink draft registration form.
“The simple response is no; it was destroyed in 1980,” Flahavan wrote. “Per agency policy and practice, when a Selective Service System record is created from the registration card, the card is microfilmed and the paper card is then destroyed. This has been our policy for more than 30 years.”

Is the microfilm safe?
In the Communities @Washington Times article, Alan Jones noted that the Selective Service System published new privacy rules in the Federal Register Sept. 20, 2011, four days after WND reported Sept. 16, 2011, that Arpaio had commissioned the Cold Case Posse to open an inquiry with full subpoena power into the alleged forgery of several Obama identity documents, including his long-form birth certificate and his Selective Service draft registration form.
Jones article noted it was the first update to Selective Service privacy regulations in 11 years.
The key change is that the new regulations reclassify the status of draft registration forms from “record copies” to “non-record copies,” with the proviso that “non-record copies” are subject to disposal.
The new privacy regulations further allow the Selective Service System to destroy microfilm copies of Selective Service registration forms under certain circumstances.

Date stamp forged?
In his March 1 press conference in Phoenix, Arpaio announced the Cold Case Posse had found probable cause that Obama’s long-form birth certificate and his Selective Service registration form are forgeries.
Exhibit A shows Obama’s Selective Service registration form, with the Post Office date stamp, July 29, 1980, in the lower right corner.
Exhibit A: Barack Obama's Selective Service registration form
Arpaio’s investigators reviewed a number of authentic Selective Service registration forms obtained from the federal government through Freedom of Information Act requests.
Exhibit B presents four of the authentic Selective Service registration forms. All of the forms have a Post Office stamp that indicates the year with four digits.
Exhibit B: Authentic Selective Service registration forms, with Post Office stamps containing four-digit year designation
In sharp contrast, the year designation in Obama’s Selective Service registration has two digits, specifying only “80″ instead of “1980.”
Exhibit C shows the standard Post Office date-stamp equipment that was used to stamp Selective Service registration forms. A close-up shows the three slots on the bottom of the stamp in which the month, day and year plugs were inserted.
Exhibit C: Standard Post Office date stamp, Selective Service registration
Exhibit D shows five examples of the expected results from the pica stamp used by the U.S. Post Office to date-stamp Selective Service registration forms.
Exhibit D: Authentic Selective Service registration date stamps, 1980
The first two stamps in the illustration are from the same Post Office – Makiki Station in Honolulu, Hawaii – indicated on Obama’s Selective Service registration.
While some of the letters stamped in the outer ring on some of the authentic documents are indistinct or even missing, all of the authentic date stamps include four digits for the year at the center of the stamp.
Investigators duplicate Obama’s date stamp
Arpaio’s investigators located and interviewed several 1980s-era Post Office employees who attested that it was standard procedure to utilize a four-digit date stamp.
Investigators next turned their attention toward figuring out how Obama’s Selective Service registration form could possibly have obtained a two-digit year stamp.
Exhibit E shows investigators were able to obtain an authentic 1980 pica date stamp. The photograph also shows the knife set used in the investigation.
Exhibit E: Knife used to cut "2008" date, pica Post Office date stamp
Since investigators could find no 1980 pica Post Office date stamps available, they had no choice but to cut a 2008 pica Post Office date stamp and invert the “08″ half, so that when it was placed in the date compartment, the stamp printed out “80.”
Surprisingly, the result ended up looking identical to the date stamp on Obama’s Selective Service registration card, as demonstrated in Exhibit F.
Exhibit F: "80" two-digit PICA Post Office date stamp in Barack Obama's Selective Service registration (black stamp) and in the date stamp produced by Sheriff Arpaio's investigators (red stamp)
Exhibit G makes clear that the off-to-the-right date stamp seen in the registration, the same as is seen in the demonstration by Arpaio’s investigators, is not observed in the authentic four-digit pica date stamp used in the same office indicated on Obama’s Selective Service registration, which has the same month, July 1980.
Exhibit G, Obama Selective Service registration on left, authentic Selective Service registration on right – same month, same Post Office
The numbers “80″ are out of line to the right in Obama’s card because when they were cut away from the “2008″ date plug, they were not cut squarely.
Arpaio’s investigators concluded that Obama’s Selective Service registration form fit into what was becoming a common narrative for his life: The document was not only forged, it was poorly forged.
In a March 19 letter addressed to Romo, Arpaio explained that MCSO investigators were able to replicate the alleged forgery.