Obama’s Selective Service card forwarded to USPIS Mail Fraud Division

Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. just learned the complaint she filed over a year ago regarding the use of a fabricated USPS stamp on Barack Obama's Selective Service System registration was referred to the USPIS Mail Fraud Division over a year ago.

RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA, Calif. – Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the United States Postal Service Office of the Inspector General back in May concerning evidence she provided the agency over a year ago regarding the alleged use of a fabricated USPS stamp by President Barack Obama on his Selective Service System registration.

As I discovered back in 2010 after reviewing a sampling of Selective Service registration forms obtained through a FOIA request for the same period of time, some even from the same post office, only Obama’s was stamped with a postal stamp bearing a two-digit year.

Having worked at the local post office myself, I knew the pica stamp year insert was a single piece containing four digits and the USPS has always used a four digit year, which was corroborated by Jeff Jones, a 24-year USPS employee in New York.

Upon further examination of Obama’s registration form, it appeared the year stamped simply as 80 was actually an inverted 08, cut from a 2008 pica stamp insert and inverted.

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Cold Case Posse lead investigator Mike Zullo confirmed that it was in fact an inverted 08, as he was able to recreate the same results in his living room.

What that proved was Obama’s Selective Service registration was fraudulently created in 2008, not stamped in 1980 by the Makiki Post Office in Honolulu.

I also learned two different people made FOIA requests for copies of Obama’s Selective Service records and were both provided records with a computer screen printout date of Sept. 9, 2008, although both made their requests after that time.

They were also provided different sets of records, records that had been altered from the time the first request was fulfilled to the time second request was fulfilled.

Information had been changed and records had been added, backdated to 1991.

Taitz received a response to her FOIA request dated June 26, 2013 indicating her Hotline Information Report was referred to the USPIS Mail Fraud Division over a year ago by Hotline Program Manager Barbara Jackson.

In her June 29, 2012 referral to the Mail Fraud Division, Jackson wrote, “We have reviewed the information provided and have determined that your office can best address the issues raised. Therefore, we are forwarding the correspondence for whatever action you deem appropriate.
Please advise us of the action taken and results within 30 days.”

She also noted a related Hotline case was previously forwarded to Mail Fraud on March 5, 2012.
The June 26, 2013 letter from USPS FOIA Analyst P.E. Poulsen, responding to Taitz’s request, stated since her complaint was forwarded to the USPIS, she may want to contact that agency.
Since the Hotline Information referral to the Mail Fraud Division requested results of action taken within 30 days and it has now been over one year, it appears no action has been taken.

Meanwhile, Taitz filed a motion for reconsideration in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in her case against Michael Astrue, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, for production of a copy of Obama’s application for a Social Security Number.

Obama has been using a SSN issued in Connecticut, despite the fact he has never lived in Connecticut and he was attending high school in Honolulu at the time the number would have been issued.

However, the attorney for the defendant failed to file a response to her motion by the July 1, 2013 deadline.

On July 2, Patrick G. Nemeroff, trial attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice, filed a motion asking the court permission to be able to file its opposition to Taitz’s motion for reconsideration a day late.

The reason provided by Nemeroff was he mistakenly read a court order and asked the court to grant his motion to file one day late due to “excusable neglect.”