Probably not. The affidavit (to which the receipt is attached as Exhibit A) is a real affidavit of service--it says where she sent it; here it came back.
The consequences of faking one of these are really adverse if it backfires on you and everybody in the law business knows how it works.
About the only hole is the question of whether X was set up to receive this, unknown probably to the lawyer and certainly unknown to the Legal Secretary, and sign Sr.'s name to the receipt. If you know what his signature looks like, you can start looking for where he lived in Cambridge at 170 Magazine Street in January of 1964.
Thanks. That’s my take on it, too. There was some confusion, apparently, about whether or not he got the divorce papers or sent them back, “return to sender.”
In any case, it appears that the judge was satisfied that he was served with the papers and chose not to respond. (That is, if the divorce papers are legitimate. With Obama, anything on the Internet is questionable. I’m assuming, though, that the papers are legit.)
Have you all seen this story?
http://www.seattleweekly.com/2008-10-22/news/may-the-best-mom-win/
This reporter said back in Oct. 2008 that Stanley Ann went alone to Washington state for college, leaving the baby behind in Hawaii. So, are all those friends and the babysitter covering for her? Isn’t it totally bizarre how even the simplest “fact” about his life history is mercurial?
btw, somewhere on Free Republic, I read that a Dr. Jack Wheeler of “On the Point News” knows the true, “omg wild” story of Obama’s bc. Did this guy EVER reveal what he knows? Sorry to be so late tuning; trying to catch up with you all.