Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: David

“And of course it is some leap from the point at which you could prove a Russian language course was possible to supporting a fairy tale about Stanley, an entering Freshman, being in the class in the fall of 60—as of this date, there is no real evidence Stanley was ever in Hawaii prior to March of 1963.”

On the contrary it is only unsupported speculation that Stanley Ann was NOT in HI in the Russian class in the Fall of 1960. All of the evidence supports her being there and there is NO evidence supporting claims of forgery of any of the FOIA docs, U of HI Registrar letter, U of WA transcripts.


173 posted on 07/16/2012 8:44:33 AM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies ]


To: Seizethecarp; LucyT; Fred Nerks; Brown Deer
On the contrary it is only unsupported speculation that Stanley Ann was NOT in HI in the Russian class in the Fall of 1960. All of the evidence supports her being there and there is NO evidence supporting claims of forgery of any of the FOIA docs, U of HI Registrar letter, U of WA transcripts.

Well you can say anything. But the fact record is this.

Copies of 1960's U of W transcript forms are out there in circulation--they make the U of W procedure for tracking academic record clear and demonstrate conclusively that the U of W transcript is fraudulent.

That in turn impeaches the Hawaii record recounted on the fraudulent transcript.

Further, the combined documents are not credible because on their face, they infer that Stanley didn't get credit for either the claimed 1960 Hawaii course or the U of W academic credits.

You have the letters from the East West Center students in the fall of 61--Senior didn't have a wife at the U of W who had custody of a son at that time.

You have the Rick Anderson Seattle Weekly article--no baby at the Toutonghi boarding house on Capital Hill.

The U of Hawaii letters and other web site information is not evidence--no certified transcript or other reason to believe it is any more factual than the fraudulent Hawaii birth certificate. The only document in the entire package that would meet the test of admissible evidence would be a certified copy of the U of W transcript. We don't have that and won't get it because no one at the U will take the risk of a perjury charge to certify it for the reason that it is clearly a fake that would be exposed by any of the hundreds of people who have first hand knowledge of how these kinds of records were maintained in the 60's and by production of actual 1960's academic records.

There is no record of any single person who saw Stanley in Hawaii at any time prior to March 1963--she wasn't there.

174 posted on 07/16/2012 10:17:30 AM PDT by David
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson