Posted on 08/03/2010 3:23:40 PM PDT by bushpilot1
As an old school typist, I always used the lower case “l” for a one. It was acceptable. It does appears to be two separate typewriters. As for no letterhead or signature, we always put the carbon copy in the file (no photocopiers). The carbon paper had no letterhead and most people did not sign the letter with the carbon paper still in it so a signature would be in the file. As for the analysis of the font type, etc. I will leave that to the experts.
Sorry, but page 78 is in the middle of Soetoro's sob story about how $$poor everyone in Indonesia was, and how dangerous it would be for an American woman (who did not speak Indonesian) to live there with all the Communist unrest.
What is the date on the document to which you refer?
(BTW, the URL you sent is for the entire 97 docs -- not much help, because I already have the whole mess on my machine...)
Could you have your correspondent FReepmail that same document to me?
Sorry I can't be of more help -- yet...
TXnMA
BTW, has anyone come up with the response to the #48 request for info on Oslash;bozo's status yet? My bet is that is one of the withheld docs...
What the framers intended (and they said so) was to prevent the British from running candidates, so to keep the Crown from undo-ing the revolution at the ballot box. So, they limited the POTUS (curiously, no other positions) to be men that were either already here when the Constitution was ratified, or were born here. It was explicitly intended to keep out the Brits. But it also serves to keep out those others that might have divided loyalties.
WHEN CASE IS CLOSED, THIS FORM MUST BE WITHDRAWN FROM THE FILE AND DESTROYED.
I gather the case was never closed? The 'wife's former marriage not submitted' question still remains!
sorry about that...but here it is, thanks to bushpilot1:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2564062/posts?page=139#139
Of course you can't. You only hear what you want to hear.
I don't need to prove anything, and unfortunately, neither does _resident Hussein. I might wish it were different, but it isn't.
He got elected. All of this fuss is too little, too late, and will never amount to anything. According to the Constitution the ONLY way he can be removed from office now (other than losing the next election) is through Articles of Impeachment and conviction by Congress of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. It has to happen in Congress. Good luck with that.
So if the letter was genuinely typed in the sixties it makes sense that the “1” and the “l” would both be printed defectively on the same machine.
thanks again...
The letter is dated July 7, 1965. He, Lolo, tells the interviewer he was married in March (of the same year) but he cannot remember the date...
Documents shown for Stanley Ann Dunham claim TWO marriage dates:
March 15, 1965
March 5, 1964
Sounds like a real love-match, doesn’t it?
He gave his address as 3326 Ohau Avenue, Honolulu...I wonder if the happy couple ever shared a common address in Hawaii?
The separate "1" and "0" didn't start showing up until electric typewriters came along. Even then, I don't think the early electrics had these keys.
Two important items missing..birth certificate and first marriage document.
Well, that narrows it down considerably sarc/
good to know what we are looking for...same as we were looking for more than two years ago.
This doesn't make sense. The Dunham/Obama divorce decree is document 101. (It gives Stanley Ann custody of Barack Hussein Obama II...)
On a memo to the file such as by WlMix, there would generally be no carbons and the original would go in the file as it was just a work file, used to record information that had been gathered, facts etc, in case the file was turned over to another office or officer, due to transfer, leave, etc. That new assigned officer or office could pick up where the old one left off. That is one reason I find it strange that the source of the information stating Obie was born in Hawaii is missing..someone else picking up the file would not know how it was checked and would have to start over.
The second reason I doubt anything more than a telephone call to Hawaii vital records for a cursory index search or a call to Stanley Ann was made is due to the nature of the “inquiry”,they used the word inquiry not investigation when referring to the directive to get the info. Thus no emphasis or suspicion seemed to be in order, but the fact if he was a USC and whether her previous husbands child or Lolo’s child was the main point of the inquiry, and likely a point a supervisor found on a checklist of things that should be done. It appears on document 43 page that WLM hand initialed that doc or had a very brief and unusual signature. that doc was dated sept 25, 1967. Doc #45 is blurred and appears to be a carbon copy while doc #46 is clear and no smudges, to me indicative of an original not carbon.
I must be missing something, Document 101? My SCRIBD collection only goes to 97.
Can you place the document to which you refer on this forum?
all the docs relating to the divorce, excepting the missing page 11 have been posted here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2040486/posts?page=9074#9074
makes one wonder when that fantasy divorce was created, doesn't it?
If I recall correctly the reference to the missing divorce decree was later rectified by submission by Ann check the dates on the docs.
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.