Skip to comments.Ed Hale got the divorcee decree of Dunham vs Obama Sr.
Posted on 01/02/2009 1:16:10 PM PST by patriot08
Ed Hale of Plains Radio has secured a copy of the Dunham/Obama divorce decree as promised. He has registered this at the courthouse and has turned the document over to lawyers who are reported to be happy and enthused over the contents.
This is the first page. This is all that can be divulged at this time as those who have seen the decree are sworn to silence. You may hear information about it tonight on Ed's plainsradio show.
You said — “Refusal to produce proof of qualification is in and of itself sufficient enough reason to prevent him from taking office and we’ll see if 5 judges have the courage to say so.”
And if they don’t then does that settle it?
You seem to intentionally concentrate on what suits you in comparing the Arthur case to the Obama case. There are a vast amount of differences involving these two cases.
Might they have made a photocopy of it, or even just a record of having seen it, along with some information from it? Or would the paperwork itself have the information on the place of birth of the baby?
Remember BHO Jr, would not be coming in as a US Citizen, so the BC would not be one from a US Embassy or Consulate, but rather a British Colonial one. Under the appropriate assumptions of course.
The rumors of his Canadian birth were not enough to get him impeached as the general public liked him and the Impeachment process is based upon Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
It was however enough to produce that very rare event, an incumbent president requesting nomination by his party for reelection and not getting it.
As for a loophole? Could be. The text is very clear.
Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
Term limit amendment - US Constitution, Amendment XXII, Section 1 ratified February 27, 1951
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
I do not see the word Vice-President anywhere in the text. The constitution specifies the succession. Yet there is no natural born requirement for vice-President but a clear statement that the Vice-President replaces the President in case he is removed or dies.
Article II - The Presidency
Section 1 - Election, Installation, Removal
In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
Additionally the 25th Amendment is not subject to any interpretation at all and represented the general opinion that Article 2 Section 1 really does mean what it states.
Amendment XXV - Presidential Succession (1967)
Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
Sooo, the only thing I see that requires any further clarification is why do you constantly harass FReepers? Take a break, you dont have to prove you are an azz-whole every day of your life.
The so called missing page may be nothing more than the empty copied back page of a four page set. Modern copiers will copy on both sides and the tech may not ‘edit’ the # of pages since seals and things register through to even empty pages.
Okay, but why would there be any mystery about Stanley Ann’s date of death? Hasn’t that been documented?
So the grandparents never had a house (with a lawn) in Hawaii?
Honestly... that whole family is strange.
Orland and Thelma
Posted on Thursday, December 18, 2008 5:58:11 AM by MacSuibhne
Orland d. 7/287/07, Thelma d. 6/28/08. Plenty on Orland, he was a professor, etc. They both passed away at 91. On-line records go back to 1976. I’m sure with a bit of creativity, we can confirm who resided in 0’s birth house.
Orland Scott Lefforge died July 4,2007 at the age of 91.
Thelma Jones Lefforge Young his wife/companion died Jun 12/08 at the age of 91. Good luck trying to find info about them it is extremely sparse, speaking from experience!
So you think they flew into Vancouver and then drove or took a bus to Bellingham on to Seattle?
Is this the judge that presided over the divorce hearing?
Appears to be.
I couldn’t tell what the hell he was saying honestly because he slurs his words, but I got this from searching “point of entry”, so maybe try both:
It’s Malaysia, so not what we’re looking for but it gives a good overview of procedures.
You said — “It seems as if the whole point you are trying to make is that this issue may notbe seen through to the point of getting justice. Is that it?”
Well, one knows what we have to meet up to, and that’s what the Constitution says in this matter. Now, we’re only at the point of allegations (aside from some who say that the “known facts” are enough to disqualify Obama, but that remains for a court to say). And being at the point of allegations — without proof — which is required (for a court, if nothing else...), it appears that Obama is going into office without a problem (of course, that’s dependent upon what a court does before then...).
And if he gets into office, well then, it’s apparent that we couldn’t get justice — but only if — the allegations are true. But, one thing about courts — is that they will either *verify* or *negate* allegations. And since we are going through the courts, we’ll soon see whether these allegations are verified or not (by their decisions). And since it’s the Supreme Court — they are the final word and that means when they reach their decision (even if it’s not decision at all) that will be the final word on the matter, since you can’t appeal beyond the Supreme Court.
So, where will those people be, who still believe that Obama is not qualified and if the Supreme Court does not agree with them? I don’t know (for them). For me, when the Supreme Court says their final word (whatever it is) that will put it to rest for me...
I think that’s what I’m saying... LOL..
Well President Arthur may have something to say to those people who don’t agree with the Supreme Court (if they don’t decide to get Obama out or prove that he’s not eligible) — in that they will think (always, apparently) that Obama is not qualified even though the issue is finally settled with the Supreme Court — so they will be in that very position of those people (back then) who said that President Arthur was not qualified, yet he still was President and he still did everything as a President would do. It would be relevant to these present day people as it was to those back then who would not accept that President Arthur was “legitimate” (at least as legitimate as history records he was...).
We’re thinking on paralellel roads. A young girls with a new baby would not want to travel alone with just the baby and his paper work..
IMO Sr would have travel with her...I think our first port should be the closest one to Harvard where hHE was attending school.
He would have assisted her in getting back into the country with the baby and his paper work. Then she could have continued her trip to friends and family in WA and HI.
You know, a lot of people have talked about what we can do if this happens and that happens and it’s evidence to prove the case against Obama.
What I would like to know is what people will do if it is never proven and Obama continues in office. It seems that many people are not prepared for that possibility.
And further than that — what if the Supreme Court, by their actions puts the final word on it and makes it so that Obama is qualified. Will people accept the Supreme Court as the final word on it?
I do wonder about those things...
Q. What is acceptable if a birth certificate is not available?
A. In lieu of a birth certificate you may provide: (1) A passport or attested transcript of a passport filed with a registrar of passports at a point of entry of the United States showing the date and place of birth of the child; (2) An attested transcript of the certificate of birth; (3) An attested transcript of the certificate of baptism or other religious record showing the date and place of birth; (4) An attested transcript of a hospital record showing the date and place of birth of the child; (5) a birth affidavit. [O.R.C. 3313.672]
Well, that’s a real big loophole if the Vice President does not have to be qualified under the Constitution to become President. Very interesting. It does seem that the Constitution has some gaping holes in it. That’s a real big one...
And if it’s no big deal for a Vice President to be qualified, I’m wondering if someone will try to promote the idea that it shouldn’t be important for a President to be qualified either — since a Vice President can take the office of President without being qualified.
Have you never heard of public opinion or pressure or history? I can't believe you're that naive.
I will point out to you that we are past the point of allegations in regards to the ‘natural born’ argument. Obama has already admitted to being born to a British/Kenyan father and to possess duel citizzenship at birth. There is no real reason to think that the Justices aren’t already thinking of this or reason to think that may not, we will see.
I will agree with you that alot rides on the response by the Supreme Court (and we still have to get to that point) but still this case has aspects to it that are vastly different than the Arthur case that will also make it trickier to be dismissed.
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.