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.
Will people accept the Supreme Court as the final word on it?
I do wonder about those things...
You are so annoying. My answer is NO. The burden of proof is on him. he can end this in one day. Show the sealed bc in hawaii. end of story
Look at one of the comments posted by the very guy that made the Dark Socrates video:
“By the way, I do not appreciate you guys giving
LordShadrach “Thumbs Down” on his comment. He is just stating what he believes, and as you can see, he clearly rejects this 2012 nonsense. Please judge him on his comments, and not on the fact that he takes a position that differs from yours.”
This guy needs the Dark Soratic method applied to his Hypocrisy.
You said — “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.”
I just look at it in the basic terms of the Constitutional requirements for being President and allegations (for both of them) that they are not qualified — and then — it not being proven (at least not at that time...).
That’s a basic picture for me...
What is the closest point of Entry to Harvard?
Here are some other places to look:
www.loc.gov/rr/genealogy/bib_guid/immigrant/general.html - 21k
www.migrationinformation.org/USFocus/display.cfm?ID=116 - 34k
Well, interesting that you won’t accept a final Supreme Court decision on the matter. I will and I don’t even know what they’re gong to say about it.
But, you seem to say that you’ll only accept the Supreme Court if they do what you say... Now, that’s an odd view of the Supreme Court, I would think...
Well dont keep yourself up at nigh wondering such things.
Why should anyone have to answer such ‘what if’ questions about how they will view an issue so far off into the future? Esecially considering how many angles there are to this issue in regardsto Obama. The Arthur case was not as complex even. We have the question of Kenyan birth, duel citizenship at birth, the adoptionand Indonesian citizenship, the communist family ties, etc....
I don’t know the exact date the info was submitted but I went to the site in late July/08.
That whole thing is plain weird, I think, and twisted, too...
Oh gosh - gotta go to bed!
You said — “You are so annoying. My answer is NO. The burden of proof is on him. he can end this in one day. Show the sealed bc in hawaii. end of story”
I’m finding it very odd that people have decided that they won’t accept a Supreme Court ruling if it does not go the way they have decided it should go. That doesn’t sound like following our “system” at all...
It is so basic that it is meaningless then to learn much from it. You leave out vast differences when trying to make the point that me may learn something from it?
Are you saying that the current govs of Mich or Cal could be vice president?
You are incorrect. Ann came back to HI from WA state, not Indonesia!
Probably, if so it would have stopped in Gander, Newfoundland Canada, many US military flights moving troops to and from the sandbox/rockpile stop there to refuel even today. But if the destination was Hawaii, they would not go through a US east Coast city because they are too far south of the shortest (great circle) path from Scotland/England, even Gander is somewhat south of the path.
I looked at a great circle course calculator, and while Kenya to Britain, to Newfoundland to Vancouver to Hawaii is longer than Kenya to Hawaii, the direct path goes over China (not friendly in'61) and probably had fewer routes available. The route via London would have had more flights, and probably some stops along the way, either in North Africa or Italy. Flying from England to Hawaii via Gander Newfoundland and Vancouver/Seattle would be longer than direct from Great Britain to Vancouver/Seattle and then to Hawaii, but may have been too far for most or all commercial aircraft in '61. Thus the most probable path from Kenya to Hawaii would be through London, Gander, Vancouver or Seattle, and then on to Hawaii, with another possible refueling stop somewhere near Italy.
The fact that the world (almost) round can be confusing when thinking of flat maps.
If we’re past the point of allegations — how come I don’t see any court orders... :-)
You see..., for me to be past the point of allegations is for a court order to come down and say it in the authority of the court. Absent that, it’s still in the realm of allegations.
And if the Supreme Court decides that Obama is eligible — I have already “wondered” (in previous posts) if that will finally settle it for people here. And I find the very odd idea that people will only accept a Supreme Court ruling if it goes the way they think it should go — according to their own opinion, here and now.
Now, that doesn’t sound like we’re following our own “system” (by the Constitution that gives us that Supreme Court) if we don’t accept what they decide... It’s very strange for people who claim to be Constitutional, to abandon the ruling of the Supreme Court if it’s not according to their opinion... LOL..
WE DO NOT HAVE TO ACCEPT WHAT THE COURT SAYS. You are ignoring what I posted earlier or you’re still trying to come up with an answer. If the court or the congress do not ensure that the president meets the qualifications, we will ensure it is not the end of it. You can be as flabbergasted as you like.
I belong to Ancestry.com and found Stanley Ann’s death recorded on the Social Security Death Index 7 NOV 1995, Honolulu.
Now this is very interesting. I always thought that if we followed through our Constitutional system that we accepted the outcome of our Constitutional process as the way of our government and the peaceful process that we have in governing ourselves, accordingly.
But, now I find that people are saying that they will not accept the Constitutional processes — and not even a Supreme Court ruling — if it does not go the way that their opinion says it should.
That makes me wonder if some are really Constitutional at all...
I meant that we are past allegations in the sense that the argument being made is bsed upon something that is not contested (Obama having duel citizenship at birth).
And why do you think that people have to agree with every Court decision. We have had Supreme Courtdecisions that have even contradicted (or overtuned) other decisions. So how do you agree with both?
Thanks for the PING. Happy New Year, btw.
You need to read some US history about public pressure, civil disobedience, and investigations of "closed issues."
I mentioned abortion earlier. Anyone who's been alive the last 25 years knows that a supreme court action is not the final word on everything.
I just can’t see her traveling alone. I would thin that she would accompany SR to Kenya and return to the US with him.....She was a young wgirl with a new baby....She may have travel from the east to west coast alone, but not all the way from Africa....No Africa—England—East Coast and then onward by herself to WA or HI.
What is the closest airport to Harvard?
Passed by Congress December 9, 1803. Ratified June 15, 1804.
... "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
You couldn’t be more wrong and more ignorant of US history.
Okay, then the Vice President has to be qualified under the same provisions as the President. That clears it up....
So, President Arthur was neither Constitutionally qualified as Vice President or as President of the United States...
My God... President Arthur is doing “twice” what people say that Obama is doing — but he’s only doing it for one office (Arthur did it for two offices [i.e., not qualified]
Secondly, so what?
Do yo have a port of entry section, for those who immigrated to the US, at that sight?
Here we may find some common ground.
There is a difference between accepting a Supreme Court ruling on the here and now, and fighting to change it (which is not an accepting behavior).
For example, I offer the recent Kelo eminent domain "takings" decision. People accepted the taking of their property because the alternative was forcible removable by law enforcement. But, that did not stop states from enacting laws to nullify the Supreme Court ruling for future eminent domain claims in their states.
So, Supreme Court rulings are not "final" in that sense. If Obama can't be stopped in 2009, he might still be prevented from running in 2012, as was Arthur, by new laws requiring the positive proof of qualification by candidates before running for president.
Class is adjourned. Do your homework and correct your misconceptions about supreme court decisions.
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.