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.
I got sidetracked this is sick-O...I wish I didnt know this.
Name: Renee L Abena Obama
Birth Date: 31 October 2004 (Historical Events)
Death Date: 25 December 2004 (Historical Events)
Issuing State: Maryland
Did you see the last names of the neighbors... and some live in other states I dont understand that...
Results 1 - 25 of 6,940,719 for (2004 Or 2005 Or 2003) Next Next
Given Name Surname Birth Year Death Year County State More Details
Vincent I 1916 2004 Santa Clara California More Details
Vicki L 1956 2004 Saint Lucie Florida More Details
Alden O 2004 2005 More Details
Keum O 1931 2004 Baltimore Maryland More Details
Sung Kil O 1916 2004 Los Angeles California More Details
Yong O 1933 2004 Pinellas Florida More Details
Kai Yan U 1914 2004 Los Angeles California More Details
Mario X 1971 2004 More Details
Terry X 1947 2004 Wayne Michigan More Details
Noh Y 1962 2004 More Details
Louis 0Rsini 1954 2004 Gloucester New Jersey More Details
William 3Ession 1980 2004 More Details
Khamphong 8Soudaly 1940 2004 More Details
I knew Stanley Ann was cremated like her mother. Another poster (upthread) found Stanley Ann’s date of death via her social security records.
The lawn comment from Maya is very strange.
Why did Stanley Ann have all those aliases? This is a very secretive family, and really did live on the fringe of what was considered “normal” in those days. Not your typical family from Kansas.
Could be they were being "watched" by the FBI as communists or fellow travelers and didn't want to put their address in a public forum.
...and I gave you one.
You're hanging your hat on a Supreme Court ruling, and I'm suggesting that public opinion, beyond extortionist threats to burn down your business if you don't pay for "protection," (i.e. predictions of riots in the streets if Obama is disqualified) can also be an influencer.
That's why the MSM isn't covering this, for fear of building up public opinion of any kind.
So you then obviously do not think that this is very serious then since you are trying to make the point that it hurt nothing by Arthur possibly being ineligible. Your objective is obviously to make it seem that it wont hurt anyting if Obama gets away with it.
This is all showing how you think on these issues and what agenda you hold, imo.
You even made a point of acting as if you believed someone might be an abortion bomber if they dont accept a Supreme Court decision. I really think now that you are really a liberal on here trying to influence this issue for Obama’s favor or something.
You said — “Just one little thing, for a certified copy of the Original Birth Certificate, that the state of Hawaii says they have, to be provided directly to one, just one, of the Courts which have active cases seeking it’s production. That would either make the issue go away, or blow it wide open.”
Well, Berg was saying that it couldn’t be compelled and that’s the problem. If that’s the system you have at the present (and Berg says it is) — and you’re unable to get it — then you’ve got a real big problem. And if the courts won’t compel it, then there’s not much more that one can do.
You then said — “BHO has not seen fit to request such a BC be provided. Why has he not done so? And instead sent lawyers to argue against “standing” and any requirement to provide the BC. However much they might have cost him it would be much much more than it would cost ($12 if done over the ‘net) to have one provided to such a court directly from the State of Hawaii’s Department of Health Statistics.”
I know the arguments about providing the info to settle the accusations against him — as I used the same ones before the election... :-)
The problem that is at issue — is not what can be done to satisfy accusations that we see here (and elsewhere) — that’s not the real issue at hand. The real issue at hand is — rather — can one be “compelled” to show this documentation, or even further — can just one particular candidate be compelled to show this documentation and not others be compelled to show it. That’s what the courts are going to be looking at.
Now *after* they decide whether one can be compelled to show this documentation — then we’ll know whether we’ll get it or not. We will if they say it can be compelled. We won’t get it if they say it cannot be compelled.
Now, from what Berg has said — it appears to me that the courts are going to say it can’t be compelled under the laws that we have in place right now. So, that’s going to lead to a legislative solution to correct those laws.
Telephone book? Look up the owner's name. If they show at that address, they probably lived there. But you'd have a hard time finding who did live there...unless you had a specific name in mind and looked them up in the phone book and they showed up at that address.
But the location would have been much too expensive for a knocked up freshman and her foreign student husband.
You’re wasting your breath. I went round and round with Star Traveler yesterday because he kept saying he wasn’t putting faith in something not “verified” regarding Obama’s dual citizenship. After about 10 posts of saying “It’s not about verifying anything, it’s a fact he was born a British subject” I gave up.
in coming fr mail
I must’ve missed something. Why are people assuming that a direct flight from London to Vancouver existed back in 1961, especially if that flight had to stop and refuel in Nowheresville, Newfoundland? If she was going from London to Seattle, wouldn’t it be more likely that there was a transfer (or 2 or 3)? Based on the Harvard connection, I’d assume Logan (if that was open in 1961). If not that, NYC.
Yeah, I read someone elses post who said it was Aug 8. Too bad. It’s a document, though, and the D. might be of use.
They had photo copiers, as opposed to Xerox style copiers. They actually took a picture of the thing to be copied, and then made a print. Nasty things. I have one of my marriage license (1970 document, got the copy in the '80s) I can barely read it. But I have copies of my DD-214 (discharge) made in '73 that are quite readable, if getting a bit yellow. In fact I used one of them as demonstration of veteran status when I renewed my CHL a couple of months ago. (and thus got it for half price :) ). Although they never really asked for it, and likely it would have shown up on the background check anyway.
No, I think it was serious with President Arthur, just as serious as the issue is with Obama. They are both equally serious under the Constitution...
And no..., I don’t think that I’m accusing someone of being an abortion clinic bomber. I said that being that kind of “bomber” — is not the way to reject the court’s decision for abortion.
I’ll reprint the wording here —
So, when you say reject it the question is are you going to reject it by blowing up abortion clinics with bombs? Or are you going to reject it by shooting abortion doctors dead? If so, thats not the kind of rejection that I would be talking about.
That’s explaining the way to *not* reject the court’s decision.
However, on the other hand, if you’re saying that there exists no people who respond in that way — then no, that’s not correct. There are definitely some (a very few) who do respond that way in that particular situation of the Supreme Court’s decision. Fortunately they are very few.
Oh, and saying that one is a liberal... well, I did take the liberal/conservative test... :-)
You can see the results on my home page... if you want.
I had seen that info quite awhile ago and people tried to relate it to Obama Sr or Jr or Ann but I doubt it is anything about any of that family. Say Good Night Gracie! Tomorrow is soon enough for more of this, my couch is developing a permanent slump in it after spending all night on this thread!
There’s still no justification for a Second American Revolution if the court decision doesn’t go according to one’s opinion, no matter what. I’ll keep within the system and make necessary changes that way and deal with Supreme Court decisions as they decide. There will be no revolutions here, with me... :-)
It’s a technique promoted by Axelrod, called axelturf that keep people from doing the job at hand. Changing the subject...Taking over the thread.
The job at hand is finding the Port entry of Stanley Ann D Obama and infant son. You are welcome to join those of us who freep mail each other with information....Keeps certain people from knowing what’s REALLY happening.
We are trying to locate a listing of people entering through ports after 1959 Several before. Was given a hint through freepmail of Baltimore.
Oh, and saying that one is a liberal... well, I did take the liberal/conservative test... :-)
You can see the results on my home page... if you want.
Ok that proves it, now go to bed. As if any poser couldn’t set that up. Do you think people are stupid? You are so transparent.
Yes ma'am, you are absolutely correct. It's best to ignore them completely
Say Good Night Gracie!
LOL sweet dreams!
You said — “I think what most here believe is that the Supreme Court is capable of making an error.”
The Supreme Court made an error in the Dred Scott decision. That was corrected. The Supreme Court made an error in the Roe v. Wade decision. That has not been corrected.
So, it’s apparent that they can make errors — but we abide by the decisions and we make corrections from within the system. Sometimes that takes a while, as it has in the past. But we always stay with their decisions in the meantime...
Correct, but this is nothing new. Phil Berg made that point several months ago.
Even the Kenyan Parliament (Nov. 5th, 2008) was joking about Obama's victory "homecoming."
(This is supposed to be from the Kenyan Government's Web site.)
p. 3266 - PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES - November 5, 2008
The Assistant Minister for Water and Irrigation (Mr. Kiunjuri): Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, as you can see, people are really celebrating. However, I am wondering whether the Americans have not reported to work and yet it is their victory. I am also hoping that there will be no homecoming for Obama. If there is one, the Leader of Government Business should alert us in good time so that we can set up a committee to organize for his homecoming. (Laughter)
pp. 3275-3278 - more on the Obama presidential victory, discussion
On the issues that I have discussed with you tonight you seem to be someone who is liberal. I do not know why you had to make a clarification in regards to whether someone is possibly an abortion clinic bomber just because they had said that they may reject or not accept a Supreme Court decision. Nor why you insist on making the case that the Arthur case and the Obama case are identical.
The impression I start to get from you after a while is that you are a liberal. It starts to come through after awhile.
Well at least you are polite Star Traveler. I am heading to sleep though so have a good night.
Good night all!
You said — “You seem like you are in a muddle. This is also a typical state that liberals enter when discussing law and the Constitution. They make it seem like both sids are equally subjective on the issue even though it is themselves who want to not be objective in regards to the facts. Conservatives on this issue want the rule of law to be upheld, yet you are arguing based upon the past case of Arthur that it dosent really matter.”
It’s no muddle to me to abide by whatever Supreme Court decision comes out, no matter whether I agree with it or not. And it’s certainly not a muddle to me to understand the *reality* of a situation (as we have right now) which is similar to the “reality” that people had to face before in our country (as they did with President Arthur).
So, it’s a very clear issue to follow the Supreme Court decision and to also recognize *reality* as it happens and don’t confuse wishes and desires with reality... Then you’ll be fine.
And if there are changes to be made, you work within the system to make the changes. That all seem very clear to me and not too hard to follow, actually...
There is certainly nothing in the papers themselves. And not much confidence that they'll find something based on them. But you never know when unraveling the ball of yarn, if there is something in the middle or not, until you find it, or run out of yarn.
I’m not sure whether or not people are talking about armed revolt here. You seem to be arguing against armed revolt. I must have missed the posts where people were planning armed revolt if the S Ct let Obama be President.
I have no idea what people would do if the SCt does nothing.
It seems like you think armed revolt is a real possibility.
You had made the comment that you thought we were a nation of opinions simply because someone had said that they may not accept a Supreme Court decision.
It is typical of liberals to act as if conservatives and liberals are equally just spouting there own opinions or agendas in regards to the Constitution, when in fact conservatives are trying to follow the Constitution to the letter.
Your muddled perspective in that post is very familiar to me in many argumets I have had with liberals.
You said — “Right so you are on a crusade to let everyone know that all be alright if Obama is ineligible and the Constitution gets ignored.”
No..., I said it was a serious issue with President Arthur to violate the Constitution and he did it twice, not just once. That’s doubly serious. It’s like having two counts of a crime instead of one count. Obama so far, has only been accused of one count of violating the Constitutional requirement for office, because he’s only going into one office (not two offices, one after the other). So, they are serious issues.
But, the problem is the same as it was before with President Arthur, No one could come up with any proof. Now, if someone does have some proof — then I guess a court will rule in their favor. But, if they don’t then it will be the same thing as President Arthur, both being serious problems...
And then you were saying — “And you are on another crusade in this thread to tell us all that we should accept whatever the Supreme Court says and never disagree and fight to change it.”
Nope, that’s not quite the accurate story there. I guess some people just don’t read close enough. What I said (and you can verify this by following through on that conversation) is that you accept what the Supreme Court says, regardless of whether you think it’s right or not. And if you don’t agree with it, then you can work within the system to make any changes that you think are needed.
The Dred Scott decision was wrong and it was finally corrected. The Roe v. Wade decision was wrong and that hasn’t been corrected yet. It’s still being worked on.
So, that’s how you do your changes — you abide by the court’s decision and you make the changes in the same ways that people are doing so and have done so with Dred Scot and Roe v. Wade. (plus other decisions, too).
You asked — “You are not a liberal?”
That’s not what my Liberal/Conservative test says... you can see it on my Home Page... LOL...
But if it's "no word" it's not the last word, because it means they said anything, they just decided not to decide. But they mostly haven't even done that yet, other than denying requests for pre argument injunctions and such. They have not ruled on the merits of the case, and haven't even said they weren't going to take the case in several instances.
The fat lady may be warming up her pipes, but she hasn't sung yet. She may never sing, she may sing after January 20th, which could be a mess as the audience starts hurling rotten fruit at the others on stage, or she my sing Obama's song, before or after January 20th.
You also made a big point about no damage was done by Arthur serving and that no laws were made ineligible and so on. So how serious can you really be claiming that it was?
It much more seems to me that you are trying to downplay the seriousness of this by insisting on thse points in regards to Arthur.
And it seems that you intentionally made an issue out of what people said here in regards to how they would or would not accept a Supreme Court decision and even brought up references that a liberal would bring up.
You said — “You had made the comment that you thought we were a nation of opinions simply because someone had said that they may not accept a Supreme Court decision.”
If it turns out that people ignore Supreme Court decisions and don’t abide by them, because it does not accord to their personal opinions, then yes, it’s a country of opinions and not one of laws.
But, if one abides by the Supreme Court decisions and thinks it should be changed, and then works within the system and the laws that we have — and gets those changes accomplished — then that would be a country of laws (and not “opinions”)
That’s the difference...
Then you were saying — “It is typical of liberals to act as if conservatives and liberals are equally just spouting there own opinions or agendas in regards to the Constitution, when in fact conservatives are trying to follow the Constitution to the letter.”
If one will *not* abide by the Supreme Court decisions, regardless of whether they agree with them (and while they may work to make changes) then — yes..., it’s just “opinions”.
For example, one can have agreed with the Constitution over the years and yet, still have voted on inserting Amendments into the Constitution. You can see something wrong in the Constitution and see that something has to be changed or improved and do it. We’ve done it many times, already. We will still continue doing that. But, it’s done within the law.
So, if the Supreme Court does not agree with those here — then changes can be made to the Constitution which can correct the problem. It’s that simple and it’s not a complicated idea or matter. But, it’s all done within the law...
And lastly, you said — “Your muddled perspective in that post is very familiar to me in many argumets I have had with liberals.”
It’s really a clear matter to me. You follow the Supreme Court decisions, no matter whether they are your opinion or not. If you think things need to be changed, then you work within the laws and you get the changes done. That’s not very muddled to me..., perhaps it is to you.. I don’t know...
And talking about liberals — you can see my liberal/conservative test on my Home Page... :-)
You asked about an armed revolt... well... when someone quoted the Declaration of Independence, that was the First American Revolution, an armed revolt.
So, their reference to that, in addressing these present issues seemed to me to be a “Second American Revolution” — and such an armed revolt I would not support, no matter what the Supreme Court decision was...
I don't think BHO Sr was at Harvard yet in August of '61. He was still at U of Hawaii, and still an undergrad.
But closest POE to Boston would not be Baltimore. Likely it would be Boston's Logan Airport or failing that New York City.
Well, I’ll call it quits for the night, too... and get back in the morning...
What would the Founding Fathers do?
“And it seems that you intentionally made an issue out of what people said here in regards to how they would or would not accept a Supreme Court decision and even brought up references that a liberal would bring up.”
Star Traveler you are still making an issue of this. It really wasnt an issue until you made it one. You saw an oppurtunity to make the clarification of what others here meat by “accept” or “reject” on the Court as an issue.
I wasnt even apart of the original exchange. I am just giving my impression of how you responded to it.
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.
Au contraire, mon frere ...
Might be worth your while to read the 12th Amendment ...
” ... The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”
Good deal. Be Good.
I am doing the same.
Have a good night all!
Let's be precise here...
You asked about "no authority in the entire land" and I posted the quote from the Declaration that said that the authority comes from the consent of the governed.
I did not say how that consent was enforced, although the initial founding was via revolution.
There are many ways for consent of the governed to be expressed short of revolution. Now, if I were to have quoted Jefferson's thoughts on how a revolution every twenty years or so was a good thing, that would be different.
It will for most, IF the court actually looks at the merits of the case, and not just "standing" of those bringing the case. In particular if they, or a lower court, orders a certified copy to be provided by the State of HI to the court or it's clerk, and on that basis decides Obama is eligible. If they decide there is not enough evidence to warrant ordering the BC, that's another issue, if the duck, bob and weave to avoid making a decision on the issue itself, then no, it will not satisfy folks. And legally it will not settle anything. Only an actual ruling will do that. Even a ruling that there is not sufficient cause to order up a BC would not be the final word, because additional evidence could be found at any time, and that could be sufficient to order production of the Bc.
But after all, what's so hard about producing a BC? Most of us have done it multiple times. When we got our driver's license, when we entered the military (although one need not be citizen, one needs either a US BC or a proof of legal residence). Then again to get a job, maybe several times for that too. And so on.
Most major party nominees have well documented histories. They release their college transcripts, their medical records, and even their tax statements. The One has done none of that? Why? Why did the media not clamor for them to be produced as they did for Bush (I & II), McCain, and even Al Gore and Ketchup Kerry. (although they weren't very diligent in asking for his military records).
Thanks...Why would Ed say next hint was Baltimore? Would Sr have picked up or dropped off applications for Grad school yet? They were still in the “honeymoon” stage of the marriage...He’d just taken her home to meet wife one and mother..... Would they have taken a honeymoon detour...Paris, London, NYC?
Do you know anything about this sight?
I’m not sure about whether this is helpful or not, but the Baltimore area airport is currently BWI, and it was called
“Friendship International Airport” in 1961 (it opened in 1950 and it was a large airport at the time)
Since her SS# has been posted, often with that, you can obtain a wealth of info, but I’m not familiar with that particular site.
Hope he sell it for big bucks to the Globe....He deserves thqt money for his effort.
Ugh! There is a whole list of my quotes over there! I never knew! I need a shower...
I've been there and on the grounds of Harvard. My father in law attended Harvard as a grad student carrying 21 hours in a single semester, he didn't finish a degree, because he was there on program sponsored by his employer, who only gave him a single semester... and that was one of the semesters my wife and I were college freshmen ourselves.
My own trip to Boston was also sponsored by my employer. It was for the National Radar Conference, and I got there a couple of days early and went out to Lexington and Concord, including the rebuilt Old North Bridge "where once the embattled farmers stood and fired the shot heard 'round the world", saw the reproduction of the "tea ship" from which the Son's of Liberty threw tea into Boston Harbor, and also saw and walked the deck of the USS Constitution. All this on April 18th and 19th. In fact when I went into the Lexington Denny's for a late breakfast on April 19th, there were Red Coats in there, and more arrived while I was there, as did a few Colonial militia. :)
Even if the SCOTUS remand to a lower court with stipulation, they will need to settle the definition of ‘natural born citizen’ as it applies to eligibility for the presidency. This is not going to get ignored by the nine largest judicial egos on the planet. This is too big an historic issue for most of them to pass up! And one need only consider the spittle Obama spewed toward the Most Honorable Justice Clarence Thomas to see that there are other forces perhaps in play here! Barack Obama is not smarter than the SCOTUS jsutices, though he would have folks think that with his thumbing his affirmative action nose at them.
I don’t think that anyone was talking about armed revolt.
Many thanks for all you have done with the updates, LucyT
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.