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.
thanks for the updates. Appreciated them.
Night Buckeye - thanks for keeping me informed.
Not at all and this divorce document that Ed came up with is enough legal proof to deny that assertion. It shows Obama Sr. to be the birth father by law. It wouldn't matter at all if the sperm daddy was someone else.
Thanks very much for your updates and posts. Greatly appreciated. Have a great night.
I know that you can look up the historical ownership of houses, but how do we know the owners didn’t rent it out?
Because the people that have lived next door since pre- 1961 said they never lived there .
I expect you hear that more than most. ;^)
No, about the birth certificate having the number blocked out.
The Lawyer says you cannot accept that as valid because it has been altered. Of course I’d assume the original wasn’t altered, but if that is his “proof”, his “proof” is invalid.
Yes, the question does come down to “can you prove it” — and — if you can’t (i.e., everyone that is trying) then it’s like President Arthur, who became President under those doubts.
It’s still a few days away from January 20th, so he’s not quite like President Arthur yet... There’s still time to come up with some definite proof, if there is any (and that’s a real good question...).
So, in any case, you’re saying that if it’s not proven that Obama is not eligible, then it will be like Arthur, because it was never proven for him either — right?
Or, maybe in a more limited sense — as long as it’s “not proven at the present” that Obama is not qualified, then he can go on and be President in the same way President Arthur was (*again* given that no proof has come up “yet”)...
What date did she go to U of Washington? (I can’t remember). They weren’t married until Feb 2, 1961. Of course that means she was showing then. You’d think SOMEONE at the University of Hawaii would remember Barack Obama having a wife for crying out loud!
Ann Durken possible AKA
could it be that the Dunhams are not the Dunhams and changed the whole family's name? or used it back and forth for whatever reason.
I STILL didn’t listen to my own rule.
You owe me a new keyboard.
Web X... good grief.
Ann Durken may be the AKA.
FWIW
You’re welcome, Oorang. Here’s one more comment:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2157797/posts?page=725#725
The opposition failed to prove their case, and so Chester Arthur did his term without incident. We only would have had a Constitutional crisis if Arthur was proven to be ineligible during his term of office and he defiantly refused to step down.
Similarly, there needs to be some proof brought forth that Obama is not a natural-born citizen. Until that actually happens, he becomes President.
I don’t think they had photocopiers back then, did they? I know up until the 80’s, smaller offices still had carbon in between pages.
BUT, if they show a point of entry on August 8th, and show a newborn baby coming with her. It would be highly unlikely that a person could get from Hawaii to Kenya back to Baltimore in four days, given a day or two recovery from childbirth.
Obongo has to know where it could be. (bc)
What’s to prevent him sending his thugs there ahead to bride or threaten to prevent its release?
Ed is charting his own course. As I said before in a previous post; I find Ed's motive or intent genuine and just.
What I found more interesting was something I posted a few pages back. Maya Soetoro Ng had an interview with Deborah Solomon of the NYT and Deborah asked her point blank about her mother’s death. Here is the question and Maya’s answer:
“She died at only 52, from ovarian cancer ? Today, more than anything, I wish all the women in Barack’s life — our mother, his wife and daughters, my daughter, our grandmother, his Kenyan half-sister — I wish we could all sit together and gaze at the moon.”
I had known about the two names with the one SSN and I had discovered an original story about the days leading to Ann’s death had suddenly been pulled. Because I had the exact title of the story I was able to locate it again and posted the multiple part story on the long thread.
Thanks. I’ve never been to Hawaii. But for someone who is there, that knowledge about the address would raise eyebrows. Thanks for adding more information to the puzzle — information that make me rethink my belief that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Glancing backward ..
~~~~
Friday, October 24, 2008
HOW COULD STANLEY ANN DUNHAM HAVE DELIVERED BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA JR. IN AUGUST OF 1961 IN HONOLULU, WHEN OFFICIAL UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON RECORDS SHOW HER 2680 MILES AWAY IN SEATTLE ATTENDING CLASSES THAT SAME MONTH?
UPDATE: NEW EMAIL FORM UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII (SEE BELOW!)
When public record information from the University of Washington was added to Wikipedia’s biography of Stanley Ann Dunham (Barack Hussein Obama Jr’s mother), it was removed in 35 minutes the first time and 34 minutes the second time.
Read what Obama’s team of internet thugs doesn’t want you to know.
See official emails from U of Hawaii and U (see below)
I’m concerned with the unlikely dates:
Sept 26 1960 First day at U of Hawaii for Ann (Why did she start 6 weeks late?)
One month later - conception
Two months later - drops out of University of Hawaii
Three months later - married
10 months later - back in Washington attending classes at University of Washington
These are implausible dates, and may imply that Ann got pregnant in Seattle and THAT is why her family moved to Hawaii.
University of Washington records place Stanley Ann Dunham in Washington State in Aug 1961 so how could she be in Honolulu 2680 miles away birthing Barack the same month.
EMAIL:
“The University of Hawaii at Manoa is only able to provide the following information for Stanley Ann Dunham:
Dates of attendance:
Fall 1960 (First day of instruction 9/26/1960)
Spring 1963 - Summer 1966
Fall 1972 - Fall 1974
Summer 1976
Spring 1978
Fall 1984 - Summer 1992
Degrees awarded:
BA - Mathematics, Summer 1967 (August 6, 1967)
MA - Anthropology, Fall 1983 (December 18, 1983)
PhD - Anthropology, Summer 1992 (August 9, 1992)
Sincerely,
Stuart Lau”
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/10/how-could-stanl.html
The attorney on Ed's show said the U.S. didn't recognize dual citizenship at that time. If true that argument doesn't fly.
“Yes, the question does come down to “can you prove it” — and — if you can’t (i.e., everyone that is trying) then it’s like President Arthur, who became President under those doubts.
It’s still a few days away from January 20th, so he’s not quite like President Arthur yet... There’s still time to come up with some definite proof, if there is any (and that’s a real good question...).
So, in any case, you’re saying that if it’s not proven that Obama is not eligible, then it will be like Arthur, because it was never proven for him either — right?
Or, maybe in a more limited sense — as long as it’s “not proven at the present” that Obama is not qualified, then he can go on and be President in the same way President Arthur was (*again* given that no proof has come up “yet”)...”
I wouldn’t take Jan. 20th as being a deadline as to how it would effect us. This is a different time and a differnt culture. If it gets proven even after Jan. 20th the consequences will be different than the Arthu case.
The media was much smaller during Arthur’s days and the alternative media was smaller even still. No interent. How was it being reported during Arhtur’s preidency.
The other major difference in this case is the “Natural Born” Constitutional issue. That will not die. Both Arthur’s case and Obama’s case contain the “born on foreign soil” argument but Obama is admittingly a duel citizen at birth and that is a rather large distinction already.
I really think that you are off-base in thinking that the case involving Arthur will teach us very much at all in regards to what will happen here.
Thanx. I read another post on that since I asked the question.
I still didn’t find out if the Constitutional requirements changed at that time. Did they?
Stop using Google.
Ann D Sutoro 320 E 43rd St New York, NY 10017 (212) 573-5000 Job title: Program Officer for Women & Employment Company: Ford Foundation
Say goodnight, Dick... :-D
-PJ
Thanks. I saw this name from another FR thread about plains radio.
IIRC, in those days college students maintained the residency in their "home" state while attending college. Thus, if she was attending college in WA State, which I believe is how you've placed here there, this would not be a lie. I'm sure her attorney told her not to lie to the court, and perhaps this time she did not.
This document did give a place of marriage, which I believe had not previously been confirmed. Although why some knocked up pre-flower child would go to Maui to get married to a rather uninspiring foreign exchange student is beyond me, and doesn't really fit with the "persona" we've built up of her.
WOuldn’t have to have the actual bc. Only a note that the infant entered the US with a valid BC from sight of birth.
What’s your point?
Don’t forget that Malcom X also saw the irony in blacks and unions supporting the Dems. As he himself put it, “You always support the Dems first, but they will always put you last.”
Why is that quote from Maya significant?
You have to walk me through the stuff. :) I don’t see why that’s interesting.
No. He did not need to because he never ran for President. He ran for Vice-President with James Garfield in the top slot.
Garfield was shot by Charles J. Guiteau on July 2, 1881, he died until September 19, at which time Arthur was sworn in as president, serving until March 4, 1885.
He did not actively campaign for nomination for a second term, he just submitted his name for consideration. The rumors regarding his lack of natural born status made Arthur the last incumbent President to submit for renomination and not win it.
Do research or folks are gonna play you like a cheap fiddle.
We found other relatives of Obama up north maybe the Dunhams changed there name sometime before the grandfather I never went back past the grandfather.
This was not uncommon when immigrants came to America. Freep Mail the name to me I forgot:)
Goodnight Dick!
Well not really on the birthday. Whoever filed the paperwork on the BC could have put the same date on the divorce decree. I don't think many thought that BHO was not his *oringinal* birth name. But they do wonder what the long form BC would show, since he was apparently adopted by his stepfather Lolo Soertoro, as indicated in Stanley Ann's divorce papers from Lolo.
Ok, someone else here said that COLB said 8th. I’d prefer that the dates were different. At least we have a new document. And that D. thing is huge supposedly?
Well, in talking about the possibility that Obama may be proven ineligible, one is left in *two camps* at the same time — while you still hold out hope that it can be proven.
Now..., I would imagine that those during President Arthur’s time were *still trying to prove* their case, too. It’s just that they never did.
SO..., *during the time* that they were *still trying* — was President Arthur *really the President*. Now, that question is applicable here, too — because you don’t really know if you’ll ever come up with the proof — so you’ve got an “interim time” while you’re still trying to find it — but — Obama is still President. The question is — Is Obama *really* the President — while you’re still “looking” for the proof? And then, what if you never find it — is he *still President*?
There’s what I mean by living in two camps at the same time — Obama is President — while — you’re trying to find that Obama is not President — both at the same time... except only *one* is relevant at a time...
—
Continuing — it doesn’t matter how it is reported — what matters is *if you can prove it* — that’s the main thing. And that’s still questionable...
Anyway..., I still do think that President Arthur’s situation is “instructional”...
When did barry announce he was going to run for president? I think hil and bill had more than five months to destroy barry and couldn’t come up with the evidence.
***It is a classic fallacy, dolt. An argument from silence. You don’t know if they could or couldn’t do it, so you cannot argue from that lack of knowledge, the silence of the evidence. Take a critical thinking class.
Is that the point you were making?
I thought we were talking about scrutiny of the candidate. Are we now talking about "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me?"
Also, and you have to help me here because it's all becoming a blur... you weren't one of those who were arguing that the people voted for Obama so that is enough to credential him, right? Because if you were, then the Arthur argument fails that test, because they voted for Garfield and Arthur probably skated under the radar (so to speak for the time period). It's not like the people were voting for Arthur...
-PJ
So, the Constitutional provisions don’t apply if you get to be President by another methodology? Is that it?
And, it seems that we’ve found another “loophole” in the Constitution, then, if the Vice President does not have to be qualified under the Constitution to be President. Now.., that’s a real big loophole. It looks like there are more problems to fix with the Constitution... LOL...
They may have made a copy but it would be placed into an immigration file. The Port of Entry would never have kept an original birth certificate!
The point of Entry would be Bellingham WA but any copy of a birth certificate would not remain at a POE it would be placed in an immigration file. A FOIA request would have to made with the Immigration Dept and good luck with that. They can’t even handle the files they have now!
There are qualifications for being president. It is not the responsibility of the voters to prove that a candidate is unqualifeid. It is the responsibility of the candidate to prove they are. And voting for someone does not qualify them.
The fact that no one has required OB to do so, puts this into the courts. We will raise the issue until the evidence is made public. We will ensure that the issue follows OB throughout history, unless HE PROVES HE IS QUALIFIED.
You of course are free to keep stating that we haven't proven anything. That remains an open question anyway. We will see what the force of free dialogue and the energy of thousands of people might produce. Put your money on your favorite.
Using the number of court filings as “proof” proves nothing but that there are a lot of lawyers out there.
***It’s not “proof” it’s evidence. Straw argument. Another classic fallacy. Take that critical thinking class, troll.
As to an AOL poll: polls are crap and online polls are even worse. The fact that you use it to support your beliefs says that you have no proof, just ODS.
***It means that there’s 60 thousand people who think the same way. Typical conspiracy theories have trouble getting more than 5 thousand.
I said it before, but in case you missed it: I hope I am wrong, BUT this whole thing just looks to much like the 9-11 idiots, Bush is evil crowd and the Bigfoot came off a space ship freaks to believe it.
***And like I said before, when we see 5 concurrent court cases before the SCOTUS (et al info) then those other issues will become legitimate like this one.
Let me ask you a question: If this guy has proof that obama isn’t a citizen, why doesn’t he just wait till he has all the evidence and then release it?
***Because he’s an idiot whose job it is to generate traffic to his radio program. Now answer my questions.
Call me a troll because I disagree with you,
***Lotsa people disagree with me, but not so many are doing what you do: use classic fallacies, dredge up old discredited stories, have new signon dates, and are generally attitude driven rather than fact driven — you are a CoLB Troll.
but you folks are sure acting like the dummies and the kos kids attacking anyone that dares disagree with you
***Not those who disagree, see above. We attack trolls like you. Try this, troll: sign up again at FR, use the same exact questions but remove the snide tone and see if your questions get answered. Of course, trolls can’t resist when they see progress using this approach and end up down the same path as before but it proves instructive about the difference between those who disagree and those who are flat-out trolls, like you.
No..., what I’m asking here (and it can be for anyone) is a simple question to find out the *effect* of one thing that people here have said will have a major effect.
I was wondering if the Constitutional provisions for President of the United States were affected in any way by having a President in Office who was not qualified to be in office. Did that change the Constitution? Did people decide to ignore that provision afterwards, or did it actually change the meaning legally in some way that I don’t know about.
That would simply solve one riddle for me, as to whether it would have an effect of changing it now... So, it’s a very limited question and it doesn’t have broad implications on everything else about Obama...
Same here.
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.