Posted on 09/21/2009 5:37:18 PM PDT by rxsid
“Are you saying that you are a specialist in British law of 1961? Please give me some links, I would love to read up on it.”
Sorry miss defensive, but this reads to me like I am asking for more information.
Check your ego at the door please it’s getting in the way of your reasoning.
Pineapple field... those are NASTY places, Cane Spiders, mongoose.... nasty nasty places.... Seems to fit.
Cougar PUMA same thing. But yea that’s what I meant LOL You can tell I am into the whole Hillary thing..... (rolls eyes)
“There is no definition of “legitimate” in the Act. However, legal advice
suggests that English law, in considering questions of legitimacy, will look to
the law of the domicile of the father at birth. If that law treats a child as
legitimate, then English law will likewise recognise that status (Hashmi -v-
Hashmi [1972] Fam 36).”
The father was arguably domiciled in Kenya. Kenya allowed muslims multiple wives. Kenya would therefore regard the child as a Kenyan subject to the Crown.
I saw a later post where some adopted children had their birth certificates changed and the poster referred to you
My son married an older woman and adopted her 3 lovely daughters
He is listed on the birth certificates of all three as the father.
Texas didn’t like it when they had to post fathers age as 9 on the oldest. The children are the pride of our life and when Texas changed the BC’s the records were sealed.
The kids know the truth but Texas seals the records
IF the marriage was polygamous, it would have never had legal status in the US and would have merely been annulled.
Unless, of course, they married in Kenya, but that would put a very pregnant Stanley Ann in Kenya...
You have to read the British Nationality Act of 1948. The information on my profile is a starting point to understanding all of this and understanding MARRIAGE MAKES A DIFFERENCE.
Btw, a marriage that is Void Ab Initio can be attacked collaterally after all parties are dead.
The marriage WAS NOT VALID IN HAWAII. the marriage was not in the UK. Hawaii law did not allow polygamy.
Wrong, they did not allow a statutory marriage in the US with a customary marriage in Kenya.
She would have had to have gone to Kenya to have a customary marriage and even that is problematic at the time as she was WHITE.
Kenya has a website where you research old law on this.
Then why did Stanley Ann need to get a divorce?
An annulment would have sufficed and been simpler and cheaper.
Off hand, do you know where Stanley Ann and Barak tied the knot?
I’ve got brain-fade on that one...
No, not if Stanley Ann lied in the divorce papers. There is no requirement for her to show that she was married in Hawaii. She could have been married in Kenya and that was really the divorce she was getting.
Or maybe the whole thing was a farce because she had told this lie to so many people about them being married..that she had to get a “divorce”.
Even Obama admits the marriage claim was strange and he was afraid to find out the truth. He probably knows there was no marriage and this is his out...
The claim is Maui.
Here us what stirred Miss Tickly on, the questions she asked and the immediate new press release. IMO Miss Tickly nailed her thus the change from birth certificate to vital records.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2308045/posts?page=1
WELL, I HAVE. This is MY story, that happened, Monday, July, 27:
On a whim I decided to try my hand at a question for Janice Okubo, Communications Director for the Department of Health that holds the President’s vital records. Believe me when i say I have not sought an answer to the ‘birther’ question in any formal way ever before this day. I emailed her and I asked her about AMENDED original birth certificates, something which by sheer existence alone, usually (not always) indicates a person was ADOPTED:
In a nutshell, this is what I asked her:
“Ms. Okubo–
Director Fukino made this statement (Oct 2008): ““Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures… ” Therefore, she has the statutory authority to answer this question:
“Is the Director of Health for the State of Hawai’i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, able to state they have verified that the Hawai’i State Department of Health has President Barack Obama’s AMENDED original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures?” Please reply with her answer.”
You see, they have the same statutory authority over an Amended Original Birth Certificate that they have over an (unamended) Original Birth Certificate. No one has to attest to an Amended Original Birth Certificate’s existence or have ‘tangible interest’ in the record. By virtue of STATUTORY AUTHORITY alone she can answer my question, AND she clearly says so.
But, to my surprise, at 11:47 p.m. on Monday, July 27, 2009 I got an electronic press release with a new statement, the first in EIGHT months with the ‘natural born citizen’ stuff people have been talking about all week:
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai‘i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai‘i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”
I had this sent directly to me by Janice Okubo, herself, in response to my emailed question. And I suspect I had it hours before the press had it. I searched Google for any reference to this statement. None. Not even FactCheck.org had it.
Of course, since they are able to drive the story through the media they needlessly added the stuff about being ‘natural born’ and ‘born in Hawaii’ to the answer to my question and to detract from the affirmative answer to my question and to fit their agenda. It was the headline on Yahoo! by the following morning.
But the answer to my carefully crafted question was there none-the-less:
“original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures...”
BECAME “original vital records [plural] maintained on file”
This was too vague for my taste, so I asked for clarity. So, I asked specifically if the Director would make a statement that she has the STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO MAKE: “As Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, I have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has President Barack Obama’s AMENDED original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.” But I got this in return: “The director has nothing further to add to her statements.”
I let Ms. Okubo know that I fear something is preventing Dr. Fukino from making statements she does have the authority to make. Duress? And told her I was compelled to tell someone. I did, I sent an email to two major networks.
ANYWAY: Knowing in my heart why they made that statement on Monday, I pressed on. I looked at the UIPA Open Records Act in Hawaii and found ANYONE can make a request—not just Hawaiians. So using the question I’d already asked, I filed a UIPA Information Request.
Then I thought about it some more. The way I worded it felt wrong and it seemed like an inappropriate way to use the UIP Act and I withdrew it immediately and telling them I didn’t have the stomach for it.
Then I went back and read the UIPA Guidelines thoroughly and found the provision(s) that require the RESPONSIBLE disclosure of ALL OBAMA’S VITAL RECORDS citing not one, but TWO provisions. I want you to read my formal request and the follow up statements I sent. Read them in the order I have listed them, which is backward in chronological order beginning with today’s follow up. I think they read better that way. They have 10 days to respond, and I have recourse beyond The Dept. of Health noncompliance if that’s the case. I can re-file with the Hawaii Office of Information Practices for thier ruling.
That would make him a bastard.
A politician who's a bastard?
Nobody cares.
Many of us voted for McCain. he’s no better than Hillary. A sore loser, that wanted Hillary and was then hell bent on nailing Odumbo is fine with me. Lure them over to our side. You will never persuade them to join us by being mean to them. If I meet a Dem that is sort of on the fence, I try to show them the way. If they get all liberal on me, I write them off and never talk to them again.
Look at the facts on the face.
Do you accept that OBama was already married to Kezia?
If so, then there was NO VALID MARRIAGE.
IF they did get married, which I doubt, Obama Sr lied on the marriage application.
Thanks.
By saying “this is his out” ...I am referencing his claim that he was too afraid to find out..not the whole mysterious BC issue.
In other words, he spent all his life claiming his mother was married to his father. If it comes out that wasn’t true..he just says..I was too afraid to find out....not, yeah I knew about it and lied through my teeth.
It depends on whether she was married or not.
If married - no citizenship.
If not married -citizenship.
Unless you find case law or a loophole that protects poor bastard baby from lying commie bigamist father.
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.