Posted on 03/13/2012 3:39:58 PM PDT by rxsid
HI doesn't recognize common law marriages. Therefore, when they married Sr. to SADO (assuming that marriage took place) it was a valid marriage.
Valid-Where-Consummated and Public Policy Limits to Recognizing Customary Marriagehttp://www-bcf.usc.edu/~idjlaw/PDF/10-2/10-2%20Laymon.pdfPublic policy trumps recognition of a custom, even where the validwhere- consummated doctrine applies. For example, in People v. Ezeonu, the court could disregard the valid-where-consummated rule if the marriage was against public policy: the court did find that the Nigerian man’s marriage was valid under Nigerian law, but that it was “absolutely void
even where it was legally consummated in Nigeria.”83 Public policy limits to the recognition of customary law have earned much criticism from scholars of law and anthropology since public policy limits almost never address the fact that the claimant has a bona fide belief in the validity of his marriage.84 Overall, the invocation of public policy will overcome any request that a customary marriage is recognized.
In sum, we see that the rule of valid-where-consummated is limited on several grounds. Evidentiary standards in the United States may render a marriage that is valid in its country of origin invalid in the United States. While formalizing a marriage or divorce in the United States or obtaining a certificate from a customary court of the country of origin may be helpful, this option is not always available to the immigrant. Such certification also greatly undermines the significance and meaning of customary law to those trying to preserve their culture. A taint of fraud, even if there is only a rational basis for suspicion, may overcome any claim that the custom was valid in its country of origin. Naturalization cases also present a special problem to immigrants who must overcome judicial deference in favor of the INS. In sum, despite a first impression that valid-where-consummated is a clear rule, the doctrine is actually very limited, and often puts the immigrant claimant in a no-win situation.
COMMON-LAW MARRIAGE AND VALIDATION OF A CUSTOMARY MARRIAGE
When a court is unable to apply the valid-where-consummated doctrine to enforce a customary marriage, the cultural minority may invoke the doctrine of common-law marriage in those jurisdictions that recognize it. The common-law marriage doctrine is often treated very differently from one state to the next. Most U.S. states simply recognize or refuse recognition of common-law marriage entirely; some allow common-law marriages made within the state, but not elsewhere; and others allow common-law marriages if they are valid where consummated, but do not recognize marriages created through cohabitation in that state.85
That’s a good question. Kenya was a British colony at that time, and Britain did not recognize polygamy; but I don’t know if it allowed some kind of “grandfather clause” in its colonies for such a thing. It may very well be that Kenya, as a British colony, allowed polygamy. But I don’t think that would have changed how the United States applied its laws on the subject. But, you’ve raised a good question.
Do you think it’s possible that Hawaii did not know of the Kenyan marriage? That would explain the Hawaiian divorce rather than an anullment or a decree of invalidity. So many questions. Which is why so many of us are pissed that Obama was never vetted, on so many fronts.
And I think the reason for you being unable to see the forest for the trees is that anything outside of the official story-line makes you feel uncomfortable. You can’t afford to ask yourself, who was the older brother? Who was the father of the children of Kezia? When did the kenyan really leave Kenya...and who the heck was this Anna Obama, that the woman who runs Seattle Mystery Tours found in the Seattle Directory?
And last but not least, ever wonder why the kenyan didn’t get a government job until after Mboya was killed? Or why Cora Weiss had to recant her student airlift story?
I can place all of that information under your nose, but you refuse to acknowledge it, and each time I attempt to tell freepers what the whole thing LOOKS LIKE, you rock up and put a stop to it.
So there you go, keep your precious POTUS. And don’t let me rock the boat. Go back to sleep.
In your case, People v. Ezeonu, Ezeonu’s second tribal marriage was null and void in NY because Ezenou already had a wife by a first tribal marriage living as his married wife in NY! Both tribal marriages were lawful in Nigeria, but the second one was not lawful in NY:
FINDINGS OF FACT
The parties by stipulation, supra, agree that the defendant was lawfully married to a then-living wife under the laws of New York and Nigeria at the time of his purported second “marriage” to the complainant in Nigeria.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Under the stipulation submitted for determination in limine, even were defendant's “marriage” to the complainant conducted in accordance with Nigerian law and custom, the marriage is null and void in New York. Therefore, as a matter 346*346 of law, he is not married to her for purposes of the charge of rape in the second degree (Penal Law § 130.30) and such purported marriage may not be raised at trial as a defense.
Generally, a marriage is recognized in New York if it is valid where consummated. (Van Voorhis v Brintnall, 86 N.Y. 18.) However, it is well established that this general rule does not apply where recognition of a marriage is repugnant to public policy. Clearly, recognition of a polygamous marriage is repugnant to public policy as evidenced by section 6 of the Domestic Relations Law which provides that:
“A marriage is absolutely void if contracted by a person whose husband or wife by a former marriage is living, unless either:
“1. Such former marriage has been annulled or has been dissolved for a cause other than the adultery * * *
“2. [Repealed.]
“3. Such former marriage has been dissolved pursuant [to Domestic Relations Law].”
It is significant to note that under said statute a bigamous marriage is not “voidable” but “absolutely void”. Moreover, bigamy is a crime in the State of New York. (Penal Law § 255.15.)
Hence, “[i]t has been held that when this State is called upon to recognize either an incestuous or bigamous marriage, it will assert its strong public policy of condemnation thereof and refuse recognition even if that marriage was valid where consummated.”
.
0bama’s mama was very young and single when she had him according to Michelle 0bama
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/10/1193601.aspx
.
Ruth and baby Mark, just to complete the sequence.
Were I to resort to insults, I would consider it to be a sign of my own weakness and impending capitulation.
Since when is “the official story-line” that Barry's HI BC is a forgery and he was most likely born in Kenya? That is where I have seen the facts leading. I just call them as I see them.
We happen to disagree on the identity and timeline for the little boys. Can we try to stick to the facts and not resort to accusations and insults? We did agree on the so-called Blaine BC after going over the facts.
And so do I. But what I see doesn't include SAD as mother, it doesn't include the kenyan as the father, and raises much doubt as to the paternity of the children of Kezia, and whether or not she was ever married to the kenyan-son-of-a-goat-herder. All I see is that no one can say for certain who the parents of zero were, or when and where he was born. And furthermore, when you look closely at the airlift story, the so called friendship with Mboya, and Cora Weiss, who has exclusive access to the Mboya letters, even that area of the legend falls into extremely doubtful territory. But all of those items and more, you avoid responding to.
*
I am wondering why the Kenyan left Kenya actually. If he left right after school (as the school official stated), he was pretty young. And if he left that young, the entire Kezia marriage/kids thing is probably another fiction.
I find the fixation about whether HI recognized Muslim polygamy ridiculous. It has no relevance to who Zero is whatsoever. Fuggedaboutit!
Sheesh.
How many non-existant angels can dance on the head of a pin. And being fixated on legal minutiae that has nothing WHATsoever to do with where Zero was born, who his parents are, or what kind of citizenship of what country he has, keeps the light from shining on the questions people should actually be asking.
I’m used to gauging ages in the presence of the child... Those long legs may indeed be not indicative; his face is very baby-like.
BUMP!
That is the only conclusion I have been able to reach, no one could be that thick headed, it has to be deliberate. So I'll say goodnight, and quit.
It doesn’t take a PhD or genius intellect to realize that the ENTIRE myth is a myth. Anyone who scrutinizes the “Auntie” thread in particular (but they’d have to have read a lot of previous research threads first) would have to realize that the entire backstory of Zero is fictional.
Mama ain’t mama, Papa ain’t papa, and HI ain’t the birthplace. DOB is very doubtful as well.
bflr
A key element of the argument by Johannson and Crosby is what they describe as a “Foreign Birth Transfer Exchange,” a fictional program whereby the US and foreign countries register births of the other’s residents and then exchange the data. As evidence they provide a statistical table from Vital Statistics of the United States - 1945 - Part II.
The table is a fake. It’s been “Photoshopped” to change “Outside the continental United States” to “Outside the United States.” The Report itself explains that the data come from States, territories and possessions of the United States (hence the “continental” reference), not foreign countries.
Read it for yourself (it’s on Page 8).
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/vsus_1945_2.pdf
I have to think that Obama’s marriage to Kesia was the false one, done to protect her from Muslim justice for having gotten with child out of wedlock.
Its possible.
Such a document would go a long way in SHUTTING UP those snarky little bastards that keep saying that Hawaii's word is all we need. Indeed, it would infuse new life into the issue by calling into question the legitimacy of Hawaii's records as a form of proof regarding "natural born citizen" status.
As I have said in the past, I doubt Barack can even prove 14th amendment citizenship, let alone "natural citizenship."
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.