Kenyan Birth Certificate - 1964 Divorce Timeline

Free Republic ^ | 8-2-09 | BP2

[Cheburashka]

Wrong.

---

My date Dominion status proclaimed: December 12, 1963. (In a different post, but still February 14, 1964 is after that date and before December 12, 1964)

Your date Dominion status proclaimed: December 12, 1963.

My date Republic proclaimed: December 12, 1964.

Your date Republic proclaimed: December 12, 1964.

Nope, your dates agree with mine. So if I'm wrong, you are too.

[arKangel01]

The document you posted was from December 10th 1963.
Check the date.
Two days before the 1963 Constitution was instated.
Kenya declared independance December 12th.

Looks like this document may be more accurate.
http://www.constitutionnet.org/files/Kenyan%20constitution%20amended%202008.pdf

[MissTickly]

You guys—Soebody is on to something, BIG. The Birther issue is suddenly TOP STORY on Yahoo.

Please remain skeptical, like me, about every story, good or bad, concerning ‘birther’ news—it may be an intentional distraction from someone else who is getting closer and closer.

Also, hang on to the my FINAL UIPA request, and please send it too, if you will. I feel like I need back up. This is a link to a pdf with all my support, etc.

It grew to be 17 pages long!

http://fs10n2.sendspace.com/dl/31e61f2e6573ca4fb81a2353bdc9abcd/4a770f9a6ac1c609/lwt4sg/FullUIPAReqX-2.pdf

ALSO, let me know if any of you decide to send it, too. I have been having strange internet issues all week. I’m just nervous about the circumstances.

I sent the request to: governor.lingle@hawaii.gov, janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov, chiyome.fukino@doh.hawaii.gov, oip@hawaii.gov, ltgov@hawaii.gov

[Cheburashka]

No, that’s the 2008 constitution. Yeah, it says it’s the 1963 constitution, but it also says as amended through 2008. So it isn’t really the 1963 constitution.

Most constitutions around the world are not treated like the U.S. Constitution. We list the seven original articles and after that the 27 amendments. We can do it that way because our Constitution is relatively short, and the Amendments are relatively few.

Most constitutions of other countries go on for a hundred or more articles. And there may be pages and pages of amendments. So to make it readable and understandable they interpolate the amendments into the basic body of the text, and remove the deleted parts. As I said, far different from how we do it.

[Calpernia]

Jamuhuri (Republic) Day - December 12, 1963: commemorates the use of Republic.

[Cheburashka]

I forgot to comment about the date discrepancies in your post. I assume your notes about discrepancies is correct, I’m not going to bother checking them. Any dates noted in the constitution were done by Kenyans, I assume no responsibility.

[rodguy911]

You guys gotta remember this is the third world we are talking about,stuff that we would never ever allow document wise is hardly even acknowledged in the third world,its a different world.

[awake-n-angry]

“Judge King probably told Ann to produce a birth certificate before or at trial”

________________

This is not true. There would be no reason for the judge to ask for a birth certificate unless the father was refuting paternity.

This is a more logical time line:

1). Hopeful conspiracy theorists latch on to a “birth certificate/eligibility” scenario contrived by a Hillary supporter named Berg from Pennsylvania.

2). Months pass with several false starts and sputters due to a headline hungry immigrant from California who holds a law degree from an on-line school.

3). Several weeks ago commotion is caused when a ‘birth certificate from Kenya, reported to be Obama’s, goes on sale on e-Bay, but is pulled as it cannot be verified.

4). Headline hungry e-lawyer rekindles commotion with a Birth Certificate (convenient weeks after the e-Bay fraud).

5). FR gets excited but then cooler heads begin threads suggesting that the document is obviously bogus, desparately trying to regain credibility for mainstream conservatives.

6). Conspiracy nuts continue fantasizing about pseudo-evidence, could be documents and divorce proceedings.

[BP2]

There would be no reason for the judge to ask for a birth certificate unless the father was refuting paternity.

Judge King would have requested Obama Jr's mother (Ann Dunham) provide a copy of the birth because:

1) The judge must know who the parents are before he awards child support

2) The judge must know who the parents are before he awards custody

Go away troll. Don't waste your time on "Conspiracy nuts" ...

[awake-n-angry]

You, with all due respect, are delusional.

The judge settles disputes. If the plaintiff asks for custody and the respondent does not contest, then the plaintiff will get custody. If the plaintiff asks for child support and there is no argument against posed by the respondent, the the plaintiff is awarded child support (as calculated by the court per financial filing on both sides). No disputes, no need for the court to invent one.

It is common for a man to pay support for children that are not his, only because he supported the children during the marriage (this subject has been discussed extensively on this forum).

Birth certificates are not evidence of paternity. Often a man is named as a father without his knowledge or consent. The court would not use a birth certificate for this purpose.

[Fred Nerks]

Well, what a surprise that was, I had no idea of the significance of that date!

There is more background on this thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2278969/posts

I started on #27

[BP2]

Use your imagination, put yourself back to early-1964, and pretend you're Judge King:

— three-year-old Obama JR wasn't probably present in the court room of the CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, now defunct. Ann Dunman, his mother, may have shown a picture to the judge. Or Obama JR may have been present, and the judge saw the child — who knows?

— the man who Ann claimed was the father, Obama SR, didn't respond to the notification back in Boston — a no-show.

— Marriage Certificate? ALL modern searches by private investigators have NOT revealed it. It may exist, but then again — who knows? The judge may not have asked to see that anyway — which is not necessary per se to award custody. Blood is thicker than water, anyway ... but someone has to get custody of the child, biological parents, relatives or the state of Hawaii...

— there's no DNA testing in the 1960s.

— child smuggling DID take place.

And here's Ann, a lily-white 21-year-old woman from Kansas, asking for custody of a “mulatto” mixed-race baby that she claims to be hers. To put it in context: Black people only made up 0.8 percent of the Hawaiian population in the 1960s, so Judge King may have been suspicious — I'd be wondering what's going on here.

SO how's Judge King going to award custody — off of Ann's good word? Don't think so ... I can hear his words now:

“I'm going to ask for the mother to provide a copy of the birth certificate at our next hearing. So ordered.”

Again, do your homework. Start here:

Here’s the HAWAI‘I FAMILY COURT RULES:
http://www.state.hi.us/jud/ctrules/hfcr.htm

And keep in mind that Hawaiian law in the 1960s, especially in this old Circuit Court that dates back to when Hawaii had a king, didn't have such firm laws in place as we have today. Judges had more discretion in those years shortly after statehood -- and Judge King, who went on to be a Senior Judge at the US District Court in District of Hawaii -- most likely exercised that discretion.

Again -- do your homework, troll.