Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

Next Monday may be the beginning of the end for Hussein.

Next Monday in Santa Ana California Orly and Obama's lawyers will appear before Judge Carter and this is all he has to say:

U.S. District Court Judge Carter "Mr. Obama, I order you to provide this court with your ORIGINAL Birth Certificate."

Let's pray!

I PRAY EVERY DAY FOR THIS TO HAPPEN. PLEASE EVERYONE, JOIN IN. THIS COULD BE OUR LAST HOPE TO SAVE AMERICA.

Originally Posted by cjbl2929

Was President Obama born out of wedlock in 1961?

The question has been rekindled by the publication this month of "Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage" by former Time magazine contributing editor Christopher Andersen.

Andersen has raised once again the question of whether Obama's parents were ever officially married, writing on page 25: "On February 21, 1961 – a Thursday – Barack Obama and Ann Dunham were reportedly married in a civil ceremony on the island of Maui, although there are no official records showing that a legal ceremony ever took place."

Dunham was a teenager, 18-years-old, when Barack Obama Jr. was born.

Somebody ought to contact Andersen to find out if he made a records request and was told, by officials, that no records exist. That's the $64,000 question needing an answer if BHO was indeed born in Hawaii. If born to an unwed Mom and in Hawaii, then he's 'nbc' and it makes no difference if the law of 1789 or 1961 or 2009 is applied.

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

Originally Posted by cjbl2929

Was President Obama born out of wedlock in 1961?

The question has been rekindled by the publication this month of "Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage" by former Time magazine contributing editor Christopher Andersen.

Andersen has raised once again the question of whether Obama's parents were ever officially married, writing on page 25: "On February 21, 1961 – a Thursday – Barack Obama and Ann Dunham were reportedly married in a civil ceremony on the island of Maui, although there are no official records showing that a legal ceremony ever took place."

Dunham was a teenager, 18-years-old, when Barack Obama Jr. was born.

Somebody ought to contact Andersen to find out if he made a records request and was told, by officials, that no records exist. That's the $64,000 question needing an answer if BHO was indeed born in Hawaii. If born to an unwed Mom and in Hawaii, then he's 'nbc' and it makes no difference if the law of 1789 or 1961 or 2009 is applied.

Interesting. Marriages can be made and consummated with or without state sanctions. There is no state or federal law I am aware of that prohibits couples from getting married without a city or state sanctioned marriage license.

In fact, the IRS (a federal agency) will assume a couple is married if they merely hold themselves out as being married.

We're all looking for state records of a marriage license and certificate. Maybe we should also be looking for a church or Justice of the Peace certificate with no license.

I think the missing six months is important to helping solve this puzzle.

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

Originally Posted by cjbl2929

Was President Obama born out of wedlock in 1961?

The question has been rekindled by the publication this month of "Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage" by former Time magazine contributing editor Christopher Andersen.

Andersen has raised once again the question of whether Obama's parents were ever officially married, writing on page 25: "On February 21, 1961 – a Thursday – Barack Obama and Ann Dunham were reportedly married in a civil ceremony on the island of Maui, although there are no official records showing that a legal ceremony ever took place."

Dunham was a teenager, 18-years-old, when Barack Obama Jr. was born.

Somebody ought to contact Andersen to find out if he made a records request and was told, by officials, that no records exist. That's the $64,000 question needing an answer if BHO was indeed born in Hawaii. If born to an unwed Mom and in Hawaii, then he's 'nbc' and it makes no difference if the law of 1789 or 1961 or 2009 is applied.

If English law makes him a citizen even if he was born out of wedlock as long as his father is on the birth cert and has claimed him, wouldn't that still make his nbc status in doubt? At least as far as duel citizenship at birth?

Hawaii refused then in 1961 -- and still does now -- to recognize so-called "common law marriages" if couples try to establish them in Hawaii.

The only thing they will honor are common law marriages that met the legal conditions IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS and were recognized by those jurisdictions before the parties to the common law marriage.

A quick reference to statutes and some references to Hawaiian court cases that deal with the topic of marriage can be found here:

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurren ... 2-0001.htm

An earlier post in this thread had a link to the British Nationality Act of 1948 which was explicit in holding that no citizenship could pass to the child of a male U.K. citizen if, at the time of the birth, the father was not in a valid marriage with the mother. The best that could transpire was the father either marrying the mother or straightening out whatever caused an "attempted marriage" to be invalidated (e.g., bigamy would require divorcing the earlier wives) and THEN the BNA 1948 would operate to confer U.K. citizenship on the child.

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

Hawaii refused then in 1961 -- and still does now -- to recognize so-called "common law marriages" if couples try to establish them in Hawaii.

The only thing they will honor are common law marriages that met the legal conditions IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS and were recognized by those jurisdictions before the parties to the common law marriage.

A quick reference to statutes and some references to Hawaiian court cases that deal with the topic of marriage can be found here:

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurren ... 2-0001.htm

An earlier post in this thread had a link to the British Nationality Act of 1948 which was explicit in holding that no citizenship could pass to the child of a male U.K. citizen if, at the time of the birth, the father was not in a valid marriage with the mother. The best that could transpire was the father either marrying the mother or straightening out whatever caused an "attempted marriage" to be invalidated (e.g., bigamy would require divorcing the earlier wives) and THEN the BNA 1948 would operate to confer U.K. citizenship on the child.

So, I have a couple of questions:

1. By Hawaii granting a divorce to the Obama parents, that would imply Hawaii knew of an official state sanctioned marriage?

2. Aside from an Hawaiian registered marriage license (which would be on file in Hawaii), how would Hawaii courts know of the existence of any valid marriage in any other jurisdiction? Sworn statement?

3. What did the UK define as a 'valid marriage with the mother?' Do we know?

4. What if the Obama's were married in Kenya? Or in Arizona? Or Texas?

Mario is getting anxious about not hearing back from the court in Kerchner v Obama, so he's written a letter to the court:

http://tinyurl.com/ya3dxu7

This is up on Scribd.com.

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

So, I have a couple of questions:

1. By Hawaii granting a divorce to the Obama parents, that would imply Hawaii knew of an official state sanctioned marriage?

It would imply -- based on the only "known documents" at this time -- that a judge in Hawaii was presented with a sworn statement by the petitioner in a divorce pleading that there was a marriage on island of Maui in February 1961. (The pleading doesn't even give the NAME of the minister or official who allegedly performed the ceremony ... it only states it was someone who was authorized to perform marriages by State of Hawaii.) Since the divorce was not contested by the respondent "spouse" in any fashion, that bare-bones pleading might have been enough for a decree to get handed down a few months later. (Stanley Ann Dunham filed in January 1964 and the decree was favorably ruled upon in either late March or early April 1964.)

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

2. Aside from an Hawaiian registered marriage license (which would be on file in Hawaii), how would Hawaii courts know of the existence of any valid marriage in any other jurisdiction? Sworn statement?

I'm not even sure if the court checked to see if something was "on file" in Hawaii! As to the other jurisdictions: Quite possible. When a petition or lawsuit is filed in a court and the person who would be an "opposing party" doesn't "oppose", as long as the judge is satisfied that there has been actual service of process on him/her, then a lot might have happened without there being formal proofs.

Would that kind of situation fly in a court in Hawaii today? Probably not. Refer to this, which a section of the current statutes (possibly amended in 1973) which demands "exact legal proof" upon every point pleaded. My guess is that such proof would consist of an authenticated document where one is available, and that the later reference to an affidavit envisions "testimony" about events giving rise to the perceived need for a divorce:

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurren ... 0-0005.htm

§580-5 Proof. Upon the hearing of every complaint for annulment, divorce, or separation, the court shall require exact legal proof upon every point, notwithstanding the consent of the parties. Where the matter is uncontested and the court, in its discretion, waives the need for a hearing, then the court shall require exact legal proof upon every point by affidavit. [L 1870, c 16, §5; CpL p 435; am L 1903, c 22, §2; am L 1905, c 19, §2; am L 1915, c 56, §2 and c 192, §2; RL 1925, §2970; RL 1935, §4465; RL 1945, §12215; am L 1949, c 53, §29; RL 1955, §324-25; am L 1957, c 72, §4; am L 1966, c 22, §5; HRS §580-5; am L 1973, c 211, §5(b); am L 1989, c 127, §1]

The case notes' notations below refer to "H." for the Hawaii court reporter series that contains cases and their rulings which have been approved for publication

Case Notes
Burden of "exact legal proof" not met. 37 H. 17.
Burden on libellant. 38 H. 394.
Fact that libellant had been twice divorced immaterial; corroboration of libellant's testimony not required. 42 H. 264.
Libellant's testimony negated "exact legal proof" of "grievous mental suffering". 43 H. 381.
Cited: 24 H. 29, 34; 36 H. 528.

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

3. What did the UK define as a 'valid marriage with the mother?' Do we know?

http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1948.htm

Relevant sections of the BNA 1948 are cut-and-pasted below. It is the later section about children born out of wedlock that would, implicitly, require a court to construe the earlier section about fathers passing citizenship to children to mean that the "father" must be legally recognized as such (via marriage):

Citizenship by birth or descent.

Citizenship by birth.

4. Subject to the provisions of this section, every person born within the United Kingdom and Colonies after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by birth:
Provided that a person shall not be such a citizen by virtue of this section if at the time of his birth
(a) his father possesses such immunity from suit and legal process as is accorded to an envoy of a foreign sovereign power accredited to His Majesty, and is not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies; or
(b) his father is an enemy alien and the birth occurs in a place then under occupation by the enemy.

Citizenship by descent.

5.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth:

Provided that if the father of such a person is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of this section unless

(a) that person is born or his father was born in a protectorate, protected state, mandated territory or trust territory or any place in a foreign country where by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance, or other lawful means, His Majesty then has or had jurisdiction over British subjects; or

(b) that person's birth having occurred in a place in a foreign country other than a place such as is mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph, the birth is registered at a United Kingdom consulate within one year of its occurrence, or, with the permission of the Secretary of State, later; or

(c) that person's father is, at the time of the birth, in Crown service under His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom; or

(d) that person is born in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of section one of this Act in which a citizenship law has then taken effect and does not become a citizen thereof on birth.

-------

Legitimated children.
23.
(1) A person born out of wedlock and legitimated by the subsequent marriage of his parents shall, as from the date of the marriage or of the commencement of this Act, whichever is later, be treated, for the purpose of determining whether he is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, or was a British subject immediately before the commencement of this Act, as if he had been born legitimate.

(2) A person shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to have been legitimated by the subsequent marriage of his parents if by the law of the place in which his father was domiciled at the time of the marriage the marriage operated immediately or subsequently to legitimate him, and not otherwise.

Originally Posted by HighlanderJuan

4. What if the Obama's were married in Kenya? Or in Arizona? Or Texas?

If the Obamas were married in Kenya and it was a TRIBAL marriage, then Kenya might have recognized it but it would have been highly unusual (to say the least) for a tribal marriage to involve a woman who was Caucasian and non-Muslim (or non-practitioner of one of the "nativist religions" allowing polygamy in that part of the world). Just because the tribal marriages aren't written up with marriage licenses doesn't mean that they're some simple act (like jumping over a broom). From what I've been reading, there were elaborate customs demanding payment of a dowry (cattle, or goods, or cash) AND if one of the spouses were to later demand a divorce then there had to be a RETURN OF ALL PROPERTY exchanged for the marriage. And all kinds of relatives had to get involved in giving an OK, since the marriage of two individuals was also viewed to be a familial marriage of their two respective clans. Anyway, as something involving a white person, if the marriage took place in Kenya there's a chance it might have triggered their own bigamy laws (with fines and up to 5 years prison time) ... it's not a marriage that would have slipped under the radar.

The strange marriage laws over in Kenya are why I'm kind of interested in how Obama Sr. "married" the other white wife, whom he met in Boston and then took back to Kenya when he finished his post-grad studies.

What prompts you to ask about Arizona or Texas??? So far as I know, if a marriage undertaken abroad is recognized by that foreign country as "valid" (which court rulings in Kenya have done vis-a-vis "customary marriages"), then most states of the U.S. would recognize that marriage and view it as an impediment to granting a marriage license. IF they KNEW about the earlier marriage, in the first place.

My interest in this topic stems less from a belief that Obama (in particular) is going to be disqualified, and more from a belief that any eventual ruling needs to make GOOD LAW and that any future candidates for office better darn well turn over their "best evidence" documents revealing who the heck they are. Whether their name is Obama, McCain or Jones or Smith. America doesn't need to be put through the emotional rollercoaster of suspicions and doubts about the basics of eligibility.

Originally Posted by FreedomFirst

What prompts you to ask about Arizona or Texas??? So far as I know, if a marriage undertaken abroad is recognized by that foreign country as "valid" (which court rulings in Kenya have done vis-a-vis "customary marriages"), then most states of the U.S. would recognize that marriage and view it as an impediment to granting a marriage license. IF they KNEW about the earlier marriage, in the first place.

My interest in this topic stems less from a belief that Obama (in particular) is going to be disqualified, and more from a belief that any eventual ruling needs to make GOOD LAW and that any future candidates for office better darn well turn over their "best evidence" documents revealing who the heck they are. Whether their name is Obama, McCain or Jones or Smith. America doesn't need to be put through the emotional rollercoaster of suspicions and doubts about the basics of eligibility.

Arizona, Texas? I was merely looking for two foreign (non-Hawaiian) jurisdictions, and just randomly picked those states. Sorry - I didn't mean to throw a wild card into the fray.

I am in total agreement with your comments about making GOOD LAW - this is a proper and necessary end goal for us all. Thanks for the marriage law comments. Your research and investigative skills are above reproach, and this Pilgrim, at least, certainly appreciates and learns from your work.

Very cute and appropriate video with Joe Friday lecturing Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_3r0T_iiVQ

Happy Friday, folks.