Moving Forward
February 3, 2009
DecaLogos is chartered to pursue human rights in legislation, litigation and initiative, including the rights of citizens of the United States to blessings of liberty ordained in the United States Constitution. One of those liberty interests is the right to a free and fair election. An election is not free if the candidates, their nominating parties, and the media engage in fraud. Fraud is a form of coercion and an election based on fraud is tantamount to a coup d’état . The failure to disclose is a form of fraud (fraud by omission). DecaLogos is committed to pursuing options to restore Americans’ rights to free and fair elections, and as our strategy evolves, our public documents will be made available here.
Ongoing research
DecaLogos is engaged in ongoing factual research concerning the President’s failure to properly disclose his background prior to his election. The DNC and the broadcast/print media have betrayed American interests in failing to perform due diligence on their candidate, and in many cases, acted in collusion with an effort to defraud the American public. Specifically, we are researching the following facts:
- Barack Obama’s birth in the Coastal Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya
- Barack Obama’s adoption by Lolo Soetoro, and his subsequent Indonesian citizenship
- Barack Obama’s pedigree: specifically, his alleged attendance at Occidental, his alleged attendance at Columbia University, his foreign exchange credits at Harvard; his thesis at Harvard and his subsequent degree.
Our website has been the subject of an attack, and our research has been compromised from time to time by parties of affiliates whose allegiances we have not been able to determine. As such, we are proceeding in our research pursuant to mutual non-disclosure agreements between private sources.
Broe v. Reed
Plaintiffs in Broe v. Reed elect to forego additional appeal. Without expressing an opinion on the case, the Washington Supreme Court dismissed the action Broe v. Reed, claiming the action was moot.
STEPHEN PIDGEON
Attorney at Law, P.S
Comments
19 Responses to “Moving Forward”
Got something to say?
To Steve, the Researchers & the Deca Logos Group,
God Bless & God’s Peace during the long road ahead. We will be keeping you in our prayers.
Linda
Sorry if I am nit-picking, but the sentence, “Specifically, we are researching the following facts”, caught my attention. Until all the research is complete, shouldn’t the sentence be written as “Specifically, we are researching the following issues”? In any case, keep up the good work. -Steve
Records show that a family named Lefforge lived at 6085 Kalanianaole, the address given in Obama’s newspaper birth announcement. No evidence has been found nor offered (eg the Lefforge chidren have not been called upon, nor come forward themselves) to substantiate Obama’s now on-the-record claim (Hollister v Soetoro) of his no-job, otherwise low-rent family’s residence in a large house on the most expensive Hawaian oceanfront real estate at Kalanianaole.
The information in the announcement, Obama’s attorneys claim, can only have been drawn from a list of weekly registrations supplied by Hawaiian Vital Records and routinely published therefrom. This irrefutably undermines the credibility of any Certifica-TION of Live Birth Obama could ever show (including a printed version) as prima facie evidence: if the announcement draws its information and probity from the longform Certific-ATE, and the address given in the announcement and previously entered on the longform is a felonious lie…then what other entries on that Certific-ATE in Hawaii are untrue ?
Surely any COLB submitted by Obama’s lawyers to a court is unlikely to be recognized as sufficient if challenged and the burden of proof is on them as to why there should not be an examination of the longform ?
“…if the announcement draws its information and probity from the longform Certific-ATE, and the address given in the announcement and previously entered on the longform is a felonious lie…then what other entries on that Certific-ATE in Hawaii are untrue ?”
On the Decosta COLB (which no one alleges is a fake,) every field header matches that of the Obama COLB except for one. On hers it says : Date ACCEPTED By State Registrar.On Obamas it says Date FILED By Registrar (Notice not the state registrar, this would be the local one ). Two different things. Either that field header is forged in Obamas ( they are from the same form - OHSM 1.1 Revised (11/01) ) or it means his registration was FILED at that date BUT was not ACCEPTED. If you look at the long form copy of the birth certificate available online from 1963, Field 20 says : Date Accepted by Local Registrar. Field 22 says Date Accepted by Registrar General ( which is the State Registrar ).A change from accepted to filed are significant enough linguistic changes that a different form would have to be created. Legally, accepted and filed are two very different things. So both these phrase were used on the form depending on the circumstances.
This section of the Hawaii Revised Stautes explains why that would be used:
Sec 338-16 ( late registration defined ) d) When an applicant does not submit the minimum documentation required by the rules for late registration or “when the state registrar finds reasons to question the validity or adequacy of the certificate or the documentary evidence, the state registrar shall not register the late certificate and shall advise the applicant of the reason for this action.”
So, something entered on the long form was not verifiable and thus, it was not approved by the state. So assuming his online COLB is not fake ( or the forgers were just too incompetent to notice they put in the wrong field header ), all you have with his online COLB is a FILING, not an ACCEPTED certificate
Ron Polarik’s report is found here:
http://www.obamacrimes.us/Web%20pages/thebirthcertificate1.html
In his report, Polarik shows several sample short-form Hawaiian Certifications of Live Birth. Some of his samples say “Date Filed by Registrar”, as does Obama’s Certification of Live Birth. Other samples say “Date Accepted by State Registrar”.
Polarik implies that all of his samples are authentic. Perhaps Polarik might be able to provide some clarification as to why some of his samples say “Accepted” while his other samples say “Filed”.
Any Certific-ATIONS (COLBs) posted by Obama and partizans, and any prior paper version, are irrelevant and bypassed because the logic is inescapable:-
All available evidence indicates that he Obama family never lived at 6085 Kalanianaole: how far does one go to establish a negative ? Soon the burden of proof falls on Obama to sustain the claim that the legally IDENTIFYING address in the longform Certific-ATE in Hawaii (and the newspaper birth announcement it generated) is correct and valid - or all other entries in the Certific-ATE also become suspect. None of the longform fields are optional; they IDENTIFY, that’s why they’re there. Let’s assume the announcement (from the DoH Certific-ATE) recorded that a son was born to “Mr and Mrs Borat Z Obama”,living at a confirmed Obama family address: we’d have a hard time reconciling the two; it could be a mistake, felony, (or fraudulent representation by Barack Jnr); but Obama would have to prove his father was legally IDENTIFIED with the name “Borat Z”, otherwise we must go to the original Certific-ATE to check, cross-check, and verify the Hawaii DoH data with external records and witnesses - and we would expect a court to so rule. Ditto ALL fields: they identify.
The implications ? Obama cannot rely on any COLB to sustain his claim to US citizenship and the Presidency: there is a pre-existing flaw in his case that only a full examination of the longform Certific-ATE in Hawaii can resolve.
Well spoken on the COLB. There are two other significant lies that go to Hawaiian documents: To be married in Hawaii in 1961, a person would have to allege Hawaiian residency for one year. Stanley Ann Dunham moved to Hawaii in June of 1960, and was married in February of 1961, months short of one year.
If you look at the Obama divorce decree finalized in March, 1964, there is a finding that Stanley Ann Dunham was a resident of Hawaii for at least two years preceeding the divorce. Ann Dunham was in Seattle from late August, 1961 to January of 1963. She had about one year of residency when she filed for divorce in January, 1964.
In the case of her marriage and her divorce, residency was “fudged.” Could it be possible that residency was fudged on a registration affidavit of birth as well?
A couple of questions. In 1964, was the requirement for divorce in Hawaii “two years of residency” or “two years of continuous residency”? If Stanley Ann resided in Hawaii for roughly a year, from June 1960 to June 1961 (presumably she was vacationing in Kenya in July 1961); and if she resided in Hawaii again for another year (Jan 1963 through Jan 1964), wouldn’t she have met the two-year residency requirement? And wouldn’t an 18-year-old Hawaii resident maintain her Hawaii residency while attending college on the mainland? Thanks.
For those coming to this site to inquire or debunk, all the following statements are true:
1 - No registration address is ever printed on a Hawaii shortform COLB.
2 - The newspaper announcement and recent Hawaii DoH statements predicate some as yet unidentified type of birth record from 1961 on file, informant as yet unknown.
3 - One or more entries in Obama’s original birth registration are suspect, possibly fraudulent.
4 - Obama has blocked access to all his personal records held anywhere.
5 - Forensic analysis of COLBs that Obama’s attorneys (Hollister v Soetoro) reference as evidence details multiple instances of criminal forgery - additionally no envelope(s?) from Hawaii DoH with corroborating post marks have been produced.
6 - Legal repudiation by Obama of birth records held in Hawaii is not possible.
7 - It is inadmissible to testify as to one’s own place of birth.
8 - There are several false statements in the Dunham-Obama and Dunham-Soetoro divorce papers about residency and citizenship.
9 - Barack Jnr has written that he discovered his birth certificate and immunization papers while at high school - this certificate has never been released.
10 - At the beginning of their relationship Barack Snr did not reveal to Ann Dunham the existence of an ongoing common-law “marriage” (to Grace Kezia ) in Kenya (not recognized in Hawaii) and only (at some unspecified time) later did he tell Ann he was no longer involved.
11 - Stanley Ann Dunham dropped out of U of Hawaii late in 1960.
12 - Barack Snr informed his father, Hussein Onyango Obama, of the impending marriage and received a letter back expressly rejecting the match
13 - Stanley Ann Dunham had dated Barack Snr to the displeasure of her parents (according to Susan Blake) and Mr and Mrs Dunham did not attend the marriage ceremony on 2 February 1961 (according to Barack Jnr) - it is unknown if Ann received her parent’s consent.
14 - Records show that shortly after Barack Jnr’s birth was registered in Hawaii (on 8 August 1961), a witness (Susan Blake) met Ann Obama and Barack Jnr in the last week of August 1961 in Seattle - at which single meeting Ann told many apparent untruths.
15 - Ann Obama enrolled at the U of Washington as a student August 1961
16 - No reason has yet surfaced to explain why Ann Obama did not rejoin her husand in Hawaii.
17 - Ann D. Obama did not return to Hawaii until 1963 - after Barack Snr had left for post-graduate study at Harvard in 1962.
18 - Throughout his life Barack Snr evinced many signs of personality disorder: shallow and manipulative personal relations, alcoholism, violent abuse, grandiosity and self-harm.
19 - Ann Dunham from her teen years evinced many signs of personality disorder: low self-esteem, boundary issues (due not least carrying her father’s first name), sexual risk-taking, impulsiveness, abandoning Barack Jnr.
20 - Barack Snr compulsively mimicked (vengefully) his father’s behavior: traveled to a distant continent and married a white woman (as Hussein Onyango Obama claimed for himself but never substantiated, except for a single photograph).
21 - Ann Dunham compulsively mimicked (vengefully) her parent’s behavior: she married very young (and secretly ?) to a disapproved spouse and moved house farther and farther afield.
22 - Ann Dunham was peremptorily taken by her parent’s against her will from Washington State to Hawaii in July of 1960.
23 - Ann D. Obama movements and residences, from February 1961 until late August 1961 (Seattle, WA), are as yet unknown.
24 - Barack Snr’s movements and residences for the summer of 1961 are as yet unknown.
25 - Barack Snr was a African-Kenyan nationalist.
26 - All Barack Snr’s children were born in Africa: Barack Jnr claims (see point 7) to be the exception.
Enough to deduce what happened in the summer of 1961 ? Sherlock Holmes counselled: “When all other contingencies fail, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth…” We eagerly await DecaLogos’ report.
I am interested in speaking with Mr. Stephen Pidgeon.
We are reading from the same sheet of music. I am very interested in furthering
the realization of the National Grand Jury.
Please advise. Please contact me immediately!!!
P.s. I look forward to hearing from you!
Allowing that pre-2001 (November) Hawaii Birth Certificates show birthplace, address, hospital, informant etc, and post-2001 (November) COLBs do not; and allowing that Hawaii confirm that Obama’s birth record is on file, then these questions naturally arise:
* Obama claims to have owned or examined his pre-2001 Certificates but has placed online post-2001 COLB images - why ?
* Obama’s attorneys in Hollister v Soetoro referenced his online COLBs as evidence of birth, but not pre-2001 Certificates - why ?
* Books, interviews etc by and about Obama before mid-2008 are completely and embarrassingly oblivious of the 6085 Kalanianaole Highway address given in the 1961 newspaper birth announcements, (drawn from the original registration, only discovered in July 2008, and officially stated there to be the Obama home), although all other addresses are mentioned - why ?
It can only be inferred:
a that Obama has never seen his pre-2001 Hawaii Birth Certificate, much less ever owned one; or
b the newspaper announcements are fakes or mistaken.
The supreme difficulties of faking rolls of photo-archives of 1961 newspapers eliminate fakery (if they were faked, they forgot to tell Obama, family, and friends) and it is vanishingly improbable a mistake was made by BOTH newspapers; so that only leaves inference “a”:
Obama has never seen and never possessed a Hawaii 1961 long form Birth Certificate.
The corollaries being: what documentation did Obama provide to which authorities to procure a passport for international travel in 1981, 1992 etc: Indonesia ? How did Obama survive in America without ever possessing his Hawaii long form Birth Certificate ? The only escapes are:
a) to assert that Obama and friends may be hiding his pre-2001 Birth Certificate and problematic 1961 “address” for reasons best known to themselves (problem: merely concedes the point);
b) to assert against known facts that the Dunhams or Obamas paid for their own untruthful newspaper birth announcements (problem: undermines the case for a contemporaneous registration and local birth, because why should they if Hawaii registrations automatically generated announcements ?); or
c) assume Lolo Soetoro adopts Obama in Hawaii, Obama’s 1961 birth record is sealed, and a new Birth Certificate is created: any later Certificates Obama sees or owns date from the adoption and Obama might never see 6085 Kalanianaole Highway on the form as his first address (problems: the COLB images that Obama posted online cite one “Barack Hussein Obama II”, meaning they are criminal forgeries, Obama has been party to fraudulent deception, and no paper COLB can ever be produced in court; here Obama might claim some “re-adoption” or formal name change from “Barry Soetoro” when Obama Sr visited Hawaii for a month in 1971: unfortunately the Soetoros’ 1980 divorce record includes Barry as a child of the marriage for whose education Lolo is responsible and no evidence - eg the requisite newspaper announcement - for an Obama formal name change exists.).
Any other escapes - lost them, everybody forgot, didn’t think it important, dog ate it etc - are laughably implausible given Obama’s profound concern with personal history and identity; his status as an attorney, professor, and public official; and his family’s contributions to his writings and publicity.
All of the four plausible inferences from the three questions asked entangle Obama in concealment, lies, deceit and possibly worse: none support the case of an honest natural born citizen eligible to be President of the United States.
cooooolest domain name)))
————————
signature: http://joneri.ru/
now in my rss reader)))
————————
ads: http://car-auto-loan.xetisa.ru/
Leo Donofrio declined to add the substance of the following to his blog. Donofrio insists that certain issues must not be discussed, even if they threaten to undermine his central arguments and mean that on present evidence his case will fail. This is extremely disturbing. I leave it to others to ask why.
There are TWO ways Obama’s parents can be PROVED LEGALLY UNMARRIED, with consequences that would dramatically affect deliberations in eligibility hearings. ON CURRENT EVIDENCE such hearings would never find against Obama:
a British citizenship under the UK Nationality Act 1948 transmitted automatically ONLY TO CHILDREN OF A LEGITIMATE MARRIAGE. Obama’s father was already married in Kenya before he came to America. The marriage was by native custom. In British Kenya in 1961 “customary marriage” for black Kenyans was absolutely legal. Customary marriage for white Kenyans was not permitted: their marriages required official licenses and generated certificates. These two forms of marriage could not be contracted simultaneously to different spouses: that was bigamy under the Kenya Marriage Act, Chapter 50, 1902 and the Kenya Penal Code of 1930, Section 171. Customary marriage was very public, invariably polygamous, and very legal — in British Kenya. The question is: what was the status of Kenyan customary marriage in America in 1961 ? Common law marriage had no official status in Hawaii in 1961 (or now). PROBLEM: Would a perfectly legal British Kenyan customary marriage (between Obama Sr and his wife Kezia Grace), which had no official certificate, be ruled by a US court in 1961 as being “common law” ? If it would, Obama’s parents were legally married under US law (if they did legally contract a marriage); if Obama Sr’s customary marriage would NOT have been ruled “common law”, if Obama Sr’s very Kenyan, very respectable, and eminently lawful customary marriage (to a doctor’s daughter) would have been deemed legal under US law (had authorities here and Ann Dunham herself known about it !), Obama’s parents COULD NEVER HAVE BEEN LAWFULLY MARRIED by any authority within US jurisdiction. We do know that it was Ann Dunham-Obama herself who left Obama Sr in August 1961 and only returned to Hawaii in 1963, many months AFTER Obama Sr left Hawaii for Harvard. Under these circumstances if Obama Jr was born in Kenya, just one year’s residency in America was all his mother needed to transmit US citizenship; though it should be said, he could never possess natural born citizenship. Conversely, if Obama’s parents are deemed by US authorities to have been legally married ONLY in America, then his mother did not have sufficient residency to transmit US citizenship if he was born in Kenya; and again Obama could never possess natural born citizenship.
b Obama’s father contracted a customary marriage in Kenya, perfectly legal there, several years before coming to study in Hawaii. Obama Sr then contracted (if he did) a second marriage with Ann Dunham in Hawaii in 1961. Polygamous customary marriage was legal for black Kenyans in British Kenya. PROBLEM: It was not legal under the British Kenya Marriage Act 1902 and Kenya Penal Code 1930 to mix the two types of marriage. American marriages were recognized foreign marriages and governed by statute, whereby “NO marriage in Kenya shall be valid…where either of the parties…is married by native law or custom to any person other than the person with whom such marriage is had”: ie for one customarily married any statutory spouse must be the customary spouse - thereby outlawing statutory polygamy. This means that Obama Sr’s Hawaiian marriage (if real) to Ann Dunham was BIGAMOUS AND ILLEGAL IN KENYA UNDER BRITISH LAW. While birth in Kenya would necessarily have entitled Obama Jr to British citizenship immediately, an Obama Jr birth in America to bigamous parents could never bestow British citizenship upon him, because at no time would Britain have regarded Obama Jr as the child of a marriage that was legitimate under British Kenyan law. Marriage (incontrovertibly bigamous) in the US for Ann Dunham and Obama Sr without a Kenyan birth for Obama Jr, or merely an American birth for Obama Jr, are both deadly poison for Leo’s brief.
There is only one possible escape - an escape which relies on alleged facts that Donofrio has previously dismissed as without interest - and it revolves around what Ann Dunham was doing in the summer of 1961: and, more precisely, where she might have been doing it. For this escape to work it is indispensable that Ann Dunham was in Kenya in 1961: not married to Obama Sr in February 1961, not yet having given birth to Obama Jr (in this escape that can only happen later in Hawaii - otherwise it’s too easy !), but necessarily contracting a customary marriage. The 1902 statute allows that “…nothing in this Act…shall affect the validity of any marriage contracted under or in accordance with any native law or custom, or in any manner apply to marriages so contracted…”
Remember it could not be a marriage under statute: for Obama Sr that would have been bigamy punishable by 5 YEARS IMPRISONMENT. Maybe that was why Obama Sr’s father was vehemently opposed to Sr’s marriage to Ann in Hawaii: could some decision have been made to return home and make a legal marriage under native law ? Given that in customary marriage Ann would be marrying man AND family AND tribe it was not something that could have been arranged on short notice and without complex preparations by all parties. I find it hard to believe that British officials would have smiled benevolently on such follies. Some might ask: Kenya is vast, how were British authorities to know what was going down far out in the bush ? Quite frankly, as a consequence of civil unrest in the 1950s, I believe British information systems were such that authorities would have known in exhaustive detail everything an impulsive white American girl aged 18 was doing upcountry, and most probably would have done all in their power to dissuade her.
But perhaps, only perhaps, some colonial officials told her: “Don’t mind us, it’s legal - if as you say you’re NOT LEGALLY MARRIED IN AMERICA” ? It is 99.999999% certain that no white woman ever contracted a customary marriage in British Kenya in 1961, as this would have meant complete and forced absorption into tribal lifestyles, customs, and culture as was expected of a dutiful wife, not to mention incurring some notoriety. Even if it were legal, even if a wayward, unconventional, runaway, and hard-to-hide Ann Dunham did MARRY customarily, where could we ever find the evidence ? Where’s the Certificate a US judge could rustle and squint at ? Could there be such a Certificate, from such a marriage ? What foreign investigation conducted by which authorities (US and\or British and\or Kenyan) in remote regions and times, to establish probative evidence of a white woman contracting a customary polygamous marriage in British Kenya in 1961, would be accepted as valid in US law ? Could the child of a second polygamous (in this case, Kenyan) customary marriage ever be judged legitimate in US law ? For this escape to work it is Obama Jr’s status at birth in British law that is decisive: his status at birth in Hawaii as the son of Obama Sr’s second legal customary wife. Some may say, “Maybe that’s what behind those Hawaii divorce papers - which marriage was really being terminated: the Hawaiian, as earlier claimed, or maybe, as can be seen with hindsight, or the Kenyan” ? No comment.
It should be blindingly obvious by now that there’s very little chance of this escape being successful but maybe Donofrio will find alleged events in Kenya in 1961 more compelling than he has so far. Donofrio’s case has no hope of success unless Obama’s COLB is ruled inadmissible, bypassed, and the original 1961 record is examined. (There are irrefutable arguments to achieve this) Anyhow, there’s no getting away from annoying Certificates: we all want one, “our” one. Not least Obama’s “genius” attorneys (as Donofrio calls them) !? All those foolish admissions by Obama Jr online that he was a Kenyan citizen until age 21: are they just romantic daydreams in the context of this analysis ? Donofrio believes Obama has trapped himself into admitting ineligiblity and that “Birthers” are being cunningly distracted from this vulnerabilty by Obama’s “simply the best” puppetmaster lawyers: in this conspiratorial spirit a better theory would be that the admissions are a masterstroke to hide in plain sight the truth that Obama never received British citizenship from his father. I’m suprised they haven’t already snapped to it and found the Hawaiian marriage certificate, the certificate that makes Ann Dunham’s purported US marriage bigamous, the certificate that makes Obama Jr a natural born citizen of the US, if he was born here. Maybe they’re holding it in reserve, a secret weapon ?
As simple as I can make it:
Obama Born In Kenya: British citizen by birth; US citizen if Kenyan customary marriage is not recognized in US law and Hawaii marriage correspondingly legal; not a US citizen if Kenyan customary marriage is recognized in the US and Hawaii marriage correspondingly bigamous. Obama is never a natural born US citizen.
Obama Born In Us: US citizen by birth; NEVER A BRITISH CITIZEN because Obama Sr’s bigamous marriage cannot allow transmission of British citizenship under British law. BRITAIN HAS NO CLAIM UPON OBAMA JR and therefore he is a natural born US citizen, unless “natural born” is strictly interpreted as requiring two US parents: even Leo has doubts that a court would so rule.
Therefore: Leo’s case will never be successful if Obama’s COLB is admitted by our courts as prima facie evidence: only if Obama’s COLB is ruled legally irrelevant and Obama’s long form Certificate upon discovery shows Kenyan birth can Leo’s case be sustained.
OK even more simply:
Only if Obama Jr was born in Kenya is Obama not a natural born US citizen; only if Obama Jr was born in Kenya and his parents contracted a legal US marriage is Obama not a US citizen. If Obama was US born he is a natural born citizen, very probably.
Conclusion: Donofrio’s central arguments against Obama’s eligiibilty, (that place of birth was immaterial, that British citizenship was transmitted through Obama Sr, that natural born citizenship required two citizen parents) have collapsed. Obama’s birthplace has now become the supreme and decisive issue. Unless Obama’s COLB is ruled irrelevant, and a court examines the original 1961 birth record, Obama will remain securely in office.
For Donofrio to reject that assessment as beneath contempt works only for Obama’s side of the dispute. Strange to say, Donofrio is on record as having conceded legitimacy to “President” Obama to further his brief.
221b, I would like to ask you a question.
I’ve heard all about this theory because an attorney at our group discussed and your post was brought to his attention. He also got censored at Donofrio’s blog for bringing it up. heh
Don’t feel bad. He thinks nothing of telling people off in our group and then using our research for his briefs. Vattel, Grotius, Gallatin, Shields, etc. He didn’t bring up Bacon, we gave that to Apuzzo. lol
Anyway, the problem with this theory, as I see it, is that Stanley Ann claimed to be married in Maui, Hawaii on her divorce decree. Hawaii statute states that you could only get a license in Hawaii for marriage if you had an authorized officiate who had to then file the marriage with Hawaii. That’s the way the legal papers read. Do we really want to try to disprove that she was validly and legally married in Hawaii when she and her husband signed papers that said this?
I am a bit confused. Let’s assume, for the sake of discussion, that the Obama, Sr. marriage was NOT legal. The only benefit I can see, if this is true, is Obama, Sr.’s citizenship is in question. The fact that the mother and father of record must be US citizens for the child to have a chance at being eligible for ‘natural born Citizen’ status. It seems to me the legality of the marriage is irrelevant. One of the two parents, as listed on the ‘Certification of Live Birth’ (bogus or not) is NOT a US citizen, thereby, disqualifying the child of the union for ‘NBC’ status. Am I missing something???
Nope, you’re not missing anything at all, Piecemaker. There’s nothing I can find either going back to the statements made during the time of the Constitutional Convention that say anything about having to be married.
I just brought it up in case someone wanted to argue the point. The divorce decree itself states they were married in Maui, Hawaii, signed by both parties.
When I looked up the Hawaii rules on marriage, I found that Hawaii states that you need to file for a license to obtain a marriage certificate. If anything, if Obama’s lawyers tried to claim that the marriage was not the truth after all, it goes more to the credibility of his entire family as being nothing but liars. Would he really have us believe his parents lied, his step-father lied, his Indonesian citizenship was a lie, too? That would just give more of a reason to find out how much more were lies.
It doesn’t really matter anyway if he tries to ruin all credibility, natural-born citizen has nothing to do with being born of married parents, not in English Common Law or any law that I can see. Your parents are your parents, married or not.
Kamira, Only just read your post today. To be clear: Constitutionally the US President must be a “natural born citizen” and to date neither the Constitution, statute, nor judicial ruling has defined what that might be. My understanding and preference is for a President qualified by US birth to two US citizens. The significance of the bigamous and thus non-existent marriage (see post above) of Obama Sr and Dunham CANNOT BE UNDERSTATED. It puts Obama Jr’s citizenship and eligibility in such a completely new perspective that it could essentially decide the case.
If Obama Sr and Dunham went through a marriage ceremony (and I stress IF, as no Certificate has been located) then Obama Sr lied about not being married in Kenya: he lied to Hawaiian authorities and probably lied to Dunham at the time. There is some slight indication she only found out later during that strange summer of 1961. Obama Sr never divorced his first wife: indeed after returning to Kenya they had two more children together. Using the established legal principle of “lex loci celebrationis”, whereby US states and foreign states recognize lawful marriages from other jurisdictions, in both British and Hawaiian law Obama Sr committed bigamy with Ann Dunham, if they ever “married”. The Obama-Dunham “marriage” was void and never existed. Obama Jr was, therefore, illegitimate and could never have been a British citizen by descent.
Donofrio’s ENTIRE case is that, no matter where Obama was born, according to British law Obama was British at birth, and hence not a “natural born” US citizen. My reply is: if someone asserts that British law could make Obama a British citizen at birth, logic demands that they also accept that British law could reject Obama as a British citizen at birth. Donofrio however dimisses Obama’s illegitimacy by most emphatically stating that his parents’ subsequent marrying would have legitimated him, still making Obama British at birth: this is a TOTAL MISREADING OF THE LAW, TWICE OVER:
1 The UK Nationality Act 1948 Section 21 (1) provided for illegitimate children presently excluded from British citizenship by descent to become legitimate and British citizens FROM THE DATE OF THE SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE, not at birth. Donofrio’s case requires Obama’s British citizenship at birth, which is impossible under this statute.
2 The illegitimacy of Obama Jr was IRREDEEMABLE AND COULD NEVER BE REMEDIED IN BRITISH LAW AS HIS ILLEGITIMACY DERIVED FROM BIGAMY, as stipulated in the 1926 UK Legitimacy Act. (UK Nationality Govt Manual: “The Legitimacy Act 1926 was the first English Act under which a child born out of wedlock was, if living, legitimated by the subsequent marriage of the parents. There was, however, a proviso that NEITHER PARENT WAS MARRIED TO A THIRD PERSON when the child was born.”) Application of the British Kenya Marriage Act 1902 (retained after Kenyan independence in 1964 and still operative) and UK Nationality Act 1948 Section 21 (2), meant that Obama NEVER HAD THE REMOTEST HOPE of ever being a British citizen by descent at birth or any other time.
3 I wrote above in my previous post that Obama Sr and Dunham’s only chance of avoiding bigamy in British Kenya and Hawaii was if they had contracted a customary marriage in Kenya. This possibility is now ELIMINATED: “Any marriage celebrated on or before 31 July 1971 was regarded as void if, despite having taken place in a country whose law permits polygamy [ie Kenya], it was: polygamous in form; and at the time of the marriage, EITHER party was domiciled in the United Kingdom or IN ANOTHER COUNTRY WHOSE LAW DID NOT PERMIT POLYGAMY.” (UK Nationality Govt Manual). In 1961 Ann Dunham was domiciled in the United States, which did not permit polygamy.
Without his parents being lawfully married there would be no acceptance on the part of British authorities that Obama Jr really was the natural son of Obama Sr. How were they to know that Obama Sr was the true father of Obama Jr ? On Ann Dunham’s word alone ? In 1961, with no DNA testing ? Dunham would have been told to get lost.
In 1961 only the existence of a lawful marriage would have allowed the presumption of paternity: marriage proves legitimacy proves paternity proves citizenship-by-descent — no marriage proves no legitimacy proves no paternity proves no citizenship-by-descent. In British (and Hawaiian) law there was no lawful marriage, consequently there was British no citizenship-by-descent for Obama. It would have been easier to wring blood from a stone than to persuade British authorities otherwise: that is the determining significance of legitimacy.
In terms of British citizenship-by-descent (1948 Act), irredeemable illegitimacy had no force in law, no ability to demand or expect anything, nothing would ever be required or sought from it. In these circumstances, IF OBAMA WAS BORN IN HAWAII, in what way could he be legally or morally deemed by British authorities as being “subject to their jurisdiction at birth” ? In law Obama had nothing from Britain: no rights, obligations, expectations; no nothing - tentative, conditional, or otherwise. Britain can hardly exercise jurisdiction over something non-existent (”Obama’s British citizenship”), any more than Obama could exercise something non-existent (the infinite and irredeemable nothingness of “his British citizenship”). Conversely, given Obama’s illegitimacy is proved, all scenarios of his birth conferred US citizenship: as Dunham was the mother of collegiate child she only needed ONE YEAR of prior US residence to transmit American citizenship if her son was born in Kenya. Dunham had that..
Donofrio’s entire case has been that what puts the “natural” into “natural born citizen” is that by ancient law and custom, respected by the Framers of the Constitution, the child inherits the condition of the father (Vattel “Law of Nations” § 215: thus Obama inherits his father’s British citizenship). Donofrio cites Vattel § 212 that “in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen” but denies that this would allow natural born status to be conferred by a single parent. In the same paragraph Vattel (and other contemporary sources) seems to reinforce the idea that it is from one parent alone, the father, that the child inherits his condition, rights, privileges, and property. Vattel: “…children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights…The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent…” For decades this was the basis of US nationality laws. American women married to foreigners lost US nationality EVEN WHILE LIVING IN THE US, and their children (if born abroad) could never be American.
My point here is that US nationality laws have evolved over the preceding century to roll back previous legislative discrimination against women. For example, one statute (the US Immigration and Nationality Technical Corrections Act 1994) corrected a discriminatory anomaly whereby a child born to a female US citizen abroad before 1934, who had previously been prevented from assuming American citizenship, was put on the same basis as a child born to a male US citizen abroad before 1934, with retroactive effect. Never mind what I or anyone else might think is meant by “natural born citizen”, does Donofrio seriously believe that a modern judge or jury will interpret Vattel, the Constitution, and US law TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF WOMEN and Obama, if Obama actually was born in Hawaii to an American woman and a father who TRANSMITTED NO CITIZENSHIP ? Does Donofrio seriously believe that a modern judge or jury will indulge in semantic hair-splitting (”citizen”, “citizens of the country”, and “natural born citizens”, or “fact of birth” as opposed to “legal citizenship”) - just to amuse Donofrio, discriminate against women, and remove Obama as ineligible ? A sympathetic federal judge ? A jury confined to DC ? SCOTUS (whom Donofrio has vilified as cowardly cult members) ?
Donofrio’s case and no case challenging Obama’s eligibility can succeed if Obama’s COLB is ruled admissible (see post above). I and many others suspect that Obama is ineligible to be President because he was born in Kenya. Only physical birth in a British jurisdiction makes Obama a British citizen. Nothing else can deem Obama ineligible. On any other basis (ie COLB admissible) a hearing in a friendly federal court or SCOTUS throws Obama a lifejacket. To which, with much and everlasting gratitude, he will very firmly cling.
CORRECTIONS to March 23rd, 2009 1:27 pm:
“…significance of the bigamous and thus non-existent marriage (see post above) of Obama Sr and Dunham CANNOT BE UNDERSTATED.” should be “MUST NOT BE UNDERSTATED.”
“…his parents’ subsequent marrying…” should be “… his parents’ subsequent MARRIAGE…”
: “…as Dunham was the mother of collegiate child” should be “as Dunham was the mother of an ILLEGITIMATE child…”
It should be remembered that the marital status of Obama Sr and Dunham in British law (British Kenya Marriage Act 1902 and UK Nationality Act 1948) pivots on Sr’s legal domicile. Obama Sr was a British Kenyan citizen in America on a student visa, with wife and children in Kenya. Obama Sr returned to his domicile in Kenya on completion of his studies. For Britain, whose law alone decided the transmissibility of Obama Sr’s British citizenship, the authority of the Kenya Marriage Act 1902 was final. There can be no question that transmissibility could NOT issue from a criminal bigamy subject to five years imprisonment.
It should not be forgotten that Dunham’s age NEVER precluded her transmission of US citizenship if Obama was foreign born. This is could only be true if her she was lawfully married: as Dunham was NEVER lawfully married to Obama’s father, merely ONE YEAR of US residence by the mother of an illegitimate child transmitted residence wherever in the world the child was born.
Anyone who doubts that a friendly federal court or an obliging SCOTUS would be tempted to define “natural born citizenship” away from “parents” or “father” (Vattel) need only be reminded that the Constitution defines the US President as “he”. Who imagines that if the eligibility of a female President were challenged, on the basis that the Constitution specifies only a male is eligible, that SCOTUS would strictly construe the term “he” and disqualify her ? 19th Amendment ? Permits women to vote, not hold office. See what I mean ?
Bottom line: Obama’s long form birth Certificate is the deal maker or breaker