Main Menu

Obama/Dunham Divorce Decree says One Child Born in Kenya

Obama’s Kenyan Birth Evidence to be Revealed Today Friday Monday Online, according to the Investigating Obama blog:

A private investigator in Hawaii has uncovered the divorce decree for Barack Obama’s father and mother, which indicates they had “one child under the age of eighteen, born in Kenya.” That is the report of Ed Hale of PlainsRadio.com, an Internet radio site which has focused upon the natural born Citizen challenges to Obama’s presidential eligibility.

Hale announced this during his evening Internet broadcast on PlainsRadio.com, Tuesday, 12/30 and confirmed it with I.O. in an online interview, later that night. He reported that certified copies of this documentation have been sent from Hawaii by the investigator to himself and four others. Hale is to receive his copy today, Wednesday, 12/31 and plans to post it graphically on the site, during the day. He will also discuss this on a special Internet broadcast, between 6pm and 10pm Central Time, tonight. The site streams audio as soon as it is accessed via Web browser.

Let us see what we shall see.

And the document finally surfaced Friday, lacking the word “Kenya”. Well what did you expect? But stay tuned, more documents on Monday.

Print Friendly

, ,

167 Responses to Obama/Dunham Divorce Decree says One Child Born in Kenya

  1. avatar
    bogus info December 31, 2008 at 5:09 pm #

    This is on the website at PlainsRadio:

    We need $1000.00 in the next 24 hours to purchase the documents Steve needs

  2. avatar
    bogus info December 31, 2008 at 5:13 pm #

    This was in the first article I posted regarding this:

    Hale is to receive his copy today, Wednesday, 12/31 and plans to post it graphically on the site, during the day. He will also discuss this on a special Internet broadcast, between 6pm and 10pm Central Time, tonight. The site streams audio as soon as it is accessed via Web browser.
    Link to PlainsRadio and their message forum
    Link to PlainsRadio and chat window

    Hale does admit to incomplete certainty of his investigator’s work until he receives it, partially due to the PI’s accent, the telephone connection, and his slight hearing impediment.

    My question would be: Why PlainsRadio?

  3. avatar
    bogus info December 31, 2008 at 5:22 pm #

    Complete article:

    Wednesday, December 31, 2008
    Obama’s Kenyan Birth Evidence to be Revealed Today, Online

    Permission to copy and post this article’s text is granted, I.O., AW.

    A private investigator in Hawaii has uncovered the divorce decree for Barack Obama’s father and mother, which indicates they had “one child under the age of eighteen, born in Kenya.” That is the report of Ed Hale of PlainsRadio.com, an Internet radio site which has focused upon the natural born Citizen challenges to Obama’s presidential eligibility.

    Hale announced this during his evening Internet broadcast on PlainsRadio.com, Tuesday, 12/30 and confirmed it with I.O. in an online interview, later that night. He reported that certified copies of this documentation have been sent from Hawaii by the investigator to himself and four others. Hale is to receive his copy today, Wednesday, 12/31 and plans to post it graphically on the site, during the day. He will also discuss this on a special Internet broadcast, between 6pm and 10pm Central Time, tonight. The site streams audio as soon as it is accessed via Web browser.

    Link to PlainsRadio and their message forum
    Link to PlainsRadio and chat window

    The Texan Internet entrepreneur relates he got fed up with the lack of documentation on Obama and decided to discuss ideas with his radio audience. His offer to hire an investigator was met with piecemeal sums of money from listeners to his broadcasts. Hale said some of the information one would expect to find was not available. For example, documentation from Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann’s divorce to her second husband, Lolo Soetoro had vanished. Hale speculates, the reason this forthcoming 1964 divorce decree had not also been “scrubbed” could be that the divorce had been filed not by Obama’s mother, but by Barack H. Obama, Sr. Thus, it may have been overlooked by any plumbers for Obama.

    Hale does admit to incomplete certainty of his investigator’s work until he receives it, partially due to the PI’s accent, the telephone connection, and his slight hearing impediment. However, he is very confident of what he will receive during the day. Mark S. McGrew, who writes about Obama’s natural born Citizen problems for Pravda.ru, accompanied Hale in his broadcast and also expressed confidence. McGrew had sought publication in numerous American news outlets, but they turned down his articles referring to Obama’s apparent ineligibility. Russia’s Pravda however, decided his effort to find and report the truth was not to be redlined.

    As often related, Barack Obama, due simply to his U.K. citizenship at birth via his Kenyan father, is not a natural born Citizen of America, by definition and the original intent of that term. The Supreme Court has turned down cases which make this point, but according to a September decision in a lower federal court (regarding John McCain’s eligibility problem) this would be due to a question of jurisdiction, until Congress is to certify the Electoral College vote on January 8. Further action is to occur, after this date. You may read about this in previous I.O. articles and the sites linked in its sidebar.

    Meanwhile, on the question of Obama’s place of birth, professionals dealing with documents and forensic evidence have testified that the online “certificate of live birth” provided by Obama is not identifiable evidence of American birth. Now, if Obama’s parents’ divorce decree states that he was born in Kenya (as his Kenyan grandmother has repeatedly stated) the second epistemological wheel is coming off his vehicle to the White House.

    Will Congress pay attention and do its Constitutional duty?

  4. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 31, 2008 at 7:42 pm #

    That is funny. That is very funny.

  5. avatar
    StrangeAppar8us December 31, 2008 at 8:55 pm #

    Ed did this dance before with “Chief Editor Korir” of African Press International and the “Michelle Obama” tapes.

    Ed NEVER gets the scoop, but he’s always THIS CLOSE to having the proof in hand. It’s predictable as sunrise.

  6. avatar
    MNBV December 31, 2008 at 10:22 pm #

    This is easy… Why would place of birth be listed on this divorce decree. When there isnt a place of birth listed on her second divorce decree?

    http://decalogosintl.org/documents/Soetoro_Divorce.pdf

  7. avatar
    bogus info December 31, 2008 at 11:26 pm #

    I’ve never been divorced but I called my friend who has and she had two young children at the time of her divorce born in two different cities but same State. She said the place of birth for the children is not in her divorce decree. Just has children’s full names and DOB.

  8. avatar
    bogus info December 31, 2008 at 11:38 pm #

    bob strauss says:Today, 9:12:34 PM“Ed Hale at Plains Radio Network says they have the Obama divorce decree, stating the Obama’s had one child under 18 who was born in Kenya!

    Above from Dr. Orly’s blog.

  9. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 31, 2008 at 11:40 pm #

    The reason the location of birth is on the Obama divorce is because there is no such document, and therefore it can say anything they need it say. At one fell stroke a thousand people now believe the document exists and that it is just one more in a long line of evidence that Obama was born in Kenya.

  10. avatar
    bogus info December 31, 2008 at 11:54 pm #

    Then those “thousand people” sure don’t require much evidence. LOL Kind of like Polarik’s “affidavit?”

    Besides, if this divorce decree were real, it would have surfaced a long time ago. Think about it!

  11. avatar
    bogus info January 1, 2009 at 1:03 am #

    [I.O., 12/31, 2:30pm CT: Ed Hale has sent an email stating that his delivery has been delayed until Friday, 1/2. We wait another day for what he has to show. We can be patient in light of how long we wait for Barack Obama to admit the truth of his ineligibility per Article II (and show us the whole truth of his actual Hawaiian birth certificate, besides)]

  12. avatar
    bogus info January 1, 2009 at 1:10 am #

    This is from another blog:

    Sam Sewell said…
    I picked the below comment from Obamabots over at AOL:

    CJ3:09PMDec 31st 2008

    You know what they say enquiring minds want to know

    A quick question for

    Aristotle the Hun1:11PMDec 31st 2008

    Obama’s Kenyan birth evidence to be revealed today, online
    By Arlen Williams

    According to this and I quote “A private investigator in Hawaii has uncovered the divorce decree for Barack Obama’s father and mother”

    I just called the State of Hawaii and they stated and I quote “Divorce Records are public domain and can be ordered online if you have the required information and pay all the fees and have a LEGITIMATE reason for needing it.” So why the headline that the private investigator UNCOVERED this document and why the need for a Private Investigator to UNCOVER this information when it has been readily available on line for anyone who wanted to take the time and pay the fees to get it since 1964.

    The implication being that it was hidden away somewhere hopefully never to see the light of day.

    Let the games begin, oh and be aware that I DID Order a copy so be careful what you post as Hawaii is sending me an original certified copy and I will be able to PROVE that your uncovered copy is a fraud.

  13. avatar
    Darcie January 1, 2009 at 1:58 am #

    Got Bigfoot? As much as I want the faker Obama to go away, this story has all the trappings of a hoax.

    Can’t help but wonder why anyone bright enough to obtain history-making documents would announce in advance that Obama’s momma’s divorce decree is on it’s way by FedEx. Then, on the day said documents are to arrive, making them public is delayed for two days. “What’s wrong with this picture” should be the topic of the day. He should have just published the tracking number and blamed “the government” for intercepting them.

    Also, these phony SCOTUS conferences are more circus act than anything else. Sorry, but if you hope to catch a thief, you either out-think him or wait until he trips himself. Let’s hope he trips himself soon.

  14. avatar
    bogus info January 1, 2009 at 2:11 am #

    Here is more info that was on Dr. Orly’s/The Betrayal blogs:

    Katie // Dec 19, 2008 at 11:52 pm

    And from Dr. Orly’s blog, here’s additional info. In part, “Lastly, I leave you with one tidbit I gleaned from the divorce papers:
    Case 1D00-0-17619 (117619) (Initiator ID: A1530) — Stanley Ann Soeroto vs Lolo Soetoro Divorce Ct — Initiation date: 08-20-1980 Case terminated 11-26-1988 — Attorney William H. Gilardy Jr

    The attorney for Stanley Ann’s divorce in 1980, “Gilardy H William Jr,” went on to become Hawaii DNC state attorney, as said in this 1998 article: “High court asked to act in vote dispute” – http://archives.starbulletin.com/98/12/29/news/story3.html

    Ironically, in 2006, William Gilardy is listed by name here “Who’s Undoing the U.S. Constitution?” http://www.middleeast.org/forum/fb-public/1/4604.shtml

    He’s still a Lawyer, still in Hawaii: “Gilardy William H, Esq” in Honolulu, (808) 237-4100.

    I would suspect that the same lawyer prepared the Dunham/Obama divorce papers? The article about the Dunham/Obama divorce papers stated that the Dunham-Obama/Soetoro divorce papers could not be found-”scrubbed”, yet was posted on Dr. Orly/The Betrayal blog 12/19/08? Doesn’t make sense.

    These records are public records in Hawaii. Something doesn’t pass the smell test.

  15. avatar
    bogus info January 1, 2009 at 2:18 am #

    Darcy,

    What I don’t understand is why the guy would hire a PI and pay $1,000.00 + to obtain something that has been public record since 1964.

  16. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 1, 2009 at 8:24 am #

    Maybe when you order online all you get is a short form. 8)

  17. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 1, 2009 at 8:49 am #

    It is the practice of the Supreme Court when it receives an application for emergency relief (for a stay or an injunction) that is denied by one justice and resubmitted to a second justice who also denies it, for the second justice to refer the application to the full court for discussion at its regular Friday conference. This is the procedure that has been followed with all the cases of interest to us at Obama Conspiracy Theories. The pattern of Supreme Court activity we have seen is more about the timing of applications rather than the Court’s opinion on the merits of the cases. Certainly if the Supreme Court had planned any kind of intervention, it would have happened at the earliest possible moment and not at the last.

    Those who are telling us to watch for an Obama indictment from the Supreme Court (who doesn’t indict anybody) on some date in January are putting forward the same kind of disinformation as what it appears is the case in this ephemeral divorce decree.

  18. avatar
    bogus info January 1, 2009 at 4:27 pm #

    Here is a recent article concerning this on The Betrayal blog:

    http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=642

    Update 1/1/2009, 3:36am CT – In his 7:45pm Plains Radio broadcast, this last night, Ed Hale backed down from his prior assertion of having gained even uncertain information about the Barack Sr. / Stanley Ann divorce decree containing language referring to Barack Jr. as being born in Kenya. Instead, Hale referred to an apparently tricky recollection… of an indeterminate person… referring to such a document’s generally referring to the place of birth of the children of the divorced parents. That is not what I heard from Mr. Hale on the 31st.

    Two people reported during the broadcast that they had contacted Hale’s private investigator yesterday, who indicated he did not thoroughly read the documentation and does not know how it addresses Barack Obama Jr. — nor did he make a copy for himself. It would appear that Hale will receive a valid copy of this decree, probably Friday, 1/2. What it states will be what it states. He promises to post and report, as described below.

    While my article maintains a journalistic separation from the principals of this story and is a report of statements of others on the matter, I believed it worthy of “pushing out” to readers and those who would faithfully relay the story. That worth appears less merited at this point and I apologize for that, to them and you.

  19. avatar
    bogus info January 2, 2009 at 10:22 am #

    Isn’t today the BIG DD Day Revelation?

  20. avatar
    bogus info January 2, 2009 at 10:47 am #

    This one is the best I have seen so far:

    http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/obama-cannot-be-natural-born-citizen.html#links

    Comments?

  21. avatar
    bogus info January 2, 2009 at 10:55 am #

    Just info:

    http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/broe-v-reed-reply-to-sos-wnd-reports.html

  22. avatar
    Ma_repub January 2, 2009 at 4:41 pm #

    Here’s the link to search Hawaiian court records. I could not locate the divorce decree using the above-mentioned information. I also read the papers on another site and did not see any reference to Barry’s place of birth.

    http://hoohiki1.courts.state.hi.us/jud/Hoohiki/main.htm?spawn=1

  23. avatar
    bogus info January 2, 2009 at 7:45 pm #

    They are claiming that the divorce decree papers of Dunham/Obama say that Obama was born in Kenya:

    http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=651

  24. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 2, 2009 at 7:54 pm #

    Claims are not evidence.

  25. avatar
    bogus info January 2, 2009 at 7:59 pm #

    How reputable is this Ed person? They’ve made alot of claims before that have turned out to be a hoax.

  26. avatar
    laughinghysterically January 2, 2009 at 8:07 pm #

    Well, no revelations over at Plains radio, but, not surprisingly, the scam artists are on a new fundraising drive! The fools listening and chatting are quick t be separated from thier $$, they are all donating like mad!

    LOL.
    Pathetic how easily these people are conned.

  27. avatar
    bogus info January 2, 2009 at 8:15 pm #

    laughinghysterically,

    So you are saying that they aren’t reporting at Plains Radio that the divorce decree says Obama was born in Kenya? That is not what they are reporting on The Betrayal.

    My question is why? Especially Doc Orly et al. Just makes them less credible than what they already are.

  28. avatar
    Anti Obama January 2, 2009 at 8:16 pm #

    If Obama was really born in the United States, then why doesn’t he just show the birth certificate? Why has he been so evasive? This is just clear evidence. The passport records clearly show he was not born in Hawaii. He may have grown up in Hawaii, but he certainly wasn’t born there. He was born in Kenya.

  29. avatar
    bogus info January 2, 2009 at 8:22 pm #

    Anti Obama,

    What passport records? Can you please direct us to proof/evidence of those passport records?

  30. avatar
    bogus info January 2, 2009 at 8:42 pm #

    Investigating Obama update

    6:56 CT – It is the original Hawaiian birth certificate of BHO II that Ed believes he can somehow fish out of the Pacific islands. He purports it can be obtained with further work on the ground, now that some bit of information in this divorce decree has been discovered: a different name for Stanley Ann is listed there? I’ll have to take another look at those documents…. And, whoever is on the ground may want to start eating out of vending machines and wearing kevlar — just kidding about that, aren’t I?

    7:18 CT – Okay, Mr. Hale says the birth certificate he seeks is not the Hawaiian vault copy.

  31. avatar
    bogus info January 2, 2009 at 8:46 pm #

    You know another thing that puzzles me? If they have this so called “evidence” to track down Obama’s alleged “real BC”, why on earth would they broadcast it to the world? Especially where “Obama’s Thugs” could get there first? Now, if it were me, I’d keep it under my hat, wouldn’t you?

  32. avatar
    TRUTH January 2, 2009 at 8:46 pm #

    I want to make a comment about Plains Radio. I mentioned this in a website that I support, but got chastised for bringing it up.

    First, I do support Plains Radio #1 goal currently, which is getting the truth about Obama. HOWEVER, they have a female that speaks on there, first initial “H”. She was rambling Wednesday night on the archive I replayed Thursday, when I HEARD HER say…”I know our government was behing 911, not terrorists”. THAT! Dr. is a true Conspiracy Theory at its best, and one I am completely against. I don’t go around talking about my own government attacking our own country, at least not unless I had 100% positive proof, which there is not. That story is NUTS! And so is Ms. “H”.

    Then I get told she has freedom of speech to say what she wants. Well, YES she does, but NOT when she is speaking on a Conservative Radio Network who’s current goal is to make Mr. Obama prove without a doubt his eligibility, and here we have a Tin-Hat wearing FOOL talking like a NutHouse escapee. When your speaking in that forum, and representing thousands, your freedom of speech needs to be limited to the Subject at hand. NOT just some whim that pops into your head. Because what SHE says makes the group associated look stupid.

    But HEY, that is just MY opinion. You know, My Freedom of Speech. :-)

  33. avatar
    TRUTH January 2, 2009 at 8:55 pm #

    OOps…typos. I need to pay closer attention.

    PS. I’ll say it, Hanin of PLAINS and anyone else that believes the 911 Conspiracy Theory of our own country behind it, you live sorry lives.

    And Hanin, guess what…we didn’t visit the Moon, the Earth is Flat, Aliens are currently living at the bottom of the ocean waiting for us all to die and SANTA Clause is real but he is retired in Tahiti.

  34. avatar
    bogus info January 2, 2009 at 8:58 pm #

    Truth,

    Yes, that story is nuts. And guess what? The same guy, Berg, that has gone after Obama, I’m pretty darn sure he’s the one who started it.

    But, unlike those who attack Obama, I also provide you the proof/evidence:
    http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/philip-berg-seeking-the-truth-of-911
    Philip Berg – Seeking the “Truth of 9/11‘

  35. avatar
    laughinghysterically January 2, 2009 at 9:44 pm #

    Bogus:

    The answer to all these questions lies in one simple motivation: GREED.

    They are tiding the monet train for as long as people will keep donating, or until they are indicted.

  36. avatar
    bogus info January 2, 2009 at 9:50 pm #

    Laughinghysterically,

    So, what did they say? The Betrayal said something about Obama’s BC being at a port of entry? That doesn’t make sense.

    So, this is all a hoax/bogus?

  37. avatar
    laughinghysterically January 2, 2009 at 9:58 pm #

    I only listened for a few minutes because I really could not take it. What I heard was they had NO documents that they could show anyone at present, but that they needed more $$. All they talked about while I listened was that everyone should send $$$ because that is the patriotic thing to do.

    Yes, I believe it is ALL a hoax/scam and nothing more.

  38. avatar
    bogus info January 2, 2009 at 10:10 pm #

    Why would they need more money????? To do what? Supposedly, on the Betrayal blog, something about sending ground crew and something about the Pacific Islands, then something about Obama’s BC at port of entry. Really very jumbled. Then at Betrayal said they were receiving documents which I guess documents were being faxed/emailed to them? Who knows?

    Anybody listen to Plains Radio? I tried but it never came on.

  39. avatar
    bogus info January 2, 2009 at 10:16 pm #

    Okay, guys, what do you make of this:

    http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=653

  40. avatar
    laughinghysterically January 2, 2009 at 10:36 pm #

    Bogus:

    They need more $$ to pay their January personal bills, I’d imagine. And, after the inauguration on Jan 20th this money train will likely slow down significantly.

    No more lawsuits at that point.

  41. avatar
    bogus info January 2, 2009 at 10:56 pm #

    Laughinghysterically,

    Go to the Betrayal website. A copy of the divorce decree is up. Claim pages 8-11 are missing and will have to go to US port of entry to retrieve Obama’s birth certificate. Any of this make sense? I posted the website but my post is still in moderation. Suppose to have the info Mon/Wed.

  42. avatar
    laughinghysterically January 2, 2009 at 11:30 pm #

    Bogus:

    It makes little sense, but, nothing they do makes sense. These papers, if they are even legit, prove absolutely NOTHING.

    More of the same garbage if you ask me.

  43. avatar
    bogus info January 2, 2009 at 11:36 pm #

    You need a birth certificate to go through a port of entry but I’d bet money it is not Obama’s birth certificate but rather Obama Sr.’s birth certificate.

  44. avatar
    helen January 2, 2009 at 11:49 pm #

    we have stopped reporting obama “birth certificate” stories as every one has proven to be a hoax!
    if anyone has legitimate information we will gladly publish it for free!

  45. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 2, 2009 at 11:55 pm #

    Aw, come on! Hoaxes are fun!

  46. avatar
    bogus info January 2, 2009 at 11:58 pm #

    Why are you guys so sure it is a hoax?

    Also, I have not read the Dunham/Soetoro divorce decree–can’t open the PDF file for some reason. Some are saying that the doc proves that Obama was adopted by Soetoro. Is this factual?

  47. avatar
    laughinghysterically January 3, 2009 at 12:06 am #

    I read the docs posted at Betrayal. The document is missing pages. The pages they do have posted prove absolutely nothing new at all.

    Yes, I am sure it’s a hoax. Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. They have made these types of trumped up claims over and over. The claims have always amounted to nothing. However, these trumped up accusations sure did raise some money for the purveyors of this trash!

  48. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 3, 2009 at 12:08 am #

    It means that the assertion that the divorce decree says the child was born in Kenya is a lie. Liar, liar, pants on fire!

  49. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 3, 2009 at 12:10 am #

    They aren’t even Americans!

  50. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 3, 2009 at 12:21 am #

    A US Senator released a birth certificate and state officials confirmed it. Why would anyone expect a document to surface contradicting them, especially given the “trustworthiness” of the people who cast these doubts?

    8O

  51. avatar
    bogus info January 3, 2009 at 12:21 am #

    Okay. I hope you are right. All I know is this bull poop is wearing me out. LOL

    And, I’m sick of referring people to factual, tangible information that they never seem to read. They prefer to keep repeating the same old false information over, and over and over. I guess they think if they repeat it enough, it will either become the truth or change the laws.

  52. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 3, 2009 at 12:26 am #

    Hi TRUTH, good to see ya over here. Hope you enjoy visiting.

  53. avatar
    laughinghysterically January 3, 2009 at 12:31 am #

    I would predict we will see all manner of lunacy paraded out in the next 18 days. All of these con artists will need to raise money fast before the inauguration, as after that, they know the well will all but dry up.

    There was quite a meltdown at the PUMA sites after the Convention, they started to eat their own and drove away a good number of hard-core followers. More left the cause after the election.

    Once SCOTUS tosses Berg’s suit and Obama is inaugurated only the craziest of the crazies will hang on. They will presumably start banging the “impeach Obama” drum from their bunkers, to no avail.

  54. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 3, 2009 at 12:39 am #

    We have Google on our side. No I don’t mean a bias, but Google tends to find well-written fact-laden pages. One thing that helps with Google rankings is links from other domains. So I’d welcome any links to here. Goodness knows I have enough links to bad places here.

    By the way, there is a Bookmarks link over on the right sidebar. That’s the great mother of Obama Conspiracy Links.

  55. avatar
    bogus info January 3, 2009 at 12:41 am #

    Then I guess I’d better get a grip. I’m going to be a nervous wreck by Jan. 20th. LOL

    I’ve never participated on a political blog until I posted on the MSNBC message board this year. Boy, was that an experience. Then I found this one. I post on Orly’s just to irritate them. Always very respectful. Wish I could say the same for them especially the 2nd in command.

    What’s so funny is that most people don’t even realize this is going on. LOL

  56. avatar
    laughinghysterically January 3, 2009 at 12:50 am #

    The bookmarks are great! Maybe we can compile all the links together for the various court decisions dismissing these cases for lack of standing.

    I have some of the links and will happily forward them to you through the “contact” feature if it might be helpful.

  57. avatar
    laughinghysterically January 3, 2009 at 12:52 am #

    I have found I MUST limit my time in the “crazy-sphere” to a certain amount each day. Coming over here helps me maintain sanity, as does visiting the anti-puma site.

  58. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 3, 2009 at 12:56 am #

    Thanks, links to court cases are valuable, particularly links to the actual documents filed.

  59. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 3, 2009 at 1:03 am #

    Plains Radio is so bad Leo Donofrio said he would never go back on there again.

  60. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 3, 2009 at 1:07 am #

    Maybe it’s that Kenyan birth certificate Berg promised us 6 months ago but never produced.

  61. avatar
    laughinghysterically January 3, 2009 at 1:41 am #

    As far as the divorce papers go, the below is from a post on the Berg mothership blog, they are, surprisingly, not buying the Ed Hale claims:

    MommaRadio (something like that) wrote:

    If you want to view the documents as a whole so that you can see there are NO missing pages go to http://countryfirst.bravehost.com click on Forum, scroll down until you see New News Articles Start Here – Obama Related, click on that and then scroll to the Divorce records of Obama and you can also view the Soetoro Divorce records there.

  62. avatar
    bogus info January 3, 2009 at 6:19 am #

    Supposedly on the Betrayal blog, page 8 is missing. They seem to have page 9 posted twice. What they have posted for page 8 on the country first blog is page 9 on the Betrayal blog. There allege there are 11 pages to the doc. so page 8,10 and 11 are missing. By missing do they mean they did not receive them or that they have not revealed them? Questionable action to do because I would think someone could now claim to have been tampered with? On the Betrayal blog they claim that other doc have to be retrieved from us port of entry, supposedly BC? and should be done by Mon/Wed. next week?

  63. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 3, 2009 at 9:36 am #

    The document they have is most likely just a copy of a public record. It is unlikely that someone would fake a public record because it is so easily proven fake by comparing it to another copy. One can only raise doubts about documents which are NOT available.

  64. avatar
    bogus info January 3, 2009 at 9:59 am #

    I compared the divorce decree copies on CountryFirst blog with those on the Betrayal blog.

    If you will notice, in the lower Rt. hand corner there is what appears to be a penciled in number on all the docs/pages posted. There is page 1-7, 12, so pages 8-11 are missing from this doc. The Ed fellow alleges that pages 8-11 can prove that Obama was born in Kenya and that another doc will need to be retreived from a US Port of Entry which they plan to do. Supposedly, they plan to reveal pages 8-11 and whatever else they retreive Mon./Wed of next week.

    Comparison of docs:
    Page 1 on CF blog and Betrayal Blog are idential-Libel for Divorce, Motion and Order
    Page 2 on Betrayal blog is another copy of Page 1.
    Page 2 on CF blog and page 3 on Betrayal Blog are identical–Libel for Divorce, pleadings
    Page 3 on CF blog and page 4 on Betrayal Blog are identical-continued pleadings signed by S.A Dunham Obama.
    Page 4 on CF blog and Page 5 on Betrayal Blog are identical–notarized signature of Stanley Ann Dunham Obama.
    Page 5 on CF blog and Page 6 on Betrayal Blog are identical–Motion.
    Page 6 on CF blog and Page 7 on Betrayal Blog are identical-Order.
    Page 7 on CF blog is signature of Judge attested by Clerk–this page is missing on Betrayal Blog.(no page 8 on Betrayal blog-missing.
    Page 8 on CF blog and page 9 on Betrayal blog is the Decree of Divorce. Betrayal Blog has 2 of these posted, both identified as page 9.

    According to the divorce decree, Dunham and Obama were married in Hawaii on Feb. 2, 1961 and resided in Hawaii. At the time of the divorce, Dunham resided in Hawaii and Obama resided in Cambridge, Mass. It appears that the hearing for the divorce was Mar. 5, 1964 and the judge signed the Decree of Divorce Mar. 20th, 1964 and it was filed for record June 23-25?, 1964. Dunham was awarded sole custody of Obama II (as it appears in decree of divorce).

    The info pertaining to Obama is on page 3 at the CF blog and page 4 at the Betrayal blog. Only has name and date of birth of Obama. No mention of where he was born.

    So, there are 4 pages missing from this decree of divorce (8-11), but if you will notice, there is no signature of Obama (husband) or a signature that was notarized as S.A.Dunham Obama was. Also, some of the missing pages may pertain to child support and visitation rights. Figure the rest would be “boiler plate”? that is in all decrees of divorce.

    Opinions.

  65. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 3, 2009 at 12:01 pm #

    Looks one one big nothing.

  66. avatar
    bogus info January 3, 2009 at 12:12 pm #

    I agree but thought I might be missing something.

  67. avatar
    Tes January 3, 2009 at 12:48 pm #

    See http://www.obamacrimes.info/pressrelease010209.html

    Wherein Berg states, about the the Divorce Papers, which he reportedly obtained several months ago:

    “The Obama divorce records state there was one [1] child born to the parties on August 4, 1961, a son, by the name of Barack Hussein Obama, II. There is absolutely no mention of where the child was born”

  68. avatar
    TRUTH January 3, 2009 at 1:51 pm #

    Kevin, I’m not sure if that is more of a put down to the Plains Radio or a compliment for Mr. Donofrio by yourself. haha! :-)

  69. avatar
    bogus info January 3, 2009 at 3:02 pm #

    Okay,

    Somebody smarter than me take a look at this and explain it to me please. I’ve never claimed to be a lawyer. LOL

    http://www.obamacrimes.info/allcourtdocs.html

    I cannot open PDF files on my sons computer–mine is in the shop–would it be alot of trouble for someone to convert them to HTML and post them here?

    From what I can tell, the Dunham/Obama divorce decree was not admitted as evidence by Berg. correct?

    Tes,

    Does the Dunham/Obama divorce decree that Berg posts have 12 pages?

  70. avatar
    bogus info January 3, 2009 at 3:20 pm #

    So, those people who donated their money paid $1,000.00 for a copy of something that Berg has had for several months? Then asked to donate some more yesterday? ROTFL

  71. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 3, 2009 at 3:34 pm #

    If you have a gmail account, mail the files to yourself, then view the attachment as html in gmail.

  72. avatar
    bogus info January 3, 2009 at 3:43 pm #

    Dr. C,

    I don’t have a gmail account. Any other suggestions? Besides not being a lawyer, I’m not a computer whiz either. LOL

    Could you perhaps just summarize all the filings of the case?

    Wonder why Berg waited to report this info?

  73. avatar
    bogus info January 3, 2009 at 4:56 pm #

    If Berg only posted what has been posted from Plains Radio–which I am told that is what he has done–8 pages. Down in the lower Rt. corner on each doc is a penciled in number–1-7, then skips to 12. Pages 8-11 are missing. Sorry, but I’ve just got to wonder why Berg didn’t post those pages since he claims there is nothing there and the timing of his press release is fishy too. Doesn’t pass the smell test. But, if as he claims he has had the doc for several months, that doesn’t make sense either. I don’t trust any of them.

    Oh no, I’m becoming a “conspiracy theoriest.” LOL

    Seriously, something is just not right here.

  74. avatar
    bogus info January 3, 2009 at 5:28 pm #

    This is the opinion on the Betrayal Blog:

    I heard Ed about an hour ago and hes was saying that there has been a slight problem with the delivery due a flight cancellation. The remaining “bombshell” doucuments would become available late Monday.

    So let’s wait and see.

  75. avatar
    bogus info January 3, 2009 at 5:30 pm #

    And Berg’s case is coming up on the 9th?

  76. avatar
    laughinghysterically January 3, 2009 at 6:01 pm #

    Berg’s petition for Writ of Cert to the Supreme Court is scheduled for CONFERENCE on Jan 9th.

    At the conference, SCOTUS will decide ONLY whether cert is granted.

    SCOTUS is not deciding Berg’s case “on the merits” in any manner on Jan 9th, contrary to popular conspiracy theory.

  77. avatar
    bogus info January 3, 2009 at 6:08 pm #

    Yes, I am well aware of that. Ruling on the lower courts decision if I understand the issue/law correctly. As I’ve stated, I’m sure no lawyer. Although all of this has sure been educational.

  78. avatar
    MNBV January 3, 2009 at 6:17 pm #

    I don’t understand is this Conference on the 9th or the 16th Jan? It says the 9th has been canceled. Then there is a schedule for the 16th…

    Dec 8 2008 Application (08A505) for an injunction pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
    Dec 9 2008 Application (08A505) denied by Justice Souter.
    Dec 15 2008 Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Kennedy.
    Dec 17 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 9, 2009.
    Dec 17 2008 Application (08A505) denied by Justice Kennedy.
    Dec 18 2008 Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia.
    Dec 23 2008 Application (08A505) referred to the Court.
    Dec 23 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 16, 2009.

  79. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 3, 2009 at 6:54 pm #

    Berg filed 2 appeals and there were 2 conferences.

  80. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 3, 2009 at 6:58 pm #

    Actually, the Friday conference will be whether to grant an emergency junction. They are not deciding writ.

  81. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 3, 2009 at 7:06 pm #

    Bergs yet another appeal for emergency relief is coming up on the 9th.

  82. avatar
    bogus info January 3, 2009 at 7:32 pm #

    Dr. C,

    12/27/08: Press Release – Philip J. Berg, Esq.’s case filed with the U.S. Supreme Court regarding OBAMA’s status as not a “Natural Born” citizen is scheduled for conference before the U.S. Supreme Court on January 9th and January 16th 2009

    (Contact information and PDF at end)
    For Immediate Release: – 12/27/08

    (Lafayette Hill, PA – 12/25/08) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States and his case, Berg vs. Obama, ANNOUNCES that the case has been distributed for two (2) conferences before the U.S. Supreme Court, one conference concerning the Petition for Writ of Certiorari is scheduled for January 9, 2009, the other conference concerning the Application to Justice Antonin Scalia for an immediate injunction to Stay the Joint Session of Congress from Counting the Electoral College Votes is scheduled for January 16, 2009.

  83. avatar
    laughinghysterically January 3, 2009 at 7:34 pm #

    I thought the 16th was on the injunction, the 9th was on cert?

    It appeared 08A505 application (after being refiled yet again and this time submitted to Scalia on the 18th) was “referred to the court” on the 23rd and distributed for conference on the same day.

    I am somehow misreading the docket?

  84. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 3, 2009 at 7:34 pm #

    Basically you download Adobe Acrobat Reader from adobe.com, or any number of other pdf viewers online. Search Google.

    I don’t know which case you mean.

  85. avatar
    laughinghysterically January 3, 2009 at 7:37 pm #

    December 23 the “Application” was submitted to the court. The Petition is for writ of cert, the Application is for the injunction/stay in my understanding.

  86. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 3, 2009 at 7:40 pm #

    All the ones with the “A” in the middle are applications for relief, not the main cases. If the court didn’t grant him an injunction last month, they aren’t going to do it this month.

  87. avatar
    bogus info January 3, 2009 at 7:51 pm #

    Look at how they were filed:

    Dec 15 2008 Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Kennedy.
    Dec 17 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 9, 2009.
    Dec 17 2008 Application (08A505) denied by Justice Kennedy.
    Dec 18 2008 Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia.
    Dec 23 2008 Application (08A505) referred to the Court.
    Dec 23 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 16, 2009

    The petition is on the 9th and the application is on the 16th.

  88. avatar
    laughinghysterically January 3, 2009 at 7:55 pm #

    Berg filed an appeal to the Third Circuit Cout of Appeals which was denied in December. He also filed a petition for a writ of cert at SCOTUS BEFORE receiving a decison from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals under Rule 11 (providing for a deviation from normal appellate practice).

    Generally, one appeals a District Court decision (such as Surrick’s) to a Circuit Court of Appeals. Rule 11 allows one to petition SCOTUS for a writ of cert BEFORE the Court of Appeals rules on the appeal of the lower court’s decision.

    Rule 11 provides:

    Rule 11. Certiorari to a United States Court of Appeals before Judgment

    A petition for a writ of certiorari to review a case pending in a United States court of appeals, before judgment is entered in that court, will be granted only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court. See 28 U. S. C. § 2101(e).

    www DOT law DOT cornell DOT edu/rules/supct/11 DOT html

  89. avatar
    bogus info January 3, 2009 at 8:06 pm #

    It has been my observation that Berg deviates from the norm allot.

  90. avatar
    laughinghysterically January 3, 2009 at 8:11 pm #

    Bogus:
    It’s not that easy to simply summarize all the filings.

    As far as Berg’s cases, essentially, Berg FIRST filed an action in Pennsylvania District Court. This suit was dismissed for lack of standing by Judge Surrick. Berg then appealed Surrick’s decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals AND Petitioned SCOTUS for a writ of cert under SCOTUS Rule 11.

    SCOTUS Rule 11 provides an avenue to deviate from normal appellate practice in cases of great importance and ask SCOTUS to consider before the Circuit Court of Appeals ruled.

    The Third Circuit Court of Appeals DENIED Berg’s appeal in early December.

    SCOTUS now needs to decide whether they will 1) grant Berg’s cert petition and 2) grant Berg’s emergency application for injunction. He has submitted the emrgency application to various individaul Justices and was DENIED each time. Scalia was the latest target, and the application has been referred to the court for conference. Likely the application was referred to the court to stop Berg from submitting this application over and over with each individual Justice. Resubmitting ad nauseum has been his modus operandi each time an individual Justice denies this application.

    Berg also claims to have a “qui tam” (whisleblower) lawsuit out there filed under seal (as is required). He originally did not seem to realize the case needed to be filed under seal, so, word got out in the blogosphere about this case back in November. The government would have had 60 days to respond to this action (if it is even still alive) and that 60 day period would be coming to an end this week based upon the original filing. Likelihood is this will be dismissed.

    Finally, Berg has his latest “interpleader” action. This one has no chance whatsoever if you ask me.

    Actually, if you ask me, none of them have a chance!

  91. avatar
    laughinghysterically January 3, 2009 at 8:18 pm #

    Bear in mind that SCOTUS Rule 11 and the Rule 11 often referred to when discussing much deserved sanctions are different Rules.

    The former being a Supreme Court Rule regarding appellate procedure, the latter being a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure pertaining to sanctions.

    Lawyers have tons of Rules at their disposal ;-). LOL!

  92. avatar
    bogus info January 3, 2009 at 8:22 pm #

    Dr. C,

    These are what I’m referring to. My son screwed up his computer and Adobe won’t download. We’re taking his to the shop when I get mine out. LOL.

    http://www.obamacrimes.info/allcourtdocs.html

    ALL OF THE COURT DOCUMENTS FILED IN THIS CASE

    Newest court documents are first; oldest are last

    title of document
    12/30/08 U.S. Supreme Court Complaint for Interpleader and Declatory and Injunctive Relief
    12/30/08 U.S. Supreme Court Plaintiff’s Ex-parte Motion Requesting an Order Shortening Time for Defendants, Barry Soertoro aka Barack Hussein Obama and Joseph R. Biden, Jr. to Respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint
    12/18/08 U.S. Supreme Court Application to Justice Antonin Scalia for an immediate injunction to stay electoral college
    12/12/08 U.S. Supreme Court Application to Justice Anthony Kennedy for an immediate injunction to stay electoral college
    12/04/08 Emergency for an immediate injunction prohibiting the certification of electors filed with the United States Court of Appeals from the Third District
    10/31/08 Order from the United States Court of Appeals from the Third District
    10/30/08 U.S. Supreme Court Writ of Certiorari
    10/30/08 2 Exhibit Charter Schools Rainbow Edition Newsletter
    10/30/08 3 Exhibit Star Bulletin Obama born in different hospital
    10/30/08 Exhibit Plaintiff Request for Admissions to Obama
    10/30/08 Application to Justice David H. Souter for stay of the Presidential Elections
    10/30/08 Affidavit of Bishop Ron McRae
    10/30/08 Affidavit of Reverend Kweli Shuhubia
    10/30/08 Exhibits for Affidavit of Bishop Ron McRae
    10/24/08: Judge Surrick’s Memorandum and Order Granting Obama and DNC’s Motion to Dismiss (signed by Judge Surrick, faxed copy)
    10/24/08: Judge Surrick’s Memorandum and Order Granting Obama and DNC’s Motion to Dismiss (unsigned clear copy)
    10/21/08: Motion for Order Deeming Request for Admissions Admitted
    10/09/08: Berg’s Opposition to Obama and DNC’s Request for Protective Order Re: Discovery
    10/06/08: Motion for First Amended Complaint
    10/06/08: Obama and DNC’s Request for Protective Order Re: Discovery
    09/29/08: Berg’s Opposition to Defendan’t Motion to Dismiss
    09/24/08: Obama and DNC’s Motion to Dismiss
    08/21/08: Memorandum in support of temporary restraining order
    08/21/08: Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order
    08/21/08: Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief
    08/21/08: Temporary Restraining Order

  93. avatar
    bogus info January 3, 2009 at 8:44 pm #

    This is a comment from one of the blogs. Americans are lazy because instead of researching something themselves, they take other people word for something as gospel. This type of mentality blows my mind:

    Greg is correct. On Obama’s website and in his books he says his father is Kenya. and is a British Subjst. Obama must of come here on a Foreign Student Visa and never applied for citizenship as we have no recrods of this happening. So he is like his aunt that he wants deported from Chicago. She has overstayed her visa and so has he. Both should be deported.

  94. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 3, 2009 at 8:45 pm #

    That’s everything Berg ever filed starting with Berg v. Obama et al. in Philadelphia. The top one is his interpleader suit. I hesitate to say much about the interpleader suit because I’m not qualified.

    Generally an interpleader suit is used in commercial litigation when one party holds something of value and expects that a lawsuit over the rightful owner will result. The holder sues the claimants to force them to litigate the claim so that the one who holds the value knows who to give it to (like an insurance policy). Usually in such suits, the object of value is actually given to the court to hold and distribute once a decision is reached.

    Berg (and the co counsel) argue that the retired colonel holds something of value, his duty to obey the Commander in Chief (valued at $500). He is suing Obama and Biden to force them to resolve which one of them is the rightful commander in chief, and entitled to obedience from the colonel.

    Berg makes arguments that I am not in any way qualified to evaluate, that the case is valid and intangibles like duty can be litigated this way.

    I cannot see how Berg wins. If the case is thrown out, he looses. If it goes to trial, Biden says Obama is the commander in chief and Berg loses. Berg’s contribution to the Stop Obama movement is to created uncertainty and doubt through filing lawsuits and making representations that there is a chance they will be heard, bring out the truth, and bring Obama down.

    If you want my personal opinion, visit the Wikipedia and ask for WP:SNOW, paying particular to the two illustrations on the right side.

  95. avatar
    laughinghysterically January 3, 2009 at 8:46 pm #

    FYI: Berg conveniently leaves out of this list the Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision DENYING his appeal.

  96. avatar
    laughinghysterically January 3, 2009 at 8:52 pm #

    And, Berg describes the interpleader incorrectly ON HIS OWN WEBSITE, claiming in the doc description that it is filed in the Supreme Court when indeed the case is filed in the District Ct for D.C.- UGH!

    Neither of the below 12/30 docs are filed with the Supreme Court, as one can easily see if they look at the documents.

    Talk about incompetence, Berg can’t even keep his own lawsuits straight on his own website!! ROTFL!

    12/30/08 U.S. Supreme Court Complaint for Interpleader and Declatory and Injunctive Relief

    12/30/08 U.S. Supreme Court Plaintiff’s Ex-parte Motion Requesting an Order Shortening Time for Defendants, Barry Soertoro aka Barack Hussein Obama and Joseph R. Biden, Jr. to Respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint

  97. avatar
    TRUTH January 3, 2009 at 8:52 pm #

    If I may “bogusinfo”, reading your “doesn’t pass the smell test” & “something doesn’t seem right” comments, here is my 2cents.

    “IF” Berg were to have something important, lets call it his “smoking gun”, would it be wise for him to really post it All Over the Internet NOW? Before his Case. Ya think he MIGHT be holding something back, for whatever reason. Oh, I don’t know, so it doesn’t get copied and changed 15 times by the left, so the defense can’t build a rhetoric case against it, so he gets to live a few more days. JUST some food for thought.

  98. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 3, 2009 at 9:02 pm #

    I could never reconcile the sloppy work done on Berg v. Obama et al with a lawyer making a case he intended to be heard and having a chance to prevail. An article on the quality of the Berg filing is here.

    Berg could just be a confused conspiracy theorist (he has filed suits against Bush over 9/11) or he could just be a disappointed Hillary supported getting even, or maybe he enjoys the publicity.

    If Berg has a smoking gun that he’s saving for a lawsuit, I would ask what lawsuit of his is ever going to get heard and when? Unless he has something real (as opposed to what he has shown), I don’t know any court that would give him a hearing. None so far have.

  99. avatar
    bogus info January 3, 2009 at 9:04 pm #

    Truth,

    That thought has crossed my mind. However, those cats at the Plain Radio will blow it out of the water. On the other hand, it is probably nothing. Berg isn’t exactly known for keeping his mouth shut. He likes the limelight too much.

    But, I will give YOU some food for thought. Even if Obama was born in Kenya, his NBC status is only because of a technicallity of the law at the time which has been changed since. Which is also what McCain’s is. Don’t be surprised if all this blows up in Berg’s face IF Berg does have a “smoking gun.”

  100. avatar
    bogus info January 3, 2009 at 9:14 pm #

    12/18/08 U.S. Supreme Court Application to Justice Antonin Scalia for an immediate injunction to stay electoral college
    12/12/08 U.S. Supreme Court Application to Justice Anthony Kennedy for an immediate injunction to stay electoral college
    12/04/08 Emergency for an immediate injunction prohibiting the certification of electors filed with the United States Court of Appeals from the Third District
    10/31/08 Order from the United States Court of Appeals from the Third District
    10/30/08 U.S. Supreme Court Writ of Certiorari
    10/30/08 2 Exhibit Charter Schools Rainbow Edition Newsletter
    10/30/08 3 Exhibit Star Bulletin Obama born in different hospital
    10/30/08 Exhibit Plaintiff Request for Admissions to Obama
    10/30/08 Application to Justice David H. Souter for stay of the Presidential Elections
    10/30/08 Affidavit of Bishop Ron McRae
    10/30/08 Affidavit of Reverend Kweli Shuhubia
    10/30/08 Exhibits for Affidavit of Bishop Ron McRae
    10/24/08: Judge Surrick’s Memorandum and Order Granting Obama and DNC’s Motion to Dismiss (signed by Judge Surrick, faxed copy)
    10/24/08: Judge Surrick’s Memorandum and Order Granting Obama and DNC’s Motion to Dismiss (unsigned clear copy)
    10/21/08: Motion for Order Deeming Request for Admissions Admitted
    10/09/08: Berg’s Opposition to Obama and DNC’s Request for Protective Order Re: Discovery
    10/06/08: Motion for First Amended Complaint
    10/06/08: Obama and DNC’s Request for Protective Order Re: Discovery
    09/29/08: Berg’s Opposition to Defendan’t Motion to Dismiss
    09/24/08: Obama and DNC’s Motion to Dismiss
    08/21/08: Memorandum in support of temporary restraining order
    08/21/08: Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order
    08/21/08: Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief
    08/21/08: Temporary Restraining Order

    Okay, here is the case coming up. Who filed the Temporary Restraining Order and why?

  101. avatar
    laughinghysterically January 3, 2009 at 9:23 pm #

    Berg filed the TRO before the primaries to stop the nomination. The TRO was denied, like everything else he files.

  102. avatar
    TRUTH January 3, 2009 at 9:24 pm #

    I’m afraid your both probably correct, Berg likes the limelight, to much to often. Although I like his objective, I do not care for his track record.

    You’ll have to excuse me bogus, I’m easily confused sometimes. But are you saying that even IF someone were to show BHO was born in Kenya, that he would still be qualified to be US President?

    And if that is true, what do we do about him telling us all along he was born in Hawaii?

  103. avatar
    laughinghysterically January 3, 2009 at 9:24 pm #

    Meant to say Berg filed the motion for TRO and it was denied. Sorry.

  104. avatar
    laughinghysterically January 3, 2009 at 9:26 pm #

    Yikes, and I meant to say he filed the TRO motion before the convention, not before the primaries.

    Trying to do 3 things at once here and taking cold medicine so I am a bit spacey today…EEK! Apologies.

  105. avatar
    laughinghysterically January 3, 2009 at 9:28 pm #

    Be warned that Berg’s own document descriptions are often incorrect and as a result can be very misleading.

    He also often neglects to post the court decisions that deny/dismiss/rule against his case.

  106. avatar
    laughinghysterically January 3, 2009 at 9:40 pm #

    You can see the docs in the Berg case here (insert a . in place of the word DOT where I have written DOT):

    http://dockets DOT justia DOT com/docket/court-paedce/case_no-2:2008cv04083/case_id-281573/

  107. avatar
    laughinghysterically January 3, 2009 at 9:59 pm #

    I think many of suspected it was only a matter of time before the anti-Obama nutcases and the radical white power/aryan nation movements started to follow similar paths/cross paths.

    Interestingly, the Aryan Nation hatemongers have, of course, filed suit against Obama. If you google “Pastor Martin Luther Lindstedt v Barack Obama” a few blogs seem to have the text of the complaint. Be forewarned the language of the comlaint is HIGHLY offensive and COMPLETELY DISGUSTING. I wonder if those in the NObama camp are proud to be in the company of this hate group? UGH.

    From Justicia:

    Plaintiffs: The Church of Jesus Christ Christian/Aryan Nations of Missouri, Pastor Martin Luther Lindstedt and Newton County White Nationalist – Socialist Libertarian Party

    Defendants: Senator Barack Husse Obama, Senator John “M McCain, State of Missouri, Governor Matt ” Blunt, Missouri Department of Mental Health/Fulton State Hospital, Attorney-General Jay Nixon, Secretary of State R Carnahan, Missouri Supreme Court, Missouri Democratic Party, Missouri Republican Party, Missouri Libertarian Party, Traitor Glenn Miller, Newton County Republican Party, Sheriff Ken Copeland, Judge John Lepage, Newton County Prosec Skouby, Asst. Prosecuting At Dobbs and Newton County Clerk Baum

    Case Number: 6:2008cv03405
    Filed: November 4, 2008

    Court: Missouri Western District Court
    Office: Civil Rights: Other Office [ Court Info ]
    County: Newton
    Presiding Judge: District Judge Howard F. Sachs

    Nature of Suit: Civil Rights – Other Civil Rights
    Cause: Federal Question
    Jurisdiction: Federal Question
    Jury Demanded By: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

  108. avatar
    bogus info January 3, 2009 at 10:16 pm #

    Truth,

    What did we do when we found out that Bush lied about the War. No weapons of mass destruction?

    Nothing. We are in the worst mess we have ever been in right now. The way I see it, we don’t need civil unrest to add to the mess. The people elected Obama and they don’t give a rip if he was born on Mars. Besides, you equate way too much power to the President. The ones who have the power is Congress, yet we put all the focus on the President when we should be exercising more care in selecting our Senators and Representatives.

    When the Senate rushed in to pass a unanimous non-binding resolution for John McCain due to a “technicality” of law of his NBC status; how could they do less than this for Obama?, except in this case, it will a Amendment to the Constitution–which by the way, is exactly what they were going to do when John McCain won the election except he didn’t win. Eluded to this in one of the news releases. One of the Senators or Representatives even eluded to this in one of the replies on that stupid Hall of Shame. If Obama was indeed born in Keyna, it is a technicality of the law, which has since been changed, that would keep him from being a NBC. Same as McCain.

    The way I see it, Hillary lost, McCain/Palin lost, Get Over It! And stop filing lawsuits and running around trying to dig up dirt on Obama, his wife, Biden/son, Obama’s mother, deceased grandmother and anyone else you can think of. Support the President and hope like hell that he makes a good President. Get involved in the website he has initiated and voice your opinions/concerns to you Senators/Legislators. Stop being counter productive and start being productive. Does that mean follow blindly? Heck No! Pay attention to what’s going on in Congress instead of watching Soap Operas or Dancing With the Stars. And, in 4 years, if you don’t like the job he’s doing, Vote Him Out. Obama certainly won’t be any worse than Bush.

    But, personally, I don’t believe Obama was born in Keyna. And the NBC thing–it is time Congress addressed this to be in sync with 2009 instead of 1787. Lots of changes have taken place in our world since 1787. Slaves were freed, women can vote are two examples of those changes.

  109. avatar
    bogus info January 3, 2009 at 10:33 pm #

    10/30/08 2 Exhibit Charter Schools Rainbow Edition Newsletter
    10/30/08 3 Exhibit Star Bulletin Obama born in different hospital

    The above is considered “evidence?”

    10/30/08 Affidavit of Bishop Ron McRae
    10/30/08 Affidavit of Reverend Kweli Shuhubia
    10/30/08 Exhibits for Affidavit of Bishop Ron McRae
    The above is regarding his grandmother in Kenya? Transcript of tape?

    If he had proof that Obama was born in Kenya from the Dunham/Obama divorce decree, wouldn’t that have been included as evidence? Or, if he hasn’t gotten it yet, can he still include it?

  110. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 3, 2009 at 10:47 pm #

    If Obama were not born in Hawaii, then my opinion is that he would not be a citizen of any kind.

  111. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 3, 2009 at 10:53 pm #

    I do not read the Supreme Court docket to support Berg’s contention that his writ is scheduled for conference.

  112. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 3, 2009 at 11:11 pm #

    Kweli Shuhubia is a made up name (more alleged death threats). Kweli Shuhubia’s affidavit is inconsistent with the grandmother tape attached to it.

  113. avatar
    bogus info January 3, 2009 at 11:20 pm #

    Ok—Now I see the big picture! by Tom Waite
    The Bear on Dec 26 2008 at 9:30 am | Filed under: Election 08’

    In my previous analysis of the Berg v. Obama Supreme Court case, I said that the Supreme Court Justices were very sly by scheduling a January 9th conference date in order to discuss Berg’s Writ of Certiorari. Because just one day earlier, congress is to open up the Electoral College’s sealed votes from each state, count the votes and declare a presidential winner. But now there is a new development, which seems very perplexing at first but I believe I can shed light on this news and reinterpret it as a sign of political chess.
    […]
    Jeff Schreiber (the person running this blog), is a law student and he can’t fathom the reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s decision to set a date to discuss Berg’s injunction that is well after the time congress will have counted the Electoral College’s votes. In doing so, Jeff feels this conference on January 16, 2009 to discuss Berg’s injunction will be a moot issue.

    However, I see it differently, the Justices of the Supreme Court aren’t sequestered in some castle. The Justices know exactly what the issues are and are constantly being bombarded with similar legal applications to be considered regarding Barack Obama’s eligibility for president. As I’ve mentioned in a previous post, if the Justices wanted to dismiss Berg’s Writ of Certiorari they could have but they deliberately chose to discuss it 24 hours after congress officially counts the Electoral College’s votes; reason being Berg’s issue of standing will now be valid! Once Obama official wins the national vote (via the counting of Electoral College’s votes), Berg’s issue of harm being done to him by Obama now becomes legally valid it is no longer theoretical; thus Berg does have legal standing!

    Now in a political game of chess, the Supreme Court’s manoeuvring of the January 9th date to discuss Berg’s Writ of Certiorari can be seen as a move of check against Obama. Obama is now in a corner but still can move his king chess piece and similarly with the Writ of Certiorari, Obama still could refuse to deliver evidence proving he was born in United States. I understand why the Justices set a date one week later (January 16) to discuss Berg’s injunction to stop congress from counting the Electoral College’s votes, this move can be seen as check and mate! Meaning Obama’s king can’t move in any direction on the chessboard, thus he’s trapped and has lost the game!

    Setting a date to discuss the injunction on preventing congress from counting the Electoral College’s votes isn’t a moot issue; in this context any judgement is retroactive! So that even if congress has counted the Electoral College’s votes and have declared Obama the presidential winner; if the Supreme Court finds Obama ineligible to be a presidential candidate, they can retroactively cancel the results of the January 8th Electoral College’s vote count!

    And that’s why the Supreme Court is allowing for a January 16th conference on Berg’s injunction to stop congress from counting the Electoral College’s vote on January 8th. It’s not a moot issue, it’s a very deliberate political game of entrapment or as in chess it can be seen as a move of checkmate. Because the Supreme Court is basically giving Obama no wiggle room to manoeuvre and escape from the January 9th’s conference of Berg’s Writ of Certiorari. The Supreme Court is ultimately saying to Obama, if you don’t hand over your evidence to us on January 9th, you will be forced to hand over your evidence to us on January 16th, otherwise we’ll retroactively cancel the results from the Electoral College’s votes that were counted back on January 8th!

    Read more from Talk Wisdom

    Related

    Berg’s Application for Injunction Curiously Moves On at Supreme Court

    In the meantime, the underlying petition for certiorari is scheduled for conference on Friday, January 9, 2009, and Berg seems to think that the selection of the date for conference could have something to do with the electoral votes being counted the day before.

    “Until January 8, Obama is really nothing. He’s president-elect in name only, technically, until those votes are counted,” Berg said. “Seeing that we got to the Supreme Court before the other cases and are only now going to see conference weeks after they did, perhaps the timing is significant. I don’t know.”

  114. avatar
    bogus info January 3, 2009 at 11:40 pm #

    Dr. C,

    9/8 Update: The U.S. State Department website confirms that:

    Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) See Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship By a Child Born Abroad (hat tip: 21stCenturyThinker, at FreeRepublic.com.)

  115. avatar
    bogus info January 3, 2009 at 11:44 pm #

    I don’t quite understand why he’s presented the “evidence” as the Supreme Court is now ruling on the merits of the case but rather the lower courts decision as I understand this.

    Is the evidence to support the Application?

  116. avatar
    bogus info January 3, 2009 at 11:45 pm #

    In the message above, now was suppose to be not.

  117. avatar
    bogus info January 3, 2009 at 11:57 pm #

    Constitutional Topic: Citizenship

    The Constitutional Topics pages at the USConstitution.net site are presented to delve deeper into topics than can be provided on the Glossary Page or in the FAQ pages. This Topic Page concerns Citizenship. Citizenship is mentioned in Article 1, Section 2, Article 1, Section 3, Article 1, Section 8, Article 2, Section 1, and in the 14th Amendment and several subsequent amendments.

    ——————————————————————————–

    If you’re going to be involved in government in the United States, citizenship is a must. To be a Senator or Representative, you must be a citizen of the United States. To be President, not only must you be a citizen, but you must also be natural-born. Aside from participation in government, citizenship is an honor bestowed upon people by the citizenry of the United States when a non-citizen passes the required tests and submits to an oath.

    Natural-born citizen

    Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

    The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.

    Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”

    Anyone born inside the United States *
    Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
    Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
    Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
    Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
    Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
    Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
    A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

  118. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 4, 2009 at 12:36 am #

    The comment that the Supreme Court is waiting until after the electoral votes are counted so that Berg has standing is completely erroneous and shows that the writer doesn’t understand the reasons why Berg lacks standing. Nobody is playing chess and the Supreme Court isn’t being sly; Berg never had a case and the Supreme Court is not going to do anything.

    Tom Waite is Tom All Wet.

  119. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion January 4, 2009 at 2:17 am #

    Bear in mind that the Birthers said much the same things about the Donofrio and Wrotnowski cases before THEY were dismissed as well.

    There is no reason for SCOTUS to wait until the electoral votes are counted. If they really thought there was an issue, they would have granted Berg’s emergency appeal and have proof before the electors ever met. The fact they’re moving this slowly says they don’t see it as urgent.

  120. avatar
    laughinghysterically January 4, 2009 at 2:47 am #

    Patrick, I have tried to point this fact out to the Birthers, reminding them of Bush v. Gore where SCOTUS granted the stay and moved forward with the case immediately.

  121. avatar
    bogus info January 4, 2009 at 6:48 am #

    Dr. C,

    I agree about Tom Waite–that wasn’t the point of the post–it was to show you yet another example that the petition for cert is 1-9-09 and the application is 1-16-09. Look above the conference on the 9th, that is the application to Kennedy. Look below the conference, that is the petition to deny the application to Kennedy. Berg then refiles to Scalia and the application is referred to court for conference 1-16-09. And in my mind, because I’ve actually read the Supreme court rules (which I would encourage Berg and Orly to do),Scalia referred to court/conference because if denied, Bergy would have only refiled yet again with another Supreme Court Justice. My opinion is the same as that Jeff S. opinion who is a law student. There was a comment made on Orlys blog the other day about Rule II and sanctions and that Robert dude implied of the “consequences to the courts” if the judges did impose Rule II/sanctions–implied threat.

  122. avatar
    BIG FEET January 4, 2009 at 7:06 am #

    After last night’s great show on Plains Radio (yeah, the one where Ed Hale was balling like a baby because OBAMA IS GOING DOWN THIS TIME – just hit that paypal people!!) I decided to pop in to Free Republic where I found a huge thread about his new evidence’ that Obama was born in Kenya.

    An astute Freeper posted a link to a very interesting YouTube video and wondered if the man called Bugs’ that was being interviewed in the clip could possibly be the one and only Ed Hale.

    Before I had even listened to the clip, the name Bugs’ definitely sounded familiar. You see, Ed’s photobucket account name is bugshale’ and a little more googling finds some comments about Hillary Clinton and oddly, an ad where Ed is selling some western wear.

    Did Ed hale kill Big Foot or did he kill two people?

    http://theregulator.net/?p=1503#comment-8842

  123. avatar
    bogus info January 4, 2009 at 7:06 am #

    http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=658
    Letter to Pelosi

    Scroll down to comments. Look at comment # 2. This is how they think/believe.

  124. avatar
    bogus info January 4, 2009 at 7:17 am #

    The thing about Berg is that he doesn’t seem/appear to care if his “evidence” is fabricated or not. Which, even though I think it is strange he didn’t include the missing 4 pages in his press release on the Dunham/Obama divorce decree, I still question his so called “evidence.” It appears to me that Berg will “fabricate evidence” to try to prove his point. Both the “Polarik evidence” and “Obama’s paternal grandmother tape” as examples. And it appears that when that “evidence” proves to be fabricated, he then just tries to say it was “altered/changed/tampered with.”

    Berg and ethical don’t belong in the same sentence in my opinion. And that is only My opinion.

  125. avatar
    bogus info January 4, 2009 at 7:22 am #

    And this is just my opinion, but if the Kenyan grandmother truley did say that Obama was born in Kenya and she “witnessed the birth”, seems to me a reputable lawyer would have a affidavit of this grandmother rather than a 2nd hand affidavit. A reputable statement/reputable neutral interpreter/grandmother with clear understanding of what she was being asked/reputable affidavit prepared/notarized signature of grandmother in Kenya.

  126. avatar
    bogus info January 4, 2009 at 7:58 am #

    Here is the technicality that John McCain is not a NBC:
    Not eveyone agrees that this section includes McCain – but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=1157621#

    Which is why the Senate rushed in to pass the non-binding Senate Resolution 511.

    Both McCain/Obama (If Obama was born in Kenya) have technicalities of the law at the time of their birth regarding NBC or citizen at birth.

    Here is Obama’s. (If born in Keyna-doubtful)
    9/8 Update: The U.S. State Department website confirms that:

    Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) See Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship By a Child Born Abroad (hat tip: 21stCenturyThinker, at FreeRepublic.com.)

    But, we can argue the point all day long. There are only two ways to resolve the NBC issue: a Congressional Amendment to the Constitution with a clear definition of NBC OR a clear U,S. Supreme Court decision with a clear definition of NBC. It appears that the U.S. Supreme Court is going to leave/lay that burden on Congress, now doesn’t it.?

  127. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 4, 2009 at 8:37 am #

    The first Congress passed a naturalization act that uses the language “natural born citizen” to describe the child of two citizen parents born out of the country. While this law is no longer in effect, I think it reflects the understanding of the framers that the child of two citizens is a natural born citizen. While there may be a tiny room for argument about McCain, it would not prevail should it go to court. Congress’s passing of Senate bill 511 tends to diminish even that tiny cloud. I am certain that no one in the Congress even thought that Obama would have a problem, being born in the United States proper, the most undisputed of all the natural born requirements.

  128. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 4, 2009 at 8:42 am #

    Besides that even Berg’s transcript on close examination does not say Barry was born in Kenya, the transcript stops abruptly and doesn’t include clear evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii in the audio that follows. The affidavit is intentionally misleading, and in the case of the African end, false.

  129. avatar
    bogus info January 4, 2009 at 9:29 am #

    Obama Definitely A Brit
    Posted on January 4th, 2009 by David Crockett
    The Obama File is commenting:

    Commenting on the release of the Obama’s divorce papers, a lawyer practicing in Missouri writes, “That is why lawyers practice law and lay people don’t. They call it a specialized skill for a reason because you ” have to be trained in the law to understand the legal significance of the document. There is some crucial information that is important that I have discovered so far, but it is not a smoking gun as you were waiting for, but leads to more clues:”

    [my own observation] First time readers may experience some confusion in respect to the Obama Divorce Papers published by Ed Hale. The first set of papers that were published are of Soetoro/Dunham, this was prior to the release of the Obama/Dunham papers which Ed published right after the radio show. The Soetoro/Dunham papers were published prior to december 19: see Stanley Ann Soetoro’s Divorce Papers: Where’s Obama? Both sets of papers are important and my hope is that by late Monday the real bombshell will be available, my gut feeling is it will. [end my observation]

    1. BHO Sr. is BHO Jr.’s (aka Barry Soetoro’s) father and this document is evidence to provide that.

    It is important because it VALIDATES Leo Donofrio’s and Cort Wrotnowski’s legal theory regarding the fact that Obama II (aka Barry Soetoro) was the son of Obama Sr. (since the birth certificate is not present). On page 2, IV. it states the following: That one child has been has been born to said Libellant and Libellee as issue of said marriage to wit: Barack Hussein Obama, II, a son, born August 4, 1961.

    This divorce decree (w/o the birth certificate) is significant because it proves that Obama Sr. is the legitimate father of Obama II (aka Barry Soetoro). It can be submitted in court as evidence. If Obama Sr. is the legitimate father of Obama II (aka Barry Soetoro), then he was a British subject at birth under the British Nationality Act of 1948 because Obama Sr. was a Kenyan National. Therefore, Obama II can’t be a natural born citizen of the U.S. with this dual citizenship.

    2. Pages 8 through 11 are missing, If a child is involved, a typical divorce decree states out provisions for child custody & child support. I bet that it is on the pages that are missing. I have to do some research to find out what the standard forms in Hawaii for divorce decree with children looks like to help you out.

    3. The names used (Stanley Ann D. Obama) is important because it will allow people to research the manual records of the birth certificate of Obama II That was the point of discussion for the port of entry issue. If Obama II was born in Kenya, they would have to document the child at the port of entry back into the U.S. Stanley had a passport, Obama Sr. had a visa, but the kid had to have SOME RECORD to get back in to the U.S.

    What can be confirmed is that Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. is, in fact, Barack Hussein Obama II’s biological father. Please see this PDF, paragraph IV, which reads the following:

    That one child has been born to said Libellant and Libellee as issue of said marriage, to wit: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, a son, born August 4, 1961.

    Of course, this does not say where the presumed President-elect was born. Also, for those who are not familiar with the legaleze, “issue” is the legal term for a child or children (can be inherently construed as singular or plural).

    Therefore, what has been confirmed by FactCheck.org has now officially been confirmed by these divorce papers. Granted, this is not exactly breaking news, but it puts legal backing behind the fact that Barack Hussein Obama II’s birth was governed by the UK colonial laws of Kenya in 1961 regardless of where Barack Husssein Obama II was geographically born. In fact, even if Barack Hussein Obama II was born on American soil in Hawaii, his nationality status would have still been governed by Britain!

    So, to bring this full circle. We now know — via forensic work – that the FactCheck.org and related site’s Certification of Live Birth is on record as being officially debunked (opposing expert opinions are invited from those willing to substantiate that the Certification of Live Birth, as posted on the Internet, is enough to substantiate Barack Hussein Obama II’s natural born citizenship). Further, you�ll note from this comment that Dr. Polarik further explains how even the pictured certification’s certificate number is questionable. And today, we now know that UK colonial citizenship had officially been linked to Barack Hussein Obama II via his father, meaning that, officially, Barack Hussein Obama II is an American citizen of some sort, but not a natural born citizen. Investigating Obama goes on to summarize Stephen Pidgeon’s commentary (attorney for 13 Plaintiffs in Broe v. Reed):Ms. Sandra Ramsey Lines’

    Then, he explains how Hawaii COLB’s are not birth certificates of the kind which are required for fundamental identification. Then, he explains how it is admitted knowledge that Stanley Ann’s second husband, Lolo Soetoro adopted Barack, whose name was changed to Barry Soetoro and who was registered in an Indonesian elementary school as an Indonesian citizen. After this, the discussion gets into the question of whether Barack Obama might be guilty of criminal fraud, if he were born in another nation. ?Now, Pidgeon explains how becoming an Indonesian citizen voids the status of natural born Citizen, requiring naturalization, if one is to then become an American citizen, again. And now, the discussion goes to this peculiar, new working assumption of Ed Hale has that there is an immigrant’s birth certificate for Obama II on file in America

    We’re also in for a big week next week, where both Berg v. Obama and Broe v. Reed have big days in court (I’ll be posting a summary of that action for next week).

    I told you this before, it is going to take EVIDENCE so that the fraud that has occurred can be exposed for what it is, not just legal theory.

  130. avatar
    bogus info January 4, 2009 at 10:19 am #

    Importance of the newly located Dunham/Obama Sr divorce decree in proving ineligibility
    Restore The Constitutional Republic ^

    Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2009 9:01:24 AM by dascallie

    Last night Ed Hale presented the (heretofore, unseen) divorce decree on Plains Radio between Obama’s mother and Obama Sr ( her FIRST marriage).

    The key bonus in this was the revelation of the specific version of her name in the decree, Stanley Ann D. Obama.

    Using this precise name variation ( the abbreviated, initial “D” –instead of ‘Dunham’, was the cipher that broke open the search), they are claiming to have now located a POE (Port of Entry ) document that Obama’s mother provided when she returned to the US with her son–soon after Obama’s birth, (allegedly in Kenya).

    The POE allegedly includes Obama’s birth information/certificate ( British Kenya) as required for entry. Stay tuned for events…see other comments below. ————————————————– DesertVet Newbie

  131. avatar
    laughinghysterically January 4, 2009 at 1:47 pm #

    I suppose the “lawyer” commenting above also practices part-time law and is a lawyer/something-or-other. IMHO, his “legal analysis” is sorely lacking and he does little more than repeat the same tired old accusations while clinging to the same ridiculous misunderstandings of the law.

  132. avatar
    laughinghysterically January 4, 2009 at 1:57 pm #

    Bogus:

    On the one in a million chance that a court EVER decides to hear one of these cases, then the Federal Rules of Evidence come into play (google FRE and check out the Rules available at the cornell law website). Opposing counsel, even if they were drunk AND high, would object to all of this shoddy so-called evidence.

    I will kindly give Berg the benefit of the doubt and conclude that he is actually woefully incompentent rather than ascribe a more malicious intent to him in this matter.

    Recall Hanlon’s razor:

    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

  133. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 4, 2009 at 2:42 pm #

    Is this the same person who said the divorce decree listed a child born in Kenya?

  134. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion January 4, 2009 at 2:44 pm #

    Not only that, but the “Forensic Experts”, (read Polarik and TechDude) would have to give their real names, be placed under oath, and prove their training and skills to back up their claims.

    I’d pay money to see that.

  135. avatar
    laughinghysterically January 4, 2009 at 2:50 pm #

    I’d pay money to see it, and I’d volunteer to help deposition these fools and rip them both a new one!

  136. avatar
    laughinghysterically January 4, 2009 at 2:51 pm #

    I bet we could actually make them cry…

    :-)

  137. avatar
    TRUTH January 4, 2009 at 3:22 pm #

    You know what I like about this site, is how it reminds me of one I was in a few months ago, Momocrats.com, which was 99% Liberal females. NOT saying you men are females, sorry that isn’t my point. It is the complete total unity you have, kind of like we’re all holding hands singing kum-bye-yah together, well minus me. lol.

    I’m sorry, that is NOT a put down guys, I’m not being disrespectful. I just got tickled thinking of the comparison and wanted to share it with you, be it funny or not.

    Actually I think it is good for Dr.s soul, for he has had to put up with me in the blogordie site for to long, and I don’t even know what the heck I’m talking about. lol. Every time he stumps me I can claim ignorance. lol

  138. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion January 4, 2009 at 3:48 pm #

    I just pieced together the entire complaint. Wow. Sick doesn’t begin to cover it….

  139. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion January 4, 2009 at 3:49 pm #

    Ah, you noticed that too… :-)

  140. avatar
    laughinghysterically January 4, 2009 at 4:05 pm #

    It is only a matter of time before the amateur-incompetent-bat-sh*t-crazies and the dangerous-hardcore-violent-crazies find one another.

    Their paths are almost crossing at this point, and if you go have a peek at the Aryan Nation home page, they have a post up re: Obama and questions that I KNOW the Birhters have been circulating. Not sure who got it from whom considering the internet.

    No matter what, I am having a “Ghostbusters” moment…

    -”You have the Gatekeeper? Well I am standing here with the Keymaster.”

    ]]”Hey, maybe we should get these two together”

    –”No, I think that would be a MONUMENTALLY BAD IDEA!”

    (it goes something like that…anyway)

  141. avatar
    bogus info January 4, 2009 at 4:37 pm #

    This bunch alleges that Obama’s records can’t be accessed/have been sealed/scrubbed. However, two divorce decrees appear within three weeks of each other that were on file and are public record. And they are just now getting around to obtaining them? Incompetence? And the statement that the Ed character made in the press release that the Dunham/Soetoro divorce decree had “vanished”, yet it was posted at all the anti-Obama blogs. Is all this just hype/hoax?

  142. avatar
    bogus info January 4, 2009 at 4:40 pm #

    I’m not sure. These people are all starting to run together.

  143. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 4, 2009 at 7:14 pm #

    Any claim without supporting evidence, or any fact which involves a conspiracy, should be treated with modest skepticism.

  144. avatar
    bogus info January 4, 2009 at 7:17 pm #

    How did they get the divorce decrees?

    About Vital Records | Marriage License | Marriage Performers | Reciprocal Beneficiary Relationships

    Who is Eligible to Apply for Certified Copies of Vital Records?

    A certified copy of a vital record (birth, death, marriage, or divorce certificate) is issued only to an applicant who has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons are considered to have such an interest:

    the registrant (the person whom the record is concerned with);
    the registrant’s spouse;
    the registrant’s parent(s);
    a descendant of the registrant (e.g., a child or grandchild);
    a person having a common ancestor with the registrant (e.g., a sibling, grandparent, aunt/uncle, or cousin);
    a legal guardian of the registrant;
    a person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant;
    a personal representative of the registrant’s estate;
    a person whose right to obtain a copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;
    adoptive parents who have filed a petition for adoption and need to determine the death of one or more of the prospective adopted child’s natural or legal parents;
    a person who needs to determine the marital status of a former spouse in order to determine the payment of alimony;
    a person who needs to determine the death of a nonrelated co-owner of property purchased under a joint tenancy agreement; and
    a person who needs a death certificate for the determination of payments under a credit insurance policy.
    If you are not able to establish a direct and tangible interest in the record, you are ineligible and will not be issued a certified copy of the record.

  145. avatar
    bogus info January 4, 2009 at 7:36 pm #

    Why would Berg need access to the divorce decree if he already had it several months ago?

    written by Kathy McClarrinon, December 31, 2008

    Yes, that was also what was mention. The docs were being mailed or in transition and would arrive to whom ever on Friday. I do believe Berg’s name was mentioned as well as someone who would be contacted and given access to these documents.
    If all is true – this would indeed be a glorious day. I will keep praying.

  146. avatar
    bogus info January 4, 2009 at 7:37 pm #

    Why are they so frantic to get Obama’s BC? Don’t they have the “real Kenyan BC” that will be released Monday?

  147. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 4, 2009 at 7:48 pm #

    Only an very inexperienced researcher would have been stumped by a simple name variation.

  148. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 4, 2009 at 9:02 pm #

    Oh, you know that Kenyan birth certificate is “top secret” now (just as they “sealed” his Hawaiian one). According to the Texas Darlin’ blog:

    October 11, 2008…I have received an unverified tip that certified copies of a Kenyan Birth Certificate (BC) for Obama were sent from Kenya, and have been received by three separate individuals. I am told that these documents are certified, with an embossed seal, and display the name of the hospital where Obama was born, as well as witness signatures.

  149. avatar
    laughinghysterically January 4, 2009 at 9:09 pm #

    DOH!!

    I think the term “inexperienced researcher” is being far too kind here, but, I will say nothing more on that subject!

  150. avatar
    bogus info January 4, 2009 at 9:23 pm #

    Dr. C,

    I’m confused. I thought they were going to get the BC from a US Port of Entry. Now they are saying that Obama’s BC is coming direct from Kenya? They need to all get together to get their stories straight.

  151. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 4, 2009 at 10:01 pm #

    I think the document they are promising is Ann Obama’s exit/entry to Kenya before/after Barack was born. (I have a reliable tip that that Obama was really born in Hawaii.)

  152. avatar
    Bill January 5, 2009 at 7:48 pm #

    Hale sounds like a cussing nut tonight. I can’t believe what he said. Cussing like a nut about some woman. Really bad stuff!
    1/05/2009 7pm est lions den.

    He really sounded like a nut and said some real bad cuse words on the air. I was ashamed of him. Creditability is gone now. I thought Hale was making some good points about Obama but man he really is a hot head.

  153. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 5, 2009 at 9:59 pm #

    What do you expect from the guy who killed bigfoot?

    Whatever one thinks of Obama, one must agree that this has really drawn the nutcases out of the woodwork.

  154. avatar
    Hitandrun January 7, 2009 at 8:24 pm #

    bogusinfo,
    Can you cite an egregious example in Mr Berg’s exact words, where he appears to “fabricate evidence” in his Obama cases?

    Thank you,
    Hitandrun

  155. avatar
    Hitandrun January 7, 2009 at 8:48 pm #

    bogusinfo (or Crockett–can’t tell who) writes:

    “This divorce decree (w/o the birth certificate) is significant because it proves that Obama Sr is the legitimate father of Obama II[...]”

    Let’s bypass for the moment whether a divorce decree can prove or disprove biological legitimacy.
    What intrigues me is whether Obama Sr and Ann Dunham were ever legally married, despite their valid license. Was Obama Sr at the time a bigamist in the eyes of US law? and would US law then invalidate any further US marriages by him to US citizens like Ann Dunham? How would Obama Jr’s citizenship and eligibility be affected? Anyone know?

  156. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 7, 2009 at 9:04 pm #

    Berg doesn’t fabricate evidence; he misrepresents evidence, or makes claims for which there is no evidence, or misstates the law. He didn’t create the Canadian Birth Certificate for Obama signed by Dudley Do Right; he just included it in his brief in Berg V. Obama et al. The great mother lode of Berg debunking is at What’s Your Evidence?

  157. avatar
    bogus info January 7, 2009 at 9:21 pm #

    Truth,

    It is my understanding that his marriage in Kenya was a tribal marriage which may or may not be factual. However, if not factual, it is also my understanding that U.S. would not recognize the Kenyan marriage.

    But, Obama, even if his mother/father marriage was invalidated would still be a citizen at birth because he was born in Hawaii.

  158. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 7, 2009 at 9:33 pm #

    I seem to recall on one of the Sarah Obama videos her (or someone) commenting that Barack (sr) had “many women”.

  159. avatar
    TRUTH January 7, 2009 at 10:11 pm #

    I resent that comment. I have never been drawn on woodwork. :-)

  160. avatar
    mimi June 15, 2009 at 6:52 pm #

    Sequoia pointed out that the divorce papers say: “child has resided with mother since date of informal separation (1974), both mother and child are U.S. citizens while father is an Indonesian citizen”

    Part III (page 5 of the pdf)
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/9940006/Soetoro-Divorce-1980-9-Pages-Merged

  161. avatar
    maggie August 2, 2009 at 11:11 am #

    **Sequoia pointed out that the divorce papers say: “child has resided with mother since date of informal separation (1974), both mother and child are U.S. citizens while father is an Indonesian citizen”***

    This further proves That Obama IS NOT A’NATURAL-BORN’citizen ( his father was indonesian citizen) as per the constitution in order to be POTUS one MUST be a”natural born” citizen which requires having both parents being US citizens at the time of birth. I love it, no matter how you slice it, Obama is not legal president and has committed TREASON against this country.

  162. avatar
    kimba August 2, 2009 at 11:30 am #

    Please do point us to where the Constitution says that. That will be a surprise to Bobby Jindal.

  163. avatar
    maggie August 2, 2009 at 11:39 am #

    Article 11 section 1…very simple

  164. avatar
    kimba August 2, 2009 at 11:52 am #

    I have read it many times maggie. Evidently you haven’t or you would realize that there is Nothing in the Constitution that defines a natural born citizen at all let alone as someone with two parents who are citizens.
    Please, read it.
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/
    This is a birther myth that I like to call the “two-fer”. Since you don’t seem to understand who is a natural born citizen, Dr C has many resources you can read. Here’s one:
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/natural-born-citizenship-for-dummies/

  165. avatar
    Whatever4 August 7, 2009 at 4:12 am #

    The phrase from the divorce papers: “child has resided with mother since date of informal separation (1974), both mother and child are U.S. citizens while father is an Indonesian citizen…”

    seems to better refer to Maya, as the section is talking about child care.

  166. avatar
    nbc August 7, 2009 at 11:36 am #

    Hahah…

    Article 11 section 1. What version of the Constitution are you using?

    Even Article II section 1 does not show support for your claims.

    You have been pwned

  167. avatar
    AXJ September 4, 2009 at 3:07 am #

    According to recent news from Orly the OBAMAS Kenyan Birth Certificate was always attached to the original divorce papers in 1964 since that is when she was awarded custody of the adopted child. Problem is a copy of the originals had to be obtained and the Judge will get a copy as well on September 8, 2009.