[Seizethecarp]

I said:

"BHO Sr. is shown to have acknowledge himself to be the legal father of Barry, if all of these documents are genuine"

Meet the New Boss said:

"In the space for wife, there is a name scratched out which is consistent with starting with a 'K' and is about the right length for “Kezia Obama.” Next to the scratched-out words is 'Ann S. Dunham, Honolulu, Hawaii.'”

The child, BHO II, born during the BHO-SADO marriage, a marriage explicitly admitted by BHO Sr. on one INS document, is the LEGAL child of the father. Courts have repeatedly ruled "in the interest of the child" that it does not matter whether the father is the biological child of the child. It does not matter whether the father is aware that the child was born. He is the legal father of all children of the marriage.

So long as the HI marriage remained uncontested, for example for bigamy, by admitting in a signed form to the INS that he was married to Stanley Ann at the time of Barry's birth, BHO Sr. was accepting legal paternity of all children born to Stanley Ann during that marriage.

[Meet the New Boss]

Seizethecarp, we already had this discussion.

See my response to you in post 53:

The doctrine regarding paternity of children born during a marriage to which you refer is legally a presumption, not an admission. These are two different concepts under the law. Marrying a pregnant woman is not technically an admission of paternity.

Here is the current section of the Hawaii Revised Statutes:

§584-4 Presumption of paternity. (a) A man is presumed to be the natural father of a child if:

(1) He and the child's natural mother are or have been married to each other and the child is born during the marriage...;

In subsection (b), the law states that this is a rebuttable presumption.

It's not a big point, but thanks for wasting five minutes of my time pulling up the statute which you easily could have done yourself.