Why are you bringing in an irrelevant/different situation?
When she filed for divorce in Honolulu in 1964, and stated that a marriage took place on Feb 2 1961 in Maui, there is one LIKELY reason for it:
That a marriage took place on Feb 2 1961 in Maui, and she wanted to end it in 1964.
Because it goes right to the heart of both matters.
You assert that Official Government Documents, even if badly forged, are always a true accurate reflection of reality, and that their mere existence compels any conflicting data (such as personal reports of being at Barak, Jr.'s birth by relatives in Kenya, and the notable lack of any similar eyewitness accounts from people claiming to have been at the same event in Honolulu) to magically cease to exist.
I presented you with a truthful direct example of the official documents being at total odds with the actual events. I know it is truthful as I have direct personal experience with many of the events. Off hand I'd say that's completely relevant.
You assert that she must have been married in Maui, simply because she said she was, and therefore she needed legal council to end the marriage.
I have shown that even when legally a marriage NEVER HAPPENED, you still need an attorney to make it go away.
I'm puzzled as to why you would trust the uncollaborated word of a communist and avowed atheist?
Were you there when she swore on a stack of Bibles or something?