There is an interview with Kezia up thread that I'm referring to. My mistake in that I should have said both Kezia and Auma. Kezia, in the interview, says there was no civil ceremony, meaning it was basically a tribal jump the broom type thing where nothing was legally documented. If it's not documented, then the marriage would not be recognized by American courts so the supposed marriage between Ann and Sr. would be legal.
“The conversation you refer to involving Auma and the estate of BHO Sr. is ONLY sourced to dialog in Dreams which was most likely invented by Ayers and/or Obama (Ayers is quoted as saying he “wrote the whole thing,” IIRC).”
Per bgill:
“There is an interview with Kezia up thread that I'm referring to. My mistake in that I should have said both Kezia and Auma. Kezia, in the interview, says there was no civil ceremony, meaning it was basically a tribal jump the broom type thing where nothing was legally documented. If it's not documented, then the marriage would not be recognized by American courts so the supposed marriage between Ann and Sr. would be legal.”
IIRC, Kezia has never confirmed that she or her children were denied any inheritance from BHO Sr. as claimed in the Ayers/Obama written dialog in Dreams that they put in the mouth of Kezia’s daughter, Auma.
IIRC, Kezia explicitly confirms a tribal dowry and marriage which appears to conform to the provisions in the 1902 Kenya Marriage Act for a non-Muslim legal tribal marriage.
As I have previously posted:
• See Kenya Marriage Act of 1902 paragraph #49:
49. Whoever contracts a marriage under this Act, being at the time married in accordance with native law or custom or in accordance with Mohammedan law to any person other than the person with whom such marriage is contracted, shall be guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
kenyalaw.org/family/statutes/...?file=The+marriage+act.pdf
American courts, if ever litigated, would look to and defer to the law in Kenya to determine whether the Obama-Kezia marriage was legal. Sovereign states defer to each other’s domestic laws.
From the above it appears that it is illegal to contract a statutory non-tribal, non-Muslim marriage subsequent to a tribal marriage, even if it is a subsequent Muslim marriage.
The sovereign US state of Hawaii would NOT recognize in the US a bigamous marriage, even to a Muslim. One of the sworn statements that BHO Sr. would almost certainly have had to sign in HI to obtain the marriage license in 1961 to marry SAD would have required him to declare that he was not currently legally married to anyone else.
Having signed that statement and gone through the marriage, the marriage would be recognized as legal in HI until and unless challenged, which it never was.
The marriage in HI was NOT legal back in UK colonial Kenya, IMO, and thus UK citizenship would NOT pass to BHO II under the explicit provisions of the 1948 BNA.
I have seen no evidence that BHO II was ever claimed to UK authorities to be a legitimate UK subject by BHO Sr. or any evidence that Barry or his mom ever tried to register Barry as a UK subject. Therefore I doubt Barry was ever a dual citizen, but rather an illegitimate US national based, under established international law, on his single mom's nationality.
BTW, this mornings news that Barry has "released" the long form moves the ball forward, but this BC has still never been placed into evidence in any court in a sworn deposition, so Obama can still evade having discovery of all of the data on the BC.