“Are you forgetting SAD’s plea in he divorce from Lolo, regarding a child (18 years old) whom she claimed to the court Lolo was still legally responsible to aid in college funding? Would only Lolo’s adoption of little barry make him legally responsible, or if the grandparents had adoption of little barry, could SAD make such a legal claim against Lolo?”
Man, I really wish that were the case. That would be a smoking gun, but I just read the divorce papers and SAD made no claim of support or alimony for either child.
SAD checked the “should not” box for Lolo paying any child support.
The divorce papers mention that there is a child over 18 who is at university but that’s it.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9940006/Soetoro-Divorce-1980-9-Pages-Merged
If you tried just a little harder, could you possibly sound and post a little more like jamese777?
Nah, you’re already a dead ringer; no tweaking required.
The papers show she represented to the court that there was one child under 18 and one still in need of educational assistance. That establishes what she then offered to not require payment/alimony/child support for. Yes, she checked the ‘should not’ box, according to the image you provided, but she placed in her pleading waht would be Lolo’s responsibility had she not check ‘not’ requesting support. I know for a fact that the court can require a parent to provide support even if the other parent checks the ‘not’ box. BTW, Jamese, what were you banned for? ... Obamanoid troll, go defend the marxist lying sonofabitch at some other site. You are an enemy of the Republic defending the criminality of a lying traitor.