When I first saw that, I was under the impression that one has to assert that there was a past legal marriage as a requirement to filing a divorce case. But a few folks here said that was not necessarily true. Still seems odd to me that there could be a divorce without a previous marriage.
As to the purported campaign flyer shown in the first post of this thread, it's obvious that some facts there are inconsistent with Obama's "Dreams from My Father." Obviously both cannot be true with respect to, e.g., Obama's mother's marital status at his birth and the state where Obama was raised. When it comes to Zero's past, there are few verifiable facts. There are still important mysteries to be definitely solved.
First place, as to marriage.
In the modern world, people are held to be married on the basis of a wide range of conduct and statements. There are cases which hold people married because they checked into a motel for the evening and indicated on the registration sheet that they were married.
In some jurisdictions, oral statements are sufficient.
And marriage in turn affects a number of different kinds of rights and privileges, even if there are no children. And if there are children, even if the man she is living with who she and he have stated is the married husband is not in fact a civil law husband, is also not the father, custody is at best uncertain absent a court determination.
For that reason, when counsel sees the nice lady in this situation, his advice would be to file a divorce and get a court order determining that they are no longer married--if children exist in the living arrangement; get the court to find and order that they are the children of the wife, if true, and order that she has custody.
Stanley and Senior probably did enough to get into a position that conservative counsel would have, under the circumstances described, advise her to file a divorce proceeding.
I don't think that is what happened here.
They were not married. They were never married. And they never acted as man and wife in any setting.
On the record, as we now recognize what happened, we know that the subject of the divorce proceeding was a child. This proceeding was initiated to obtain a custody order for the purpose of establishing legal control over a minor child who was at the time around three and a half or five years old.
We cannot be sure whether the objective was Barack Hussein Obama II or Zero who was about a year and a half younger.
We can clearly see that at some point, Zero assumed the name Barack H. Obama II but for some purposes, he was BHO II and for other purposes he was Barry Suetoro or someone else. As late as the 1980's he was using other names.
We have also identified the true BHO 2. As late as August of 1982, he appeared using the name BHO 2 at the funeral of Barack H. Obama Senior. Zero was not there.
But, there is also evidence that has zero using the BHO II name much earlier for some purposes. So we can't be sure what the objective of the custody order in the divorce proceeding was.
A grainy photo of the person from Ghana named Obama who went to college in the USSR?
When are "We" who have made this identification going to reveal it? Hopefully not after the 2012 election...