- The only purpose of this column is to bring forth some
of the complicated legal issues swirling around the citizenship cases so
hopefully, all of us laymen and women can have a better understanding.
Not to play favorites of one attorney over another because I respect Orly,
Leo and Mario and am trying to do my part in helping when I can.
-
- Kerchner et al v Obama was dismissed two days ago. Mario
Apuzzo explains here: Court Dismisses Kerchner Complaint/Petition for Lack
of Standing and Political Question. The Decision Will Be Appealed.
-
- Earlier this year, I interviewed Mario and his client,
Charles Kerchner. I greatly admire these men for their intelligence, convictions
and dedication to the truth. On Mario's site, you can read the links to
the judge's decision; click here. Once again, it is standing and also the
judge noted (page 10) any injury regarding a possible recall for military
service in an extreme emergency is "neither actual nor eminent, but
is rather impermissible conjectural."
-
- Please note at the bottom of page one where the court
states plaintiffs have filed the lawsuit in an effort to show there was
absolutely no scrutiny whatsoever in making sure Obama was constitutionally
eligible and to remove him from office. I bring this up for a reason. There
is another case I have mentioned in other columns that is germane to this
issue: Judicial Watch's lawsuit to remove another usurper: Hillary Clinton.
That case was filed January 29, 2009; oral arguments were heard September
14, 2009, in front of a three judge panel out there in DC.
-
- Rodearmel v. Clinton
-
- "On January 29, 2009, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit
against newly confirmed Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on the
ground that she is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Secretary of
State under the Ineligibility Clause. The "emoluments" or salary
of the U.S. Secretary of State increased at least three times during Mrs.
Clinton's most recent U.S. Senate term. That term, which began on January
4, 2007, does not expire until January 2013, regardless of Mrs. Clinton's
recent resignation."
-
- No ruling from the court as of right now. Here is the
direct link.
-
- However, there is a possibility the court is going to
throw this out because of the Quo Warranto statute. The defendants moved
to dismiss and in their filing, there is an important footnote; number
6 at the bottom of page 16:
-
- 6 "The D.C. Court of Appeals has observed that a
plaintiff who seeks to directly attack the appointment of an official (as
opposed to attacking an action of that official) will rarely if ever have
standing. See Andrade v. Lauer, 729 F.2d 1475, 1496-97 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
In the same case, the court suggested that the only proper way to assert
such a direct attack is through an action for a writ of quo warranto. See
id. at 1497 (citing cases). A quo warranto action may only be brought by
the Attorney General of the United States or the United States Attorney
or, if these Executive Branch officials decline a request, by a private
party who has obtained leave of court. See D.C. Stat. §§ 16-3502-3503;
see also Rae v. Johnson, 1993 WL 544295, at *1"
-
- The direct link to the defendant's motion to dismiss
is here.
-
- That case deals with Clinton as a usurper. Clinton is
serving as Secretary of State even though clearly, she is constitutionally
ineligible:
-
- "In December 2008, Congress attempted to evade the
clear prohibition of the Ineligibility Clause with a so-called "Saxbe
fix," reducing the Secretary of State's salary to the level in effect
on January 1, 2007. This maneuver, first used in the Taft Administration,
has been more frequently used in recent years by both parties, most notably
allowing Republican Senator William Saxbe to become U.S. Attorney General
in 1973 and Democratic Senator Lloyd Bentsen to become Treasury Secretary
in 1993. A similar "fix" has been enacted for Senator Ken Salazar
to join the Obama Cabinet as Secretary of the Interior. These attempted
"fixes," however, are insufficient, as they cannot alter the
historical fact that -- as in Mrs. Clinton's case -- salaries increased
during the terms for which these officials were elected, thereby violating
the Ineligibility Clause."
-
- Let me state that I firmly believe the shadow government
power brokers have also known from the git-go that Obama was constitutionally
ineligible:
-
- BORN IN THE USA?
- Plan killed to make 'naturalized' citizens eligible
- Failed 2004 proposal would have given immigrants entry
to Oval Office
-
- October 17, 2009
-
- "A congressional committee deliberated only five
years ago a plan that would have opened the door to allowing immigrants
and others who do not qualify as "natural born" citizens in the
United States entry into the Oval office but ended up killing the
plan....
-
- "The hearing was held Oct. 5, 2004, by the U.S.
Senate Judiciary Committee on the subject of "Maximizing voter choice:
Opening the president to naturalized Americans. Among those providing testimony
on the proposal were Chairman Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah; Sen. Dianne Feinstein,
D-Calif.; Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and several experts.
-
- "What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone
born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born
citizen. But a child who is adopted from a foreign country to American
parents in the United States is not eligible for the presidency. Now, that
does not seem fair or right to me," Hatch said, according to a transcript
of the proceedings."
-
- It's all just a coincidence:
-
- Obama speaks at the Democratic National Convention on
July 27, 2004.
-
- By October of the same year, the issue of citizenship
pops up as evidenced in the column above. The hearing was in October, but
no telling what went on behind the scenes. Who was pushing for the hearings
and when did the push begin?
-
- A month later, November 2004, Obama is allegedly elected
(with the help of ACORN) to the U.S. Senate.
-
-
- Advertisement
-
- Nov 2005, Sarah Herlihy, an associate at the Chicago
firm of Kirkland & Ellis, gets her paper on the issue of citizenship
and the president published in the Kent University Law Review on line.
I read her paper and it's nothing more than an obvious attempt to grease
the skids for Obama using 'racist' and 'discrimination' as the hot button
words to sell her message.
-
- Feb 12, 2007, Obama announces he's running for president.
-
- In Feb and April of 2008, attempts are made via several
bills introduced by senators to amend the citizenship requirements of the
U.S. Constitution.
-
- It looks like a well coordinated effort to get this guy
into the White House as fast as possible. A few months later, Leo Donofrio's
case explodes in the headlines. The battle is on to remove this usurper
from office.
-
- Those who rule Washington, DC don't give a fig about
the U.S. Constitution. Their goal is to place Marxists like Clinton and
Obama in key positions of government to carry out their agenda for world
government. We can all see how things have gone into hyper drive since
the swearing in process last January.
-
- As I noted above in Rodearmel v. Clinton, the defendant
has cited Quo Warranto as being the only remedy to remove her. That statute
was specifically written to remove a usurper from office. I know this type
of research takes a great deal of time. If you read this document, it is
a full explanation of the statute by Leo Donofrio.
-
- Those of us who have been following this never ending
nightmare are aware of Orly's current case, Barnett v Obama. Judge Carter
has set a trial date for January 26, 2010 and it is my understanding that
limited discovery has been granted. The Internet has been drowning in headlines
that read: "Obama goes to trial - we got him now!" I am not trying
to rain on the parade, but I have genuine concerns that Quo Warranto will
be raised as justification for an eventual dismissal - especially an appeal.
This would be a crushing blow to millions who are desperate to get Comrade
Obama out of office. I not only want Obama removed from office, I want
him indicted, convicted and sent to prison for a long time for wire fraud
(18 U.S.C. §1343).
-
- Having said that, there is another court decision you
should read. It's not too long: Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell,
238 U.S. 537 (1915). That case deals with Quo Warranto and the definition
of 'interested person' who has a unique interest in the office. I bring
this up because it's terribly important.
-
- The ONLY argument here is the undisputed fact that Obama's
father was a Kenyan national under the British Nationality Act of 1948,
making Barack Hussein Obama also a British citizen at birth. It doesn't
matter if he was born in Hawaii or Kenya; it is his father's citizenship
status that makes Obama constitutionally ineligible to ever hold the office
of president. While some might disagree, it doesn't' matter what passport
Obama used in 1981. While knowing the truth about all his hidden documents
(birth certificate, Occidental College records, passport, etc.) would surely
prove what millions of us already know - he's a pathological liar - the
single constitutional argument is his status at birth. Please take the
time this weekend to read: The Historical and Legal Analysis: Natural Born
at Birth. It will answer so many questions I get by the dozens in my email
box.
-
- On March 1, 2009, Orly sent a letter to Attorney General
Eric Holder. He is a corrupt individual who should have beenindicted for
obstruction of justice in the Michael Trentadue murder. Orly petitioned
Holder to appoint a special prosecutor, recuse himself and move forward
with a Quo Warranto. She has never received a response and she won't. Many
of us sent our polite letters to U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor out in DC
to undertake a Quo Warranto; mine was March 14, 2009. The only response
we received was shock when Taylor abruptly resigned a month later and went
into the private sector.
-
- Two days ago, I sent Orly email asking her if she would
go ahead with a Quo Warranto now that it is glaringly apparent there will
be no response from the AG or the U.S. Attorney in Washington, DC. The
issue of 'interested person' is the sticky part, but I believe the statute
must be tested. Dr. Alan Keyes, one of her plaintiffs, might be the individual,
but his poor vote count in the election may not sway the court.
-
- I then suggested her plaintiffs who are state representatives.
Obama is illegally playing Commander in Chief, ordering National Guard
from the states to war. Her plaintiffs who are state representatives surely
have a unique interest in the office peculiar to him/her as it relates
to the citizens he/she represents who might be active National Guard. The
court may not accept them as 'interested person' status, but I still feel
it is worth the effort to file the required complaint with the DC District
Court.
-
- I'm not a lawyer and have no legal training. But, after
all the failed attempts and the citing of a Quo Warranto in theRodearmel
v Clinton case by the defendants, I believe going for a Quo Warranto is
appropriate and necessary. §16-3501 was written specifically for this
situation to put an end to a constitutional crisis that grows in scope
everyday. While waiting for the January 26, 2010, trial (Barnett v Obama)
and the appeal in Kerchner v Obama, I hope a Quo Warranto complaint will
be filed with the DC Court as soon as possible.
-
- (Note: This is my last column for NWVs. It's been a wonderful
seven years and seven months of writing columns for a superb site like
NWV. Paul the editor for NWV and his wife Lorraine are, dear friend now
and for always. NWVs has some of the best writers in this country and
I read them daily. I am not slowing my writing pace in any way...just
moving the primary publication of my columns to my own site at www.devvy.com.
Please go there and sign up for free email alerts which you'll receive
when each new column is posted. Also, you can read all of my past columns
in my site archive, 24/7.
- I also use the email alerts for special messages and
notices of upcoming votes and other critical information you might not
get with your busy schedule.)
-
-
- Links
-
- 1 - Statement from Plaintiff MSgt USMC Jeff Schwilk
- Gary Kreep, United States Justice Foundation - not welcome
(I agree 1000%)
- 2 - Plaintiff Pamela Barnett to Gary Kreep: "Drop
out of our case now" (I agree 1000%.)
-
- For educational purposes:
-
- 1 - McCain also ineligible
- 2 - Why For McCain But Not For Obama?
-
- © 2009 - NewsWithViews.com - All Rights Reserved
|