October 24, 2009
© 2009 - NewsWithViews.com
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"
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:
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.
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 been indicted 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 the Rodearmel 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. You can read my columns on my web site, www.devvy.com and sign up for free email alerts to receive notification of my columns. I also use the email alert for special messages and notice of upcoming votes and other critical information you might not get with your busy schedule.]
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:
© 2009 - NewsWithViews.com - All Rights Reserved
Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale
Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; 2 million copies sold. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country as well as her own; ran for Congress and is a highly sought after public speaker.
She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy isn't left, right or in the middle; she is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party. Her web site contains a tremendous amount of information, solutions and a vast Reading Room.
Devvy's website: www.devvy.com
It isn't possible to respond to 20,000 emails a month. Before you send Devvy e-mail, please take the time to check the FAQ section on her web site; it has been updated and filled with answers to frequently asked questions and links to reliable research sources
E-mail is: firstname.lastname@example.org