Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696

    ANOTHER CITIZENSHIP CASE DISMISSED - WHAT NEXT?



    ANOTHER CITIZENSHIP CASE DISMISSED - WHAT NEXT?

    By: Devvy
    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. http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

    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. http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/10/court ... chner.html 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. http://www.judicialwatch.org/rodearmel-v-clinton

    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. http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/docu ... ismiss.pdf

    That case deals with Clinton as a usurper. Clinton is serving as Secretary of State even though clearly, she is constitutionally ineligible: http://www.judicialwatch.org/rodearmel-v-clinton

    "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 http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113183
    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 http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd471.htm 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. http://devvy.net/pdf/mar09/leo_all_parts.html

    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 http://www.scribd.com/doc/20761725/Barn ... nute-Order 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!â€
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  2. #2
    ELE
    ELE is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    5,660

    Obama and his criminal elites need to be legally accountable

    We not only need to get obama out of office we need to get pelosi. biden and reid out of office.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •