The conundrum of removing Obama/Soetoro from office

By: Devvy

The anti-truth “mainstream” media (newspapers, Internet and boob tube) as well as cable tv anchor hosts like shallow Sean Hannity, Beck and O’Reilly, smugly believe the issue Obama/Soetoro’s dual citizenship is somehow going to go away based on the release of “the” birth certificate, April 27, 2011, by the usurper in the White House. Wishful thinking for all of them who have no regard for the U.S. Constitution and the right of the American people to know whether or not a presidential candidate is legally eligible to run.

Despite all the ballyhoo on the networks, radio and Internet about the “new” long form birth certificate being end of discussion, none of those bastions of the truth from anchors on ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, all the web sites and of course, the “fair and balanced” FOX News Network, has touched the issue of the latest document being an obvious forgery.

The problem with Obama/Soetoro’s citizenship has now festered to the near breaking point. A boil oozing puss and a putrid stench that will have to be addressed in the near future. Had the gutless cowards in the Outlaw Congress done their solemn duty, January 9, 2009, and stopped the electoral college vote then and there, we would not be here today. No presidential candidate who was in Congress that day will ever get my vote because he/she didn’t have the courage to stand up and begin the process of stopping the vote and proceeding with an investigation for a massive controversy all of them knew was burning across this country. That includes my congressman when he runs again in 2012, who sat there like a stuffed dummy.

Setting aside the issue of the birth certificate as far as where little bouncing Barry (Soetoro) was actually born, the only legal issue is his father’s citizenship at the time Obama, Sr’s progeny was brought into this world. Barry has now produced the “real” birth certificate listing Barack Obama, Sr., as the biological father, so he’s stuck with it. Obama, Sr., was a Kenyan national visiting the U.S., he was not a U.S. citizen. In 1961, Kenya was still a British Colony making Obama, Sr. a subject of that commonwealth. Obama, Jr. was automatically a British citizen under the British Nationality Act of 1948. Thus, he is forever ineligible to be president of these united States of America.

But, how would you remove Obama/Soetoro from office?

I am not a lawyer and I have no legal training, but I have read every court case and posting by attorney’s involved in the lawsuits over Barry’s ineligibility. This is by no means a simple case of impeachment because you cannot impeach a usurper. I have not and will not support any petitions or efforts to impeach Obama/Soetoro because it would set a horrible legal precedent. As Nancy Pelosi made it very clear when the Democrats took power away from the Republicans there would be no impeachment of Bush, the same applies with the Republicans and Obama/Soetoro:

“If Republicans take control of the House, there is “not a chance at this point” that they will try to impeach President Obama, a top Republican lawmaker said this week. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who would helm the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee if the GOP wins on Election Day, said that his party will not try to bring impeachment charges simply because it disagrees with the president.”

Bush was worth far more political currency to the Democrats if left in office and the same applies to the Republicans regarding Barry. He’s also a cash cow for talk radio and nightly gab fests on cable tv.

If we are going to adhere to the law, then as painful as it might be, you have to understand what a usurper means: to seize and hold (a position, office, power, etc.) by force or without legal right: The pretender tried to usurp the throne.

No matter how frustrated and enraged we are about the actions of that empty suit sullying the people’s house, to give legitimacy to his presidency would allow all the bills he signed into law to remain in effect.

Beware some of the groups pushing for impeachment and who is behind them. Impeaching the usurper would be the easiest route for the Outlaw Congress in that they would not have to deal with all the “laws” signed by a president who legally never occupied the office. Since the usurper had no legal authority to sign anything into law, they are all null and void.

Because Barry Soetoro (his last known legal name) lied his way into the White House he is holding a position of power without any legal authority. When you remove a usurper it is as if that individual was never in office or power, which is why you cannot impeach him:

“Seventh, if Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4).”[1]

That, plus the worn out race card issue, is why I believe no matter how many petitions are sent to the Outlaw Congress to impeach Obama/Soetoro, those gutless “leaders” have let the situation rot to the point that any whiff of impeachment would create a constitutional crisis. In case those ethically bankrupt career politicians in the Outlaw Congress haven’t noticed, it already is a constitutional crisis that is not going away.

Why has the U.S. Supreme Court kicked aside the few lawsuits dealing with Barry’s eligibility? A couple were actually heard in conference, but none were advanced for oral arguments. The justices on the U.S. Supreme Court are not stupid and in fact, Justice Clarence Thomas all but acknowledged the court has deliberately evaded the issue; see video here.

Other than the obvious political reasons and the old Soviet stand-by propaganda of race baiting, why would the high court evade the issue?

I believe that attorney, Leo Donofrio, who had the original case in New Jersey to get Barry, McCain and a Nicaraguan born candidate off the ballot, has been right all along. Obama/Soetoro should have been removed from office by a federal Quo Warranto action. While you may disagree with me, I concur with Leo that is the only constitutional legal method to remove Barry. That statute was written specifically to deal with this problem:

§ 16-3501. Persons against whom issued; civil action.

A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.

§ 16-3502. Parties who may institute; ex rel. proceedings.

The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion or on the relation of a third person. The writ may not be issued on the relation of a third person except by leave of the court, to be applied for by the relator, by a petition duly verified setting forth the grounds of the application, or until the relator files a bond with sufficient surety, to be approved by the clerk of the court, in such penalty as the court prescribes, conditioned on the payment by him of all costs incurred in the prosecution of the writ if costs are not recovered from and paid by the defendant.

§ 16-3503. Refusal of Attorney General or United States attorney to act; procedure.

If the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of the United States, on the relation of the interested person on his compliance with the condition prescribed by section 16-3502 as to security for costs.

As Leo wrote in one of his legal analysis:

“The issue of whether the President can be removed from office other than by impeachment is the single most important question presented with regard to challenging the eligibility of a sitting President. This section of the brief contains important new information supporting the conclusions discussed in Part 1 of this legal brief .

“Please understand that if the Constitution limits Congressional power to remove the President to only cases of impeachment then there is no Constitutional mechanism available to remove a President who is proved to be a usurper.  And if that’s true, then the federal quo warranto statute doesn’t have the power to remove a sitting President… even if it was proved beyond any doubt he was ineligible.

“The best dream team of lawyers you can draft may bring all the law suits they like for the best possible reasons in favor of the most perfectly possible plaintiffs with undeniable standing as to injury in fact and causality, but the courts do not have the authority – under the Constitution – to remove a sitting President.  Those law suits will fail and they should fail.

“In order to protect the Constitution, we must not subvert the separation of powers.

“If it can’t be done by quo warranto, then it can’t be done at all. Why?

“Because Congress is the only branch authorized by the Constitution to remove the President should he be found ineligible.  And the only court Congress has delegated that power to is the District Court of the District of Columbia, and such delegation of power is strictly limited to actions governed by the federal quo warranto statute.

“If we are going to challenge eligibility to protect the Constitution, then we certainly cannot do an end around the separation of powers.  I have recognized this from the outset and that’s why I tried to have the eligibility issue litigated prior to election day and then again prior to the electoral college meeting. After the electoral college met and cast its votes for Obama, he went from being an ordinary candidate to being the President-elect.”[2][3]

It is not easy to qualify as a qualified individual to file a Quo Warranto; see Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, in Footnote [2] below. Many of us wrote letters back in March 2009, to U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor in Washington, DC, requesting he proceed with a Quo Warranto (there are no plaintiffs). Act surprised: May 28, 2009, Taylor announced his resignation effective May 29, 2009.

So who would that leave? Chuck Baldwin, who ran for president on the Constitution Party ticket; he declined to file a federal Quo Warranto. Dr. Alan Keyes also ran in 2008. I don’t believe he filed a direct request with the District Court in Washington, DC:

“A prominent attorney who has shepherded a number of high-profile legal cases challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president has brought a “Quo Warranto” case to district court in Washington, D.C., alleging his allegiances have included Britain, Kenya and Indonesia. A Quo Warranto action, first recorded some 800 years ago, essentially is a demand to know by what authority a public figure is acting. The case, brought by California attorney Orly Taitz on behalf of herself, was assigned to Chief Judge Royce Lamberth. Taitz told WND that in a separate action she has filed a notice of appeal with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of the dismissal of a case she brought on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes and dozens of other individuals in California challenging Obama‘s eligibility.”

Based on Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, my personal opinion is Dr. Taitz does not qualify.

Is there any statute of limitations on filing a Quo Warranto? Not in California:

“Quo warranto is intended to prevent a continuing exercise of an authority unlawfully asserted, and is not appropriate for moot or abstract questions. Where the alleged usurpation has terminated, quo warranto will be denied. (People v. City of Whittier (1933) 133 Cal.App. 316, 324; 25 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 223 (1955).) By the same token, because quo warranto serves to end a continuous usurpation, no statute of limitations applies to the action. (People v. Bailey (1916) 30 Cal.App. 581, 584-585.)”

How about at the federal level? I don’t know, but it seems to me there would be no statute of limitations if one uses the reasoning above: a quo warranto serves to end a continuous usurpation, no statute of limitations applies to the action.

Is there any other legal remedy to force the issue of Barry’s ineligibility? Dr. Edwin Vieria addressed that back in December 2008:

“For example, in a criminal prosecution under a new statute that reinstates the Clinton “assault-weapons ban” (or some equally obnoxious affront to Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 and the Second Amendment), the defendant will undeniably have “standing” to challenge the indictment on the grounds that no statute imposing such a ban even exists, because the original “Bill which * * * passed the House of Representatives and the Senate” was never “presented to the President of the United States”, and therefore could never “become a Law,” inasmuch as the supposed “President,” Barack Obama, being constitutionally ineligible for that office, was then and remains thereafter nothing but an usurper. [See Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 and Article II, Section 1, 4]“[4]

What’s going to happen? Since Barry is controlled by his handlers, they can throw him under the bus or attempt to bluff him into a second term. A qualified individual(s) under Newman could (with a team of constitutional attorneys) still file a Federal Quo Warranto.

Knowing there will be nothing but an endless number of lawsuits filed in 2012 to keep Obama/Soetoro off the ballot and the growing anger by the American people for crimes committed by Barry (wire fraud, election fraud, forgery, use of a fake SSN for starters), something will have to give soon.

What about holding Obama/Soetoro legally accountable for his crimes? That can be pursued once he is removed from office. Don’t expect the corrupt Attorney General, Eric Holder, to bring charges. It will have to come independent of him and at great personal cost to the U.S. Attorney who might files charges against Barry.

It isn’t the “birthers” who are responsible for this mess. It’s the useful fools in the dominant media and cable tv anchors who protected Barry from day one. It’s also the fault of and every Secretary of State in this country back in 2008 who refused to verify a candidate’s eligibility to be on the ballot; add the Outlaw Congress who proceeded with certifying the electoral college vote. Of course, the ultimate blame falls only to Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro aka Barry Obama aka Barry Dunham aka Barack Dunham. All known aliases used by the cool guy in the White House who managed to pull off one of the greatest frauds in the history of this country — besides himself.

Source:

10 responses to “The conundrum of removing Obama/Soetoro from office

  1. I’m right there with you Brother! No one in either the House or Senate needs to be reelected that was in office when the usurper took over our America.

  2. JOSEPH (JOEY)

    I SAY REMOVE THEM ALL FROM OFFICE…IT CAN ONLY BE DONE BY NOTIFING ALL OF THE REGISTERED VOTERS BY U.S. MAIL…OR BY A TELEPHONE CALL!
    WAY TOO DAMN MANY OF OUR CAREER POLITICIANS HAVE BECOME COMPLACENT WITH THE OBAMA ISSUE…AND THEY ARE JUST AS GUILTY AS “”DOUCHEBAG”” FOR ALL OF THE PROBLEMS WE ARE NOW FACING!!!
    REMEMBER NO-vember 2012 PEOPLE!!!
    I CAN SEE NO-vember 2012 FROM MY HOUSE!!!

  3. If he can’t be removed then there will be no election in2012….He will declare himself president for life. LIFE!

    • Congress would never let that happen because if he is Prez for life, eventfully he would grow tired of Congress telling him what he can’t do and he would then desolve Congress and just sign Ex Orders all the time.

  4. So, arrest him for Social Security fraud.

  5. Executive orders do have the full force of law since issuances are typically made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress, some of which specifically delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation), or are believed to have their authority for issuances based in a power inherently granted to the Executive by the Constitution

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s