Rodearmel v Clinton (usurper) case dismissed

By: Devvy
November 22, 2009

Periodically I have given updates on a case I've followed closely since late January (2009) when it was filed: Rodearmel v Clinton.

This case was filed to remove another usurper (besides Comrade Obama/Soetoro) from office: Marxist Hillary Clinton. There is no doubt in my mind the legal issues raised by Judicial Watch are 100% on point. I have noted my concerns in past columns that the District Court might dismiss the case because of standing and the quo warranto process:

"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"

<>On October 29, 2009, the same day Barnett v Obama was dismissed by the Federal Court in Santa Ana, California , so, too was Rodearmel. Dang. Sure do get tired of hearing "dismissed."

As with so many of the citizenship cases, the Rodearmel decision had a familiar refrain: Standing, lack of any harm (immediate or imminent) brought to Mr. Rodearmel as yet, and jurisdiction. See page 9 of the decision. Judicial Watch has filed the Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court; the details can be read here.

Regarding the dismissal of Kerncher v Obama, we see the same lanaguage as most of the other cases: standing and whether the plaintiffs have or will be harmed by the usurper sitting in the White House. (See page 7 7) In an interview following the dismissal: "The lawyer (Apuzzo) said it is important that the court did not rule Obama was born in Hawaii, nor did it rule that the claim was frivolous. It simply said the case was dismissed because of a jurisdiction issue. "By the court finding that plaintiffs do not have standing and that their claims present a political question, the court was able to avoid having to address the underlying merits of the Kerchner case."

The standing issue is nothing more than evasion of justice in my opinion. Dr. Edwin Vieira summed it up quite succinclty in a column he wrote over a year ago:

"The judge in Berg v. Obama dismissed the case, not because Obama has actually proven that he is eligible for “the Office of President,” but instead because, simply as a voter, Berg supposedly lacks “standing” to challenge Obama’s eligibility:

regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. * ** [A] candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.

"This pronouncement does not rise to the level of hogwash.

"First, the Constitution mandates that “[t]he judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution” (Article III, Section 2, Clause 1). Berg’s suit plainly “aris[es] under th[e] Constitution,” in the sense of raising a critical constitutional issue. So the only question is whether his suit is a constitutional “Case[ ].”

"The present judicial test for whether a litigant’s claim constitutes a constitutional “Case[ ]” comes under the rubric of “standing”— a litigant with “standing” may proceed; one without “standing” may not. “Standing,” however, is not a term found anywhere in the Constitution. Neither are the specifics of the doctrine of “standing,” as they have been elaborated in judicial decision after judicial decision, to be found there. Rather, the test for “standing” is almost entirely a judicial invention.

"True enough, the test for “standing” is not as ridiculous as the judiciary’s so-called “compelling governmental interest test,” which licenses public officials to abridge individuals’ constitutional rights and thereby exercise powers the Constitution withholds from those officials, which has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution, and which is actually anti-constitutional.

"Neither is the doctrine of “standing” as abusive as the “immunities” judges have cut from whole cloth for public officials who violate their constitutional “Oath[s] or Affirmation[s], to support this Constitution” (Article VI, Clause 3)—in the face of the Constitution’s explicit limitation on official immunities (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). For the Constitution does require that a litigant must present a true “Case[ ].”

"Yet, because the test for “standing” is largely a contrivance of all-too-fallible men and women, its specifics can be changed as easily as they were adopted, when they are found to be faulty. And they must be changed if the consequences of judicial ignorance, inertia, and inaction are not to endanger America’s constitutional form of government. Which is precisely the situation here, inasmuch as the purported “election” of Obama as President, notwithstanding his ineligibility for that office, not only will render illegitimate the Executive Branch of the General Government, but also will render impotent its Legislative Branch (as explained below).

"Second, the notion upon which the judge in Berg v. Obama fastened—namely, that Berg’s “grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact,” i.e., if everyone is injured or potentially injured then no one has “standing”—is absurd on its face."

Mario Apuzzo, who represents Charles Kercher and the other plaintiffs has filed an appeal; coverage here and appeal here.

There has been a great deal of discussion regarding a Quo Warranto action. Much email has come asking me if Orly Taitz has filed one for any of her cases. As for an actual filing with the District Court in Washington, DC., I can only find one document. It is 99 pages and I read the whole thing. While some might get angry at me for saying it, what could be said in two pages, was drowned out by massive speculation, no evidence and a lot of confusion. But, you can make up your own mind; document here. Maybe it was just a work in progress as I can't tell if it was ever formally filed or not.

Charles Kerchner has a web site which has copies of the full pages ads being run in the Washington Times; the new one is excellent.

As I have said in other columns, attorneys who want to achieve the same results might disagree with how to get there. It doesn't mean they don't like each other, it just means a difference of opinion.

Mario Apuzzo has a discussion on his site regarding the Quo Warranto and how it differs with how Leo Donofrio would proceed. It can be read here. While a bit lengthy, I hope you can take the time to read Mario's explanation. It is a learning experience for most of us, but invaluable so we can have some understanding of these complex legal procedures.

Leo has a number of posts to his web site I recommend you also read. I've listed them out here because sometimes it's hard to go back and find them on these blogs.....

1 - “Thank you.” From Leo Donofrio to the Indiana Court of Appeals

2 - Indiana Court Of Appeals Trips Over Natural Born Citizen Issue

3 - Hawaii Update: DoH Confirms They Maintain A Birth Record
For Obama Dated From August 1961

4 - Judge Carter: “The writ of quo warranto must be brought
within the District of Columbia because President Obama
holds office within that district.”

5 - President Obama Admitted He Was “Kenyan-Born”..."If Obama is eligible to be President then so are the sons of Osama Bin Laden, Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad if they impregnate an American woman who gives birth on US soil. The very notion is obscene. Such a person might be a US citizen under current policy, but their citizenship is not natural born and they cannot be President and Commander In Chief of the US armed forces."

6 - Hawaii Attorney General Invokes Attorney Client Privilege
Concerning DoH “Natural-Born Citizen”
Press Release of July 27, 2009

7 - SCOTUS: No Private Right To Quo Warranto

8 - Quo Warranto For “Interested Persons”