Federal judges sitting on critical cases is inexcusable

By: Devvy
June 29, 2010

"At the establishment of our Constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions nevertheless become law by precedent, sapping by little and little the foundations of the Constitution and working its change by construction before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:486

Millions of Americans are tuned into critical lawsuits that are languishing in the courts. Whenever someone writes criticism of the federal courts, too many in the legal community and clue less pundits all chant the same rhetoric: The courts must be independent.

What the heck does that mean? Independent as in activist judges who make up "constitutional" justification for their putrid decisions, i.e., the Bill Benson income tax cases? Prop. 187 out in California? Don't remember that one?

Prop. 187 was known as the Save Our State (SOS) initiative back in 1994. It was to screen and prohibit criminals (illegal aliens) from stealing the resources of the hard working taxpayers of California for "free" health care, education and welfare. The people of California had enough. Illegal alien means you have no right to be on U.S. soil, period.

But, along comes U.S. District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer, a Jimmy Carter appointee, and says, oh, no. California has no right to deny criminals tens of billions of dollars in freebies from the sweat off the back of taxpayers. According to Pfaelzer, the federal government has exclusive authority over immigration policy.

Here's a clue for Pfaelzer: We're not talking about immigration here, we're talking about thieves who smuggle themselves across our borders (right along with the terrorist cells we know are here and operational). We're talking about individuals who have no constitutional rights because they are not citizens. Prop. 187 wasn't about deporting them, it was about denying those who have NO right to anything in this country from stealing the resources of the State of California. The voters of California lost again to an activist judge who is still on the payroll and has been since 1978.

Had I been in Congress at the time, I would have shouted down the roof to have Pfaelzer impeached. When a federal judge rewards anyone, regardless of country of origin, religion or race, for breaking our laws, they don't deserve to sit on the bench.

All we heard from the "conservatives" in Congress was the usual huffing and puffing. A Republican controlled Congress at the time who had the power to throw her backside off the bench and send a stern message to other activist judges.

Marxist Hillary Clinton is not eligible to be Secretary of State under the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Article I, section 6 of the U.S. Constitution provides:  "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time."

"This provision, known as the "Emoluments" or "Ineligibility" clause is an absolute prohibition and does not allow for any exceptions. The "Ineligibility Clause" is interpreted by most as designed by our Founding Fathers to protect against corruption and ensure the separation of powers among the three branches of government." (Judicial Watch)

"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.

"Judicial Watch's lawsuit is on behalf of Foreign Service Officer and State Department employee David Rodearmel, a retired Lt. Col. in the U.S. Army Reserve Judge Advocate General Corp. See Rodearmel v. Clinton, Case No. 09-171 (U.S. Dist. Ct., Dist. of Col.)). The lawsuit maintains that Mr. Rodearmel cannot serve under Secretary of State Clinton as it would force him to violate an oath he took as a Foreign Service Officer in 1991 to "support and defend" and "bear true faith and allegiance" to the Constitution of the United States. For more information on Mr. Rodearmel, see below.

"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.

"The lawsuit was reviewed on an expedited basis by a special three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia who held that Mr. Rodearmel did not have standing and did not comment on the constitutional questions. Judicial Watch filed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court."

Almost a full YEAR later:

Another five months pass while Comrade Clinton flies around the world playing Secretary of State, the illegitimate Obama/Soetoro administration's lackeys file a Motion to Dismiss. Of course, the Solicitor General is none other than butch dyke, Elena Kagan. Here we are two days from July 2010 waiting for resolution of a lawsuit filed in January 2009. This is an outrage.

How could Rodearmel not have "standing" and what is that elusive thing called standing really mean? Dr. Edwin Vieira explains it quite succinctly:

"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.

"To be sure, no one has yet voted for Obama in the general election. But does that mean that no one in any group smaller than the general pool of America's voters in its entirety has suffered specific harm from Obama’s participation in the electoral process to date? Or will suffer such harm from his continuing participation? What about the Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton as their party's nominee, but were saddled with Obama because other Democrats voted for him even though they could not legally have done so if his lack of eligibility for “the Office of President” had been judicially determined before the Democratic primaries or convention? What about the States that have registered Obama as a legitimate candidate for President, but will have been deceived, perhaps even defrauded, if he is proven not to be “a natural born Citizen”? And as far as the general election is concerned, what about the voters among erstwhile Republicans and Independents who do not want John McCain as President, and therefore will vote for Obama (or any Democrat, for that matter) as “the lesser of two evils,” but who later on may have their votes effectively thrown out, and may have to suffer McCain’s being declared the winner of the election, if Obama’s ineligibility is established? Or what about those voters who made monetary contributions to Obama’s campaign, but may at length discover that their funds went, not only to an ineligible candidate, but to one who knew he was ineligible?

"These obvious harms pale into insignificance, however, compared to the national disaster of having an outright usurper purportedly “elected” as “President.” In this situation, it is downright idiocy to claim, as did the judge in Berg v. Obama, that a “generalized” injury somehow constitutes no judicially cognizable injury at all. Self-evidently, to claim that a “generalized” grievance negates “the existence of an injury in fact” is patently illogical—for if everyone in any group can complain of the same harm of which any one of them can complain, then the existence of some harm cannot be denied; and the more people who can complain of that harm, the greater the aggregate or cumulative seriousness of the injury. The whole may not be greater than the sum of its parts; but it is at least equal to that sum! Moreover, for a judge to rule that no injury redressable in a court of law exists, precisely because everyone in America will be subjected to an individual posing as “the President” but who constitutionally cannot be (and therefore is not) the President, sets America on the course of judicially assisted political suicide. If Obama turns out to be nothing more than an usurper who has fraudulently seized control of the Presidency, not only will the Constitution have been egregiously flouted, but also this whole country could be, likely will be, destroyed as a consequence. And if this country is even credibly threatened with destruction, every American will be harmed—irretrievably, should the threat become actuality—including those who voted or intend to vote for Obama, who are also part of We the People. Therefore, in this situation, any and every American must have “standing” to demand—and must demand, both in judicial fora and in the fora of public opinion—that Obama immediately and conclusively prove himself eligible for “the Office of President.”

"Just a quick update on the Quo Warranto aspect of our representing the Chrysler dealers.  Both Steve Pidgeon and I agree that our clients should exhaust all possible remedies pertaining to the Chrysler bankruptcy before seeking Ex Relator status in the DC District Court.  Filing a petition now in the DC District Court would be premature as we've recently filed a Notice of Appeal with the Southern District of New York.   But we do represent 82 former Chrysler dealers – led by James Anderer – who support a future quo warranto action.

"Furthermore, it's important to note that the bankruptcy action does not allege the Government sought dealer rejections.  Our case relies on the record of the entire bankruptcy proceeding which unequivocally exhibits that – while dealer restructuring was a future goal of New Chrysler – all key witnesses, including Old Chrysler's CEO and Fiat executive Alfredo Altavilla, testified that neither the US Government nor Fiat ever requested dealer restructuring as a condition precedent to the deal closing.  The record is crystal clear on that issue.  Judge Gonzalez changed Alfredo’s answer in his Rejection Opinion by an act of judicial ventriloquism.

"Therefore, the record exhibits that the Government was not directly involved in the decision to reject the Chrysler dealers.  Whereas, the quo warranto will be based on a “but for” argument pertaining to unconstitutional use of TARP funds.  But for the improper use of TARP funds, the Government would not have gifted Chrysler to Fiat and our clients would not have had their businesses ripped from them.

"It's an important legal distinction between the underlying bankruptcy case and the pending quo warranto."

Let's move on to the Kerchner v Obama case; plaintiffs are represented by the very capable, Mario Apuzzo. This is another citizenship case filed on February 9, 2009. By October 1, 2009, Mario was concerned that the judge in the case was sitting on two motions and made inquiry to his royal highness in the black robe; see here. On October 20, 2009, Judge Simandle took the coward's way out and ruled for the Department of Justice; see his Lordship's opinion here.

[Correction: I inadvertently put the wrong date for filing. Charles Kerchner gently let me know my error with this statement:

"The lawsuit was filed in the morning of 20 Jan 2009, inauguration day, before Obama was sworn in.  That is a very important key point for the case when it gets to SCOTUS, if they do have the .... to hear the case and don't punt.  The reason being is that I sued the President-Elect, he was not yet the President. The date you used of Feb 9, 2009 was the date of the 2nd Amendment to the complaint." It is critically important that the filing date was before Obama/Soetoro was sworn in and my apology for getting the date wrong.]

Almost a year to the day Comrade Obama/Soetoro was unlawfully sworn into office, Mario filed the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third District. On June 15, 2010, the court notified Mario there would be no oral arguments on June 29, 2010, which is today. Just submit your briefs. The court appears to have no questions and will make a decision who knows when. According to Mario's June 15, 2010 post: "If the Third Circuit Court affirms the District Court, we will then be filing a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court which will have the final word in any event.."

Oh, that will be great -- if it will even accepted; want to take bets the Supreme Court will simply refuse to accept the case? If they did decide to hear it, will Sonia Sotomayer, deliver a "Latina" opinion. If Kagan is, Almighty God forbid, on the bench, there will be a vote for Comrade Obama without question. Did you read Kagan's college thesis? As my friend, Larry Becraft, a constitutional attorney with 35 years of experience sums it up: "Kagan's Princeton thesis was devoted to a history and praise of communism." But, of course. Kagan will be Obama's man on the court because they share the same Marxist ideology.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg should not be on the bench at all because (1) She is CFR; (2) she believes it's okay to consider foreign laws while deciding OUR constitutional issues and (3) her health. Ginsberg has been on the bench since 1993 (a Clinton appointee), she's 76 years old and has pancreatic cancer. Who knows what drugs she's taking that could cloud her thinking? I doubt that will sit well with some, but this baloney about life time tenure on the bench is hooey. As for Chief Justice John Roberts, he lost all credibility in January 2009 for two reasons: (1) I believe he knows Obama/Soetoro is not and can never be eligible to be president of these united States of America and (2):

"CBS News reported that Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John G. Roberts, Jr., would meet in private with impostor president elect, Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro and so forth, on January 14, 2009:

"At the invitation of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Mr. Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden will pay a protocol visit to the Supreme Court of the United States Wednesday afternoon, the office says....The visit is private; reporters and photographers will not be present."

"I called the media number at the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon. The giddy operator confirmed they expected Obama at any minute!

Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; 2 million copies distributed. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country. She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party.

Visit Devvy's website at: https://devvy.com. You can also sign up for her free email alerts. Devvy's radio show broadcasts Mon-Fri. To listen, go to: https://devvy.com/new_site/rense_show.html

Share

Copyright © 2010 Devvy Kidd
All rights reserved.