The conundrum of removing Obama/Soetoro from office
May 11, 2011
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
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
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.
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
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)."
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."
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  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
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]"
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
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.
Must Step Up Now or Stand Down
Warranto by Leo Donofrio
 The Federal Quo
Warranto Statute Is The Only Constitutional Means
of Removing a Sitting President Other Than Impeachment
 In the
Shadow of Nemesis