“So far there has been no plaintiff’s case on-point that survived pre-trail motions in federal court...so no trial and no witnesses or evidence will be entered into a trial record on the merits.”
Not true! A sitting judge appointed by Obama can be challenged and objected to because they were appointed by a usurper. Appointments of a usurper are a violation of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. Anyone appointed by Obama can be objected to if they are scheduled to adjudicate a case if the defendant/respondent objects before trial. An objection after trial is pointless.
The defendant must merely object before trial that Obama’s appointments are unconstitutional because he is a usurper who naturalized as a U.S. Citizen during his lifetime. The Obama appointee must sustain the objection and recuse or schedule a hearing to determine if the allegation has merit. The defendant does not have to provide proof of allegation to make the objection.
Obama won’t be able to hide behind national security to prevent his immigration documents from seeing the light of day. If Obama and his appointees lie under oath and state the immigration records cannot be found or do not exist, a secondary source witness can be called to impeach the testimony of the appointees. Corroborating evidence can be obtained from Obama’s Form SS-5, application for SSN and NUMIDENT file. Certainly, Obama won’t testify his SSA records can’t be found.
The De Facto Officer Doctrine protects the government from chaos and indemnifies the government, not Obama.
“The defendant must merely object before trial that Obama’s appointments are unconstitutional because he is a usurper who naturalized as a U.S. Citizen during his lifetime.”
Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence. (look it up)
Um...one small nit: Isn’t Obama of one of his executive branch minions the defendant? Sooo...he would not be objection to his own appointment of the trail judge...but wait...there is no hope of any trial!