need help in research
Posted on | September 19, 2009 | 62 Comments
there is a case being heard by a 3 judge panel in DC. An employee of the State Dep is suing Hillary Clinton, saying he cannot serve under her, since it would violate his oath of office. It has to do with an obscure requirement, where one cannot get an office, where she voted to increase salary for that office. As a senator Hillary voted to increase the salary of sec. of state, therefore she cannot occupy this office. I forgot the last name of the plaintiff. It is a long name, something like Rodomar. Can someone find it. I need to get actual caption and holding on standing.
Comments
62 Responses to “need help in research”
EVIDENCE AGAINST OBAMA — YouTube Indiana Trial of Obama !
Petition the White House to institute Edward Snowden, National Whistleblower – Patriots against Government Corruption Day
OrlyTaitzEsq.comTAITZ REPORT
Official Facebook
IMPORTANT NOTICES – PLEASE READ!
Historic DVD Now Available!
DVD of the historic trial in GA and DVD of a historic testimony in NH, where evidence was provided showing Obama using a forged birth certificate and a stolen social security number. The DVDs are in a beautiful commemorative case with personal autographs from attorney Dr. Orly Taitz $22.50 each +$2.50 for shipping and handling.
---------
To order these DVDs, donate $25.00 by credit card on the website RunOrlyRun.com and email orly.taitz@gmail.com with you name and address. Or send a $25.00 check with your name and address to: Orly Taitz for US Senate 2012, 29839 Santa Margarita ste 100, RSM, CA 92688.
Advertisement / Sponsors
29839 Sta Margarita Pkwy,
Ste 100
Rancho Sta Margarita, CA 92688
orly.taitz @gmail. com
(949) 766-7687
--------------------------------------
Videography by Barbara Rosenfeld
--------------------------------------
Bumper Sticker
$9.99 thru PayPal--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------Orly Taitz Photo Collections
September 19th, 2009 @ 10:22 am
Dr. Orly-from World Net Daily
Judicial Watch, a public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it is pursuing the complaint in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C, on behalf of U.S. Foreign Service Officer and State Department employee David C. Rodearmel
September 19th, 2009 @ 10:27 am
Maybe this can help a bit…. this is a reference to the Constitutional Emoluments Clause of Article I, Sec. 6 which disqualifies Hillary Clinton from serving as Secretary of State
https://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/12/01/is-secretary-of-state-hillary-clinton-unconstitutional-some-say-yes/
I know of the case to which you refer but, don’t recall the details….I am having a “Senior Moment”…all the best!
September 19th, 2009 @ 10:32 am
https://www.judicialwatch.org/rodearmel-v-clinton
September 19th, 2009 @ 10:47 am
go to Google and insert
hillary clinton secretary state lawsuit ineligible
September 19th, 2009 @ 10:54 am
Hi Orly!
Here is some information I was able to find …..
Plaintiff: DAVID C. RODEARMEL
Defendant: HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Case Number: 1:2009cv00171
Filed: January 29, 2009
Court: District Of Columbia District Court
Office: Civil Rights: Other Office
County: 88888
Presiding Judge: Judge Reggie B. Walton
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights – Other Civil Rights
Cause: U.S. Government Defendant
Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant
Jury Demanded By: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
The information above was found at the following web address .. there are docket notes on the site…
https://news.justia.com/cases/featured/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2009cv00171/134928/
With Love , Blessings, and Thanks for ALL that you are doing for US (the United States)!!!!
Paul
September 19th, 2009 @ 11:02 am
Orly
Please comment on the “supposed” letter from CPTN Rhodes. It is going viral on the intertubes and your reputation is being tarnished, slandered and trashed by the minute. You must, I repeat MUST refute this fraudulent Obot forgery ASAP!
September 19th, 2009 @ 11:08 am
U.S. Foreign Service Officer and State Department employee David C. Rodearmel, (Rodearmel v. Clinton, et al., (D. District of Columbia)
https://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2009/jan/judicial-watch-files-lawsuit-challenging-hillary-clinton-appointment-behalf-state-depa
https://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/2009/rodearmel-statement.pdf
THANK YOU, ORLY!!! KEEP UP THE GOOD FIGHT!!! WE ARE WITH YOU!!!
September 19th, 2009 @ 11:12 am
SPECIFIC CASE INFO: https://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/2009/rodearmel-v-clinton-complaint.pdf
U.S. Foreign Service Officer and State Department employee David C. Rodearmel, (Rodearmel v. Clinton, et al., (D. District of Columbia)
https://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2009/jan/judicial-watch-files-lawsuit-challenging-hillary-clinton-appointment-behalf-state-depa
https://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/2009/rodearmel-statement.pdf
THANK YOU ORLY!!! KEEP UP THE GOOD FIGHT!! THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE BEHIND YOU!!
September 19th, 2009 @ 11:13 am
Hi Orly!
Making a second attempt to post a response …
Plaintiff: DAVID C. RODEARMEL
Defendant: HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Case Number: 1:2009cv00171
Filed: January 29, 2009
Court: District Of Columbia District Court
Office: Civil Rights: Other Office
County: 88888
Presiding Judge: Judge Reggie B. Walton
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights – Other Civil Rights
Cause: U.S. Government Defendant
Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant
Jury Demanded By: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
I found the information in a Google Search for “Plaintiffs against Hilliary Clinton” and found the info on this website/page …
https://news.justia.com/cases/featured/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2009cv00171/134928/
Much Love, Blessings and Thanks!
Paul
September 19th, 2009 @ 11:24 am
The information is at http://www.JudicialWatch.org
under the heading: Judicial Watch Continues Legal Battle against Hillary Clinton Appointment
link: https://www.judicialwatch.org/weeklyupdate/2009/35-new-obama-fundraising-scandal#anchor3
September 19th, 2009 @ 11:25 am
RODEARMEL
https://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/2009/rodearmel-v-clinton-complaint.pdf
September 19th, 2009 @ 11:25 am
David Rodearmel v. Clinton
United States District Court For the District of Columbia.
https://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/2009/rodearmel-v-clinton-complaint.pdf
September 19th, 2009 @ 11:26 am
Rodearmel v. Clinton, et al., (D. District of Columbia)
Hillary cannot legally hold the office SOSUS
September 19th, 2009 @ 11:27 am
David Rodearmel v. Clinton
United States District Court For the District of Columbia.
Case number: 1:09-cv-00171
September 19th, 2009 @ 11:33 am
Rodearmel. This came up a few months ago. Apparently when this situation has happened before, the office holder took a reduction in salary for the position and this was accepted. I do not know if a reduction in salary was taken in Hillary’s case.
https://www.judicialwatch.org/rodearmel-v-clinton
September 19th, 2009 @ 11:38 am
This is Rodearmel v. Clinton. Go to (www dot judicialwatch dot org/rodearmel-v-clinton)
September 19th, 2009 @ 11:40 am
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed a lawsuit against newly sworn-in Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on behalf of U.S. Foreign Service Officer and State Department employee David C. Rodearmel, (Rodearmel v. Clinton, et al., (D. District of Columbia)). The lawsuit maintains that Mrs. Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Secretary of State and that Mr. Rodearmel cannot be forced to serve under the former U.S. Senator, as it would violate the 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.
September 19th, 2009 @ 11:41 am
01/29/2009 1 COMPLAINT against HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 4616017928) filed by DAVID C. RODEARMEL. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(td, ) (Entered: 01/30/2009)
https://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.dcd.134928/gov.uscourts.dcd.134928.1.0.pdf
Source: https://ohforgoodnesssake.com/?p=3301
September 19th, 2009 @ 11:42 am
It is reported on the Huffington post that Judicial watch is the counsel. I believe that is Larry Klayman sp? He has been very successful in past actions.
It is located at judicialwatch.org under litigations as Rodearmel v. Clinton
September 19th, 2009 @ 11:43 am
The person you seek is David C. Rodearmel. Your email has the link from judicalwatch.org. I didn’t want to take a chance of posting it here just in case.
September 19th, 2009 @ 11:44 am
Google is your friend, you know.
September 19th, 2009 @ 11:55 am
hillary rodham clinton, david c. rodearmel
Here is the complaint:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/2009/rodearmel-v-clinton-complaint.pdf
Defendant requested extension
http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/documents/2009/RodearmelMotionExtension.pdf
Motion to dismiss granted
http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/documents/2009/HillaryMotiontoDismiss.pdf
Hope this is what you were looking for
September 19th, 2009 @ 12:14 pm
Orly, the name is Rodearmel and I think this is what you need.
Eugene Volokh, February 5, 2009 at 3:27pm] Trackbacks
Judicial Watch Sues Over Hillary Clinton and the Emoluments Clause:
This happened last week, but I was too swamped to blog about it. Here’s the Complaint (in Rodearmel v. Clinton), and the press release:
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed a lawsuit against newly sworn-in Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on behalf of U.S. Foreign Service Officer and State Department employee David C. Rodearmel, (Rodearmel v. Clinton, et al., (D. District of Columbia)). The lawsuit maintains that Mrs. Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Secretary of State and that Mr. Rodearmel cannot be forced to serve under the former U.S. Senator, as it would violate the 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.
Under the “Emoluments” or “Ineligibility” clause of the U.S. Constitution, no member of Congress can be appointed to a civilian position within the U.S. government if the “emoluments” of the position, such as the salary or benefits paid to whoever occupies the office, increased during the term for which the Senator or Representative was elected.
Specifically, 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.” The text of the provision is an absolute prohibition and does not allow for any exceptions.
According to Judicial Watch’s lawsuit, the “emoluments” of the office of U.S. Secretary of State increased 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. The lawsuit notes that Congress attempted to evade this clear constitutional prohibition with a so-called “Saxbe fix” last month, 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, allowing notably 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.
Judicial Watch’s lawsuit, however, points out that the legislation “does not and cannot change the historical fact that the ‘compensation and other emoluments’ of the office of the U.S. Secretary of State increased during Defendant Clinton’s tenure in the U.S. Senate ….” The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is required to give expedited consideration to the lawsuit.
“This historic legal challenge should remind politicians of both parties that the U.S. Constitution is not to be trifled with,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Mrs. Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as the U.S. Secretary of State until at least 2013, when her second term in the U.S. Senate expires. We hope the courts will put a stop to these end runs around the Constitution and affirm the rule of law.”
For our earlier posts on the subject, see here; as I noted there, I’m tentatively inclined to think that the Clinton appointment doesn’t violate the Emoluments Clause, but I thought I’d link to the arguments of those who take the contrary view (as I also had earlier, quoting Prof. Michael Stokes Paulsen).
September 19th, 2009 @ 12:14 pm
Orly, have you heard of Judicial Watch? It’s a site you should check daily. JW does have the information you seek. In fact, it is Judicial Watch that initiated the lawsuit against Hillary.
The name of the State Department’s Foreign Service officer is David Rodearmel.
ht tp://w ww.judicialwatch.org/news/2009/sep/september-14-2009-hearing-week-lawsuit-challenging-hillary-clintons-constitutional-eli
There are megatons of information at the above URL and at the one below, probably all the basic data you need to know about this suit.
ht tp://w ww.judicialwatch.org/rodearmel-v-clinton
Orly, perhaps Judicial Watch will welcome your input. Please do contact them!
In the past, JW had several investigations, and/or lawsuits, against the Clintons and others in Bill’s administration.
Don’t get sidetracked at JW’s site, but it could be a fertile field for you.
September 19th, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
I know the case was filed by Judicial Watch. I’ll check their site right now for details.
September 19th, 2009 @ 12:23 pm
Orly, some blogs are discussing two rumors . . . or facts? The first is that Lucas Smith has thrown you under the bus and the second is that Connie Rhodes did same. Could you please comment on their purported statements? Thanks.
September 19th, 2009 @ 12:24 pm
Orly, you can see the legal document at this website:
https://www.judicialwatch.org/document/2009/rodearmel-v-clinton-complaint.pdf
September 19th, 2009 @ 12:25 pm
There’s a reference to this case in Huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/21/justice-dept etc
Name is David Rodearmel. You go, Orly!
September 19th, 2009 @ 12:27 pm
Orly,
The actual document is posted here:
https://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/2009/rodearmel-v-clinton-complaint.pdf
September 19th, 2009 @ 12:32 pm
The following was taken right from Judicial Watch’s narrative on the case:
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.
September 19th, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
Sent you an email with details & links to Judicial Watch web site where there are discussions of this case (Rodearmel v Clinton) and a very brief history of this skirting of the Constitution; a process known as the “Saxbe fix”. It is a sad commentary on the state of our Republic when legislators view the Constitution as something they must work around rather than follow.
Leon Brozyna
CW2, USA (Ret)
September 19th, 2009 @ 12:43 pm
https://www.handelonthelaw.com/home/article_details.aspx?Article=77
Apparently the senate revoked the increased salary so that Hillary can take it
September 19th, 2009 @ 12:44 pm
Dr. Taitz,
The case which you referred to is listed on Judicial Watch’s website is (Rodearmel v. Clinton, et al., (D. District of Columbia)). I hope this helps with your search. Good luck, and God Bless you!
Taylor
September 19th, 2009 @ 12:45 pm
From Huffington Posts crappy web site:
A three-judge panel is hearing a case Wednesday morning that challenges Hillary Clinton’s “constitutional eligibility” to serve as the government’s Secretary of State. The hearing comes as a result of a lawsuit filed by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch on behalf of Foreign Service Officer and State Department employee David Rodearmel.
September 19th, 2009 @ 12:55 pm
See:
Rodearmel v. Clinton
https://www.judicialwatch.org/rodearmel-v-clinton
September 19th, 2009 @ 12:58 pm
Since we can’t post a link, here is the article at pr-inside.com
“WASHINGTON, DC — (Marketwire) — 09/14/09 — Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that a lawsuit challenging the constitutional eligibility of Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State (Rodearmel v. Clinton, et al., (D.
District of Columbia)) will be heard by a special three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia:
Date: Wednesday, September 16
Time: 9:30 AM ET
Location: Courtroom 22A
The E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse
333 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
At issue is Hillary Clinton’s constitutional ineligibility to serve as Secretary of State. 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, limit the size of government, and ensure the separation of powers among the three branches of government.
On January 29, 2009, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit on the grounds that Mrs. Clinton 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 resignation.
The Judicial Watch lawsuit is on behalf of Foreign Service Officer and State Department employee David Rodearmel. 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.
“Our goal is to vindicate the U.S. Constitution,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The Constitution clearly prohibits Hillary Clinton from serving as Secretary of State until 2013. We hope the court puts a stop to this attempt to do an end-run around the Constitution in the name of political expediency.””
September 19th, 2009 @ 1:06 pm
Here is the website that may be of some help.
https://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/2009/rodearmel-v-clinton-complaint.pdf
September 19th, 2009 @ 1:08 pm
The case is Rodearmel v. Clinton, et al. The hearing is Wednesday at 9:30 AM in DC. The case is about the US Constitution Article I Section 6. See http://www.JudicialWatch.com for more details.
September 19th, 2009 @ 1:24 pm
The name is DAVID C. RODEARMEL, this is the link to the actual court document. From judicial watch. org
https://www.judicialwatch.org/files/documents/2009/Rodearmel-OppMotionSJ.pdf
September 19th, 2009 @ 1:27 pm
Judicial Watch Files Lawsuit Challenging Hillary Clinton Appointment on Behalf of State Department Foreign Service Officer
Suit Claims Hillary Clinton Constitutionally Ineligible to Serve as Secretary of State
Highlighted Links
Judicial WatchWASHINGTON, DC–(Marketwire – January 29, 2009) – Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed a lawsuit against newly sworn-in Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on behalf of U.S. Foreign Service Officer and State Department employee David C. Rodearmel, (Rodearmel v. Clinton, et al., (D. District of Columbia)). The lawsuit maintains that Mrs. Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Secretary of State and that Mr. Rodearmel cannot be forced to serve under the former U.S. Senator, as it would violate the 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.
Under the “Emoluments” or “Ineligibility” clause of the U.S. Constitution, no member of Congress can be appointed to a civilian position within the U.S. government if the “emoluments” of the position, such as the salary or benefits paid to whoever occupies the office, increased during the term for which the Senator or Representative was elected.
Specifically, 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.” The text of the provision is an absolute prohibition and does not allow for any exceptions.
According to Judicial Watch’s lawsuit, the “emoluments” of the office of U.S. Secretary of State increased 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. The lawsuit notes that Congress attempted to evade this clear constitutional prohibition with a so-called “Saxbe fix” last month, 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, allowing notably 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.
Judicial Watch’s lawsuit, however, points out that the legislation “does not and cannot change the historical fact that the ‘compensation and other emoluments’ of the office of the U.S. Secretary of State increased during Defendant Clinton’s tenure in the U.S. Senate…” The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is required to give expedited consideration to the lawsuit.
“This historic legal challenge should remind politicians of both parties that the U.S. Constitution is not to be trifled with,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Mrs. Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as the U.S. Secretary of State until at least 2013, when her second term in the U.S. Senate expires. We hope the courts will put a stop to these end runs around the Constitution and affirm the rule of law.”
To read a copy of the lawsuit against Hillary Clinton, visit http://www.judicialwatch.org.
Contact:
Jill Farrell
(202) 646-5172 ext 305 Digg this Bookmark with del.icio.us Add to Newsvine
September 19th, 2009 @ 1:28 pm
https://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2009/sep/september-14-2009-hearing-week-lawsuit-challenging-hillary-clintons-constitutional-eli
Please forgive me is this is a double post:
Challenge Filed on Behalf of State Department Foreign Service officer — Court Hearing Set for September 16, 2009
Contact Information:
Press Office 202-646-5172, ext 305
Washington, DC — September 14, 2009
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that a lawsuit challenging the constitutional eligibility of Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State (Rodearmel v. Clinton, et al., (D. District of Columbia)) will be heard by a special three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia:
Date: Wednesday, September 16
Time: 9:30 AM ET
Location: Courtroom 22A
The E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse
333 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
At issue is Hillary Clinton’s constitutional ineligibility to serve as Secretary of State. 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, limit the size of government, and ensure the separation of powers among the three branches of government.
On January 29, 2009, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit on the grounds that Mrs. Clinton 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 resignation.
The Judicial Watch lawsuit is on behalf of Foreign Service Officer and State Department employee David Rodearmel. 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.
“Our goal is to vindicate the U.S. Constitution,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The Constitution clearly prohibits Hillary Clinton from serving as Secretary of State until 2013. We hope the court puts a stop to this attempt to do an end-run around the Constitution in the name of political expediency.”
Related Documents
Statement by Plaintiff David C. Rodearmel and Background Information
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
Frequently Asked Questions
Good luck, Orly.
September 19th, 2009 @ 1:35 pm
Rodearmel v. Clinton
September 19th, 2009 @ 1:37 pm
judicialwatch.org has all the info on this case.
September 19th, 2009 @ 1:48 pm
The name you were looking for is: David Rodearmel and his address is: 912 Strawberry CT, Purcellville, VA 20132
I sent you a pdf file to your yahoo email site. It has the court case file attached to the email.
Here is one article describing the case. Check your email for court case file.
https://www.judicialwatch.org/rodearmel-v-clinton
September 19th, 2009 @ 1:58 pm
Orly – Apparently it’s a case being pursued by Judicial Watch
https://www.judicialwatch.org
Rodearmel v. Clinton, et al.
September 19th, 2009 @ 2:00 pm
Hello Mrs Taitz,
The name of the plaintif is “Rodearmel”. Please consult the following link for more details:
https://www.judicialwatch.org/rodearmel-v-clinton
Bye Mrs Taitz. My heart is with you.
September 19th, 2009 @ 2:00 pm
Rodearmel
Legal documents organized here:
https://www.judicialwatch.org/rodearmel-v-clinton
September 19th, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
Orly,
Here is the case you need:
https://www.judicialwatch.org/rodearmel-v-clinton
Rodearmel has standing because he’s an employee of the State Department. This also applies in your other cases should any of your plaintiffs be under orders and/or employment of any branch of the government in control of the office of the President.
Good luck in your research.
September 19th, 2009 @ 2:05 pm
A page describing the problem:
https://bucknakedpolitics.typepad.com/buck_naked_politics/2008/11/is-hillary-barred-from-becoming-secretary-of-state.html
Here’s more info:
https://lists.powerblogs.com/pipermail/volokh/2009-February/015871.html
ANd finally, the plaintiff’s name:
on behalf of U.S. Foreign Service Officer and State
Department employee David C. Rodearmel, (Rodearmel v. Clinton, et
al., (D. District of Columbia)).
September 19th, 2009 @ 2:17 pm
The case you’re looking for is Rodearmel vs Clinton
https://www.judicialwatch.org/rodearmel-v-clinton
September 19th, 2009 @ 2:26 pm
here is the link for the lawsuit
https://www.rightsidenews.com/200902013519/culture-wars/hillary-clinton-ineligible-to-serve-as-secretary-of-state-lawsuit-filed.html
September 19th, 2009 @ 2:31 pm
https://www.judicialwatch.org/rodearmel-v-clinton
September 19th, 2009 @ 2:47 pm
Found on Judicial Watch Site:
https://www.judicialwatch.org/rodearmel-v-clinton
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 increased 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.
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 will be reviewed on an expedited basis by a special three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Under applicable law, any appeal will go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Legal Documents
* Initial Complaint – January 29, 2009
* Defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time – April 16, 2009
* Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss — May 20, 2009
* Exhibit 1 to the Motion to Dismiss (Office of Legal Counsel Memorandum dated May 20, 2009)
* Exhibit 2 to the Motion to Dismiss (Office of Legal Counsel Memorandum dated August 24, 1987)
* Opposition to Motion to Dismiss and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment — July 2, 2009
* Reply to Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment — August 20, 2009
Press Releases
* Hearing This Week in Lawsuit Challenging Hillary Clinton’s Constitutional Eligibility for Secretary of State – September 14, 2009
* Judicial Watch Asks Court to Declare Hillary Clinton Constitutionally Ineligible to Serve as Secretary of State – July 8, 2009
* Judicial Watch Files Lawsuit Challenging Hillary Clinton Appointment on Behalf of State Department Foreign Service Officer – January 29, 2009
Other Documents
* Statement By Plaintiff David C. Rodearmel And Background Information
* Frequently Asked Questions
Videos
* Educational Panel: Hillary Clinton Constitutionally Ineligible to be Secretary of State? – December 18, 2008
o Download the full video (Quicktime)
o Watch it on youTube, part 1
o Watch it on youTube, part 2
o Watch it on youTube, part 3
o Watch it on youTube, part 4
o Watch it on youTube, part 5
o Watch it on youTube, part 6
o Watch it on youTube, part 7
o Watch it on youTube, part 8
September 19th, 2009 @ 3:24 pm
Orly, I have been following your website right along and hope and pray everything goes well!!! Orly please check out Leo Dronofrio website Natural Born Citizen he talks about your limited discovery on the Barnett case it maybe very helpful to you.
September 19th, 2009 @ 3:43 pm
This was brought up when the Uber Goober submitted her name for confirmation. The general opinion, at that time, was that she could hold the position but at the old salary. Dunno what the final decision was.
September 19th, 2009 @ 5:45 pm
Dear Lady Liberty, please focus your attention on Obama. I don’t doubt you could take on the world, but we need you to tackle the usurper! You’re doing an excellent job of that. But with everyone and his brother trying to stop you, it is just my gut feeling that you should leave this until after Obama is OUT of the White House.
I am a Hillary supporter, but, as a PUMA, I put country before party. If there is no problem with this issue, she will prevail. My main concern now, though, is that we get the Kenyan Marxist who is tearing the United States of America apart as far away from Washington DC as we can – please!
You have my undying support.
September 19th, 2009 @ 7:11 pm
Formality case, will be rejected. The solution here (first put in place for Nixon) is to reduce her pay to a level before the law passed.
September 19th, 2009 @ 8:25 pm
I thought I read months ago that Bush had signed an EO reducing the Sec. of State salary back down – negating the increase – so Hillary could be chosen. I believe it was in the Federal Register or wherever EO’s are recorded. He is complicit in this fraud, also.
September 19th, 2009 @ 11:46 pm
I am using that case for staning in my case
September 20th, 2009 @ 12:54 am
I thought she agreed to the salary reduction before she was appointed. Lots of talk about it then.
September 20th, 2009 @ 5:34 am
Our State Constitution here in WV has the same clause. A few years ago, the outgoing Governor Underwood appointed the Speaker of the House, Bob Kiss, to a Supreme Court vacancy. It was challenged and the court ruled he was NOT allowed to take the office.
September 21st, 2009 @ 4:56 pm
President Nixon had the same challenge with one of his cabinet members. So ” Tricky Dick ” had that member accept the lower salary.
It worked at the time and I would assume that Hillary will use that as an argument in her case.