Follow up on Quo Warranto as it relates to removing Obama/Soetoro
By: Devvy
May 12, 2011
My column
Wednesday May 11 has brought a ton of email with questions about a legal
process known as Quo Warranto.
I must repeat that I am not an attorney nor have I had any legal
training. However, I can read and I have spent the equivalent of months
in reading time on all the lawsuits filed regarding Obama/Soetoro's
birth certificate and the issue of natural born citizen. There are many
superb legal analysis dealing with the issue of standing for plaintiffs
in those lawsuits. If a person really wants to understand this issue,
you have to spend the time doing the research and evaluating the
submissions by attorneys involved going back to 2008. There just isn't
any other way to understand complicated legal issues.
In my column yesterday, The Conundrum of Removing Obama/Soetoro From
Office, I provided foot notes for very important legal analysis by
lawyers who are experts in constitutional law and the subject matter. I
selected those four as they were germane to that column. Once you read
them, one can fully understand why I used them.
Over the past 2 1/2 years, I have continued to read postings on the
following sites: Leo Donofrio, Mario Apuzzo, Stephen Pidgeon and Dr.
Orly Taitz, as well as filings by Cort Wrotnowski. All attorneys
(except Cort) involved in cases against Barry Soetoro. Many of
their filings in federal court have been posted so we can learn
the arguments and law.
To answer one question that came in via email:
"An interesting point of view regarding Barry as a usurper rather than
just a fraud. It made me wonder if the same method could be used to
remove judges for ‘usurping’ all the power that they have stolen for
themselves over the years."
Many states allow recall as a method to remove judges except for their
state Supreme Court. As for removing judges below the Supreme Court
Level using a Quo Warranto, I'm not sure. Every state has oversight
judicial committees which follow procedures; I guess that one is for
future research.
The Quo Warranto is available at the state and federal level. Activist
federal judges in this country have been running amok on the bench for
decades. The Outlaw Congress has the
legal authority to remove federal judges, but that has been as
rare as a blizzard in Miami. As I have said for at least a dozen years,
one of the biggest failures of Congress after Congress is their refusal
to remove biased, activist judges. Just look at the Ninth "Silly"
Circuit Court. Their decisions are over turned more times than a
gymnast on the mat, yet those same judges continue to sit on the bench
for life while we pay them to make bad decisions higher courts throw
out.
Without the benefit of LexisNexis, I did some more research (I'm sure
there are many lawyers out there who know of more) and found this
interesting case:
Lansing
district judge sends heavyweights to fight AG’s ouster attempt
"Brennan and Nolan want the Michigan Supreme Court to bypass the COA,
which has original jurisdiction of Schuette’s quo warranto motion to
unseat Clarke."
Here in Texas as well
as many states I randomly checked have a quo warranto statute:
Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code - Chapter 66 Quo Warranto
Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Section 66.001 - Grounds
"An action in the nature of quo warranto is available if: (1) a person
usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or executes a franchise or
an office, including an office in a corporation created by the
authority of this state; (2) a public officer does an act or allows an
act that by law causes a forfeiture of his office;"
Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Section 66.002 - Initiation Of
Suit
"(a) If grounds for the remedy exist, the attorney general or the
county or district attorney of the proper county may petition the
district court ..."
Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Section 66.003 - Judgment
"If the person against whom the information is filed is found guilty as
charged, the court: (1) shall enter judgment removing the person from
the ..."
As for removing an individual at the federal level using a quo
warranto, as I pointed out you must be able to qualify under Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell. (Please take the time to read the entire Footnote 1 below.) I would not
qualify. Going back to my previous column, I also believe Dr. Orly
Taitz does not qualify. But, I think former presidential candidates
Chuck Baldwin and Alan Keyes would be able to as they were directly
impacted by Obama/Soetoro's alleged election even though he was
ineligible to appear on the ballot. Baldwin has declined, but I believe
Dr. Keyes still
could as I cited in my last column [emphasis mine]:
"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.)"
While that cite is from California law, I would think it could be argued the same applies at
the federal level. Perhaps Dr. Keyes could sit down with some of the
great attorneys involved in those citizenship cases like Stephen Pidgeon and Mario Apuzzo and discuss going
for a straight federal Quo Warranto. They would be the ones to provide
expert legal advice to Dr. Keyes.
Let's look at Newman again:
Newman v.
United States ex Rel. Frizzell (Emphasis mine)
"An interested person within the meaning of the provisions of the
District Code in regard to quo warranto proceedings is one who has an interest in the office itself
peculiar to himself whether the office be elective or appointive.
"Unless the right to maintain quo warranto proceedings
under the District Code were limited to persons actually and personally
interested, every officer attached to the government at Washington
would be subject to attack by persons having no claim in the office or
interest therein different from that of every other citizen and
taxpayer of the United States.
"As §§ 1538-1540, Code District of Columbia, apply to
actions in quo warranto instituted by authorized parties
against national officers of the United States, they are general laws
of the United States, and not merely local laws of the District of
Columbia, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals of the District
construing those sections is reviewable by this Court under § 250,
Judicial Code."
I know it's easy to
accuse me of being an arm chair quarterback after the fact. A person
who has no legal training, but that isn't the case. In my columns since
early 2009, I have raised the legal issue of this 'thing' called a quo
warranto by reading and learning from Leo Donofrio. As a matter of
fact, there is another lawsuit that has run its course, meaning denied
for hearing by the U.S. Supreme Court, you might find of interest: Rodearmel
v. Clinton. That lawsuit
was filed in January 2009 on
behalf of a 19-year veteran of the Foreign Service Officer under the
State Department, David Rodearmel, a retired Lt. Col. in the U.S. Army
Reserve Judge Advocate General Corp. While I support and respect
Judicial Watch in their pursuit of making sure no one is above the law,
I simply did not understand why they didn't use the Quo Warranto for
Rodearmel's case.
The defendants (mother
government) moved to dismiss and in their filing, there is an important footnote; number 6 at the
bottom of page 25:
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"
Footnotes found in legal
filings are very important. What the one above says is quite plain and
easy enough for even me to understand; let's apply it to Rodearmel. He
is attacking the appointment of an official (Hillary Clinton) which the
court says "will rarely if ever have standing." Pretty straight forward.
Exactly
why the U.S. Supreme Court denied the writ of certiorari: (emphasis below is mine)
"ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is ordered
and adjudged by this Court that the
District Court dismissed for lack of standing..."
And:
"The appeal is therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction."
Does that mean the Supreme Court is saying jurisdiction belongs to the
District Court in Washington, DC, under
a Quo Warranto? It seems to me that is the case if you read
Footnote 6 above:
"observed that a plaintiff who seeks to
directly attack the appointment of an official....the court suggested
that the only proper way to assert such a direct attack is through an
action for a writ of quo warranto..."
Going back to Newman v US ex Rel. Frizzell:
"An
interested person within the meaning of the provisions of the District
Code in regard to quo
warranto proceedings
is one who has an
interest in the office itself peculiar to himself whether the office be
elective or appointive."
Rodearmel most
certainly has an interest in the office (Secretary of State) peculiar
to himself (He is an employee of the State Department and the Secretary
of State is Hillary Clinton) and it is appointive. But, that case is
over and Madame Clinton is still running around the world playing big
shot accomplishing nothing. Another "teflon Don" given a pass by the
U.S. Senate when they confirmed her appointment even though it is in
violation of the emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution - which
many of them knew during the confirmation process.
If you read the links in my previous column and the ones below, I
believe you can understand and possibly agree with me that time and
dismissals points to the Quo Warranto as the only legal remedy to
remove Obama/Soetoro from office; emphasis below are mine:.
§ 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. *End*
There are a lot of very intelligent attorneys working on the
citizenship issue, so I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens
with any remaining legal proceedings still on-going as well as the
firestorm I believe will hit with Dr. Jerome Corsi's new book due to be
shipped May 17, 2011. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the
challenges to get Obama/Soetoro on state ballots in 2012 is probably
going to result in more advanced lawsuits this time around, as well as
possibly running up against any new laws passed by states requiring
citizenship verification for a presidential candidate. Obama/Soetoro's
handlers know it and we know it.
One note in another case:
Hornbeck
v. Salazar: New Court Filings Related To Obama's Usurpation
Including An Affidavit Regarding Obama's New Forged Birth Certificate
"New court filings related to Obama's usurpation including an affidavit
regarding his newly released forged birth certificate. The filings
below were submitted on 5/11/2011 in Louisiana in the Hornbeck v.
Salazar lawsuit which is regarding Obama's order to shut down offshore
oil drilling. If the media did their job we would know what happened at
yesterday's oral arguments for this case.
"UPDATE: Via atty. Taitz; Yesterday I had a an oral argument in
Hornbeck v Salazar. This case deals with the fact that Obama
administration de facto destroyed oil and gas industry in the gulf of
Mexico by placing a moratorium and later, when the federal judge placed
an injunction on the moratorium, Obama regime continued destroying the
oil and gas industry by refusing to grant drilling permits. Most of the
rigs left the region and moved to Brazil. Recently Obama visited Brazil
and congratulated them on their offshore deep water drilling and stated
that US will be their biggest customer, showing him as the the most
antiAmerican president this nation ever saw.
"My argument was that the damages suffered in the case at hand were
rooted in the same problem: antiAmerican usurper in the White House,
who got there by virtue of fraud and use of a forged birth certificate
and invalid Social Security number, issued to another individual in
another state."
This posting is from someone who says he/she attended the oral
arguments in the case above; click
here. It's my understanding the documents scanned
at this link were also submitted in the above case.
Footnote One
Links:
1 - Constitutional Authority of Oregon Judges Challenged Why the "Quo Warranto" issue just will not go away!
2
- NH Rep. Laurence Rappaport speaks with The Post & Email about Eligibility, the Constitution, and State Sovereignty
3
- Judge Arthur J. Gonzalez claims right to commit fraud
4 - THE SCRUBBING OF AMERICA:
How Professor Lawrence Solum Disgraced Himself To Protect Obama’s Eligibility
5 - Jeffrey
Toobin Issued False Legal Statements to Anderson Cooper Regarding Vattel and the 14th Amendment.
