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.
