Posted on 01/25/2010 5:56:50 PM PST by rxsid
I know perfectly well what the purpose of quo warranto is. I think you misread my point. My point was about who (in the courts’ view) has, and doesn’t have, standing to assert such an action. Not just anyone who thinks that the wrong person holds an office can go into court and have his challenge heard.
Your reply doesn’t address that point, let alone cite any authority.
Courts have repeatedly held that Taitz lacks standing to assert her array of claims, including her quo warranto claim. See, e.g., Barnett v. Obama, ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 2009 WL 3861788 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2009) (Orly Taitz among plaintiffs) (also rejecting quo warranto based on choice of improper court).
Mario Appuzzo has QW as part of his pleadings in Kerchner v Obama. I think Gary Kreep is also going for QW. Both these attorneys are at the appeal level. We should have court rulings before the November elections on these. Then, there is David Hemenway who picked up Phillip Berg's lawsuit. One or more of these attorney's will break through this year.
Orly Taitz is being her own special prosecutor after battling the Holder/Obama Justice Department for a year. She has been financially damaged. I think she should have standing to go after Obama by now.
Any financial damage was self inflicted. Why would that gain her standing to sue?
Alternate caption: "What the heck is a 'fumes emissions hose?'"
Your comment implied that only someone who believes that he/she should hold an executive branch office instead of a usurper may file a quo warranto. As I said, that is incorrect.
I know perfectly well what the purpose of quo warranto is. I think you misread my point. My point was about who (in the courts' view) has, and doesn't have, standing to assert such an action. Not just anyone who thinks that the wrong person holds an office can go into court and have his challenge heard.
Apparently, you don't. I didn't misread anything. You said nothing about standing. Anyone can petition the U.S. Attorney in D.C. or the U.S. Attorney General to ask that the U.S. file a quo warranto. If either of those refuse to do so, then there are two types of plaintiffs who may petition the Court for leave to file the quo warranto themselves in the name of the U.S. The first is an "interested person" and the second is an "interested third party/person." The former requires standing. The latter may not but is unlikely to be granted leave.
Your reply doesn't address that point, let alone cite any authority.
Had you made a point regarding standing, I'd have addressed it.
Courts have repeatedly held that Taitz lacks standing to assert her array of claims, including her quo warranto claim.
The Court has ruled that Taitz's clients don't have standing and/or that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court has been correct in every case.
Mario Appuzzo has QW as part of his pleadings in Kerchner v Obama. I think Gary Kreep is also going for QW. Both these attorneys are at the appeal level. We should have court rulings before the November elections on these. Then, there is David Hemenway who picked up Phillip Berg's lawsuit. One or more of these attorney's will break through this year.
Orly Taitz is being her own special prosecutor after battling the Holder/Obama Justice Department for a year. She has been financially damaged. I think she should have standing to go after Obama by now.
---------------------------------
I was unaware that Apuzzo had actually filed a QW.
And regarding the HOLLISTER v SOETORO case, I have the most faith that attorney Hemenway will get the furthest...at this point.
What is the status on her $20,000.00 fine, has she paid it, is it being disputed?
I disagree with you. I think that in regard to “From birth and until now Mr. Obama had citizenship of and allegiance to three other nations: Great Britain, Kenya and Indonesia,” he had allegiance to Britain because he was born in Vancouver, British Columbia before his mother started school in Washington. Yes, the tabloid The Globe reported it; but as far as I am concerned they have more credibility than the state-run media, anyway. I don’t think the state of Hawaii can produce a birth certificate they never even had, because the real thing is probably housed in Vancouver, BC. See more at http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/10/how-could-stanl.html.
Worshipping the ground she walks on???
That is your interpretation.
IMO, admiration is not worship.
At least she is doing something, and keeping it in the forefront for public knowledge.
She is filing, following, pursueing.
Others are not.
One wonders that so many, arm chair quarterback, and criticize, yet do nothing on their own. Yet, have the temerity to call her incompetent.
Just sayin...
Wrong. A lot of sound and fury there, signifying nothing.
Go back and read my original comment. I was focusing on who validly may maintain a quo warranto action. That is what standing IS: the legal authority to maintain an action. You didn’t know this, it seems.
And therefore, I have been wasting my time with you. Won’t waste any more. We agree on your final point, but you’re obviously too silly a person to admit, “Oh, I misread what you said about the right to maintain an action, and didn’t immediately get that you were talking about standing,” even though it’s the very definition of standing.
Goodbye.
Barry being born in Vancouver BC is indeed intreaging, but it's an unproven theory. What is court documented (via the divorce record) is that Obama Sr. was his legal father. Barry JR. got his British citizenship at birth by way of his father.
And yes, he has not doubt subsequently had Indonesian citizenship as well.
What I'm talking about is "Natural Born Citizen." His Indonesian citizenship would have nothing to do with his born with citizenship.
Taitz hired South Carolina attorney Jonathan Levy to appeal Judge Land’s sanctions with the 11th Circuit. The U.S. Attorney in Georgia is waiting for the appeal process to be complete before he attempts to collect the $20k.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/orly_taitz_opening_salvo_in_birther_appeal.php
That last word "instead" destroys your entire argument about your implications of the first word "maintained."
That is what standing IS: the legal authority to maintain an action.
Standing is not a legal authority. It's a legal basis (a "right".) You didn't know this, it seems.
Goodbye
Well, bye now.
Standing should never be an issue when it comes to Quo Warranto challenges or the proceeding as some here may try to mislead the readers. The public at large would have standing since the public official holding office represents the public, which should be obvious to everyone.
Leo points out that the statute not only applies to eligibility, but also to the unlawful "exercise" of authority via public office. At the common law, quo warranto was not only used to challenge usurpation of office but also to challenge illegal government actions and the current quo warranto statute was written as a catch all in this regard. So Leo and Steve will bring two counts under 3501, eligibility and illegal use of Government funds. The second count refers to the use of TARP funds to facilitate the Chrysler Bankruptcy sale.Donofrio and Pidgeon also plan a third quo warranto count based upon 16-3521(2) of the quo warranto statute.
A quo warranto may be issued from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in the name of the District of Columbia against -
...
(2) one or more persons who act as a corporation within the District of Columbia without being duly authorized, or exercise within the District of Columbia corporate rights, privileges, or franchises not granted them by law in force in the District of Columbia.
In other words, the actions taken by the government were an illegal exercise of corporate authority. The government has acted as a political agent (acting as board of directors) against corporations using taxpayer money to restructure the auto industry under their vision.
In the posting, Mr. Donofrio emphasizes that he and Mr. Pidgeon represent the best interests of the dealers, leaving open the possibility of a settlement.
If the dealers' franchises are not fully restored or a settlement agreed to by the parties, Leo will file the quo warranto.
Standing is required for a portion of the quo warranto statue. See post #75 for more info on the three counts that Donofrio intends to file.
statue = statute
I never thought I would say this, but she needs to start having sex with Charles Lincoln III again. When he was writing her pleadings, they were awful, but were at least somewhat on point and bordering on competence.
This is - without question - the single worst-written filing in the history of the American Judicial System.
LOL
See post #75 for an update on Donofrio’s quo warranto.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.