Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: pogo101
Pretty sure a quo warranto action only (validly) may be maintained by someone who is asserting HE should hold the office instead. Taitz isn't asserting that.

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.

65 posted on 01/26/2010 10:43:26 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (Integrity, Honesty, Character, & Loyalty still matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies ]


To: BuckeyeTexan

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.


70 posted on 01/26/2010 11:03:14 AM PST by pogo101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson