![”Image](http://i25.tinypic.com/2lctste.jpg";)
Posted on 07/03/2008 4:35:19 PM PDT by SE Mom
bkmrk
Very interesting find, Starwise! I read a bit further in “Dreams” from your link. There’s a reference to Stanley Ann seeing the movie “Black Orpheus” in Chicago in what would be the summer of 1958 - right?
Here’s the kicker - the U.S. release date for “Black Orpheus” (according to Wikipedia) was: December 21, 1959.
Oh ... how ‘bout that?
Perhaps there can be some little spot
of sanity, away from the maddening mobs,
here for Donofrio’s latest:
~~~~~~~
Judge Carter Does Not Have Subject Matter Jurisdiction For Quo Warranto In Barnett v. Obama.
###
Judge Carter must dismiss the quo warranto aspect of the case (essentially the entire case) because his court has no subject matter jurisdiction to hear a quo warranto complaint pertaining to a US national officer located in the District of Columbia.
If Judge Carter takes the case, it will be in direct contradiction to a clear federal statute as well as existing US Court of Appeals precedent.
The federal quo warranto statute at 16-3501:
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.
As you can see, the statute is very specific. The office of President is in the District of Columbia. The District Court for the District of Columbia is the only court which has the authority to hear a quo warranto complaint to remove a US national office holder from the District of Columbia .
The following Court of Appeals decision is directly on point. I am baffled that the DOJ failed to cite the case (originally discussed as follows in Part 3 of my Quo Warranto legal brief):
***
In UNITED STATES of America ex rel. STATE OF WISCONSIN v. FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, 248 F.2d 804 (1957), the US court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, provided an on point discussion of quo warranto in the district courts:
There have been submitted to this court only two instances in which original quo warranto jurisdiction has been specifically conferred upon federal district courts. The revised statutes of 1878 vested jurisdiction in these courts of proceedings brought by the United States Attorney for the removal of persons holding office contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment. Rev.Stat., Sections 563(14), 626(14), (1786).
This Act was repealed in the Judicial Code of 1911, 36 Stat. 1168. In 1901, Congress specifically authorized the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to issue quo warranto in the name of the United States. Act of March 3, 1901, 31 Stat. 1419, Title 16, Section 1601 of the D.C. Code (1940).
However, this grant is strictly limited and is confined solely to situations involving franchises and public offices held within the District of Columbia. There is no other specific statutory provision vesting original jurisdiction in the district courts in quo warranto actions. (Emphasis added.)
***
The first statute mentioned above dealt specifically with quo warranto actions which arose out of 14th amendment issues where citizens were refused the right to vote. Under this statute, all US district courts could hear quo warranto cases.
But this statute was repealed in 1911 and so the only remaining statute which controls quo warranto is the District of Columbia Code. And all actions brought thereunder must be brought in the District Court for the District of Columbia.
It comes as quite a shock to me that the DOJ did not cite this case in its motion to dismiss. That’s just shabby lawyering right there. Why argue against quo warranto and fail to cite the very case which is directly on point? It seems a bit too strange.
Judge Carter should note that the District Court’s decision to entertain the quo warranto in that case was reversed:
“No instance is known of the use of writ of quo warranto in a district court of the United States other than the District Court of the District of Columbia.” Cyc. of Federal Procedure, 2d Ed., Sec. 7098…It follows that the district court in this case should have dismissed the action for want of jurisdiction instead of determining it upon the merits. The judgment dismissing the action is therefore modified so as to show that the case was dismissed for want of jurisdiction…”
How did the DOJ miss the one case which makes dismissal a slam dunk? Are they trying to ensure the case is heard on the merits?
The only answer I can think of is that the DOJ knows more cases are coming down the pike, some of which will be brought by very skilled attorneys with plaintiffs who have much stronger cases. If the Barnett (sic) case gets heard on the merits and it loses, that sets a very bad precedent for these future cases. If the Barnett case is dismissed on subject matter jurisdiction no issues of res judicata apply and future cases won’t be jeopardized.
I would be very suspicious if this case gets past the motion to dismiss. It’s hard to believe the entire Department of Justice simply missed the case I cited above. It doesn’t seem plausible.
bump for later retrieval.
The rational to have only the DC Federal Court for only DC official critters is out of date... as you can see by the old dates.
If it was for technical, logistical, or localized reasons, that would not hold true today when the reasoning was made for DC only.
Because with modern telecommunication, the Internet, and fast contemporary travel makes the DC court quo warranto thinking obsolete.
Not only that, but his ACTUAL address, his HOME address is still in Chicago, Illinois. He is only temporarily, (I hope,) SERVING in DC.
Not hard to believe, if it is meant to be set up for failure, before true discovery is allowed.
Leo is right I am afraid. THe DOJ lawyers WANT this case drug out. Namely because it keeps a lot of people from focusing on the fact that Obama’s Dad is BRITISH, and THAT is the factor that makes him ineligible. Orly is being used as a smokescreen, a distraction from the real issue.
THe longer Obama is in office, the harder it is to get him out and the bigger the ramifications.
Besides the democrats have not yet gotten their legislation passed, health care and Cap and trade, once Obama goes down, for freakin sure they won’t get it done, because Obama isn’t going to go down alone, a good part of the DNC will go with him. They are hoping to just get the next President to sign off on all of Obama’s crap, thereby making it all legal, I am sure. But they have to get it through congress first. Namely because if Obambi goes down before that they will never get it passed.
So Orly is their smokescreen.
If we are going to neutralize that, we have to start talking about his British Birth, because THAT is the fact that is going to get Obama thrown out of DC on a Quo Warrento.
From Donofrio today
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Quo Warranto For “Interested Persons”
###
Section 16-3503 of the federal quo warranto statute allows an “interested person” to approach the DC District Court concerning a quo warranto trial (by jury) without requiring the permission of the US Attorney General or the US Attorney for DC.
An “interested person” may sign a “certified complaint” which states facts and those facts must be sworn to under penalty of perjury. Only facts may be sworn to, not allegations. The “interested person” gathers up all facts known to him/her and puts them in the petition, swears to them under oath and hands that in to the Court. Pretty simple, folks.
One fact which could safely be sworn to is that Obama was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 and that he was – at birth – a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. These are facts admitted by Obama.
These facts have never been laid before the DC District Court. These facts are not in the complaint before Judge Carter. Why not?
16-3503 states:
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…
Plaintiffs in Barnett v. Obama allege that they have standing which is unique and special compared to the public at large. Therefore, they should have availed themselves of 16-3503.
But they’ve never even tried.
Plaintiffs have only attempted to avail themselves of 16-3502. All citizens are considered “third persons” under 16-3502, but all citizens don’t have unique standing and therefore 16-3502 requires permission by the Department of Justice to use the name of the US – ex relator – ina quo warranto proceeding.
But if you are an “interested person” under 16-3503 – aka a person with unique standing – then you do not need permission from the Department of Justice for the quo warranto.
The DC District Court examines the certified petition prior to allowing the suit to go forth based upon that petition. If the court is satisfied that the person issuing the petition is an “interested person” then that person is not needed any longer for the trial.
Once the name of the United States is allowed to be used, the “interested person” may step off, and the facts alleged are to be tried independently. For example, facts concerning what makes the President ineligible have nothing to do with the particular plaintiffs in Barnett v. Obama. So there’s no need for them to travel across the country for the trial. The trial is brought against the alleged usurper in the name of the United States.
There’s nothing stopping the plaintiffs from petitioning the DC District Court right now based upon facts known and verifiable as to the President’s British birth.
Why has this option been ignored? 16-3503 provides an excellent chance for review of these facts. There it is. Why not use it? A golden opportunity is being thrown by the way side.
Either the DC District Court will agree that these military persons are “interested persons” or it will not. Either the DC District Court will agree that 2008 Presidential candidate Alan Keyes is an “interested person” or it will not.
If the DC District Court does not agree that these plaintiffs are “interested persons” under the statute, then plaintiffs can make the same arguments they are making now before Judge Carter.
I don’ see any tactical advantage at all in avoiding the DC District Court.
Why give one of your tickets away for free? Why give away your best ticket for free? Why not avail yourself of the very statute created by Congress to review the eligibility of all US national office holders?
Doing so also avoids “political question doctrine” issues because the quo warranto statute is a congressional exercise of Constitutional authority to review the President’s eligibility. Why not kill two birds with one stone? Also, all arguments that a quo warranto action is too late now that he’s been sworn in are just patently bogus.
Quo warranto can only be invoked against somebody holding an office under false title.
Quo warranto only applies to actual usurpation not possible usurpation. It is the legislature’s sole enactment which allows judicial review of the President’s eligibility. And it appears that serious attempts are being made to avoid it. Before going off point and trying to force this issue upon courts which have not been given such authority, an action should have been brought – and still can be – under 16-3503.
Look people, I’m trying to help. Read this over a few times until it sinks in.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/quo-warranto-for-interested-persons/
Damn good question.
One question:
(snip)
“Once the name of the United States is allowed to be used, the “interested person” may step off, and the facts alleged are to be tried independently. For example, facts concerning what makes the President ineligible have nothing to do with the particular plaintiffs in Barnett v. Obama. So there’s no need for them to travel across the country for the trial. The trial is brought against the alleged usurper in the name of the United States” (end snip)
1. Can any lawyer represent ‘the United States’ in a suit or do they have to be DOJ/government lawyers? If it is the latter, we would be shooting off our own foot.
Why can’t all of these tracks be taken at the same time? Attack on all fronts, unless a possible establishment of precedent in one case might hurt another one. The DC Circuit is a leftist court and not likely to obey the law in any shape matter or form too(another ‘danger’ imho)
I’m not really sure, but don’t think that’s an issue. Here’s a question and Donofrio’s comment that may help
clarity.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Joe The Blogger Says:
October 8, 2009 at 1:43 PM
Leo,
Leo, I have a few questions about the practicalities of using Section 16-3503 of the federal quo warranto statute.
Would it be more efficient or more effective if ‘interested parties’, who all have the same interest (such as military personnel, who are concerned about acting unlawfully under a Usurper) sign a single petition?
What would be the consequences of ‘interested parties’, having different interests, all signing the same petition?
[ed. if any of the parties are “interested parties” then the facts go forth. The facts are the same regardless of the parties. I see your point and perhaps two petitions should be set forth, one for military and one for candidates. regardless, the facts under which eligibility are questioned are the same. once even one interested person is located then the issue of the British birth can be properly before the court.
That is why this is so important. To get that issue before the court and have them decide as a matter of law whether he is not eligible on that basis.]
Would all of the signatories of a petition have to attend the DC Court to present it to the court?
[ed. no.]
Could the petition be sent by registered mail to the DC Court after having been sworn to at Courts or notary publics anywhere in any of the 50 states?
[ed. yes, I believe so. not sure.]
Is there a court fee for presenting such a petition? If so how much?
[ed. I dont believe so, but if the case is accepted a bond may be required. that could be handled via donations.]
Would there be any risk of an adverse order, as to costs, for the ‘interested parties’, if a petition was refused by the DC Court?
[ed. not if the petition was refused - but yes if there was a trial.]
Would ‘interested parties’ have any right at all to have an ongoing input into the proceedings if ‘The United States’ took on the case?
[ed. once they are certified as interested persons they do not matter, the case is brought in the name of the US based upon the facts in the petition. either the facts show that he is not eligible as a matter of law or they dont.]
Would ‘The United States’ case, against a suspected Usurper to the Presidency, be put by the Department of Justice? If not, who would or could prosecute the case?
[ed. the DOJ is now in direct conflict of interest by defending him in the Barnett case. But for 16-3503 their permission is not necessary. The statute says the case may be prosecuted by “any attorney”.]
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/quo-warranto-for-interested-persons/
. . . to catch up on the Long Thread. Begin at #8453 and read to end of page.
IIRC Velveeta wrote, that film was still showing in the summer of 1960.
So maybe Stanley went there to nanny at 16 because Obama’s grandparents had CPUSA buddies there. Frank Marshall Davis Davis who was a pedophile. Then Stanley Ann got a little too involved and too free spirited so they refused to allow her to go to Chicago school?
Or maybe she met someone there who is Obama’s father? Who then moved to Hawaii to be near his child?
Why wasn’t Stanley Ann in school at 16? How did a young girl of 16 have nanny experience?
Maya and Stanley Ann had a park avenue address together when all of the money laundering investigation was done. I thought maybe it was a business address.Like Ford foundation or something. Everyone else was like how could they afford that.
Contrariemary on MitchLangbert blog should still have it available. But I think Orly said it was someone she knew who originally did the investigation.
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.