[little jeremiah]

So if only Biden, the AG or the US Attorney have “standing”, what remedy is there for Quo Warranto? Nothing? End of line?

[Seizethecarp]

I don't think it is so clear that only the AG or US Attorney can bring a quo warranto against Obama. An exception for the court to act if quo warranto was inadequate to protect “equity” was carved out in the cited case for situations where the AG and/or US Attorney has a conflict of interest just as with Obama. I seem to remember Leo Donofrio being aware of this cases and discussing how there was an opportunity for an injured non-candidate “interested party” (like Lakin, for example and the Chrysler dealers) to ask the court to allow quo warranto.

The DC Court of Appeals said “This court has held that equity will not be barred from issuing an injunction to restrain invalidly appointed officers if the alternative remedy of quo warranto is inadequate.”

I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that the word "equity" in this quote is a specific legal term of art meaning the following:

"The principles of justice used to correct or supplement the law as applied to particular circumstances. For example the judge decided the case by equity because the statute did not fully address the issue. In this sense it is also termed natural equity"

http://definitions.uslegal.com/e/equity/

I think the point the DC Appeals Court was making is that it would be unjust to require an injured interested party to make a quo warranto demand on a public official only from AG or US Attorney if the AG and US Attorney have a conflict of interest. This would create the possibility of an "equity exception" to the ruling of this same appeals court that all quo warranto demands must go through the AG or US Attorney. Such an equity exception would allow the court to go around the AG and US Attorney to grant quo warranto to an interested party with standing.

Here is some of the context that preceded this quote from the passages I posted earlier in this thread:

“For instance, the Attorney General was responsible for appointing appellees Diegelman and Lauer to their jobs. Requiring appellants to convince the Attorney General to file a quo warranto action on their behalf in this case would effectively bar their access to court. If appellants attempted to petition the court for leave to have the writ issued under 16 D.C.Code Sec. 3503, they would face the difficult task of persuading the court that they were “interested persons.” In feudal times, when the writ of quo warranto originated, public offices were similar to a form of property right, and a quo warranto action was like an action of ejectment, in which the only party who could bring a lawsuit was a claimant who sued to regain possession from one who was unlawfully in possession. Some courts have continued to insist that only a claimant to the defendant's office is sufficiently “interested” to bring a quo warranto action.”

“Given these restrictions, quo warranto is an extremely difficult and uncertain remedy for the type of claim at issue in this case. This court has held that equity will not be barred from issuing an injunction to restrain invalidly appointed officers if the alternative remedy of quo warranto is inadequate.”