Check out #8.
“What does that mean in plain English?”
It means that by precedent no one but the government itself can challenge Obama’s status as POTUS.
Posted on 10/11/2009 9:36:29 AM PDT by Deepest End
Since federal case law pertaining to the writ of quo warranto is so scarce, research on the issue is rather simple. This is why I am shocked and confused as to why the DOJ did not cite the case UNITED STATES of America ex rel. STATE OF WISCONSIN v. FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION. I recenly explained the strict holding in the case – that no US District Court other than the DC District Court may entertain a quo warranto proceeding.
*snip*
Get ready, you are going to be hearing much more about the writ of quo warranto in the days and weeks ahead.
*snip*
(Excerpt) Read more at naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ...
interpret please
most here are not legal experts
What does that mean in plain English?
I’m not an attorney. But my take is that all legal actions questioning the Constitutionality of 0bama holding office, must come from the Government itself on behalf of the public interest.
Is that correct?
I read that twice, and it sounds to me like .. a private citizen cannot bring suit against a gov’t. official .. and especially unless and untill a couple of “approved” definitions are determined.
Sorry,...I didn’t understand a single word of your post. It is English but what does it mean?
Only Caesar may question himself
Welcome to the Government of the People
Among other Marxist-Speak absurdities
A legal proceeding during which an individual's right to hold an office or governmental privilege is challenged.
In old English practice, the writ of quo warranto—an order issued by authority of the king—was one of the most ancient and important writs. It has not, however, been used for centuries, since the procedure and effect of the judgment were so impractical.
Currently the former procedure has been replaced by an information in the nature of a quo warranto, an extraordinary remedy by which a prosecuting attorney, who represents the public at large, challenges someone who has usurped a public office or someone who, through abuse or neglect, has forfeited an office to which she was entitled. In spite of the fact that the remedy of quo warranto is pursued by a prosecuting attorney in a majority of jurisdictions, it is ordinarily regarded as a civil rather than criminal action. Quo warranto is often the only proper legal remedy; however, the legislature can enact legislation or provide other forms of relief.
Statutes describing quo warranto usually indicate where it is appropriate. Ordinarily it is proper to try the issue of whether a public office or authority is being abused. For example, it might be used to challenge the Unauthorized Practice of a profession, such as law or medicine. In such situations, the challenge is an assertion that the defendant is not qualified to hold the position she claims—a medical doctor, for example.
In some quo warranto proceedings, the issue is whether the defendant is entitled to hold the office he claims, or to exercise the authority he presumes to have from the government. In addition, proceedings have challenged the right to the position of county commissioner, treasurer, school board member, district attorney, judge, or tax commissioner. In certain jurisdictions, quo warranto is a proper proceeding to challenge individuals who are acting as officers or directors of business corporations.
A prosecuting attorney ordinarily commences quo warranto proceedings; however, a statute may authorize a private person to do so without the consent of the prosecutor. Unless otherwise provided by statute, a court permits the filing of an information in the nature of quo warranto after an exercise of sound discretion, since quo warranto is an extraordinary exercise of power and is not to be invoked lightly. Quo warranto is not a right available merely because the appropriate legal documents are filed. Valid reason must be indicated to justify governmental interference with the individual holding the challenged office, privilege, or license.
I’m not an attorney....
Me either, but this special type of court action “writ of quo warranto” or by what right does the government official govern has to be “approved” by government officials in Washington, DC. (fat chance) That is my take on Leo’s article.
Hope it works sounds like he is going in that direction.
Yes, Donofrio’s position is, and has been for some time, that the only successfuly legal proceeding will be a quo warranto, in Washington DC.
In other words, that no other cases alleging usurpation have standing, or are in the proper venue.
DE
“What does that mean in plain English?”
It means that by precedent no one but the government itself can challenge Obama’s status as POTUS.
That’s what I thought. I vaguely remember reading something with words similar after the 2000 elections regarding Bush on a University website, and that was the conclusion then, as well.
I will say, though, that I hang on to the belief that a Commissioned Officer in the service of the United States has that standing.
But, hey, like I said I’m not an attorney.
I asked the same question of the poster...
well, that was a good explanation...
still not sure I understand the effect of the ruling...
Once a local DA takes the case to court, is he representing the individual who originated the case, or the people at large?
If the latter, does that not convey legitimacy?
Pending the outcome of the ongoing Hawaii DoH proceedings, I suggest that it may be a reasonable chance, however I too am not overly optimistic.
Further, it is Donofrio's position that it is our ONLY chance.
Nor am I, but it seems fairly straightforward and not difficult to comprehend if you make the effort (no offense). I suggest that you read through some of the comments on Donofrio's blog. That may help. There are usually several questions regarding clarification that Donofrio is in a better position to address than I am.
Citation, please?
Check out #8.
“What does that mean in plain English?”
It means that by precedent no one but the government itself can challenge Obama’s status as POTUS.
I’m aware of the origins of US law, but you “we the people” leading me to believe that those words aren’t your own. Do have a link to a resource that I can look at? Would really appreciate it.
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.