SCOTUS: No Private Right To Quo Warranto

Natural Born Citizen ^ | October 11, 2009 | Leo Donofrio

[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*

[null and void]

Registered???

[Deepest End]

Good. Keep it that way.

[Lmo56]

See Post #30 ...

[BP2]

“What does that mean in plain English?”

The reason Judge Carter is even proceeding (despite questions on Standing and Jurisdiction) is that Orly proposes a conundrum:

As she said at the last hearing (perhaps not as clear as it could be stated), is that impeachment is not appropriate because impeachment can only be used for a legitimate president (not to mention that impeachment is NOT a Judicial function anyway). Since Obama – as Orly argues – is not legitimate, he does not qualify for impeachment or any government “protection” or representation “as president” and thus justifies why the suit may be tried OUT of the DC Court.

Orly contends that Carter’s venue is mandated to use Quo Warranto ONLY IF the Judge decides Obama is legitimate for the position of President. In other words, Orly said not only can CARTER take the “Quo Warranto” case, but he is oath-bound to do so.

Think about it – keeping in mind that Orly must argue this as if her side is 100% CORRECT (just as any attorney does in court):

How do you REMOVE a “corrupt” and illegitimate president, when Quo Warranto rightly or wrongly “protects” him?

Does Quo Warranto apply if he is indeed illegitimate in the first place?

Here's a question that Judge Carter proposes:

WHO protects the rights of a Political THIRD Party in the primarily two-party political system of the Legislature (the US Congress)?

CARTER then discussed the two-party system and viability of third-party candidates, and expressed that he thinks having the ability for third-party candidates is important, and then he said he still wants to know why no one has raised this issue. (from the WaveyDavey report).

The way Orly is proceeding is that first you must establish if he is illegitimate, and that’s done through Discovery. If Discovery proves damning to Mr. Obama, IMO, the SCOTUS may snatch it up right away as this case challenges the very notion of Quo Warranto to a "seemingly" legitimate President.

That, in my opinion, is what Orly proposes – and what give Judge Carter pause.

As he said to Orly and Kreep at the end, “I’m most concerned about standing,” and to the US attorneys he said, “I’m most concerned about justicability, correct venue, political question, and how far do the courts go.” Then, turning back to Orly and Kreep, he said “if I rule against you on standing, I would suggest ways to address that issue in the future.”

I think Judge Carter may be attempting to carve out new case law out of existing precedence in this unique situation — tweaking "checks and balances" in cases such as Marbury v. Madison (1803) and others — to put forth a decision on Mr. Barack Hussein Obama – the candidate, not the President.

[thecodont]

Thank you for the summary. There are many legal technicalities in the day-to-day proceedings that I sometimes find difficult to follow.

I believe Judge Carter is seeing this from a historic legal perspective and is trying to be especially careful and thorough. I applaud his efforts. May he stand firm!

I pray that the truth will be revealed.

[wintertime]

I pray that the truth will be revealed.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I do as well....In my lifetime and before the Resurrection.

[fulltlt]

Please add me to your ping list.

TIA

[Zman]

Thanks very much.

[danamco]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugPyHCqYG7w

A voice from the desert!!!

[danamco]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugPyHCqYG7w

A voice in the desert!!!

[wintertime]

Luuuv that guy!

[LucyT]

Welcome; you are added to the ping list.

[David]

Is Quo Warranto the only remedy she seeks?

It has always seemed to me that the correct basis on which to address the problem is the position that he cannot act as President.

A Military Officer cannot be forced to obey commands issued under his authority.

It seems to me that the Military cannot live with the situation in which they don't have a CIC.

I have been after Farrah to delegate one of his writers to go interview the Judge Advocate General to find out what the international law ramifications are to military in the field. I believe legal liabilities and immunities turn on lawful orders.

[LucyT]

Thanks, David.

. . . for further discussion.

[SaraJohnson]

Thanks, BP2. I appreciate all your research and explanations of what is going on in the various court actions.

[SaraJohnson]

So when is Leo filing his case with the DC prosecutor? He has been talking about it and cutting down everyone else’s efforts, but I don’t see any action out of him and surely no progress.

[Lundy_s Lane II]

It would seem that only the third party candidates would have standing against candidate Obama and of course McCain but he is MIA.

Judge Carter might dismiss the parts that deal with military officers and focus on just the issue of whether Obama was an eligible candidate.

That should eliminate the Quo Warranto issues and allow for discovery. If discovery shows the Obama has lied and does not have a long form birth certificate, then I agree it will get kicked up to SCOTUS very quickly.

[justiceseeker93]

As pertains to the military officer plaintiffs in the Barnett case, would Quo Warranto be necessary relief for them? Perhaps a declaratory judgment from the Court finding Obama constitutionally unqualified to be president would suffice as relief for the military plaintiffs. Upon such a judgment, an officer sworn to uphold the Constitution could not recognize the purported President as CIC, and therefore would be under oath to not obey any order issuing from him.

Wouldn't any federal court have power to issue such a judgment? One would think so by a plain reading of Article III, Sec. 2 of the Constitution: The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution...

[Lundy_s Lane II]

I expect Leo will file when he feels he has looked at the options and has as much info out of the DoH that he can get.

It is good that there are multiple approaches being explored to show that Obama is ineligible for the office.

It will probably end up being in issue of educating enough of “We the people” to give cover for SCOTUS to make the ruling they should have done in January.

[Seizethecarp]

From what he says, Leo Donofrio, as an attorney, cannot solicit clients directly. He must wait for an appropriate quo warranto client defined as an “interested party” (see Donofrio’s blog for definition) to come to him.

Donofrio has dropped huge hints to all readers of his blog to identify an interested party and to encourage him/her to contact him.

My take is that an interested party has to have been basically personally damaged by an action that Obama has ordered as POTUS. Donofrio has suggested Chrysler dealers closed down, wounded warriors or their families, and fired inspectors general would qualify.

Finding such persons willing to volunteer requires them to be willing to take on the Obama machine, which will Alinsky them.

I get the feeling from what Donofrio has written in the past week that he may have found an interested party volunteer and may be bringing a quo warranto action on their behalf soon.

It wouldn't surprises me if Donofrio is holding back until Judge Carter dismisses the Barnett case in a way that makes discovery unlikely. If Carter surprises Donofrio and grants standing to at least one plaintiff and orders discovery (Donofrio says it shouldn't happen as there shouldn't be standing in his view) then quo warranto may be mooted by what that discovery finds (after apppeals, of course).