Replies

interpret please

most here are not legal experts

***

Quo warranto (by what warrant) was a means of English Common Law by which an officeholder’s eligibility could be challenged.

Quo Warranto passed from English Law to American Law. The subsequent history of quo warranto in England is outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lamar in Newsman vs. United States ex Rel. Frizzel:

” ... 1. Usurpation of a public office from an early day was treated as a crime, and, like all other crimes, could be prosecuted only in the name of the King by his duly authorized law officers ...

2. But, in time, the criminal features were modified, and it was recognized that there might be many cases which, though justifying quo warranto proceedings, were not of such general importance as to require the attorney general to take charge of the litigation. This was especially true in reference to the usurpation of certain municipal offices named in 9th Anne, c. 20. By that act, passed in 1710, it was therefore provided that it should be lawful “for the proper officer, by leave of the court, to exhibit an information in the nature of a quo warranto at the relation of any person desiring to prosecute the same“ against the designated municipal officers. The writ thus came to be used as a means of determining which of two claimants was entitled to an office ...”

Quo Warranto in the D. C. Code:

And the same Justice continues, describing how quo warranto works in the D.C. Code:

In 1902, Congress adopted a District Code, containing a chapter on quo warranto which, though modeled after the English statute, differed therefrom in several material particulars. The writ was treated as a civil remedy; it was not limited to proceedings against municipal officers, but to all persons who in the District exercised any office, civil or military. It was made available to test the right to exercise a public franchise or to hold an office in a private corporation. Instead of providing that “any person desiring to prosecute” might do so with the consent of the court, certain restrictions were imposed and one enlargement of the right was made. These provisions have never received judicial interpretation. This case must therefore be determined according to the special language of that Code, in the light of general principles applicable to quo warranto, — the prerogative writ by which the government can call upon any person to show by what warrant he holds a public office or exercises a public franchise.

Quo Warranto’s Natural Law Basis:

From a consideration of the nature and history of quo warranto, one can easily see the natural law basis of this action. First, let’s summarize what the quo warranto action was as prosecuted by the English monarch:

1. It is issued by the sovereign, who has a right to confer an office or benefice, known in law as a franchise

2. It proceeds by granting the defendant the right to prove his title or claim

3. It concludes, in the case of non-proof, removal of office or penalty or both.

The sovereign’s claim to issue quo warranto is founded upon his title to authority, to which the right to confer offices is attached.

Therefore, the authority which confers the office has the right to quo warranto.

The defendant has the right to produce evidence to prove his just holding of the office.

Quo warranto does not presume guilt in the holder; neither does it presuppose that the holder has the office by his own right. Rather it presumes the holder has a duty to manifest proof of his claim, because such an office is not his, but conferred upon him by the questioning authority.

Formal quo warrento in U.S. Law is a civil proceeding:

The formal quo warranto proceeding requires the action or consent of the executive branch, which acts in the name of the state or government.

The defendant has the duty to prove his claim; the office is his not by intrinsic right, by only such by a proven claim.

The court assuming the role of judge in the case, stands between the one who moves the claim and the defendant. The action is a civil proceeding, and is codified in the District Columbia Code.

Use of informal quo warranto in civil cases:

When injured by one claiming title to an office, the very claim to the title as justification for the injury, requires the claimant to prove his claim. This form of civil action therefore is virtually a quo warranto, but not formally such.

There is frequent misunderstanding of the nature of a quo warranto proceeding, when the term, while referring to a manner of proceeding, is understood solely as a specific form which is a prerogative writ of the sovereign or executive branch.

It is this invoking of a proceeding of quo warranto, to defend other existing rights, that can be termed the “common law right to quo warranto,” since it is not based on statatue per se, but arises out of an analogy to the formal quo warranto proceedings which existed in common law for centuries, the analogy to which has its legal justification in natural law. It is properly, however, a natural right, the same claimed by the English sovereign in issuing the first writs of quo warranto, and it is this natural right which is the basis for the genus of quo warranto proceedings, a special instance or species of which is the formal quo warranto proceeding. This right, stated in its simplest terms, is the right to question the title claimed by the other party in a dispute over injuries, which conerns that title; wherein there is reasonable ground to believe the claimaint to the title is an interloper.

***

The DC Code was codified for this provision in 1902 - and is in accordance with Federal Code, as DC is a Federal District.

I have not read the DC Code entirely, Donofrio has ...

The provison allows for any individual to request that the U.S. Attorney General and/or the U.S. Attorney for DC (either one or both) to apply to the Federal Court for quo warranto.

If both decline, then an “interested party” may apply to the Federal Court directly - since both the U.S. Attorney General and the U.S. Attorney for DC abstained.

Interestingly - it is the Executive Department that normally has the perogative to apply for the writ.

But, I assert that when the office in question is that of the Chief Executive itself, then the authority which confers the office has the right to quo warranto.

In this case, it would be the Constitution (the Judiciary Department) - otherwise the Executive Department would normally have the right and that would be a conflict of interest.

From Blackstone (Commentaries On The Laws Of England), Book III, Chapter XVII:

§ 337. (1) Information in the nature of quo warranto.

The judgment on a writ of quo warranto (being in the nature of a writ of right) is final and conclusive even against the crown. Which, together with the length of its process, probably occasioned that disuse into which it is now fallen, and introduced a more modern method of prosecution, by information filed in the court of king’s bench by the attorney-general, in the nature of a writ of quo warranto; wherein the process is speedier and the judgment not quite so decisive. This is properly a criminal method of prosecution, as well to punish the usurper by a fine for the usurpation of the franchise, as to oust him, or seize it for the crown: but hath long been applied to the mere purposes of trying the civil right, seizing the franchise, or ousting the wrongful possessor; the fine being nominal only ...

This proceeding is, however, now applied to the decision of corporation disputes between party and party, without any intervention of the prerogative, by virtue of the statute 9 Ann., c. 20 (Municipal Offices, 1710), which permits an information in nature of quo warranto to be brought with leave of the court, at the relation of any person desiring to prosecute the same (who is then styled the relator), against any person usurping, intruding into, or unlawfully holding any franchise or office in any city, borough or town corporate; provides for its speedy determination; and directs that, if the defendant be convicted, judgment of ouster (as well as a fine) may be given against him, and that the relator shall pay or receive costs according to the event of the suit.