I hit the “post” button too soon and omitted an extremely important and relevant quotation from Judge Lamberth’s decision on quo warranto. Substitute the name “Lakin” for the name “Taitz” and change the gender to “he.”
“Because Ms. Taitz is neither the Attorney General of the United States nor the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, she does not have standing to bring a quo warranto action challenging a public official’s right to hold office.’ Accordingly Ms. Taitz’s quo warranto claims are dismissed for lack of standing.2 See FED. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
Your post 493 is important for anyone interested in WINNING a case, rather than just collecting money and entering a courthouse somewhere before being tossed out...
I’d be curious why so many birthers are not interested in WINNING their case. Where is the REAL deception?
The reasoning the Andrade Court gave could well apply to an "interested person" such as Lakin:
Regarding statutory quo warranto procedure Andrade Court said:
"The above procedure is cumbersome and could easily operate to deprive a plaintiff with an otherwise legitimate claim of the opportunity to have his case heard. 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."
“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.”
Details in context from a previous post by me:
Leo was elated when Judge Carter refused to grant the DOJ claim that only impeachment could remove a sitting president and instead Carter affirmed Leo's theory that a quo warranto could be brought against Obama, but only in the DC District Court.
Leo did discuss Andrade in his 3-part legal brief on quo warranto, but did not discuss the “equity” comment in that decision, which I believe might interest Leo, if it hadn't come to his attention.
Now a second federal judge, Lamberth, has ignored a DOJ request in their Motion to Dismiss to rule that quo warranto can't be brought against a sitting president.
From the Lamberth ruling dismissing Taitz v. Obama:
“The Court of Appeals for this Circuit has held that a quo warranto action against a public official may be brought only by the Attorney General or the U.S. Attorney. Andrade v. Lauer, 729 F.2d 1475, 1498 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (Wright, J.) (citing United States v. Carmody, 148 F.2d 684, 685 (D.C. Cir. 1945)). The Court of Appeals reasoned that this must be the case because challenges to authority by which a public office is held ‘involve a right belonging to the whole body of the public which can be protected only by a public representative.’ Carmody, 148 F.2d at 685.”
I also found in Andrade the following explaining how “equity” could provide an “alternative” to quo warranto:
“The above procedure is cumbersome and could easily operate to deprive a plaintiff with an otherwise legitimate claim of the opportunity to have his case heard. 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.”
and
“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. Columbian Cat Fanciers, Inc. v. Koehne, supra, 96 F.2d at 532.”
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/729/729.F2d.1475.82-1880.html
The Andrade Court 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 wonder how Leo would interprete an implementation of this “alternative remedy” to quo warranto in terms of gaining discovery and a ruling on Obama’s NBC eligibility consistent with and still under the quo warranto umbrella.
Just how far would this equity alternative to quo warranto go in the fact situation regarding Obama? Would the “injunction to restrain invalidly appointed officers” apply to Obama or perhaps restrain invalidly appointed AG and US Attorney from failing to bring quo warranto or failing to permit an “interested party” to bring quo warranto?