“Taitz v Obama” sought quo warranto at the proper time and in the proper court, the US District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiff even “judge shopped” for her preferred judge to hear the case, a Reagan appointee, the Chief Judge of the US District Court, Royce C. Lamberth.
Judge Lamberth summarily dismissed the quo warranto claim for lack of standing.
To overcome the standing issue she probably needed a US Attorney to sue on behalf of the People of the United Sates which can show a direct injury from the illegal action.
To overcome the standing issue she probably needed a US Attorney to sue on behalf of the People of the United Sates which can show a direct injury from the illegal action.
You are correct. Judge Lamberth’s Memorandum Opinion in Taitz v Obama states that ONLY the US Attorney for the District of Columbia or the Attorney General of the United States may file quo warranto under the District of Columbia statute that must be used to challenge the credentials of a federal official.
It would have been a good idea to file a quo warranto claim under those statutes BEFORE Obama’s appointees took over those positions.