Donald J. Trump, please pay close attention to the following legal strategy. You can’t sit back on defense for the Senate’s pending attack on America. This so called impeachment trial fiasco is aimed at stopping the American people from holding the line concerning election fraud, error and blatant lawlessness in the 2020 election. If you are still willing to COUNTERPUNCH, rather than meekly playing defense, then you MUST bring the receipts to institute an action in quo warranto to oust Joe Biden and Kamala Harris from office right now.
PENDING QUO WARRANTO LITIGATION AS DEFENSE TO IMPEACHMENT
We have all heard this type of no comment interview parry before, “We cannot interfere with pending federal court litigation.” You need pending litigation in the D.C. District Court, President Trump, and you need it before the Senate trial begins. How can the Senate try you, when pending litigation has yet to be decided or dismissed by a federal district court?
If your behavior on January 6th in telling people to march peacefully to support the Representatives and Senators contesting the election is a high crime or misdemeanor, then the D.C. District Court must dismiss a pending quo warranto suit, the D.C.. Court of Appeals must affirm such dismissal, and the United States Supreme Court must also confirm dismissal prior to the Senate trial. If you have instituted quo warranto, and the Court has not dismissed it, then the Senate trial is premature. This is why you must use the quo warranto statute tactically now.
If the federal Judiciary seeks to retain any semblance of normalcy in the face of such a massive prima facie case showing evidence of fraud, error and lawlessness supported by hundreds of sworn affidavits, the favorable Wisconsin Supreme Court decision, video evidence, and voting machine irregularities, it will be required to allow a jury trial under the statute. These are issues of fact. And issues of fact get a trial in the version of America we all remember.
The law specifically designed for this by Congress – the same tribunal attempting to convict you – is the federal quo warranto statute. How can they convict you for insurrection, if their entire case is built around punishing you for contesting the election, when they themselves have enacted a federal statute giving all federal election contests for fraud, error and lawlessness a venue in the D.C. District Court?
How can the Senate seriously convict you for availing yourself of their own laws?
It’s a good question, right? How can your behavior be a high crime or misdemeanor, if Congress has enacted a statute to specifically accommodate such behavior? It’s an absurd impeachment for the very reason that they have impeached you for behavior they themselves, as Congress assembled, enacted legislation to support and accommodate.
Therefore, in order to take advantage of the argument I am making, you must institute an action for quo warranto immediately. Then you can make this rational argument. But until you avail yourself of their own law to contest a bogus election, then you can’t make this argument effectively. Your failure to institute quo warranto will leave history with the relevant question of why you didn’t.
Cloak yourself in their law. If the very act of alleging fraud, error and lawlessness is what they are impeaching you for, then why did Congress enact the quo warranto statute? Has there ever been a quo warranto action with such a plethora of irregularities, and hundreds of witnesses swearing under oath to election atrocities?
What the hell did Congress intend when they enacted the federal quo warranto statute, if not that it should apply to a moment like this?
This is a rational important question that America needs to be focused on. But only by requesting the DOJ to bring quo warranto and filing a verified complaint can you make the proper use of both the question and the law.
TACTICAL ADVANTAGES OF QUO WARRANTO.
“Build it and they will come.”
Just change the words to, bring it and they will come. Quo warranto that is. Bring it and just like in the Texas case, other states will join you. The State Legislatures in Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin can intervene in the quo warranto as interested parties. In fact, they can bring their own actions in quo warranto. Other states will enter briefs in support as amici curiae, just as they did in the Texas case.
Let’s all go back to near midnight on December 7th, 2020. The State of Texas filed a massive original jurisdiction action at SCOTUS laying out the facts of complete and utter lawlessness having overtaken the electoral process in four states. On December 9th, you intervened, and on that same day, the State of Missouri and sixteen other states filed an amici curiae brief together. Read Point 3 of that brief – filed by seventeen States:
“The Bill of Complaint Alleges that the Defendant States Unconstitutionally Abolished Critical Safeguards Against Fraud in Voting by Mail”
So here we had Texas, supported by seventeen States of the Union, going to the United States Supreme Court alleging that the Defendant States created the conditions for fraud to flourish by abandoning laws enacted by their Legislatures to combat unlawful election activity. And now Congress wants to remove your ability to ever hold office for joining that suit.
How can it be a high crime or misdemeanor if eighteen States of the Union supported it? This is a damned witch hunt. Just like Russia. Just like Ukraine. Our legal norms are being eroded by this witch hunt and you need to COUNTERPUNCH rather than play defense. Quo warranto is the offensive tactic called for.
Texas and those seventeen States will join you, by directly intervening in quo warranto, bringing their own quo warranto, or at the very least entering briefs on your behalf. And all of this prior election litigation will be entered into the verified complaint for quo warranto. The Texas case was decided on standing, not the merits. The proper venue for standing is the D.C. District Court. So go there, and they will come.
TACTICAL ADVANTAGE OF QUO WARRANTO BEFORE SENATE TRIAL
This is a good spot to alert your legal team, should they actually be considering quo warranto, about the passive way the Attorney General and U.S. Attorney have deflected quo warranto actions in the past. § 16-3503 of the statute states:
“If the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of the United States, on the relation of the interested person…”
The term “interested person” pertains to those parties who have an interest in the office being challenged by quo warranto which is a more particular interest than just members of the public at large. The statute gives any “third person” the right to relate facts concerning an illegal election to the AG and/or US Attorney, but if the DOJ officials refuse to act, ordinary third persons can’t take it any further.
However, if those third persons are also interested persons, they can go around the DOJ officials and file a certified petition with the D.C. District Court requesting leave to issue the writ bringing Biden/Harris into court to defend. If the Court finds the petition is sufficient in law, then the writ will issue, and there will be a jury trial if either party requests a jury.
It’s very important to take notice of the language in 16-3503, “sufficient in law”. This means that when the D.C. District Court exercises it’s discretion, it does not do so by judging the actual facts certified in the petition. Instead, the statute requires that the petition only be analyzed by the Court as to the law. If the law provides for an action in quo warranto, based on the allegations of fact in the petition, then the petition is sufficient in law, and the action proceeds to the fact-finding stage. §16-3544 states:
“Issues of fact shall be tried by a jury if either party requests it. Otherwise they shall be determined by the court.”
This illustrates my point, in that the court decides whether to allow the action, not based on their own view of the allegations, as that will be left to the jury, or to the court later, after the writ is issued, should neither party request a jury. When you initially request leave of the court to file the action, after a refusal of the DOJ officials, the court’s decision whether to allow the action to go forward is not based on an examination of the ultimate veracity of your allegations, but whether the petition is sufficient in law.
In other words, if the fraud, error, or lawlessness described in your petition were proved true, the petition is sufficient in law if you are an interested person asking for the specific relief offered by the statute. The analysis here is similar to a motion for summary judgment in a personal injury case.
Whenever you bring a law suit for personal injury, the other side will consider a motion for summary judgment, and the court can only dismiss the case if, after reading all of the plaintiff’s allegations of fact as being true, no basis in law exists for the suit.
So, if you fell in a grocery store, and it’s not clear whether the fall was due to your own clumsiness, or negligence of the store, the court will not dismiss the case on summary judgment, because in order to grant such dismissal, the court must assume negligence on the part of the store, but find that the law provides no relief for such negligence.
If the store was on government property, and you failed to file a notice of claim within 30 days, as required by law, then your case can be dismissed on summary judgment, even if the court assumes your allegations of negligence are correct. Your complaint is insufficient in law, because you failed to file the requisite notice of claim.
I make this point to stress that while the D.C. District Court has discretion to determine whether the writ can be issued to bring Biden/Harris into court, that discretion, by the very text of the statute, is limited to sufficiency in law, not fact. And the determination whether the petition is sufficient in law is subject to review in the D.C. Court of Appeals and at SCOTUS based on long established legal norms.
I know those norms have been habitually violated in persecuting the Trump administration by activist jurists, but with every norm that is blatantly violated in trying to “get Trump”, the very rot in the system that governs all of us becomes more exposed to us as a nation.
And perhaps that is God’s design in full view. President Trump is not a perfect man, but he has stood up for the American People against the rotten federal deep state apparatus. And in doing so, Donald Trump has singlehandedly allowed the poisonous snake to bite him, again and again.
Trump is literally a deep state snake handler sucking all of the poisonous venom out of this corrupt federal old boy globalist cabal to defend the American People from it. And their persecution of Trump is not about him…at all. It’s about punishing us for getting in the way of their cartel. Full stop.
A SNEAKY DOJ QUO WARRANTO TACTIC
DOJ officials are going to hamper any quo warranto action’s potential, whether by Trump or State Legislatures, by not responding at all. They have tried this before and it has worked before. In Sibley v. Obama, 866 F.Supp.2d 17, 20 (2012), the D.C. District Court held as follows:
“Furthermore, as a matter of statute, plaintiff is not entitled to institute a quo warranto proceeding himself. Under Chapter 16, § 3503 of the District of Columbia Code, an ‘interested person’ may institute such a proceeding only if the Attorney General and the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia refuse to institute one on his request. Plaintiff submitted a request to Holder and Machen for them to begin a quo warranto action in November 2011, but he has not received an answer from them. Plaintiff has cited no law to support his assertion that a lack of response in this context should be considered a refusal. Since the refusal condition of D.C.Code § 16-3503 has not been met, plaintiff’s quo warranto petition is not ripe.”
That opinion was issued in June 2012, seven months after the plaintiff had contacted the DOJ in November of 2011. The DOJ did not respond at all to the request of plaintiff to institute quo warranto against President Obama. In not responding at all, neither to deny the request or grant it, the court held that, under the statute, an interested person’s right to petition the court directly was not ripe until the DOJ actually refuses.
This creates an absurdity in the law, in that if this ridiculous analysis is correct, the DOJ can stop all interested parties simply by never responding at all. Of course we have precedents to overrule absurdity. Under the absurdity doctrine, a court must construe the statute by applying the plain meaning of the text used unless it would lead to absurd or nonsensical results that the legislature could not possibly have ever intended.
In this case, clearly, the statute mentions three categories of potential plaintiffs; third persons; interested persons (a subset of third persons); and persons claiming true title to the office in question (a subset of interested persons). The statute means that third persons who are not interested parties may never bring the action without DOJ consent.
But the statute also makes clear, at § 16-3523, that when the DOJ refuses, “any attorney” can bring the action in the name of the United States on the relation of an “interested person”, if the court finds the petition “sufficient in law”. It would be a flagrant violation of the absurdity doctrine should the DOJ be able to stop all interested parties from having their day in court by not responding at all.
Furthermore, the statute’s section regarding such refusal has an official title:
“§ 16–3523. Refusal of United States attorney or Attorney General of the District of Columbia to act; procedures.”
When the federal quo warranto statute was originally enacted in 1901, this title was different, reading:
“§1540 If Attorney-General and District Attorney Refuse.”
The statute was updated in later years, substituting the U.S. Attorney for the D.C. District Attorney, because the U.S. Attorney is more proper to challenge the lawful title of national offices such as President, as opposed to local officials. But the title of this section of code was also updated to add the words “to act”, and “procedure”, rather than just refuse.
This is important, because the statute now regards “refusal to act” in the title, rather than the previous simple refusal. And the title of § 16-3523 also mentions the “procedure” following such lack of action.
The plaintiff in Sibley v. Obama should have pointed this out to the Court, because both the title of the section, and the words thereunder, indicate that a refusal to act triggers the right of an interested party to petition the Court directly. If the statute had required a written or verbal refusal, the Court’s holding would be less absurd, but the statute only mentions “refusal to act” in the title, and refusal to “institute a quo warranto proceeding” in the text. Therefore, the Court obviously erred in denying that the case was ripe. It is lack of action by the DOJ that makes it ripe. Seven months of no action is certainly a refusal to act or institute.
REVERSE THE TACTIC
Trump can make very good use of this absurd precedent in the D.C. District Court by immediately requesting that the Attorney General, and/or the U.S. Attorney, institute an action in quo warranto to test the lawful title of Biden/Harris to their current offices.
Under the statute, Trump must do this before he can petition the court directly. But if the DOJ officials simply do nothing, attempting to stop him from ever petitioning the Court directly, Trump can rely on Sibley v. Obama in his motion to dismiss the impeachment, because the quo warranto request will still be pending before the DOJ.
If the DOJ officials have not refused to institute quo warranto, then – according to the D.C. District Court’s precedent – the DOJ officials are still considering it. And if Biden’s own DOJ will not refuse to bring an action in quo warranto against him, then how can Trump be impeached for questioning the legality of the election?
This is why Trump must officially request that Biden’s DOJ institute quo warranto against Biden immediately. It creates a catch 22 for them. If they do officially refuse Trump’s request, this makes his case ripe to petition the D.C. District Court directly. But if Biden’s DOJ pulls the same tactic as was done to the plaintiff in Sibley v. Obama, then Trump can rely on the precedent stating that the DOJ is still considering an action against Biden to oust him from the Office of President.
And if Biden’s own DOJ won’t stand up for him by officially refusing to institute a quo warranto to oust him from the Office of President, then how can the Senate convict Trump for insurrection resulting from his questioning the legality of the election? It’s all a ridiculous absurdity.
Let the poison flow out from the wound. Institute a quo warranto request now. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain, possibly the Office of President of the United States of America.