Replies

Quo Warranto.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/quo+warranto

A legal proceeding during which an individual’s right to hold an office or governmental privilege is challenged.

In old English practice, the writ of quo warranto—an order issued by authority of the king—was one of the most ancient and important writs. It has not, however, been used for centuries, since the procedure and effect of the judgment were so impractical.

Currently the former procedure has been replaced by an information in the nature of a quo warranto, an extraordinary remedy by which a prosecuting attorney, who represents the public at large, challenges someone who has usurped a public office or someone who, through abuse or neglect, has forfeited an office to which she was entitled. In spite of the fact that the remedy of quo warranto is pursued by a prosecuting attorney in a majority of jurisdictions, it is ordinarily regarded as a civil rather than criminal action. Quo warranto is often the only proper legal remedy; however, the legislature can enact legislation or provide other forms of relief.

Statutes describing quo warranto usually indicate where it is appropriate. Ordinarily it is proper to try the issue of whether a public office or authority is being abused. For example, it might be used to challenge the Unauthorized Practice of a profession, such as law or medicine. In such situations, the challenge is an assertion that the defendant is not qualified to hold the position she claims—a medical doctor, for example.

In some quo warranto proceedings, the issue is whether the defendant is entitled to hold the office he claims, or to exercise the authority he presumes to have from the government. In addition, proceedings have challenged the right to the position of county commissioner, treasurer, school board member, district attorney, judge, or tax commissioner. In certain jurisdictions, quo warranto is a proper proceeding to challenge individuals who are acting as officers or directors of business corporations.

A prosecuting attorney ordinarily commences quo warranto proceedings; however, a statute may authorize a private person to do so without the consent of the prosecutor. Unless otherwise provided by statute, a court permits the filing of an information in the nature of quo warranto after an exercise of sound discretion, since quo warranto is an extraordinary exercise of power and is not to be invoked lightly. Quo warranto is not a right available merely because the appropriate legal documents are filed. Valid reason must be indicated to justify governmental interference with the individual holding the challenged office, privilege, or license.

https://www.thepostemail.com/2021/01/12/quo-warranto-the-two-words-biden-pelosi-fear-most/

QUO WARRANTO: The Two Words Biden & Pelosi Fear Most

(Jan. 12, 2021) — I can confirm that Rudy Giuliani has been reading the research published on this page. I am not aware of any decision yet, but the MAGA nation must get up to speed now. Don’t be distracted. Quo Warranto is where your attention needs to be. Ignore all the fake shiny objects. President Trump has a clear judicial path to four more years, the next four years, not 2024.

Below are the major precedents and links to the statute and prior research. Please get this information out everywhere. Fear of President Trump filing a quo warranto action in the D.C. District Court is driving the new impeachment and 25th Amendment fallacies.

These are are pure bluffs being used as bargaining chips to get President Trump off focus on quo warranto. The impeachment procedure requires 17 Republican Senators to comply. And there are not 17 Republican Senators willing to permanently destroy their political careers for Biden & Pelosi. She needs 2/3rds of the Senate to convict an impeachment. Without a conviction, impeachment is nothing more than a failed indictment ending with an acquittal. Does Pelosi really intend to see President Trump acquitted again? No. This is bluff #1. Ignore it.

So what about the 25th Amendment? That’s even more delusional, as ultimately Pelosi will need 2/3rds of both the House and the Senate to make it stick. This is bluff #2.

Read the entire 25th Amendment, and then it will be clear that even if Pelosi could get Pence and a majority of executive branch officers to commit to a coup, she still needs 2/3 of the House and Senate to override Trump’s essential veto which is written in the actual text of the 25th Amendment at Section 4, clause 2, which states:

“Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.” (Emphasis added.)

Ok, so even if Pelosi initially pulls it off under Section 4, clause 1, the 25th Amendment at Section 4, clause 2 says, “Thereafter”, meaning immediately thereafter, even one second thereafter, the President can transmit a written declaration that no disability exists. And then Pelosi will need 2/3rds of both the House and the Senate to override the President’s transmission. And that ain’t gonna happen, people.

They are bluffing, and President Trump must immediately call their bluffs by filing an action for quo warranto in the D.C. District Court to oust Biden from the office of President. Below are the two main judicial precedents which verify President Trump can, in fact, bring an action there for a jury trial to oust Biden from office based on either fraud or even just plain error.

And don’t think a skilled trial attorney can’t find a fair jury in D.C. Voir Dire is a science, and with social media it’s now a very exact science. By far, a jury trial to determine the legality of the election is our best bet. There’s a very good reason why most civil cases settle rather than go to a jury. It’s called uncertainty.

And all of the evidence gathered in all of the states will be entered, with sworn affidavits, in the verified complaint that initiates the action. Furthermore, the D.C. District Court will be required to take Judicial Notice of the decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court that officials there invited illegal voting by encouraging voters to violate the law claiming indefinitely confined status.

“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.” Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537, 544 (1915).

Note that the United States Supreme Court’s opinion here itself put these words in italics; all; and any office, civil or military.

And the 9th Circuit affirmed that the federal quo warranto statute is the proper means by which a Presidential election can be challenged after the suspect POTUS is sworn in:

“Plaintiffs concede that the District Court for the District of Columbia is the proper venue to issue a writ of quo warranto under D.C.Code § 16-3503…The District Court properly dismissed Plaintiff’s quo warranto claims under D.C.Code § 16-3503, because the proper venue to file such claims against the President of the United States would be the District of Columbia. See D.C.Code § 16-3501.” Drake v. Obama, 664 F.3d 774, 784 (2011).

Review the federal quo warranto statute here.

(Go to site for link, it’s about 2 miles long)

Prior research reports are here and here.

[links don’t work]

The law provides an answer. If President Trump refuses to initiate quo warranto, then he can never claim to have given our law and Judiciary a chance to make things right. This is the exact law enacted for this moment. And SCOTUS knows this. Perhaps it’s why they haven’t dismissed any of the election law suits still pending for mootness.

And perhaps this is why SCOTUS denied all motions to expedite yesterday. While expedition was denied, it’s important to note that SCOTUS did not dismiss the actions brought by President Trump, Lin Wood or Sidney Powell as being moot. Why didn’t SCOTUS dismiss all of the election cases as being moot? It’s a fair question. The answer must be that determinations in those cases can be used as evidence in a quo warranto action.

The pending election actions at SCOTUS do not require expedition at this time, because quo warranto can be used to oust a usurper only after they take office. This is also why these cases aren’t moot. Perhaps we will all owe SCOTUS an apology when this done. I would love to be wrong. I will get down on my knees and beg forgiveness if it plays out like this.

Let’s give the law a chance to work, America. Our nation is based on one legal document, the Constitution. It may yet save us.

Here’s the info from the 2 mile long link in the Post and Mail article, at DC Law Library:
Subchapter I. Actions Against Officers of the United States.
§ 16–3501. Persons against whom issued; civil action.
A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.

§ 16–3502. Parties who may institute; ex rel. proceedings.
The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion or on the relation of a third person. The writ may not be issued on the relation of a third person except by leave of the court, to be applied for by the relator, by a petition duly verified setting forth the grounds of the application, or until the relator files a bond with sufficient surety, to be approved by the clerk of the court, in such penalty as the court prescribes, conditioned on the payment by him of all costs incurred in the prosecution of the writ if costs are not recovered from and paid by the defendant.

§ 16–3503. Refusal of Attorney General or United States attorney to act; procedure.
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 on his compliance with the condition prescribed by section 16-3502 as to security for costs.

Subchapter II. Actions Against Officers or Corporations of the District of Columbia.
§ 16–3521. Persons against whom issued; civil action.
A quo warranto may be issued from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in the name of the District of Columbia against —

(1) a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the District of Columbia, a public office of the District of Columbia, civil or military, or an office in a domestic corporation; or

(2) one or more persons who act as a corporation within the District of Columbia without being duly authorized, or exercise within the District of Columbia corporate rights, privileges, or franchises not granted them by law in force in the District of Columbia.

The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.

[there’s more]