Posted on 10/31/2008 12:03:09 PM PDT by djf
For those who don't know, a "Quo Warranto" is an ancient common law writ which commands the court to determine "by what authority" a person or corporation acts. If a person were to get as much as a speeding ticket, he could file this type of writ against the police officer. The judge ain't gonna like it, and will probably chew you a new one, but it has to get answered.
http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/quo-warranto.htm
And being a "common law" writ, heres the good and juicy: EVERYONE HAS STANDING!
Here are a couple paragraphs from the writ:
Quo Warranto: 2. Pleadings in quo warranto are anomalous. In ordinary legal proceedings, the plaintiff, whether he be the state or a person, is bound to show a case against the defendant. But in an information of quo warranto, as well as in the writ for which it substituted, the order is reversed. The state is not bound to show anything, but the defendant is bound to show that he has a right to the franchise or office in question; and if he fail to show authority, judgment must be given against him. Bouviers Law Dictionary, by John Bouvier; 1868 - 1870
QUO WARRANTO, is hereby directed against defendant the BARACK OBAMA, et als,, acting under color of office within the State of Illinois, as SENATOR OF THE UNITED STATES, as well as within the State of California, you are hereby commanded to show your lawful authority to instantly produce UNDER EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES, your proper and lawful bona fides as required by the concise rule of law. WHEREAS, you are hereby directed to show your proper delegation legal authority thereby, under QUO WARRANTO terms and conditions cited herein in the following particulars:
To read the whole thing, see this link:
http://nationalwriterssyndicate.com/content/view/780/2/
Any thoughts on why the Clintoons haven't? This has me wondering.
how did you find this?
but anyway, its very interesting
read the first part, skimmed the rest
this took days and days of effort
it seems to be predicated on the theory that since Obama, et als, did not answer the Phillip Berg suit in the 30 days required that he/they have admitted the truth of the allegations....not withstanding the dismissal of that suit
not being an attorney i cannot comment on the nature of this theory
i also note that the “relator” declares that he is not an attorney...but who else but an attorney could have drafted such an arcane demand?
on the News? NOT
discussed by any media? NOT
is this an FR exclusive?
Developing....
Maybe Obama thinks it’s good strategy to keep his opponents expending their hopes and resources tilting at windmills.
I don’t think it’s because she didn’t want to win at any cost.
As a further note, I am planning to call all of my state representatives and ask them to craft legislation giving the Secretary of State both the right and the responsibility to verify eligibility of the candidate in future elections.
I believe in Pennsylvania that someone is already doing this.
Every man, woman and child should do the same; call, write, e-mail your representatives and ask them to correct this ridiculous situation.
This is ridiculous.
I agree. It’s not a technicality.
Whereas, BARACK OBAMA, et als, you have SEVENTY-TWO HOURS (3) days from the date of receipt of this document to answer each and every element of this WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO as you are COMMANDED TO DO by ORDER OF WE THE PEOPLE in the relation of: by and through the lawful status and delegation of authority of David Allan Herndon who has legal standing as one of we the people thereof, and to show cause with substantive and lawful proof in consonance with the Constitution of California 1849 that defendant BARACK OBAMA currently holds office lawfully, TO THE COMPLETE TERMS AND CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY LAW; and: THAT YOU HAVE OBEYED AND ARE IN CONSONANCE WITH ARTICLE II, Section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution for the United States 1787-1791 in accordance with law; or in the alternative, you must SUMMARILY AND IMMEDIATELY TAKE DEFENDANT BARACK OBAMA, et als, OFF THE 2008 ELECTION BALLOT and defendant must vacate his office immediately, without pay, and without further remuneration or benefits and be forever prohibited from serving in the public trust again, and pay damages to me.
A liar and obfuscator like Obama will never be a martyr.
0bama's track record for being honest when he does talk about himself isn't all that great as the Snopes page on him talks about. The few articles about his autobiographies point out inaccuracies in them as well as calling into question his authorship. Some misspoken comments are common in any campaign, but his total seems a bit high.
Limbaugh wants him beat at the ballot box....
I don't think we have any five stars at the moment. All the JCS's are four stars. AFAIK
I was under the impression that a 5 star was more for war time, for a Supreme Commander of [all military branches] forces in a theater of war [Eisenhower in Europe - MacArthur in Asia]
Same here; beyond a reasonable doubt - an old fashioned ass whoop'n would be even better.
This may have the effect of making more than a few people reconsider voting for 0bama. Most people would want to avoid a constitutional crisis, and I don’t think anyone wants to take a chance on Biden becoming president. Better just go ahead and vote for McCain and avoid this mess.
Maybe Hillary is hoping to be named president by the Electoral College or Congress if he’s ineligible; this wouldn’t be possible if McCain is elected.
In total that raises real doubts. But it’s a shame the GOP can’t beat the Donks on the issues alone, because the Donks really suck.
Thing is, regardless of the outcome next Tuesday, this question is not going to go away until it is properly answered.
It would be way, way, way better for the country if it were answered sooner rather than later.
You might suspect instead that there is no requirement in the Constitution that a Presidential candidate (nor anyone else) *have* a birth certificate, nor show it to anyone.
And you’d be right.
That Obama chose to appeal a court ruling demanding that he produce his birth certificate is NOT normal. A normal, honest, straight forward American would have produced a valid birth certificate!
That Obama is **not** normal and is behaving irrationally is one more reason not to vote for him.
So?...If Limbaugh wants Obama beaten why has he essentially ignored this issue until the last minute? And....Even now Rush Limbaugh has only mentioned it as a throw away comment.
Sorry...But Rush Limbaugh has definitely **failed** his listeners. I am very disappointed in him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.