Posted on 05/05/2009 8:58:22 PM PDT by plenipotentiary
Chapter 35. Quo Warranto.
Subchapter I. Actions Against Officers of the United States. (Refs & Annos)
§ 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.
What the hell are you talking about? Your link doesn’t even work.
Glad YOU asked—LOL!
I'm guessing some sort of conspiracy so secret that it cannot be mentioned. Do you know the secret hand shake followed by the correct butt bump.
No, no, no... it’s a butt-shake followed by a hand[fist] bump.
Yeah, this is a conservative site. We Don’t Do Any Butt Bumps Here.
District of Columbia ST § 16-3503
http://grc.dc.gov/grc/cwp/view,a,1205,q,447198,pm,1,grcNav_GID,1423,.asp
Follow the link “DC Official Code Online”
I’m guessing this has to do wuth the birth certificate.
You want me to read through the DC code? Are you high?! Why don’t you just post “www.wikipedia.com” and say something cryptic like “WE NEED TO ACT NOW!!!!”.
Then you know the double secret hand shake????
You only need to read one section 16-3503.
That is as dumb as the first post.
Is that some sort of Mexican????
How about Burger King, that would be a cheaper date!!
I'm under my invisable tin foil ... no one can see me, n' they can't hear me think.
Go away!
SHHHH!!
I followed your modified link and read 3503 & 3502. What I’m wondering is what is next? What I think it says is that a bond must be posted and approval to serve the warrant obtained. If so, what happens then?
Warrantos? We don’t need any stinkin’ warrantos!
(I couldn’t access the link because my secret encoder codex is on double secret probation for being fat, drunk and stupid.)
If you read the following sections from the above link, including:
DC ST § 16-3541
District of Columbia Official Code 2001 Edition Currentness
Division II. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure
Title 16. Particular Actions, Proceedings and Matters. (Refs & Annos)
Chapter 35. Quo Warranto.
Subchapter III. Procedures and Judgments.
§ 16-3541. Allegations in petition of relator claiming office.
When a quo warranto proceeding is against a person for usurping an office, on the relation of a person claiming the same office, the relator shall set forth in his petition the facts upon which he claims to be entitled to the office.
DC ST § 16-3545
§ 16-3545. Verdict and judgment.
Where a defendant in a quo warranto proceeding is found by the jury to have usurped, intruded into, or unlawfully held or exercised an office or franchise, the verdict shall be that he is guilty of the act or acts in question, and judgment shall be rendered that he be ousted and excluded therefrom and that the relator recover his costs.
Subchapter III. Procedures and Judgments.
§ 16-3541. Allegations in petition of relator claiming office.
§ 16-3542. Notice to defendant.
§ 16-3543. Proceedings on default.
§ 16-3544. Pleading; jury trial.
§ 16-3545. Verdict and judgment.
§ 16-3546. Usurping corporate franchise; judgment.
§ 16-3547. Proceedings against corporate directors and trustees; judgment and order; enforcement.
§ 16-3548. Recovery of damages from usurper; limitation.
Why did you not post this in your article?
And then, not put a specific link?
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.