"Quo Warranto is being filed today in DC"
Yeah, baby. See tagline.
bump
keep plugging. One day we may find an honest judge with some balls.
Mark my words. Orly Taitz is doing this to turn quo warranto into a freak show and discredit its merits. She had the opportunity (and was advised) to file quo warranto months and months ago. She’s doing it NOW because she intends to perform her usual circus tricks and make a mockery of the process. Once people find out that SHE’S involved with a quo warranto proceeding, they’ll automatically dismiss it as a joke.
Isn’t this kind of like requesting that the Mob perform a self audit on all of it’s illegal activities?
Like Holder is going to even respond???
Time to put a flak jacket on that pig.
bump
Pretty sure a quo warranto action only (validly) may be maintained by someone who is asserting HE should hold the office instead. Taitz isn’t asserting that.
But her pleading is another story. A recitation of anecdotes, does not amount to standing. A case for damages for personal injury would be another type of filing altogether!
From the document posted online:
Standing
"Taitz is an attorney and has submitted request to Attorney General Eric Holder and US attorney for the District of Columbia Jeffrey Taylor to file Quo Warranto, to ascertain Obama’s legitimacy for presidency . After 9 months of waiting she did not receive any response from either Attorney General or US attorney for the district of Columbia. She is seeking an ex-relator status to proceed with Quo Warranto."
"Taitz tried to ascertain Obama’s legitimacy for presidency and as an attorney representing her clients, she brought a number of legal actions seeking a judicial resolution of this issue. She was subjected to vicious attacks coming from the media acting as regime official propaganda, from Obama’s supporters and from some judiciary, acting as tools to silence her and intimidate her into dropping her legal actions. She was subjected to numerous death threats, tampering with her car, when a fumes emissions hose was disconnected and hot combustible fumes were going back to the engine, as she was driving with her three children in the car. Several convicted criminals and document forgers were working in concert and appear to be following the same instructions, submited perjured affidavits to court and forged her signature, in an attempt to influence the judiciary and undermine her in the eyes of the community and undermine her law license. Her foundation web site was repeatedly hacked and destroyed. Her paypal account was tampered with. On 01.21.09. her case Lightfoot v Bowen was erased from the docket of the Supreme Court of the United States only two days before it was supposed to be heard in conference by all nine justices."
"For a year and a half after repeated complaints to law enforcement she could not get any assistance or relief from the law enforcement. When she brought two legal actions in the Middle District of Georgia on behalf of the members of the US military, as a form of intimidation and retaliation, she was sanctioned $20,000. Taitz is seeking not only verification of Obama’s legitimacy under Quo Warranto, but financial compensation for damages suffered as well as compensation for the severe emotional distress."
This is really somewhat disturbing. I take this issue very seriously and was absolutely hopeful that a quo warranto approach might work. However, the Taitz sideshow could just detract and derail. I don’t think this is a good development.
Will more competent attorneys do this instead of Taitz? Will her suit mess up any of their ongoing efforts?
The typical Taitz package of crazy.
Orly Taitz is the best thing that could have happened for Democrats!
I never thought I would say this, but she needs to start having sex with Charles Lincoln III again. When he was writing her pleadings, they were awful, but were at least somewhat on point and bordering on competence.
This is - without question - the single worst-written filing in the history of the American Judicial System.
......Ping... with links above to (some) docs.
New document filed in the Taitz v. Obama QW case in D.C.
It might be best if you read the relevant portions of the DC Code concerning Quo Warranto:
D.C. LAW 17-288, which became effective on DECEMBER 24, 2008, by D.C. ACT 17-602.
——————–
CHAPTER 35: QUO WARRANTO
SUBCHAPTER I — ACTIONS AGAINST OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES
SUBCHAPTER II — ACTIONS AGAINST OFFICERS OR CORPORATIONS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
SUBCHAPTER III — PROCEDURES AND JUDGMENTS
SUBCHAPTER I: ACTIONS AGAINST OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES
§ 16-3501. Persons against whom issued; civil action.
§ 16-3502. Parties who may institute; ex rel. proceedings.
§ 16-3503. Refusal of Attorney General or United States attorney to act; procedure.
§ 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.
(Dec. 23, 1963, 77 Stat. 602, Pub. L. 88-241, § 1; July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 562, Pub. L. 91-358, title I, § 145(n); 1973 Ed., § 16-3501; 1981 Ed., § 16-3501.)
§ 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.
(Dec. 23, 1963, 77 Stat. 602, Pub. L. 88-241, § 1; July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 562, Pub. L. 91-358, title I, § 145(n); 1973 Ed., § 16-3502; 1981 Ed., § 16-3502.)
§ 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.
(Dec. 23, 1963, 77 Stat. 602, Pub. L. 88-241, § 1; July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 562, Pub. L. 91-358, title I, § 145(n); 1973 Ed., § 16-3503; 1981 Ed., § 16-3503.)
SUBCHAPTER II: ACTIONS AGAINST OFFICERS OR CORPORATIONS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
§ 16-3521. Persons against whom issued; civil action.
§ 16-3522. Parties who may institute; ex rel. proceedings.
§ 16-3523. Refusal of United States attorney or Attorney General of the District of Columbia to act; procedures.
§ 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.
(July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 562, Pub. L. 91-358, title I, § 145(n); 1973 Ed., § 16-3521; 1981 Ed., § 16-3521.)
§ 16-3522. Parties who may institute; ex rel. proceedings.
The United States attorney or the Attorney General of the District of Columbia 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.
(July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 562, Pub. L. 91-358, title I, § 145(n); 1973 Ed., § 16-3522; 1981 Ed., § 16-3522; May 26, 2004, Mayor’s Order 2004-92, § 4, 51 DCR 6052.)
§ 16-3523. Refusal of United States attorney or Attorney General of the District of Columbia to act; procedures.
If the United States attorney or Attorney General of the District of Columbia 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 District of Columbia, on the relation of the interested person, on his compliance with the conditions prescribed by section 16-3522 as to security for costs.
(July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 563, Pub. L. 91-358, title I, § 145(n); 1973 Ed., § 16-3523; May 26, 2004, Mayor’s Order 2004-92, § 4, 51 DCR 6052.)
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.
§ 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.
(Dec. 23, 1963, 77 Stat. 602, Pub. L. 88-241, § 1; July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 563, Pub. L. 91-358, title I, § 145(n); 1973 Ed., § 16-3541; 1981 Ed., § 16-3541.)
§ 16-3542. Notice to defendant.
On the issuing of a writ of quo warranto the court may fix a time within which the defendant may appear and answer the writ. When the defendant cannot be found in the District of Columbia, the court may direct notice to be given to him by publication as in other cases of proceedings against nonresident defendants, and upon proof of publication, if the defendant does not appear, judgment may be rendered as if he had been personally served.
(Dec. 23, 1963, 77 Stat. 602, Pub. L. 88-241, § 1; July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 563, Pub. L. 91-358, title I, § 145(n); 1973 Ed., § 16-3542; 1981 Ed., § 16-3542.)
§ 16-3543. Proceedings on default.
If the defendant does not appear as required by a writ of quo warranto, after being served, the court may proceed to hear proof in support of the writ and render judgment accordingly.
(Dec. 23, 1963, 77 Stat. 603, Pub. L. 88-241, § 1; July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 563, Pub. L. 91-358, title I, § 145(n); 1973 Ed., § 16-3543; 1981 Ed., § 16-3543.)
§ 16-3544. Pleading; jury trial.
In a quo warranto proceeding, the defendant may demur, plead specially, or plead “not guilty” as the general issue, and the United States or the District of Columbia, as the case may be, may reply as in other actions of a civil character. Issues of fact shall be tried by a jury if either party requests it. Otherwise they shall be determined by the court.
(Dec. 23, 1963, 77 Stat. 603, Pub. L. 88-241, § 1; July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 563, Pub. L. 91-358, title I, § 145(n); 1973 Ed., § 16-3544; 1981 Ed., § 16-3544.)
§ 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.
(Dec. 23, 1963, 77 Stat. 603, Pub. L. 88-241, § 1; July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 563, Pub. L. 91-358, title I, § 145(n); 1973 Ed., § 16-3545; 1981 Ed., § 16-3545.)
§ 16-3546. Usurping corporate franchise; judgment.
Where a quo warranto proceeding is against persons acting as a corporation without being legally incorporated, the judgment against the defendants shall be that they be perpetually restrained and enjoined from the commission or continuance of the acts complained of.
(Dec. 23, 1963, 77 Stat. 603, Pub. L. 88-241, § 1; July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 563, Pub. L. 91-358, title I, § 145(n); 1973 Ed., § 16-3546; 1981 Ed., § 16-3546.)
§ 16-3547. Proceedings against corporate directors and trustees; judgment and order; enforcement.
Where a quo warranto proceeding is against a director or trustee of a corporation and the court finds that at his election either illegal votes were received or legal votes rejected, or both, sufficient to change the result if the error is corrected, the court may render judgment that the defendant be ousted, and that the relator, if entitled to be declared elected, be admitted to the office, and the court may issue an order to the proper parties, being officers or members of the corporation, to admit him to the office. The judgment may require the defendant to deliver to the relator all books, papers, and other things in his custody or control pertaining to the office, and obedience to judgment may be enforced by attachment.
(Dec. 23, 1963, 77 Stat. 603, Pub. L. 88-241, § 1; July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 564, Pub. L. 91-358, title I, § 145(n); 1973 Ed., § 16-3547; 1981 Ed., § 16-3547.)
§ 16-3548. Recovery of damages from usurper; limitation.
At any time within a year from a judgment in a quo warranto proceeding, the relator may bring an action against the party ousted and recover the damages sustained by the relator by reason of the ousted party’s usurpation of the office to which the relator was entitled.
(Dec. 23, 1963, 77 Stat. 603, Pub. L. 88-241, § 1; July 29, 1970, 84 Stat. 564, Pub. L. 91-358, title I, § 145(n); 1973 Ed., § 16-3548; 1981 Ed., § 16-3548.)