Your understanding is incorrect. Quo warranto exists for the sole purpose of examining by what right an Executive branch member holds his or her office.
The way I understand the DC Code (which is codified in Federal law since it is a district), anyone may petition the US Attorney General and/or the US Attorney for the District of Columbia to ask the federal court to issue a writ quo warranto ...
If they both fail to act, the petitioner can then bring the request for the writ quo warranto directly to the federal court ...
It is then up to the court as to whether it accepts the petition ...
I know perfectly well what the purpose of quo warranto is. I think you misread my point. My point was about who (in the courts’ view) has, and doesn’t have, standing to assert such an action. Not just anyone who thinks that the wrong person holds an office can go into court and have his challenge heard.
Your reply doesn’t address that point, let alone cite any authority.
Courts have repeatedly held that Taitz lacks standing to assert her array of claims, including her quo warranto claim. See, e.g., Barnett v. Obama, ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 2009 WL 3861788 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2009) (Orly Taitz among plaintiffs) (also rejecting quo warranto based on choice of improper court).