How a Crude Forgery Was Passed Off as Authentic to get an Unknown Elected as President of The USA

Last I heard, ozero has paid somewhere near 1.6 million to keep everything secret. That’s a pretty expensive set of records.

Another thought here, why would ozero spend 1.6 million on a “non issue” ?

So that suddenly makes him eligible, if he is in truth not? Justice Roberts was performing an traditional duty of the Chief Justice. It’s not even a requirement under the Constitution, just tradition. The Constitution only requires that the oath be taken, and not all Presidents have been, as you put it, Sworn in, by the Chief Justice, or any federal judge or justice.

But it’s not a coronation, it does not, by itself, make one President. It’s one of the requirements, but then so is being a natural born citizen.

Yes you are correct that Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8 requires the Oath of Office for the person who has been elected president but it doesn’t have to be the Chief Justice. In this case, as in many others, it was the Chief Justice.

Chapter 3 of the US Code of Laws gives to Congress the power to challenge the certification of the Electoral College vote. If a candidate was alleged to be unqualified or illegal, his or her Electoral votes should not be certified and Congress has a process to challenge and resolve disputes over Electoral College votes from each state and the District of Columbia. Obama’s electoral college votes went unchallenged.

Once a person’s Electoral College votes are certified by the Joint Session of Congress and that person is sworn in by anybody, the constitutional way to remove him or her from the presidency is via impeachment in the House and trial and conviction in the Senate.

The theory that the Nordyke twins should have certificate numbers higher than Obama based upon dates is a non-starter. The premise assumes that:

- all hospital paperwork was processed in pristine chronological order without regard for the availability of nurses and physicians for signatures
- government clerks processed received paperwork in a first-in-first-out (FIFO) order.

That simply isn’t plausible given the human factor that would have been involved in 1961.

I worked as a title clerk at an automobile dealership during college. The Sales and Finance staff brought up stacks of paperwork every couple of days for vehicles that needed to be titled. Paperwork never went through their offices in an orderly manner. There was always something missing or incomplete: missing signatures, incomplete odometer statements, etc.

I didn’t process paperwork by the date a vehicle was sold/purchased. I processed stacks of paperwork from the top of the stack to the bottom of the stack setting aside any paperwork for which I still needed something. That meant that vehicles were assigned tag numbers according to when I received the paperwork, their order in the current stack I was processing, and when I was finally able to complete the titlework. The date of sale had little correlation with the assigned tag number.

The paperwork for two separate vehicles purchased on the same day and sold by two different salesmen weren’t automatically processed and titled on the same day or even the same week.

That’s incorrect. If the A.G. and the U.S. Attorney for the Districk refuse to take action, an interested party (meaning one with standing) can ask the Court for leave to file quo warranto in the name of the United States. Ultimately the Court makes the decision, not the A.G. or the U.S. Attorney.

Districk = District

A bureaucrat swearing an oath is meaningless.

In court, there is such a thing as the “best evidence rule”. The original birth certificate would be required.

The effects of McCain-Feingold are still in effect for everything that happened under its reign. Having it ruled unconstitutional doesn’t reverse most of what has happened. It simply prevents future consequences.

Same with Obama. He’s President, like it or not. If he’s ever ruled unqualified, he can then be removed by Congress or by the U.S. District Court in D.C. (quo warranto). But the effects of his unconstitutional reign will still be felt until and unless those effects are challenged in a court of law and individually reversed.

Quo Warranto is a criminal procedure in its foundation and thus any initiation of such a Quo Warranto action can happen either by filing with the Attorney General or, when denied, filing a motion for leave with the DC Court.

Furthermore, in Newman v Frizzell, the Supreme Court has ruled that in the latter case, one has to be not just a 3rd party, but an interested party, which means, someone who has a direct interest in the Office. Thus the same issues with legal standing to initiate a lawsuit challenging Obama’s eligibility arise with Quo Warranto. John McCain/Sarah Palin are the persons most likely to be able to demonstrate “direct interest” yet neither of them has shown any inclination to sue, join an existing suit or even to file an amicus brief on behalf of any plaintiff.

It would certainly behoove Attorney General Holder or US Attorney Phillips to go ahead and grant the petition for a Writ of Quo Warranto and then let the courts kill the petition. That would be the political move, not to allow leave by denying the petition. There is plenty of existent case law and federal law on the side which says that elected federal officials are not covered by the Quo Warranto provisions.

Quo Warranto cannot be initiated against a President since the authority to remove a sitting president is limited to Congress. When Congress voted on exactly this issue, the measure was defeated, noting that such an action would be un-Constitutional .

The New York Times, on June 20, 1882, published an article explaining that an attempt by Congress to allow the title of the President to be tried by Quo Warranto had been defeated. Most relevant are the comments by Mr. Hewitt who “did not approve the bill, and he remarked that he was satisfied that no man installed in the office of President could be ousted before the expiration of his four years by any method except revolution.”

See Newman v United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915)from that 1915 decision comes the following:
The Code — making a distinction between a “third person” and an “interested person” — recognizes also that there might be instances in which a person might have such an interest in the matter as to entitle him to a hearing, even where he had failed to secure the consent of the Attorney General or District Attorney to use the name of the United States. Section 1540 deals with that case, and provides that, where these law officers have refused the request of a “person interested,” he may apply to the court by a verified petition for leave to have said writ issue. If, in the opinion of the court, his reasons are sufficient in law, the said writ shall be allowed to be issued in the name of the United States on the relation of said interested person on his giving security for costs.
Frizzell does not allege that he had been an incumbent of that office and had been unlawfully ousted before his term expired. He does not set up any claim to the office. And, of course, if he, as a citizen and a taxpayer, has the right to institute these proceedings, any other citizen and taxpayer has a similar right to institute proceedings against Newman and all others who “exercise within the District . . . a public office, civil or military.” District Code, §1538(1). Such result would defeat the whole policy of the law, which still regards usurpation as a public wrong to be dealt with primarily by the public prosecutors.
5. In a sense — in a very important sense — every citizen and every taxpayer is interested in the enforcement of law, in the administration of law, and in having only qualified officers execute the law. But that general interest is not a private, but a public, interest. Being such, it is to be represented by the Attorney General or the District Attorney, who are expected by themselves or those they authorize to institute quo warranto proceedings against usurpers in the same way that they are expected to institute proceedings against any other violator of the law. That general public interest is not sufficient to authorize a private citizen to institute such proceedings, for, if it was, then every citizen and every taxpayer would have the same interest and the same right to institute such proceedings, and a public officer might, from the beginning to the end of his term, be harassed with proceedings to try his title.

Quo Warranto is a criminal procedure in its foundation and thus any initiation of such a Quo Warranto action can happen either by filing with the Attorney General or, when denied, filing a motion for leave with the DC Court.

Furthermore, in Newman v Frizzell, the Supreme Court has ruled that in the latter case, one has to be not just a 3rd party, but an interested party, which means, someone who has a direct interest in the Office. Thus the same issues with legal standing to initiate a lawsuit challenging Obama’s eligibility arise with Quo Warranto. John McCain/Sarah Palin are the persons most likely to be able to demonstrate “direct interest” yet neither of them has shown any inclination to sue, join an existing suit or even to file an amicus brief on behalf of any plaintiff.

It would certainly behoove Attorney General Holder or US Attorney Phillips to go ahead and grant the petition for a Writ of Quo Warranto and then let the courts kill the petition. That would be the political move, not to allow leave by denying the petition. There is plenty of existent case law and federal law on the side which says that elected federal officials are not covered by the Quo Warranto provisions.

Quo Warranto cannot be initiated against a President since the authority to remove a sitting president is limited to Congress. When Congress voted on exactly this issue, the measure was defeated, noting that such an action would be un-Constitutional .

The New York Times, on June 20, 1882, published an article explaining that an attempt by Congress to allow the title of the President to be tried by Quo Warranto had been defeated. Most relevant are the comments by Mr. Hewitt who “did not approve the bill, and he remarked that he was satisfied that no man installed in the office of President could be ousted before the expiration of his four years by any method except revolution.”

See Newman v United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915)from that 1915 decision comes the following:
The Code — making a distinction between a “third person” and an “interested person” — recognizes also that there might be instances in which a person might have such an interest in the matter as to entitle him to a hearing, even where he had failed to secure the consent of the Attorney General or District Attorney to use the name of the United States. Section 1540 deals with that case, and provides that, where these law officers have refused the request of a “person interested,” he may apply to the court by a verified petition for leave to have said writ issue. If, in the opinion of the court, his reasons are sufficient in law, the said writ shall be allowed to be issued in the name of the United States on the relation of said interested person on his giving security for costs.
Frizzell does not allege that he had been an incumbent of that office and had been unlawfully ousted before his term expired. He does not set up any claim to the office. And, of course, if he, as a citizen and a taxpayer, has the right to institute these proceedings, any other citizen and taxpayer has a similar right to institute proceedings against Newman and all others who “exercise within the District . . . a public office, civil or military.” District Code, §1538(1). Such result would defeat the whole policy of the law, which still regards usurpation as a public wrong to be dealt with primarily by the public prosecutors.
5. In a sense — in a very important sense — every citizen and every taxpayer is interested in the enforcement of law, in the administration of law, and in having only qualified officers execute the law. But that general interest is not a private, but a public, interest. Being such, it is to be represented by the Attorney General or the District Attorney, who are expected by themselves or those they authorize to institute quo warranto proceedings against usurpers in the same way that they are expected to institute proceedings against any other violator of the law. That general public interest is not sufficient to authorize a private citizen to institute such proceedings, for, if it was, then every citizen and every taxpayer would have the same interest and the same right to institute such proceedings, and a public officer might, from the beginning to the end of his term, be harassed with proceedings to try his title.

Quo warranto proceedings are civil, not criminal.

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.

Quo warranto is not just about eligibility.

Leo points out that the statute not only applies to eligibility, but also to the unlawful “exercise” of authority via public office. At the common law, quo warranto was not only used to challenge usurpation of office but also to challenge illegal government actions and the current quo warranto statute was written as a catch all in this regard. So Leo and Steve will bring two counts under 3501, eligibility and illegal use of Government funds. The second count refers to the use of TARP funds to facilitate the Chrysler Bankruptcy sale.

A quo warranto may be issued from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in the name of the District of Columbia against -

...

(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.

In other words, the actions taken by the government were an illegal exercise of corporate authority. The government has acted as a political agent (acting as board of directors) against corporations using taxpayer money to restructure the auto industry under their vision.

In the posting, Mr. Donofrio emphasizes that he and Mr. Pidgeon represent the best interests of the dealers, leaving open the possibility of a settlement.

Source: The Right Side of Life

The Chrysler dealers absolutely have a "direct interest" and not just a "general interest."

You're simply wrong. Quo Warranto absolutely can be initiated against the POTUS. Read the following legal brief for details.

I apologize for the “You’re simply wrong” comment. That was rude of me. Please read the brief and then we’ll talk further, if you want.

No problem.
I’ll be interested to see what happens.
My personal opinion is that the criminal courts are the way to go not through the civil court system.
It is my personal opinion that the only person who has legal standing to sue Barack Obama is John McCain (he can show direct injury and he qualifies as an “interested person” for quo warranto purposes) or the McCain/Palin campaign and they have shown no inclination to do so.
A grand jury investigation might yield better results utlizing subpoena power.

Good question for the Doc.

I second that idea.

All those in favor?

I’m sending this thread to Glenn Beck. Do you think he will read it? Do you think he will apologize to the birthers and start doing some serious “questioning with boldness” and start investigating this issue like he does everything else? I bet he won’t. I also bet his core supporters will start melting away very rapidly.