(From Leo's blog) Here is Judge Carter’s correct ruling on the quo warranto issue:
C. Quo Warranto Claims…
The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district. The quo warranto provision codified in the District of Columbia Code provides, “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.” D.C. Code §§ 16-3501 – 16-3503. Should a person other than the Attorney General of the United States or the United States Attorney wish to bring a quo warranto claim, that person must receive leave of court to do so. Id. at § 16-3502. This leave of court must be granted, according to the text of the statute, by the District Court for the District of Columbia.
Nothing in today’s ruling appears to question the power of the DC District Court to issue a writ of quo warranto to President Obama which would require him to prove his eligibility to hold the office of President. I must commend Judge Carter for his exercise of judicial restraint on this issue.
“The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district.”
Per Donofrio:
“Nothing in today’s ruling appears to question the power of the DC District Court to issue a writ of quo warranto to President Obama which would require him to prove his eligibility to hold the office of President.”
Thanks for posting this update. This is great news! I wonder if Judge Carter read Donofrio’s blog where Leo's theory goes against the prevailing legal pontificating that a president can only be removed by impeachment or the 25A.
In the MOD the DOJ argued that quo warranto couldn't be applied to POTUS at all because the constitution specified that unlike other DC federal office holders the POTUS eligibility was to be handled through the electoral process. Leo's blog explains why he believes this is wrong.
DOJ did not bother to argue (even “in the alternative”) that quo warranto should have been brought in DC because in my view they rejected quo warranto for a president altogether. For some reason Leo was mystified by this omission and dedicated a topic to it.
Leo is one happy guy today, and I am too! Several days ago his blog “went dark” as he had a client and couldn't post on NBC issues. Leo can't solicit but he can hint and he hinted that if a client who had proper quo warranto standing came to him, he would consider taking the case.
My understanding was that the quo warranto client would have the meed the quo warranto “interested party” test of having been personally injured by an action of Obama’s administration while Obama was in office. I believe that Leo said that the IG named Wylie who was fired while investigating a corrupt crony of Obama would qualify for example. War-injured US service personnel would also qualify. See his blog for details.