Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SCOTUS: No Private Right To Quo Warranto
Natural Born Citizen ^ | October 11, 2009 | Leo Donofrio

Posted on 10/11/2009 9:36:29 AM PDT by Deepest End

Since federal case law pertaining to the writ of quo warranto is so scarce, research on the issue is rather simple. This is why I am shocked and confused as to why the DOJ did not cite the case UNITED STATES of America ex rel. STATE OF WISCONSIN v. FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION. I recenly explained the strict holding in the case – that no US District Court other than the DC District Court may entertain a quo warranto proceeding.

*snip*

Get ready, you are going to be hearing much more about the writ of quo warranto in the days and weeks ahead.

*snip*

(Excerpt) Read more at naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com ...


TOPICS: Government; History; Politics
KEYWORDS: certifigate; donofrio; eligibility; leo; leodonofrio; naturalborn; nbc; obama; quowarranto; scotus; usurpation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 next last
Latest from Leo Donofrio
1 posted on 10/11/2009 9:36:29 AM PDT by Deepest End
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Deepest End

interpret please

most here are not legal experts


2 posted on 10/11/2009 9:42:44 AM PDT by Former MSM Viewer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Former MSM Viewer

What does that mean in plain English?


3 posted on 10/11/2009 9:45:06 AM PDT by Mmogamer (<This space for lease>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Deepest End

I’m not an attorney. But my take is that all legal actions questioning the Constitutionality of 0bama holding office, must come from the Government itself on behalf of the public interest.

Is that correct?


4 posted on 10/11/2009 9:45:27 AM PDT by papasmurf (RnVjayB5b3UsIDBiYW1hLCB5b3UgcGllY2Ugb2Ygc2hpdCBjb3dhcmQh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deepest End

I read that twice, and it sounds to me like .. a private citizen cannot bring suit against a gov’t. official .. and especially unless and untill a couple of “approved” definitions are determined.


5 posted on 10/11/2009 9:46:10 AM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deepest End

Sorry,...I didn’t understand a single word of your post. It is English but what does it mean?


6 posted on 10/11/2009 9:48:43 AM PDT by wintertime (People are not stupid! Good ideas win!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mmogamer
What does that mean in plain English?

Only Caesar may question himself

Welcome to the Government of the People

Among other Marxist-Speak absurdities

7 posted on 10/11/2009 9:50:12 AM PDT by Regulator (Welcome to Zimbabwe! Now hand over your property....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mmogamer
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/quo+warranto

A legal proceeding during which an individual's right to hold an office or governmental privilege is challenged.

In old English practice, the writ of quo warranto—an order issued by authority of the king—was one of the most ancient and important writs. It has not, however, been used for centuries, since the procedure and effect of the judgment were so impractical.

Currently the former procedure has been replaced by an information in the nature of a quo warranto, an extraordinary remedy by which a prosecuting attorney, who represents the public at large, challenges someone who has usurped a public office or someone who, through abuse or neglect, has forfeited an office to which she was entitled. In spite of the fact that the remedy of quo warranto is pursued by a prosecuting attorney in a majority of jurisdictions, it is ordinarily regarded as a civil rather than criminal action. Quo warranto is often the only proper legal remedy; however, the legislature can enact legislation or provide other forms of relief.

Statutes describing quo warranto usually indicate where it is appropriate. Ordinarily it is proper to try the issue of whether a public office or authority is being abused. For example, it might be used to challenge the Unauthorized Practice of a profession, such as law or medicine. In such situations, the challenge is an assertion that the defendant is not qualified to hold the position she claims—a medical doctor, for example.

In some quo warranto proceedings, the issue is whether the defendant is entitled to hold the office he claims, or to exercise the authority he presumes to have from the government. In addition, proceedings have challenged the right to the position of county commissioner, treasurer, school board member, district attorney, judge, or tax commissioner. In certain jurisdictions, quo warranto is a proper proceeding to challenge individuals who are acting as officers or directors of business corporations.

A prosecuting attorney ordinarily commences quo warranto proceedings; however, a statute may authorize a private person to do so without the consent of the prosecutor. Unless otherwise provided by statute, a court permits the filing of an information in the nature of quo warranto after an exercise of sound discretion, since quo warranto is an extraordinary exercise of power and is not to be invoked lightly. Quo warranto is not a right available merely because the appropriate legal documents are filed. Valid reason must be indicated to justify governmental interference with the individual holding the challenged office, privilege, or license.

8 posted on 10/11/2009 9:51:02 AM PDT by HangnJudge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: papasmurf

I’m not an attorney....

Me either, but this special type of court action “writ of quo warranto” or by what right does the government official govern has to be “approved” by government officials in Washington, DC. (fat chance) That is my take on Leo’s article.

Hope it works sounds like he is going in that direction.


9 posted on 10/11/2009 9:52:36 AM PDT by Hang'emAll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hang'emAll; BP2; STARWISE; LucyT

Yes, Donofrio’s position is, and has been for some time, that the only successfuly legal proceeding will be a quo warranto, in Washington DC.

In other words, that no other cases alleging usurpation have standing, or are in the proper venue.

DE


10 posted on 10/11/2009 10:02:30 AM PDT by Deepest End ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." - Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mmogamer

“What does that mean in plain English?”

It means that by precedent no one but the government itself can challenge Obama’s status as POTUS.


11 posted on 10/11/2009 10:07:41 AM PDT by devere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Deepest End

That’s what I thought. I vaguely remember reading something with words similar after the 2000 elections regarding Bush on a University website, and that was the conclusion then, as well.

I will say, though, that I hang on to the belief that a Commissioned Officer in the service of the United States has that standing.

But, hey, like I said I’m not an attorney.


12 posted on 10/11/2009 10:08:39 AM PDT by papasmurf (RnVjayB5b3UsIDBiYW1hLCB5b3UgcGllY2Ugb2Ygc2hpdCBjb3dhcmQh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mmogamer

I asked the same question of the poster...


13 posted on 10/11/2009 10:15:37 AM PDT by Former MSM Viewer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: papasmurf
Quo Warranto is not stated directly in the Constitution but rather was inclusively guaranteed by the 9th Amendment. Our Federal statutes are codified in the volumes of United States Code, that is, our federal laws. This is where Quo Warranto can be found.

What does quo warranto mean and where did it come from?
It comes from old English law. King Edward the First, felt many nobles over past reigns had usurped the lands of the kingdom. King Edward decided he would ask for proof. His Writ of Quo Warranto asked literally- "By What Right" do they possess their fiefdom. The nobles had to produce their documents or surrender back to the crown the lands they unjustly lay claim.

In the courts the burden of proof lays with the accuser in all cases except Quo Warranto. Under this writ the burden of proof lay with the Accused.

Barrack Obama,the Accused, if served with a Writ of Quo Warranto would have to prove who he was,to us the Accuser. We The People do not have the burden of proof to substantiate our charge.

Today the Writ must be served to the US Attorney in the Washington D.C. District. The US Attorney is required to notify Congress of the Writ. The Writ would not be heard in a Federal Court. Both Houses of Congress would be convened to try it. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court would preside over the Congressional hearing.

14 posted on 10/11/2009 10:16:19 AM PDT by Paige ("All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing," Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: HangnJudge

well, that was a good explanation...

still not sure I understand the effect of the ruling...

Once a local DA takes the case to court, is he representing the individual who originated the case, or the people at large?

If the latter, does that not convey legitimacy?


15 posted on 10/11/2009 10:20:55 AM PDT by Former MSM Viewer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Hang'emAll
(fat chance)

Pending the outcome of the ongoing Hawaii DoH proceedings, I suggest that it may be a reasonable chance, however I too am not overly optimistic.

Further, it is Donofrio's position that it is our ONLY chance.

16 posted on 10/11/2009 10:22:59 AM PDT by Deepest End ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." - Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Former MSM Viewer
interpret please ... most here are not legal experts

Nor am I, but it seems fairly straightforward and not difficult to comprehend if you make the effort (no offense). I suggest that you read through some of the comments on Donofrio's blog. That may help. There are usually several questions regarding clarification that Donofrio is in a better position to address than I am.

17 posted on 10/11/2009 10:28:56 AM PDT by Deepest End ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." - Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Paige
Today the Writ must be served to the US Attorney in the Washington D.C. District. The US Attorney is required to notify Congress of the Writ. The Writ would not be heard in a Federal Court. Both Houses of Congress would be convened to try it. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court would preside over the Congressional hearing.

Citation, please?

18 posted on 10/11/2009 10:30:46 AM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Deepest End; rxsid; Fred Nerks; null and void; stockpirate; george76; PhilDragoo; Candor7; GOPJ; ...
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Check out #8.

“What does that mean in plain English?”

It means that by precedent no one but the government itself can challenge Obama’s status as POTUS.

19 posted on 10/11/2009 10:35:36 AM PDT by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Paige

I’m aware of the origins of US law, but you “we the people” leading me to believe that those words aren’t your own. Do have a link to a resource that I can look at? Would really appreciate it.


20 posted on 10/11/2009 10:40:49 AM PDT by papasmurf (RnVjayB5b3UsIDBiYW1hLCB5b3UgcGllY2Ugb2Ygc2hpdCBjb3dhcmQh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Deepest End
I am not an attorney either; my understanding is that an entity must have “standing” to sue; for example, any citizen cannot sue bambi because they cannot show actual harm. But,Alan Keyes can sue: he was running for president and can pointedly show that he was damaged by someone who may be ineligible.

Also, the federal government, in some instances, has to agree, in advance, to be sued by a party.

Any attorneys out there that can set me straight if I am incorrect in my interpretations?

21 posted on 10/11/2009 11:04:52 AM PDT by Zman (Liberals: denying reality since Day One.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deepest End
Further, it is Donofrio's position that it is our ONLY chance.

There are other alternatives, but they are too terrible to contemplate.

Although perhaps they are unavoidable, because the alternative to no alternatives is even worse.

22 posted on 10/11/2009 11:09:49 AM PDT by null and void (We are now in day 262 of our national holiday from reality. - 0bama really isn't one of US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: papasmurf

Most of the words are my own, thank you very much. Go to Find Law, Case Law is easy to read on Find Law.

BTW, the Constitution states “We the People”. Anyone who understands the three simple words of the Constitution “We the People” should be able to read the rest. Oh, and “We The People” do not have any rights? Exactly what does the 9th Amendment state within the Constitution?

The question does arise why can’t an individual file a Quo Warranto if they have a question about an elected official? Wouldn’t that be a person’s or We the People’s Constitutional Right to make sure a person is Constitutionally elected? Isn’t the Constitution the Law of the Land? Amazing how the Judges have interpreted the 9th amendment for their own satisfaction. If privacy rights for a woman to have an abortion can be found in the 9th, then questioning whether an elected government official was elected Constitutionally should be considered a Constitutional right according to the 9th amendment. Look the rest up yourself, there are a plethora of cases that have been filed.

And yes, I’m being a smart arse. Why? Because nothing is more disgusting than lazy people. Several of us have tried to point out the Intent of the Founders, but we get smart arsed post from people who seem to be ‘lazy’. Now, back to the game.


23 posted on 10/11/2009 11:25:32 AM PDT by Paige ("All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing," Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Deepest End

I have now read most of the blog....down to using 16-3503 vs trying to use 16-3502.

Donofrio seems adamant that if they used 3503 it would go through...

I am glad to see someone still actively working on this to settle the issue once & for all instead of the obfuscation and distracting employed by the govt to this point.

Shine the light of truth on this sordid matter.


24 posted on 10/11/2009 11:31:04 AM PDT by Former MSM Viewer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
Actually, the correct legal term would be ‘precedent’. My attempt was what is believed to be the “Intent of the Founders’, because recall had been removed from the Constitution when the Articles of Confederation was rewritten.

In addition, I will hazard a guess that you believe “We the People” do not have the right to question Barack Hussein Obama’s birth records? If not, then why did the Founders place in Article II of the Constitution the requirements to be the President of the United States?

Furthermore, do you believe the 9th does not give the people the right to question elected officials? At this time, according to the Courts, the Congress has to file such a suit. As for such decisions, argue with the Justices and the lower courts, I didn't rule on the plethora of cases that have set precedent over the years.

Most of all, read the Federalist Papers (#62) on elections. The States should be the ones properly vetting the candidates. Each Secretary of State should vet any candidate who is running in their state, whether, local, state, or Federal. If not, exactly who is in place to protect "We the People" from people who are highly questionable? In posting this, remember, local, and State elections 'do' matter.
25 posted on 10/11/2009 11:52:19 AM PDT by Paige ("All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing," Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Paige

If that’s the case, nothing can be accomplished until after next fall’s elections.


26 posted on 10/11/2009 11:57:22 AM PDT by Jedidah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Paige

A. I wasn’t being sarcastic. (I am very busy, though, maybe that came off as sarcastic to you)
B. You’ll get better results with honey than with gasoline.
C. I am not lazy.

Nothing follows...


27 posted on 10/11/2009 12:21:26 PM PDT by papasmurf (RnVjayB5b3UsIDBiYW1hLCB5b3UgcGllY2Ugb2Ygc2hpdCBjb3dhcmQh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Paige

I certainly do believe that “we the People” have every right to demand Mr. BHO’s birth documents. In court.

And that’s where his eligibility ought to be determined as well, unless you believe that black letter Constitutional language is a “political matter” as argued by the present day, corrupt, “ Justice” Department. Then, of course, it ought to be adjudicated in that most political of bodies, the US Congress.

BTW, I fully agree that the various State authorities ought to be the first bastion against such shenanigans, but what to do in the face of universal apathy and laziness on their parts? Last year the Democrats didn’t even bother to certify that Obama was eligible, only that he had been nominated, and this went right past the Secretaries of State of every state in the Union, as far as I know.


28 posted on 10/11/2009 12:34:49 PM PDT by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: papasmurf
B. You’ll get better results with honey than with gasoline.

Now, I did find that statement within your list rather humorous when you insulted me along with questioning me.

But hey, ignorance allowed the nitwit into the White House. I wonder how many on here said, “oh, there is NO difference in Obama and McCain”. My reply is, “how is that hope and change working for you”?

In addition, honey (sweet nothings) gave us Barack Hussein Obama. You can have all the honey you can stand and then some.

29 posted on 10/11/2009 2:10:34 PM PDT by Paige ("All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing," Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Former MSM Viewer; All

interpret please

most here are not legal experts

***

Quo warranto (by what warrant) was a means of English Common Law by which an officeholder’s eligibility could be challenged.

Quo Warranto passed from English Law to American Law. The subsequent history of quo warranto in England is outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lamar in Newsman vs. United States ex Rel. Frizzel:

” ... 1. Usurpation of a public office from an early day was treated as a crime, and, like all other crimes, could be prosecuted only in the name of the King by his duly authorized law officers ...

2. But, in time, the criminal features were modified, and it was recognized that there might be many cases which, though justifying quo warranto proceedings, were not of such general importance as to require the attorney general to take charge of the litigation. This was especially true in reference to the usurpation of certain municipal offices named in 9th Anne, c. 20. By that act, passed in 1710, it was therefore provided that it should be lawful “for the proper officer, by leave of the court, to exhibit an information in the nature of a quo warranto at the relation of any person desiring to prosecute the same“ against the designated municipal officers. The writ thus came to be used as a means of determining which of two claimants was entitled to an office ...”

Quo Warranto in the D. C. Code:

And the same Justice continues, describing how quo warranto works in the D.C. Code:

In 1902, Congress adopted a District Code, containing a chapter on quo warranto which, though modeled after the English statute, differed therefrom in several material particulars. The writ was treated as a civil remedy; it was not limited to proceedings against municipal officers, but to all persons who in the District exercised any office, civil or military. It was made available to test the right to exercise a public franchise or to hold an office in a private corporation. Instead of providing that “any person desiring to prosecute” might do so with the consent of the court, certain restrictions were imposed and one enlargement of the right was made. These provisions have never received judicial interpretation. This case must therefore be determined according to the special language of that Code, in the light of general principles applicable to quo warranto, — the prerogative writ by which the government can call upon any person to show by what warrant he holds a public office or exercises a public franchise.

Quo Warranto’s Natural Law Basis:

From a consideration of the nature and history of quo warranto, one can easily see the natural law basis of this action. First, let’s summarize what the quo warranto action was as prosecuted by the English monarch:

1. It is issued by the sovereign, who has a right to confer an office or benefice, known in law as a franchise

2. It proceeds by granting the defendant the right to prove his title or claim

3. It concludes, in the case of non-proof, removal of office or penalty or both.

The sovereign’s claim to issue quo warranto is founded upon his title to authority, to which the right to confer offices is attached.

Therefore, the authority which confers the office has the right to quo warranto.

The defendant has the right to produce evidence to prove his just holding of the office.

Quo warranto does not presume guilt in the holder; neither does it presuppose that the holder has the office by his own right. Rather it presumes the holder has a duty to manifest proof of his claim, because such an office is not his, but conferred upon him by the questioning authority.

Formal quo warrento in U.S. Law is a civil proceeding:

The formal quo warranto proceeding requires the action or consent of the executive branch, which acts in the name of the state or government.

The defendant has the duty to prove his claim; the office is his not by intrinsic right, by only such by a proven claim.

The court assuming the role of judge in the case, stands between the one who moves the claim and the defendant. The action is a civil proceeding, and is codified in the District Columbia Code.

Use of informal quo warranto in civil cases:

When injured by one claiming title to an office, the very claim to the title as justification for the injury, requires the claimant to prove his claim. This form of civil action therefore is virtually a quo warranto, but not formally such.

There is frequent misunderstanding of the nature of a quo warranto proceeding, when the term, while referring to a manner of proceeding, is understood solely as a specific form which is a prerogative writ of the sovereign or executive branch.

It is this invoking of a proceeding of quo warranto, to defend other existing rights, that can be termed the “common law right to quo warranto,” since it is not based on statatue per se, but arises out of an analogy to the formal quo warranto proceedings which existed in common law for centuries, the analogy to which has its legal justification in natural law. It is properly, however, a natural right, the same claimed by the English sovereign in issuing the first writs of quo warranto, and it is this natural right which is the basis for the genus of quo warranto proceedings, a special instance or species of which is the formal quo warranto proceeding. This right, stated in its simplest terms, is the right to question the title claimed by the other party in a dispute over injuries, which conerns that title; wherein there is reasonable ground to believe the claimaint to the title is an interloper.

***

The DC Code was codified for this provision in 1902 - and is in accordance with Federal Code, as DC is a Federal District.

I have not read the DC Code entirely, Donofrio has ...

The provison allows for any individual to request that the U.S. Attorney General and/or the U.S. Attorney for DC (either one or both) to apply to the Federal Court for quo warranto.

If both decline, then an “interested party” may apply to the Federal Court directly - since both the U.S. Attorney General and the U.S. Attorney for DC abstained.

Interestingly - it is the Executive Department that normally has the perogative to apply for the writ.

But, I assert that when the office in question is that of the Chief Executive itself, then the authority which confers the office has the right to quo warranto.

In this case, it would be the Constitution (the Judiciary Department) - otherwise the Executive Department would normally have the right and that would be a conflict of interest.

From Blackstone (Commentaries On The Laws Of England), Book III, Chapter XVII:

§ 337. (1) Information in the nature of quo warranto.

The judgment on a writ of quo warranto (being in the nature of a writ of right) is final and conclusive even against the crown. Which, together with the length of its process, probably occasioned that disuse into which it is now fallen, and introduced a more modern method of prosecution, by information filed in the court of king’s bench by the attorney-general, in the nature of a writ of quo warranto; wherein the process is speedier and the judgment not quite so decisive. This is properly a criminal method of prosecution, as well to punish the usurper by a fine for the usurpation of the franchise, as to oust him, or seize it for the crown: but hath long been applied to the mere purposes of trying the civil right, seizing the franchise, or ousting the wrongful possessor; the fine being nominal only ...

This proceeding is, however, now applied to the decision of corporation disputes between party and party, without any intervention of the prerogative, by virtue of the statute 9 Ann., c. 20 (Municipal Offices, 1710), which permits an information in nature of quo warranto to be brought with leave of the court, at the relation of any person desiring to prosecute the same (who is then styled the relator), against any person usurping, intruding into, or unlawfully holding any franchise or office in any city, borough or town corporate; provides for its speedy determination; and directs that, if the defendant be convicted, judgment of ouster (as well as a fine) may be given against him, and that the relator shall pay or receive costs according to the event of the suit.


30 posted on 10/11/2009 4:07:36 PM PDT by Lmo56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Zman

not as quo warranto


31 posted on 10/11/2009 5:35:36 PM PDT by Deepest End ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." - Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: null and void
There are other alternatives, but they are too terrible to contemplate.

Perhaps I should have said "only court of law" chance.

32 posted on 10/11/2009 5:37:18 PM PDT by Deepest End ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." - Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Former MSM Viewer
I am glad to see someone still actively working on this to settle the issue once & for all instead of the obfuscation and distracting employed by the govt to this point.

Amen to that!

33 posted on 10/11/2009 5:39:15 PM PDT by Deepest End ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." - Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine
Yet....I wrote an phoned our red state's attorney general and secretary of state immediately upon Obama’s nomination. I phoned and wrote to **all** other elected representatives as well. I would bet my entire 401K that they received letters and phone calls by the hundreds and maybe even thousands.

These attorney generals, governors, and secretaries of state **willing** and KNOWINGLY chose to ignore Obama’s thin resume.

I am disgusted! I don't care if it is Donald Duck on the ballot. In the next primary I will vote against every incumbent. All of them have collective gonads smaller than a dust mite.

34 posted on 10/11/2009 5:48:33 PM PDT by wintertime (People are not stupid! Good ideas win!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

thank you...

This being a serious matter, I leave to the hands of the legal experts...

Dont give up, Mr. Donofrio


35 posted on 10/11/2009 6:04:18 PM PDT by Former MSM Viewer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Deepest End
Perhaps I should have said "only court of law" chance.

Yeah. And perhaps I should have kept my frickin' mouth shut and avoided getting my name on The List...

36 posted on 10/11/2009 6:55:41 PM PDT by null and void (We are now in day 262 of our national holiday from reality. - 0bama really isn't one of US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: null and void

Sorry, I’m not sure what you are referring to.

“The List”?


37 posted on 10/11/2009 7:17:01 PM PDT by Deepest End ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." - Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Deepest End

The DHS list of people to eliminate when the time comes....


38 posted on 10/11/2009 7:18:01 PM PDT by null and void (We are now in day 262 of our national holiday from reality. - 0bama really isn't one of US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56
1. It is issued by the sovereign, who has a right to confer an office or benefice, known in law as a franchise

In the absence of a sovereign king, queen or lord, sovreignty of necessity devolved to the People under a Constitutional Republic. This is Natural Law as well.

The first Supreme Court decision regarded as having historic import, under Chief Justice John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia, states that:

"The Revolution, or rather the Declaration of Independence, found the people already united for general purposes, and at the same time providing for their more domestic concerns by State conventions and other temporary arrangements. From the Crown of Great Britain, the sovereignty of their country passed to the people of it ..."

The People are sovereign.

So, what can one make of this?

39 posted on 10/11/2009 7:22:38 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: null and void
The DHS list of people to eliminate when the time comes....

I suspect that you are already on that list (along with me) regardless of these posts ...

Do you own at least one registered firearm?

40 posted on 10/11/2009 7:28:14 PM PDT by Deepest End ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." - Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Deepest End

Registered???


41 posted on 10/11/2009 7:34:56 PM PDT by null and void (We are now in day 262 of our national holiday from reality. - 0bama really isn't one of US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: null and void

Good. Keep it that way.


42 posted on 10/11/2009 8:07:41 PM PDT by Deepest End ("It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." - Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Zman

See Post #30 ...


43 posted on 10/11/2009 8:09:56 PM PDT by Lmo56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: rxsid; Fred Nerks; null and void; stockpirate; george76; PhilDragoo; Candor7; GOPJ; BP2; ...

“What does that mean in plain English?”

The reason Judge Carter is even proceeding (despite questions on Standing and Jurisdiction) is that Orly proposes a conundrum:

As she said at the last hearing (perhaps not as clear as it could be stated), is that impeachment is not appropriate because impeachment can only be used for a legitimate president (not to mention that impeachment is NOT a Judicial function anyway). Since Obama – as Orly argues – is not legitimate, he does not qualify for impeachment or any government “protection” or representation “as president” and thus justifies why the suit may be tried OUT of the DC Court.

Orly contends that Carter’s venue is mandated to use Quo Warranto ONLY IF the Judge decides Obama is legitimate for the position of President. In other words, Orly said not only can CARTER take the “Quo Warranto” case, but he is oath-bound to do so.


Think about it – keeping in mind that Orly must argue this as if her side is 100% CORRECT (just as any attorney does in court):

How do you REMOVE a “corrupt” and illegitimate president, when Quo Warranto rightly or wrongly “protects” him?

Does Quo Warranto apply if he is indeed illegitimate in the first place?


Here's a question that Judge Carter proposes:

WHO protects the rights of a Political THIRD Party in the primarily two-party political system of the Legislature (the US Congress)?

CARTER then discussed the two-party system and viability of third-party candidates, and expressed that he thinks having the ability for third-party candidates is important, and then he said he still wants to know why no one has raised this issue. (from the WaveyDavey report).


The way Orly is proceeding is that first you must establish if he is illegitimate, and that’s done through Discovery. If Discovery proves damning to Mr. Obama, IMO, the SCOTUS may snatch it up right away as this case challenges the very notion of Quo Warranto to a "seemingly" legitimate President.

That, in my opinion, is what Orly proposes – and what give Judge Carter pause.

As he said to Orly and Kreep at the end, “I’m most concerned about standing,” and to the US attorneys he said, “I’m most concerned about justicability, correct venue, political question, and how far do the courts go.” Then, turning back to Orly and Kreep, he said “if I rule against you on standing, I would suggest ways to address that issue in the future.

I think Judge Carter may be attempting to carve out new case law out of existing precedence in this unique situation — tweaking "checks and balances" in cases such as Marbury v. Madison (1803) and others — to put forth a decision on Mr. Barack Hussein Obama – the candidate, not the President.


44 posted on 10/12/2009 12:53:09 AM PDT by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BP2

Thank you for the summary. There are many legal technicalities in the day-to-day proceedings that I sometimes find difficult to follow.

I believe Judge Carter is seeing this from a historic legal perspective and is trying to be especially careful and thorough. I applaud his efforts. May he stand firm!

I pray that the truth will be revealed.


45 posted on 10/12/2009 1:16:56 AM PDT by thecodont
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: thecodont

I pray that the truth will be revealed.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I do as well....In my lifetime and before the Resurrection.


46 posted on 10/12/2009 2:09:18 AM PDT by wintertime (People are not stupid! Good ideas win!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: LucyT
Please add me to your ping list.

TIA

47 posted on 10/12/2009 5:44:25 AM PDT by fulltlt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56

Thanks very much.


48 posted on 10/12/2009 6:32:42 AM PDT by Zman (Liberals: denying reality since Day One.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugPyHCqYG7w

A voice from the desert!!!


49 posted on 10/12/2009 6:43:14 AM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: BP2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugPyHCqYG7w

A voice in the desert!!!


50 posted on 10/12/2009 6:50:21 AM PDT by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson