“if the Attorney General or U.S. Attorney “refuse 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.” Id. § 16-3503. Ms. Taitz, having contacted the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia and the Attorney General of the United States, and not having received an answer to her satisfaction, has elected to seek the writ on her own. Shortly after she filed suit, the government moved to dismiss.”
She should have applied for leave to issue the writ, instead she went ahead and issued it without leave. Simple procedural error. Now apply for leave. If the Judge doesn’t grant it, apply Misprision of felony/treason to him.
That seems to sum up all of Orly's legal antics in a nutshell.
Here, yet again, while failing to gain standing, Taitz has elicited from a second federal district court judge a clear procedural path forward for a quo warranto eligibility challenge by an “interested party” who meets criteria for standing, criteria which Lamberth also further clarified with citations.
In addition, in a crucial victory for eligibility challengers and a defeat for the DOJ, Lamberth refused to affirm the DOJ contention that a sitting POTUS is immune from quo warranto attack.
Specifically Lamberth, like Carter, refused to affirm the DOJ contention in their MTD that it would be a violation of separation of powers for the courts to permit quo warranto.
Taitz has also elicited from Lamberth a non-affirmation of the DOJ contention that eligibility of the POTUS was inherently a “political question” exclusively reserved in the Constitution to non-judicial actors in the electoral process and the Congress.
Taitz elicited from Lamberth his citation of Andrade which explicitly points to an "equity" exception to the exclusive power of the AG or US Attorney to bring quo waranto against a public official when the AG or US Attorney have a conflict of interest regarding the public official whose credentials are being challenged.
For all of these reasons, this dismissal is a big victory for eligibility challengers because a second federal judge (this time in the relevant DC Circuit) has preserved quo warranto as a vector of attack against a sitting president!
Without this imperfect (OK terribly flawed) action by Taitz, this line of defense by Obama and the DOJ (claiming that quo warranto could never be be brought against a sitting PUTUS) would not have been breached. LTC Lakin, Keyes, Donofrio's Chrysler Dealers or now lots of plaintiffs injured by Obamacare may well be able to make use of this breach in the Obama defenses.