Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: devattel

This judge has absolutely no clue what electoral quo warranto means nor how it is applied. It is truly astounding how many justices and attorneys in this nation either a) ignore the laws or b) do not understand the laws.

Being elected is not a right. Like driving, it is a privilege, one requiring the person holding the license or title to prove themselves worthy of holding that privilege.


When Orly Taitz attempted a quo warranto claim against Obama in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth wrote in his opinion: “This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, as is required by the Constitution. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.” Judge Lamberth dismissed the quo warranto claim on the grounds of not meeting the requirements of standing under Article III of the Constitution.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30040084/TAITZ-v-OBAMA-QW-23-MEMORANDUM-OPINION-dcd-04502943496-23-0


117 posted on 03/07/2011 6:23:32 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies ]


To: jamese777
jamese777 said:

When Orly Taitz attempted a quo warranto claim against Obama in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth wrote in his opinion: “This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen, as is required by the Constitution. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.” Judge Lamberth dismissed the quo warranto claim on the grounds of not meeting the requirements of standing under Article III of the Constitution.

I recall that case. The judge was and still is an unprofessional ignoramus.

Nevertheless, Taitz is not able to file a quo warranto case unless there is someone with standing she is representing as one of her plaintiffs. Dr. Keyes had standing to sue the Secretary of State of California, but not based upon quo warranto. Quo warranto has very specific rules of engagement with regards to common law dating back to the Greek Empire. In the United States, quo warranto can only be exercised against a usurping president by:
  1. A state or federal attorney general
  2. A party to whom lays a "rightful claim" to the position
  3. Congress
  4. A high-ranking diplomat or leader from a separate nation engaged in treaties with the U.S.
  5. A government employee or elected official under the direct authority of the president
Orly is a grandstanding attorney. She does not clearly understand what quo warranto is any more than the majority of ignorant judges on these cases do.
120 posted on 03/07/2011 6:47:15 PM PST by devattel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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