Constitutional lawyer, Leo Donofrio and constitutional journalist, John Charlton have weighed in, on the question of jurisdiction for federal quo warranto petitions for District of Columbia office holders (including those which may question their eligibility - and in case our Attorney General is reading, no pun is intended for the word "holder," yet).
This is of import to the eligibility case, Barnett, et. al., v. Obama, et. al. In addition to this Donofrio article, see references at bottom, for further context, both in history and in present ramifications.
Quo Warranto for 'Interested Persons'by Leo Donofrio, 10/9/2009
Section 16-3503 of the federal quo warranto statute allows an “interested person” to approach the DC District Court concerning a quo warranto trial (by jury) without requiring the permission of the US Attorney General or the US Attorney for DC.
An “interested person” may sign a “certified complaint” which states facts and those facts must be sworn to under penalty of perjury. Only facts may be sworn to, not allegations. The “interested person” gathers up all facts known to him/her and puts them in the petition, swears to them under oath and hands that in to the Court. Pretty simple, folks.
One fact which could safely be sworn to is that Obama was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 and that he was – at birth – a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. These are facts admitted by Obama. These facts have never been laid before the DC District Court. These facts are not in the complaint before Judge Carter. Why not?
16-3503 states:
If the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses 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. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of the United States, on the relation of the interested person…
Plaintiffs in Barnett v. Obama allege that they have standing which is unique and special compared to the public at large. Therefore, they should have availed themselves of 16-3503.
But they’ve never even tried.
Plaintiffs have only attempted to avail themselves of 16-3502. All citizens are considered “third persons” under 16-3502, but all citizens don’t have unique standing and therefore 16-3502 requires permission by the Department of Justice to use the name of the US – ex relator – ina quo warranto proceeding.
But if you are an “interested person” under 16-3503 – aka a person with unique standing – then you do not need permission from the Department of Justice for the quo warranto.
The DC District Court examines the certified petition prior to allowing the suit to go forth based upon that petition. If the court is satisfied that the person issuing the petition is an “interested person” then that person is not needed any longer for the trial.
Once the name of the United States is allowed to be used, the “interested person” may step off, and the facts alleged are to be tried independently. For example, facts concerning what makes the President ineligible have nothing to do with the particular plaintiffs in Barnett v. Obama. So there’s no need for them to travel across the country for the trial. The trial is brought against the alleged usurper in the name of the United States.
There’s nothing stopping the plaintiffs from petitioning the DC District Court right now based upon facts known and verifiable as to the President’s British birth.
Why has this option been ignored? 16-3503 provides an excellent chance for review of these facts. There it is. Why not use it? A golden opportunity is being thrown by the way side.
Either the DC District Court will agree that these military persons are “interested persons” or it will not. Either the DC District Court will agree that 2008 Presidential candidate Alan Keyes is an “interested person” or it will not.
If the DC District Court does not agree that these plaintiffs are “interested persons” under the statute, then plaintiffs can make the same arguments they are making now before Judge Carter.
I don’t see any tactical advantage at all in avoiding the DC District Court.
Why give one of your tickets away for free? Why give away your best ticket for free? Why not avail yourself of the very statute created by Congress to review the eligibility of all US national office holders?
Doing so also avoids “political question doctrine” issues because the quo warranto statute is a congressional exercise of Constitutional authority to review the President’s eligibility. Why not kill two birds with one stone? Also, all arguments that a quo warranto action is too late now that he’s been sworn in are just patently bogus.
Quo warranto can only be invoked against somebody holding an office under false title.
Quo warranto only applies to actual usurpation not possible usurpation. It is the legislature’s sole enactment which allows judicial review of the President’s eligibility. And it appears that serious attempts are being made to avoid it. Before going off point and trying to force this issue upon courts which have not been given such authority, an action should have been brought – and still can be – under 16-3503.
Look people, I’m trying to help. Read this over a few times until it sinks in.
Leo C. Donofrio, Citizen Attorney - http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com
Copyright 2009
This article follows Mr. Donofrio's Natural Born Citizen piece, "Judge Carter Does Not have Subject Matter Jurisdiction for Quo Warranto in Barnett v. Obama." There, he muses over the ostensible failure of Obama's personal Department of Justice representation (personal DoJ representation? - what nation is this?) in their not citing the most relevant case, to demonstrate inappropriate jurisdiction. That case is State of Wisconsin v. First Federal Savings and Loan Association.
In The Post & Email, John Charlton analyzes the Wisconsin decision and this underscores the validity of Donfrio's point: "The 7th Circuit Court's Argument Against Quo Warranto's Use - and its Applicability to Barnett vs. Obama." At the same time, he would be reaching a bit, to find any other valid, quo warranto path. A path must be made, potentially via the People's petition for redress of grievances, where government has not already provided a path for constitutional rights and powers to be maintained. However, as Donofrio described, a sensible path has been provided.
Why so Wisconsin-less?
Do Obama (and his "transnational progressive" web of string pullers) want eligibility cases brought to a head... in this particular case... in its particular, scheduled time? If so, why?
But, perhaps the most important questions here, are these:
- Do we who seek the authentic, constitutional America, wish to petition the court constitutionally, in the District of Columbia?
- Is this the appropriate move to make, at this time?
- Are some willing to take the lead before Orly Taitz does, this time?
- As the Soros-Obama-Pelosi revolution continues to destroy America, chiefly through violently and steadily draining our economy, is there any time to waste?
Leo Donofrio discussed this quo warranto quandary at the end of the first hour, of his Monday 10/5 interview, on "The Awakening," hosted by yours truly. The rest of the discussion focused upon the new Hawaiian investigations of Barack Obama's birth certificate and related documents, subject to Hawaii's open access law.
These sites are recommended, for keeping tabs on the players and their moves:
The Post & Email
The Right Side of Life
I may move in and out of it again, as well. Feel free to comment upon any of these questions, there, or in Investigating Obama.
Arlen, I.O., Awakening in Twitter
Arlen, I.O., Awakening: Facebook
3 comments:
Even for the 16-3502 attempt Orly did not persue that to the best of her ability. At no point did she offer a surety bond to the clerk of the court which is allowed if the third party can not get leave of the court.
"The writ may not be issued on the relation of a third person except by leave of the court, to be applied for by the relator, by a petition duly verified setting forth the grounds of the application, or until the relator files a bond with sufficient surety..."
I must agree at this point, after a long review to your posting a few weeks back that it honestly appears that Taitz is either incompetent or has no desire to actually win but only to increase her own importance and to profit from it.
One way or another, Professor.
One way or another, it would appear.
JUDGE CARTER IN A NUTSHELL: Expanded Orly Taitz default judgment case against CANDIDATE Obama for fraud into a Presidential Removal case against PRESIDENT Obama (promising a trial), but then ruled the Court lacks said Presidential Removal authority, not only dismissing the Judge-expanded Presidential Removal case (reneging on the trial), but throwing out Orly's Candidate fraud case as well -- all this on a red herring that Orly's case was filed 1/20/09 after Obama was sworn in on 1/20/09 despite Obama was sworn in on 1/21/09 and despite the Orly-alleged fraud was committed by Candidate Obama prior to becoming President and for which there is no Presidential immunity in any case. Thus Judge Carter set up and knocked down his own straw man, and misstated fact and law to bury Orly's actual case. Pretty nifty!!!
Post a Comment