34 thoughts on “Quo Warranto: Donofrio, Apuzzo Team Up on Challenging the President’s Authority”

  1. If AG were to recuse himself from this case, who would act in his place? He was not just appointed by Obama to be AG, he also was Deputy AG under Janet Reno in the Clinton administration. Clinton would not be SOS if Obama was found ineligible would she?

  2. So, to circumvent the courts which have no jurisdiction anyway, Taiz has (or is?//) submitting a quo warranto action to Holder while, coincidentally, this case is also being prepared by Apuzzi and Donofrio? Does Taiz name military officers as plaintiffs/relaters in the qw action? (Just trying to get on the same page. Have been out of the loop for awhile. sorry.) Thanks!

    1. Not only is Orly Taitz assembling a group of plaintiffs none of whom has standing, but she also plans to file her quo warranto suit in the wrong venue. The appropriate court is the United States District Court for the District of Columbia — the same court that just tossed Phil Berg’s disingenuous interpleader — where Taitz would have to be sponsored for admission pro hac vice. Suppose John Hemenway is up for another round as counsel of record?

  3. I don’t see how the attorneys can use ordinary citizens as plaintiffs either in light of Newman; however, there is a part 2 of the legal brief forthcoming that may clear the issue up. Certainly Keyes would agree to serve as a plainitff if all else fails. Maybe Leo is enlisting all candidates who got their names on the ballot across the country?

    If this case does proceed, maybe Sandra Ramsey Lines will finally get to be challenged on her expert opinion concerning the Factcheck COLB.

    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=2299

  4. What I don’t understand about all this is,the rules are stated when you apply for a government job. And you have to fill out a form. Does that not also hold true for senators, president, etc. ???? how can our government be so dumb as to not have you show proof before you can apply for any government job??

    1. Dean,

      You said, “What I don’t understand about all this is,the rules are stated when you apply for a government job. And you have to fill out a form. Does that not also hold true for senators, president, etc. ????”

      No, it does not. In fact, it would be construed as unconstitutional, in my opinion, to add to the requirements to be a candidate for federal office.

      However, what would not be unconstitutional is legally enforcing what the Constitution already stipulates.

      -Phil

      1. Phil,

        There is a large distinction between a requirement for office and a policy for providing sufficient evidence to the government regarding this requirement.

        The U.S. Constitution doesn’t say you can’t have a process in place to ensure its requirements are met. It only says you can’t add requirements within any law or legal process that are not directly related to those requirements, or are in direct violation of those requirements.

        Here is one clear example of this:

        Amendment XXVI bars any denial of voting rights for any citizen over the age of 18
        However, it does not state the manner of how that rule is enforced or what legal process is completed by the voter to prove legal age of 18 or older; for example, if a state says you must obtain a certified, notarized copy of your birth certificate to vote in that state, it would still be 100% Constitutional
        Since the Constitution does not state the process for vetting voters, Amendment X grants the to legislate this process to the states
        Therefore, all states dictate the process for vetting voters (driver’s license, birth certificate, voter card, selective service, etc.)
        Because this right and therefore this Consititional amendment is not infringed by these processes, they remain legally Constitutional

        In the case of the POTUS, no state has provided a clear process for ensuring candidates meet Constitutional requirements. And since Amendment X clearly states that should the states not utilize their power to create a legal process, this power is reserved as a power granted to the people of the United States.

      2. it would be construed as unconstitutional, in my opinion, to add to the requirements to be a candidate for federal office.

        That is exactly why I think Donofrio’s argument would fail on the merits.

        He wants to have the constitution construed as follows:

        “No person except a natural born Citizen who is the offspring of two citizens …. shall be eligible to the Office of President;”

        So he is adding an additional requirement not stated in the language used.

        “[E]very word employed in the constitution is to be expounded in its plain, obvious, and common sense, unless the context furnishes some ground to control, qualify, or enlarge it. Constitutions are not designed for metaphysical or logical subtleties, for niceties of expression, for critical propriety, for elaborate shades of meaning, or for the exercise of philosophical acuteness, or juridical research. They are instruments of a practical nature, founded on the common business of human life, adapted to common wants, designed for common use, and fitted for common understandings. The people make them; the people adopt them; the people must be supposed to read them, with the help of common sense; and cannot be presumed to admit in them any recondite meaning, or any extraordinary gloss.”

        -Justice Joseph Story on Rules of Constitutional Interpretation (1833)
        http://www.belcherfoundation.org/joseph_story_on_rules_of_constitutional_interpretation.htm

        1. Excuse me, but it would seem that if one claimed citizenship to another country regardless of whether or not there existed dual citizenship, then “natural born” citizenship would be impossible.

          There is documented proof that the “dear leader” claimed British citizenship at birth. I’m no lawyer, but that disqualifies him. One simply cannot have foreign citizenship and be “natural born.”

          I guess, since Mel Martinez says it’s the voters who decide eligibility, that nobody spoke up about this before the election. Oh yeah, a lot of people did, but no national news outlets allowed coverage of it. Gee, imagine that!

          I do NOT think that if this is ever allowed to be heard on “merit” it will fail.

          Good luck to, and God bless Leo Donofrio and Mario Apuzzo!

          God bless America!

  5. It sounds like Obama may eventually have to answer his critics. Whether that happens peacefully or not is still up in the air.

    It seems that Donofrio et al have a pretty compelling case with this one. My question is whether the court will accept the petition. That remains to be seen. We know the track-record of the courts to date.

    Do you have any idea about how long it could take before a case is prepared and a petition is submitted?

    David,
    RationalLiberty.com

    1. David E.,

      Since Mr. Donofrio and I cross-post to each other’s blogs from time to time, I presume that update will be made public when it’s ready, and everyone will know about it.

      -Phil

  6. Of course, there’s this little problem:

    ”An interested person within the meaning of the provisions of the District Code in regard to quo warranto proceedings is one who has an interest in the office itself peculiar to himself whether the office be elective or appointive.”

    Newman v. United States ex rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S 94 (1915) (emphasis added)
    http://supreme.justia.com/us/238/537/

    Now Donofrio is aware of Newman:
    http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/03/03/quoa-warranto-a-new-hope-military-can-now-retreat-in-peace/#comment-5230

    Whether Donofrio and Apuzzo can argue around some rather unambiguous text remains to be seen.

    Newman also contains this nugget:

    “That general public interest is not sufficient to authorize a private citizen to institute such proceedings; for if it was, then every citizen and every taxpayer would have the same interest and the same right to institute such proceedings, and a public officer might, from the beginning to the end of his term, be harassed with proceedings to try his title.”

    The precedent is prescient.

  7. If it comes to a petition of citizens, it is imperative they be vetted for assured citizenship. Otherwise it could lead to a technicality which might be used as a delay or dismissal tactic. Acorn comes to mind. Also with BHO signing legislation now, any citizen should have standing to show direct harm in numerous ways. Additional tax or debt liability, devaluation of the dollar from massive dept apportioned, etc.

    1. Bryan,

      You said, “If it comes to a petition of citizens, it is imperative they be vetted for assured citizenship.”

      That’s exactly why I believe that State-based initiatives are likely the best way to go on eligibility.

      -Phil

  8. This is interesting. I thought it was Donofrio who first said publcly that active military were needed for a lawsuit to have success. Active military stepped forward. Now he says they should not get involved, they might be court martialed. Rather confusing. I truly admire the active military, who I know knew full well the risk they were taking, and decided that that risk was worthwhile. Any military subject to “court martial” for upholding their oath, should be protected by all citizens, for those are the only people who have stood with conscience over personal security. I would have hoped that instead Donofrio would offer his services to any military threatened in any way for upholding their oath.

    1. ch,

      I think you’re generalizing too much of what Mr. Donofrio has said.

      The context of Mr. Donofrio’s warnings came about after WorldNetDaily erroneously reported — and Drudge picked up — that 1st Lt. Easterling was actually going to defy orders from the President (in reality, his letter was actually questioning the authority of the President and never specifically stated that a given action was going to be defied). Therefore, Mr. Donofrio was stating that because of the misrepresentation on WorldNetDaily’s part (and, to be fair, WND did change the headline), he was fearing actual and/or potential retribution on the part of the 1st Lt. and/or other military personnel.

      -Phil

      1. Thanks, Phil, I hope so. I imagine Easterling thought about all the ramifications and decided that to risk everything related to his career was not so different than giving his life on the battlefield, if that is what was necessary to uphold the Constitution. He stands high on the ladder of Courage. Actually, it would seem a “court martial” would be perfect…because when the military person showed that he acted according to conscience, to uphold his oath, and this was a higher duty than orders, since the President was ineligible according to natural born, from all evidence available, the court martial would force the President to defend himself. I imagine Easterling thought this through and was willing to stand in a law of court martial, to challenge the President. That would be my thinking, if in the military, and facing this. I would rather be court martialed than serve someone who was not only ineligible, but was looking more and more like not even a citizen. Personally, I hope there are a lot of military willing to face court martial rather than follow the orders of a false president. The more involved, the stronger their stand. It shows how Germany got intimidated into silence, by fear of court martial, imprisonment, and death, if you did not follow orders even when orders against conscience.

      2. ch
        is talking about donofrio’s comments BEFORE those that Phil stated above. He appears to have flip flopped on the issue after the russian lawyer did something with her military client that he didn’t seem was the right way to publicly approach it. BTW that military person, as reported on WND, has been censored, muted, and gagged by the military.

        I agreee with ROBL above, what is in the best interest of HOLDER? Himself, being appointed by tyrant obama, or the American people? Time will tell, won’t it?

        “interested parties” can mean someone like McCain or Keyes, it appears from the definition below, not your ordinary citizen. So we are back to Keyes, since McCain is an idiot, dunce, and doddering old fool. AS Bob points out below. Or maybe someone can sign up that Nicaugran who ran on some ballots as interested party? How about Hillary? Or Romney? Seems like some dynamite is needed? Arnod? I hear is is an independent now that GOP threw him out. Need a headliner here, it seems.
        No?

  9. I could be wrong, but it seems difficult to believe Holder would do anything which might jeopardize his own position as AG. Would not his very appointment as AG be in question once Soetoro is found ineligible? Unless he finds an unusual level of morality, for these lifer government types, my guess is he would do everything in his own power to quash this. Better luck with Taylor, no?

    Another question. It would seem this is an appropriate direction to proceed, but would there be some reason to introduce the adoption by Lolo Soetoro too, and the possibility that this man is not even a U.S. citizen?

    1. If Holder is as smart as he thinks he is, the best thing he could do to protect his appointment and endear himself with patriots and future administrations would be to proceed with this matter to show his unbiased approach and level handedness in all legal matters to gain tremendous credibility.

    2. I believe the oath of office the AG takes is to serve the people of America, not necessarily the will of the President. That may be why the office is subjected to the approval process of Congress.

  10. Phil—Did these two attorneys get their idea of how to pursue BO from Dr. Taitz?? It seems to me that she started this same type of “Quo Warranto” last week with her military case and some Representatives from Tennessee?? She sent something similiar to Eric Holder from what I saw at her website.

    1. Jackie Smith,

      According to the posting, Mssr’s. Donofrio and Apuzzo may be dealing with sub-sets of Plaintiffs from Dr. Taitz’ knowledge or other third parties.

      It sounds like a multi-pronged approach to me.

      -Phil

    2. Berg was the first to say he would seek a writ for pro warranto (but never did).

      Apuzzo raised the right of quo warranto as part of the 9th Amendment claim in his action.

      Taitz then sent her letter to the AG.

Leave a Reply