To the extent some states still recognize the quo warranto writ, it cannot be used on a federal officeholder.

I do not agree that because someone thinks they shouldn’t be involved, it’s panic time. It’s also extremely insulting to be suggesting that they don’t know what they are doing.

People need to mind their own business. It’s not our place to judge which lawyer they chose or what actions they take and I have a sneaky suspicion that’s the whole reason for the protests. Because SOME people think they do have that right and they don’t.

Everything on quo warranto is laid here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=gHY8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA686&lpg=PA686&dq=
federal+statute+quo+warranto+passed&source=
bl&ots=wzIFYdt_7V&sig=rbrf3J9F9aB2EO2QnCgTZC3zRH4&hl=en&ei=
9Oq8SZ6vOpW3twfV7MH4Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#PPP2,M1

Newman, Boyd, Baker, it’s all in that book which was written in 1918. Gallatin and Shields was already provided by Kamira from Zapem. Apuzzo knew about these references far before this ever came out. The new federal statute does NOT take away from state rights to bring quo warranto actions, nor is the criminal avenue of fraud under qua warranto substituted because of it.

I’m highly annoyed this week with the banter of attorneys slamming each other around like ping-pong balls, censoring comments from blogs from other attorneys and every other disgraceful act I’ve had the displeasure of being bombarded about in my email this week.

Enough is enough! Either work together or shut up about the other attorney! I don’t CARE if you think you have the better case, letter, appeal or brief! You know who you are.

The way things have been handled thus far, I sincerely question if some of the non-professional fiascos being demonstrated, aren’t being done on purpose.

Think about THAT!

Your idea of “interested” or “third parties” is incorrect according to Leo D. It would not be “we the people.” Leo is basing his whole premise on the Newman v. Frizzell, which deals with a person who was fired by a federal boss who was found ineligible to hold the position. Leo’s contention, and feeling is it would be extremely difficult to find a person who was fired by an “ineligible federal employee.” So he is leaving it up to “we the people” to find that person if Mr. Taylor or Mr. Holder doesn’t take up the charge.

“if” – Just two little letters, but such an important word……..

“To” — just two little letters, but such an important preposition (as in, “Change,” to what, exactly?).

Isn’t it interesting that nobody ever asked the President this very question?

-Phil

I’m not suggesting that Jeffrey Taylor would take Donofrio’s letter seriously. Taylor seems sane, so there’s little chance of that. The point is how many steps from reality this Donofrio guy has taken himself.

Making repeated comments about someone’s sanity on this blog just because they take a stance on an issue with which you disagree with no other factual basis for said allegation except your own subjective viewpoint may soon be censored from this blog.

-Phil

if only he wins cases, he’ll be great !!!!

“if” - Just two little letters, but such an important word……..

So what do we know about Jeffrey?

We know he’s a United States attorney, and thus serves at the discretion of the president. Furthermore, Jeffrey Taylor is an interim United States attorney. He was appointed first by former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and then re-appointed by the district court. Taylor did not go through the process of presidential nomination and senate confirmation required to be a full-fledged United States attorney.

An interim appointment is supposed to be temporary, serving until the president nominates, and with advice and consent of the senate appoints, a United States attorney. The president may or may not choose to nominate the interim appointee.

Jeffrey Taylor is one of several interim United States attorneys that the G. W. Bush administration left in office. One consequence is that President Obama can replace these U.S. attorneys without firing them. Firing U.S. attorneys tends to look suspicious, as George W. Bush and Alberto Alberto Gonzales leaned the hard way. Filling offices currently staffed by interim appointments is simply the president’s job.

I’m not suggesting that Jeffrey Taylor would take Donofrio’s letter seriously. Taylor seems sane, so there’s little chance of that. The point is how many steps from reality this Donofrio guy has taken himself.

You are correct. But, if you think this guy is normal, then you need your head examined too. Again, just my opinion.

That includes any judicial appointments. So much for Wong Art Kim.

He seems to get to about 50 meters from the finish line then just runs out of steam. You can’t win cases by being a “nice guy”.

“it will set a precedent that two generations of citizenship (and loyalty) are no longer required before one can become President and Commander in Chief.”

The correct Latin term is: AB INITIO. Your logic is correct, however, as this common law would apply to any invalid act.

Syllogism: IF there is an ineligible President and…
IF he acts under the auspices of being President and…
IF the ineligibility is adjudicated…

THEN any act is, was, and ever shall be void ab initio.

Several states, including Florida, may wish to ‘bank’ any Federal money, for the time being, as it may be subject to forfeiture, down the road.

Respectfully,

Spencer Connerat – natural born citizen
Pinellas county, Florida

Excellent find! Going to update Rep. Posey’s post shortly.

-Phil

Thanks for the kind words. I am blessed with lots of friendlies and — for the most part — great adversaries on this site.

-Phil