Further Leo Donofrio Comments on Quo Warranto
Leo Donofrio recently posted another article on his views of the quo warranto statute.
A key quotation includes the following:
District of Columbia Code Section 16-3501 states:
§ 16-3501. Persons against whom issued; civil action.
A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.
This is the only statute in the entire body of United States federal law which specifically provides for removing all officers of the United States located in the District of Columbia, whether appointed or elected. InArticle 1 Section 8 Clause 17, Congress was given broad sweeping authority over every possible legal case involving offices of the Government of the United States located in the District of Columbia. The office of President of the United States is in the District of Columbia and is certainly governed by the United States Constitution. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 states:
Congress shall have Power exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States…”
Due to a little thing called “SEPARATION OF POWERS”, Congress is the only branch which has the authority to remove a sitting President. For a comprehensive review of this issue, please see my prior series of posts entitled, Quo Warranto Legal Brief: part 1, part 2, and part 3.
An additional comment by Mr. Donofrio concerning Dr. Orly Taitz and other interested parties is also included below…
There exists a statute enacted by Congress wherein it exercised Constitutional authority to challenge the credentials of, and/or remove, a sitting President found to be a usurper by failing to possessArticle 2 Section 1 qualifications for holding the office of President of the United States. The Statute exists in the District of Columbia Code, the same Code which includes the United States Constitution.
District of Columbia Code Section 16-3501 states:
§ 16-3501. Persons against whom issued; civil action.
A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.
This is the only statute in the entire body of United States federal law which specifically provides for removing all officers of the United States located in the District of Columbia, whether appointed or elected. InArticle 1 Section 8 Clause 17, Congress was given broad sweeping authority over every possible legal case involving offices of the Government of the United States located in the District of Columbia. The office of President of the United States is in the District of Columbia and is certainly governed by the United States Constitution. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 states:
Congress shall have Power exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States…”
Due to a little thing called “SEPARATION OF POWERS”, Congress is the only branch which has the authority to remove a sitting President. For a comprehensive review of this issue, please see my prior series of posts entitled, Quo Warranto Legal Brief: part 1, part 2, and part 3.
Since Barack Obama received the requisite number of electoral votes and has been sworn in as President, his eligibility for that office can only be challenged by Congress. Congress, via the DC Code quo warranto statute, has exercised that authority to challenge the sitting President’s eligibility by authorizing exactly one specific court – the District Court for the District of Columbia – with the power of carrying out the ministerial task of holding a trial of fact concerning questions as to the President’s eligibility to hold the office of President.
Section 16-3544 of the DC Code provides for a jury trial as to all issues of fact on this issue of Presidential eligibility. The provisions of 16-3502 also provide the only means available under the law where an action to challenge President Obama’s qualifications can be institutedwithout the acquiescence of any Judge or Justice. Every prior attempt to have this issue litigated has been squashed by a plethora of justices on grounds of personal standing, subject matter jurisdiction, or, as to SCOTUS, unknown reasons. So the DC Code should be the center of attention for all concerned about POTUS eligibility questions.
While there are many law suits pending in a multiplicity of jurisdictions around the United States, not one of those law suitshas availed itself of the District of Columbia Code’s quo warranto statute, the only statute which specifically provides for a trial as to the issue of whether the President of the United States is eligible to the office of President.
Because all of these law suits are a distraction from the exclusive Constitutional means available to any new or pending litigant on this issue, I am restricting this blog’s content and all discussion therein to issues concerning the DC Code quo warranto statute and to issues concerning Constitutional qualifications for President.
I am doing this to keep the light shining on what I feel – as an attorney – is the very truth of the law. I have worked hard to gain people’s faith in my legal analysis, and I’ve tried to keep the discussion of this blog pure and free from spin and sensation so as to educate my readers as to the cold hard facts of the law and to its limitations which we must abide by if we are to preserve our Constitution.
Moreover, I have never taken any donations for this effort and I never will.
From now on, I will not allow comments to be posted which mention the names of, or which identify in any way with, law suits and/or attorneys, who refuse to acknowledge the applicable authority of the DC Code quo warranto statute. I wish the other attorneys no ill will. I just don’t have faith in their tactics.
My final comment on Orly Taitz.
I admire her fighting spirit. I spent hours on the phone talking to her days before she filed her Lightfoot case with the California Supreme Court. I pointed out the specific California Code which the original Keyes case failed to utilize – California Elections Code Section 8148 – a statute which placed a duty on the California Secretary of State similar to NJSA 19:13-22, the statute which I based my preceding New Jersey State court case on.
http://law.onecle.com/california/elections/8148.html
I told Orly how to adopt my strategy how to “fuse” the California and Federal Oath of Office the Secretary Of State had to take with the ballot protection duty mandated to her under Section 8148.
I also told her that the Keyes case could have proceeded simultaneously as a separate action against just the California SOS directly to the California Supreme Court since that court has “original juridiction” for cases involving writs of mandamus. Seehttp://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/about.htm
I found the following California case and forwarded it to her as an example.
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/boxer/petition.htm
And I found another case in California and forwarded it to her as well.
I felt she was sincere and I tried to help her as best I could.
I explained to her in detail the theory of my case regarding the issue that Obama was not a natural born citizen because of his father’s British citizenship and I discussed the possibility with her that she could file another suit outside of the Keyes case. I told her to take a case straight to the California Supreme Court and that’s exactly what she did. Orly gave interviews where she discussed the originality of my NJ case theory and she was smart enough to see that the legal issue of Obama’s British birth was important and that it should have been part of the Keyes casebefore Obama was sworn in.
And she did something about it. And I give her alot of credit for listening, learning and trying to be a good American. I really do.
But when she issued the original consent form for the military plaintiffs, I wrote to her with my concerns. It was frightening to me. I was afraid she might get herself in trouble the way it was written or that a soldier might get a court martial for signing it. She eventually changed the consent form. But it’s still problematic. The consent form could be much less inflammatory and simply say, “I consent to be a plaintiff in a suit to respectfully request Barak Obama prove his eligibility to be President”. I don’t think the military should be involved at all in the eligibility issue, but if they are going to go forward, I believe the attorneys ought to be protecting them as much as possible from UCMJ violations and other federal laws pertaining to sedition and insubordination.
The current consent form she is using is unduly dangerous and goes far beyond any consent she needs to sue in their name.
Then when I saw that she republished the false and very dangerous headline from WND (reposted at Drudgereport) stating that one of her clients had “defied a Presidential order”… I was shocked, totally shocked, and I no longer could have anything to do with her. I lost faith completely. No attorney should have allowed such a statement to go public. We’re seeing the fall out from that on the front page of The Globe this week with a picture of Officer Easterling and the headline “MUTINY”.
I was afraid that out of the millions of people who saw that headline, many of them would be active military, and all would be wondering how Officer Easterling got away with defying a Presidential Order (when he actually did no such thing)… and that vibe of defiance could spread to any number of others. This is dangerous stuff.
Orly lost my faith the moment she republished that false headline. I hope she keeps herself and her active military plaintiffs out of legal harm, but that faith cannot be replaced.
Her accounts of meeting Scalia and Roberts are so puzzling. Roberts might have figured the best way to deal with her presence in a classy way was to do exactly as he did.
Scalia is known to be a bit of a wildcat. I don’t understand how he could “not remember her case and my case, Cort’s case” etc, yet he tells her she only needs four votes, “Get four”, and “I’ll hear the case”, but he don’t remember any of these cases. How does that add up? I don’t know. How does he “know” he will hear her case if he doesn’t have a recollection of these cases?
It’s all rather freaking me out. I have no frame of reference for any of it and I can’t imagine what’s going to be played out. I think we can all agree it’s bizarre.
But if Scalia was making a joke, I don’t think it’s funny. If he wasn’t making a joke, and he’s now offering his conference vote up in public before being briefed and without discussion from the other Justices, then I’m even more freaked out. Seriously. That’s just weird. We’re not supposed to get “weird” from SCOTUS Justices.
Regardless, SCOTUS doesn’t have original jurisdiction for a quo warranto unless it’s in aid of appellate jurisdiction. So a quo warranto can’t startwith SCOTUS. It would be unconstitutional. I’m preparing a blog post on this issue.
The only case she could possibly get before them – without going through the DC District Court via the DC Code quo warranto statute – is the Lightfoot case should SCOTUS reconsider it. But even if they did, the separation of powers in our Constitution would not allow SCOTUS to act on Lightfoot v. Bowen now that Obams has been sworn in since the judicial branch doesn’t have the authority to remove a sitting President unless so authorized by Congress. Congress didn’t authorize SCOTUS to remove a sitting President, they authorized the District Court for the District of Columbia with the power to hear original cases for writs of quo warranto concerning United States public offices in the District of Columbia. SCOTUS would only have appellate jurisdiction to review such a case, but SCOTUS doesn’t have original jurisdiction to the Presidential eligibilty issue. (More on this in a pending blog post.)
That’s my final word on all of this. I’ll probably make reference to any legitimate court activity that takes place as to any of the cases pending, but other than that, I won’t be allowing discussion of Orly’s case or Orly’s episodes of adventure on this blog or in comments, and the same goes for ALL of the other attorneys acting on the issue for all of the reasons set forth in the text of this blog.
Leo C. Donofrio
-Phil
Obama Researcher,
The issue is one of “energy.” That is, the Judiciary does not have the power to bring cases unto itself to be tried; that’d be a fatal fiasco in this republic.
Further, in order to get the issue to be considered, the correct petition would need to be lodged with the right questions being asked and the right remedy(ies) being provided.
-Phil
Actually a complete proper definition of NBC is more complex. American Indians are not included if they are loyal to an Indian tribe and especially if born on a reservation. This would be tricky.
This is why the term NBC is preferred to a complex statement.
What I do not understand is why can not the Supreme Court make a determination on the definition of NBC and let it go at that. In other words not remove Obama. But give a SC decision on the key definition. I am assuming that the SC says NBC is both parents need be citizens and born in USA. This does not cross the line of separation of powers.
That would certainly spur on the acceptance of QW in DC and the acceptance by the average person of the correct definition with more understanding of what is happening. It should cause an acceleration of the entire issue through the courts with final removal.
I think folks miss the crux of Mr. Donofrio’s arguement;
1. Congress, alone, has the constitutional priveledge to relieve a healthy and competent President of his duties.
2. In one case, if of a criminal nature, by way of impeachment.
3. In another, if ineligible (usurper), congress has passed legislation that allows for the US and/or DC AGs to file suit accordingly.
4. In cases of incapacitance or death, the constitution itself is quite clear as to the process of succession.
Leo’s contentions that the game changed after the election and then again after the inauguration are quite clear. The various litigators have failed to recognize the evolving constitutional realities and concurrent restraints.
The founding fathers were clever and adamant with their appreciation of the seperation of powers. Perhaps we should acknowledge this republican principle and challenge Mr. Obama’s eligibility accordingly.
SFC Noz
“The hard right over the easy wrong”
was included in the case Kerchner et al v Obama and Congress et al filed by Attorney Apuzzo.
That will fail for a number of reason, the most obvious reason being that it was filed in New Jersey, and not D.C., as the statute requires.
SCOTUS has nothing to do with Leo’s opinion. It won’t work, according to quo warranto. Only a suit in DC in federal court
I know; I was answering another commenter’s question. There will be no quo warranto suit in any court.
In case anyone does not know it here in this discussion of Quo Warranto, there is a Quo Warranto count and action already filed about two months ago against Obama charging him with being a usurper and asking that Obama be removed. It is hooked in with the other counts in that federal court case. It was included in the case Kerchner et al v Obama and Congress et al filed by Attorney Apuzzo. I believe it is count 11 of the 12 counts in his case. Here is a link to that case at Scribd.com.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11317148/
RJ
Koyaan:
Leo will not be going to court. There is or will not be any lawsuit, at least filed by him. He sent a letter to Holder & Taylor, giving his opinion and views after his research. Your sentence regarding impeachment is correct, however; you misstated Leo’s interpretation. He states the Constitution does not say impeachment is the ONLY way to remove someone in the White House who doesn’t belong there.
Leo also is hinging his whole argument on one thing only:
The British nationality issue. It doesn’t matter whether or not he was born in HI; the BC doesn’t matter; everything else is irrelevant.
To Bob:
SCOTUS has nothing to do with Leo’s opinion. It won’t work, according to quo warranto. Only a suit in DC in federal court.
The subject (no pun intended) was not properly ’sworn into’ Office. We all know #1 on January 20, 2009 was errant, but many do not realize that #2 was errant, as well. Since there was no Bible nearby, at the White House…imagine that…although not a requirement for taking an Oath, Mr. Obama should have use the word AFFIRM, not the word SWEAR.
If you want to make the argument to Chief Justice Roberts that he needs to go swear President Obama in again because he screwed up again, be my guest. There is nothing in the Constitution requiring that a religious text be present, and no court would entertain an argument that President Obama was not properly sworn in because of that.
“….I explained to her [Orly Taitz] in detail the theory of my case regarding the issue that Obama was not a natural born citizen because of his father’s British citizenship…”
Donofrio has blogged with Olympian insight that a good lawyer never asks a question whose answer he doesn’t already know. If only Donofrio had aware of the fact Obama’s father was already legally married in Kenya and therefore Obama Sr was unable to pass on British citizenship to the child of bigamous or common-law marriage (ie Obama Jr), then Orly Taitz wouldn’t be quoting Donofrio’s ignorance and exposing herself to his ridicule. Too nice. Too trusting.
“…when she [Orly Taitz] issued the original consent form for the military plaintiffs…”
What Donofrio has skipped here is that it was Donofrio himself who encouraged military personnel and lawyers to come forward through his blog. His written opinion was that the military would have undeniable standing in law. Orly Taitz took Donofrio at his word and organized accordingly. When Donofrio felt that his blogosphere encouragement might be viewed as traitorsphere incitement he backed off real quick and suspended his blog. Leaving Orly Taitz isolated in her foxhole. Soon after Donofrio started pouring in panic-fire onto Orly Taitz’ position. Not so cool. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me…and er…and er…and you’re never gonna fool me agin. Unfortunately: Not.
“…Roberts might have figured the best way to deal with her presence in a classy way…”
Donofrio’s emotions toward SCOTUS have swung wildly on various occasions from insulting SCOTUS as sinister devotees of a secret cult to obsequious flattery with regard to their peerless learning and sagacity. No prizes for guessing that the height of Donofrio’s back depends on whether there is a prospect that SCOTUS might give Donofrio what he has led himself to expect…or not.
That is why lawyers (like Donofrio and Taitz) advocate. The law is not black and white. It has grey areas and it is allowed DUAL ADVOCACY AND INTERPRETATION.
What Leo is doing is giving his argument that the DC circuit court is the proper venue.
Taitz is providing a counter argument. We shall see what happens.
But, how about those Tea Parties? I love American reinventing the American Revolution II against British Rule. Irony isn’t?
Whether or not SCOTUS has original jurisdiction, couldn’t they subpoena Hussein’s birth records?
If SCOTUS lacks original jurisdiction (which it does in this case), then it lacks the authority to issue subpoenas.
Leo,
In respect of your focus, but as in beloved “poker” the more advantages within your game, then the more efficient your “victory”
Wherefore, please consider and reply of the additional ace in hole (or Justices’s Sleve) if your were to team with “J Ryan” a furiuos Former U S Senator, and victim of bo : so as to use extrinsic and intrinsic Fraud charges vs bo inaddition to use bo’s own Extension of Statute of Limitations Laws against Him, as J Ryan was discriminated against by an “illegal canidate for U S Senate”.?
Wherefore, we may exta “aces and Wild Jokers to Combate corrupt Obstructionalist:
The is your STRAIGHT FLUSH TO SLAM DUNK VICTORY IN QUO WARRENTO…?
Leo said
Her accounts of meeting Scalia and Roberts are so puzzling. Roberts might have figured the best way to deal with her presence in a classy way was to do exactly as he did.
Scalia is known to be a bit of a wildcat. I don’t understand how he could “not remember her case and my case, Cort’s case” etc, yet he tells her she only needs four votes, “Get four”, and “I’ll hear the case”, but he don’t remember any of these cases. How does that add up? I don’t know. How does he “know” he will hear her case if he doesn’t have a recollection of these cases?
There is an easy answer to this, Leo. [undue sarcasm] I think Berg has already figured her out.
I think Leo has something on one angle/approach to this ongoing question. But, the other angle to an already “sitting President” in THIS particular experience is that Catch 22 part re: the fraud itself existing in the very election itself that has not been investigated – apparently unquestioned by all those who have authority by their very oaths to do so.
This situation is essentially a human one – not a legal one – since it is wholeheartedly due to lack of courage and responsibility on the part of just about all our elected and appointed officials who SHOULD be the very ones to give relief for such questions. The Catch 22 part is that real evidence is needed … and that evidence is blocked even by those who could and should be the ones to protect the voters from abuse.
I think what Leo is doing now is what seems to be the only logical pathway left AFTER the others have been tried, in trusting and good faith, and failed. I would say also that since even this last resort pathway depends on Congress, it essentially always becomes then a political pathway … again … and one would have to be very naive to ever have had trusted that even Congress would follow the ideals imagined in its very creation.
Thank you, Leo , once again.
Maybe Orly is trying to get the MSM who have totally ignored this issue to take more notice, I don’t know. Confronting SCOTUS Justices in public doesn’t seem like the best way to go about it, but maybe that is what is going on.
Maybe Scalia & Roberts both just wanted to quiet her down with their remarks, and both realize that SCOTUS is the wrong venue, so it really doesn’t matter what they say publicly.
Unfreak yourself, Leo. A lot of “we the people” have faith in you, and are very grateful for your efforts. When you find yourself being freaked out, just think of all the folks that are praying for you, or otherwise sending you their positive energy.
I believe you are on very solid ground, and have a very large support system should you need it.
God bless America!
Worthy to Note the following Activist have researched subject matter.
RJ Says:
March 13, 2009 at 1:55 pm
“understand what the framers meant by natural born.”
quote from Thomas Jefferson included below:
” Thomas Jefferson wrote Virginia’s birthright law of 1777 requiring the father to be a citizen. “We can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States. ”
I have not yet found the actual Virginia Birthright Law of 1777 Jefferson allegedly wrote, nor have I found a source for Jefferson’s alleged quote.
“If you really want to know what the idea and concept of natural born meant in the time it was written, read “Thomas Jefferson’s Notes” on his letters to Delegates in December 1783.
But you could also find this information yourself by looking through the online archives of the Library of Congress. It’s called “American Memory.” You can do a search on the phrase “natural born”. There are several documents that come up, including the Journals of the Continental Congress.
***********
Ken Dunbar Says:
March 13, 2009 at 12:26 pm
When we see on Obama’s campagn website fightthesmears, and also at factcheck.org his admission of dual citizenship at birth, and the phrasing posted:
““When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”, it rasies a legal question, which will not go away, but must be answered for the sake of our nation.
That question is properly asked “How can British law ‘govern’ the ‘birth status’ of a ‘natural born citizen’ of the US?”
Americans want this legally answered.
The sad part of this effort to remove an ineligible president is the lack of support some attorneys give each other. Silence might be wiser. To disagree on approach is normal and is one thing. To undermine the credibility of someone is quite another. I am losing confidence in Donofrio as I read his reviews of Dr. Orly. He is seeming equally erratic, as he claims she is. I would think erratic would be called for in trying to tackle a bizarre usurper. There is not a playbook of what steps to take, when the courts do not see interested in justice. Dr. Orly encouraged Easterling to seek legal counsel before signing up. Easterling seems fully aware of his risks, quite willing to take on the challenge, and might even like it pushed to a court martial, which would pull Obama into a court. A court martial, with the president of the United States testifying would be quite novel. However, I doubt Obama wants a court martial attempt, just like he is not suing Orly for slander. Since there is no falsehood or slander going on. Obama tries to stop things before the court. Scare tactics…such as “we will court martial you” but never does. He has nothing to prove Orly is lying in any way. Obama does not want to enter a court room. He would lose. Donofrio himself posted on his site for many days that the only people who would have true standing would be active military. So active military step up to help, then Donofrio back pedals. His back pedaling is a little late, quite erratic, and very concerning. Then he rebukes Orly for accepting military who seek to join her lawsuit. Then he rebukes her for accepting donations. I sent a donation before she posted Paypal. She seemed to do that to help people help her, and to help keep her accounting legal and separate. I do not hear Donofrio criticizing any other nonprofits for accepting donations for their work. That is a normal practice. He has made it abundantly clear he is independently wealthy. Godd for him! We do not need to send him donations…great!! Orly is not. However, I do not see him flying across country, either, or assisting strangers in the courts of Texas, etc. He even dropped out for a time, sick of it all and back to golfing. That is rather erratic. Orly has not only not dropped the ball, but is pushing forward at steady speed, while running a dental practice and raising her children. Why on earth would Donofrio criticize her publicly? It is great that Donofrio decided to rejoin the battle. The more people who understand the legal arena, the better. But they look pretty small when they demean others who have not quit, and are obviously working many times harder than he is, and who are not independently wealthy, and who have a serious working lifestyle plus raising a family, and could use some support from people, who are more than happy to help them. God bless Orly, Donofrio, Berg, Ankeny, and all the others who have enough legal know-how to untangle the judicial web. Let’s be kind when we differ. The more approaches the better. Let Donofrio focus where he feels is the strongest avenue. But let others do the same without demeaning them, as if he is the only lawyer who understands the system. From what I am reading, Orly tried months ago to add Quo Warranto to her case before Donofrio mentioned it, and it was refused at the Supreme Court by Danny Bickle. It does not seem Donofrio is the author of Quo Warranto. Since Obama’s activities that propelled him into the White House were criminal activities, and took place before being seated, fraudulently claiming to be a citizen, perjury on Illinois bar application, etc….it is debatable that Quo Warranto is the only approach and Congress the only group that can unseat him. Crimes during the White House are one thing. Crimes before entering the White House are another thing. The state governments are now very aware of what he is up to, and regardless of how long it takes to remove him, he is losing his Hollywood Messiah grip. Even a US Congressman entered a bill that a presidential candidate had to present full qualifications. If the State Secretaries want to play games that they do not have to uphold their oath of office, and the do not have the brains to figure out how to protect state ballots and make sure somebody is eligible unless it is written in black and white in a code “ask for birth certificate”….others are going ahead and handling it. I hope Donofrio sends some of his great wealth to Dr. Orly to help her in her efforts. She could spend a little more time with her children, perhaps. God bless each and every person entering the legal fray in whatever way looks reasonable to them. It is a free country, and they are all working to keep it that way.
We want Jeffrey Taylor to personally know we are informed by the content of our personal words to him. Please, in all of your official communications, be respectful.
U.S Attorney’s Office – Main Line: 202-514-7566
U.S Attorney’s Office – TTD Line: 202-514-7588
Correspondence to the office may be sent to:
United States Attorney’s Office
5554th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Correspondence may be sent to the U.S. Attorney’s office electronically at:
dc.outreach@usdoj.gov
Educational ‘Bullet Points’ by Leo Donofrio
http://www.naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com
• Federal statute (Chapter 35§ 16-3501) for quo warranto was tailor made by the legislature to challenge any person occupying any public office of the United States under questionable title thereto.
• The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion or on the relation of a third person.
• Two individuals have authority to bring quo warranto action: Attorney General Eric Holder, and US Attorney for the District of Columbia, Mr. Jeffrey Taylor.
• Only one of these officials need bring the action in quo warranto.
• The federal quo warranto statute provides the only Constitutional means by which a sitting President may be removed by the Judicial branch.
• Congress has provided for the removal of a sitting President found to be ineligible by enacting the federal quo warranto statute.
• Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the Judicial Branch the power to remove a sitting President. The Constitution has provided congress with the authority to remove the president from office in cases other than impeachment.
o Constitution Article 2, Section 1, Clause 6. “In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge…”. Note the word “or”.
A bullet point concerning ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 17 is just as important if not moreso:
“Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may…become the seat of the government of the United States…”]
o Congress is authorized to exercise removal power by the 25th Amendment – and such power must be derived directly from Article 2 Section 1 Clause 6.
• SCOTUS is not a trier of fact and so quo warranto MUST be brought before the District Court for the District of Columbia EXACTLY as the statute requires.
• Quo warranto action is proper to settle title to the office of President for the good of the nation.
• Even if both officials are convinced Obama is eligible, it’s still proper for them to institute a quo warranto proceeding because the evidence emerging now is that, by leaving the controversy as is ] a floodgate of litigation will ensue
• The best possible candidates who should request the US Attorney and/or the Attorney General to bring an action in quo warranto on their own motion are Retired Military officers who understand the absolute need for the President’s title to office not to be encumbered by doubt.
• THREE WAYS TO BRING QUO WARRANTO
1. The US attorney and/or the US Attorney General institute the case on their own motion – which is the best way this could happen. No leave of the court need be requested. There will be a hearing and a trial of facts.
2. If no authorized Government attorneys will bring the action on their own motion, then any citizen may join a law suit as “third persons” and such law suit, by way of verified petition, shall be brought to the US Attorney and/or the Attorney General to ask their consent to use the name of the United States. If the Government gives consent, then you must request permission from the court to bring the suit as well. And if the Court says yes, you will have a hearing on the merits.
3. If the Government will not give consent, then “interested persons” may request leave of the court to institute the action in quo warranto. But standing will be – according to SCOTUS in Newman – restricted to anybody who was ousted from the office of POTUS (and nobody is going to meet that requirement) or, in the alternative there might by cases under the civil service laws which provide standing.
Federal civilian employees who are pledged to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” simply, formally, and publicly ask their Department heads or Department Ethics Office whether they are governed by laws, regulations, orders and directives issued under Mr. Obama during such periods that said employees, by the weight of existing legal authority and prior to a decision by the Supreme Court, believe in good faith that Mr. Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen”
• CONCLUSION: The District of Columbia Code is the only means by which a federal quo warranto action can be instituted and its application is strictly limited to public offices of the United States or local DC offices within the ten square miles of the District of Columbia. No public office, i.e. POTUS, is exempt by the statute.
Donofrio will be afforded no such luxury in the DC District Court. If he is so incapable of defending his own arguments on a blog, to the point that he has to resort to censoring any comments which disagree with him, how on earth does he intend to defend his arguments in an actual court of law?
It seems rather obvious that what Donofrio lacks faith in isn’t the “tactics” of other attorneys, but rather his own arguments, which is why he has to resort to outright censorship in order to defend them.
And given his arguments, I can see why he wouldn’t have much faith in them.
He says himself:
That’s absolutely correct.
Article II, Section 4 specifically states:
Further, Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 gives the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment:
And Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 gives the Senate the sole power to try impeachments:
So to recap.
The Constitution of the United States expressly states that the President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States shall only be removed from office upon impeachment and subsequent conviction.
The Constitution of the United States also expressly states that only the House of Representatives shall have the power of impeachment and only Senate shall have the power to try impeachments.
Donofrio’s argument that the Congress can delegate these exclusive Constitutional powers to another branch of government by way of simple legislation doesn’t even pass the giggle test, and makes a complete mockery of the principle of separation of powers which forms the very foundation of our Constitution.
It’s no wonder that Donofrio has to resort to the vulgarity of censorship.
k
Whether or not SCOTUS has original jurisdiction, couldn’t they subpoena Hussein’s birth records? That way they would simply be requesting something that would help determine whether or not he is a natural-born citizen but not removing him. It would then be Congress’s move to remove him if he refuses to produce the documents, can’t prove his eligibility, or proves to be a foreign-born citizen.
Leo has a right to his opinion….you can lead a horse to water…but you can’t make it drink!!!
I think maybe Leo may have missed something. Taitz’ quo warranto before SCOTUS would remove the option of a jury trial, but would allow Biden to be sworn in by Thomas due to 1) Obama’s ineligibility and 2) March 15 tolling the ability of Congress to replace him. Obama wouldn’t be ‘removed’ because he never served due to ineligibility. If found ineligible, aren’t all the bills he signed rendered illegal? Removal might be seen as the procedure for an otherwise eligible POSTUS to be ordered out of office due to acts perpetrated after legally being sworn in. I don’t recall there being any time limit defined, other than March 15, in the determination of qualification portion of the Constitution.
I just hope that Taitz put in her briefs the illegal action of Congress acting in concord in denying the solicitation of objection to the electoral ballots, which would remove any stigma from SCOTUS taking the bold action of swearing in Biden if Obama is found ineligible to serve.
BTW, Orly did submit a Quo Warranto to AG Holder (dtd 1 March 2009) requesting guidance within 1 week of receipt.
I don’t see on her site that she got a response from Holder, so isn’t this grounds for Chief Justice Roberts to reject her request to consider the Quo Warranto action until Holder has sufficient time?
Unless the Court has some precedent or rule for administrative response times, is this then open to an eternal delay by Holder?
Leo the legal “surgeon/strategist” is outstanding in explaining the law and strategies in pursuing it. Orly is the indefatigable warrior. It’s an interesting contrast. Both deserve tremendous admiration as they represent values this country was founded on.
Brother Leo –
The subject (no pun intended) was not properly ’sworn into’ Office. We all know #1 on January 20, 2009 was errant, but many do not realize that #2 was errant, as well. Since there was no Bible nearby, at the White House…imagine that…although not a requirement for taking an Oath, Mr. Obama should have use the word AFFIRM, not the word SWEAR.
From http://www.archives.gov:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
If I am correct, that he uttered the word “SWEAR” the Oath is invalid, for he had no Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. on which to swear. For a bona fide Oath to have been effected, the Gentleman ought to have used the longer of the two words: AFFIRM.
I’m going to watch some baseball…where it’s ONE, TWO, THREE STRIKES – YOU’RE OUT!
Best,
Joe