• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
QUO WARRANTO LEGAL BRIEF
Page 1 of 25
QUO WARRANTO LEGAL BRIEF – PART 1
Courtesy of Attorney Leo Donofriohttp://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/ 
INTRODUCTION:Chapter 35§ 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 inthe name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudesinto, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public officeof the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.The federal statute for 
quo warranto
was tailor made by the legislature to challenge
any
personoccupying
any
public office of the United States under questionable title thereto.This legal brief considers all relevant issues pertaining to the proper legal use of the extraordinarywrit of 
quo warranto
to determine Presidential eligibility. The brief will be sent via regular andcertified mail to Attorney General Eric Holder as well as to the US Attorney for the District of Columbia, Mr. Jeffrey Taylor, along with an open letter requesting their direct attention to theissues contained herein.Please note from the start that only
one
of these officials need bring the action in
quo warranto
.The applicable statute vests
both
officials with the same
mutually exclusive
authority to do so. Thestatute requires
either/or 
, not both. And the statute also provides a separate mechanism by whichtheir official consent is not necessary to an action in
quo warranto
where the “third person” petitioning for the writ is also an “interested person”.Regardless, I fear justice will never prevail on this issue. By Justice I mean that the relevant issueswill probably never be decided on the merits by any court. Yet, I believe every man charged withthe duty to uphold the law must be given his rightful chance to follow and be guided by the rule of law. And until every effort is made to most effectively bring an action in
quo warranto
, I personally can’t be satisfied I’ve done everything in my power to protect the Constitution and theRepublic. Thanks to my readers for pointing this out. (Also seemy apologyto SCOTUS for  previous inflammatory comments along with removal of noted image.)
Since an action in
quo warranto
is unquestionably the correct legal device to challenge theeligibility of any public office holder and since
quo warranto
has not been properly set inmotion or explained to the public, this brief will attempt to educate the public and the properofficials as to the need to resolve the Obama POTUS eligibility issue in a single quo warrantohearing rather than subject the nation to a floodgate of litigation from plaintiffs with proper
 
QUO WARRANTO LEGAL BRIEF
Page 2 of 25
standing to bring collateral attacks challenging, on the basis of POTUS ineligibility, anynumber of potential orders and actions to be issued by the Obama administration.
 Additionally, having studied controlling
quo warranto
cases, I have come to the conclusion thatmilitary plaintiffs probably do not have any special standing to institute an action for 
quo warranto
 which differs from the standing of the general public. Please consider that this statement is
not 
  based on emotion but on the following;
1) the controlling statute2) the seminal US Supreme Court decision
 
3) other relevant SCOTUS and federal cases
 When these are examined together, it appears no special standing exists for military personnel toinstitute actions in quo warranto under the statute.However, there is a civilian subset of “third persons” who do have a viable claim to
quo warranto
 standing to challenge Presidential eligibility in a direct legal attack on Obama’s title to office. Andso long as this civilian subset exists, there’s no good reason to subject our military to possible courtmartial by recklessly exposing them toUCMJ Article 88violations as well as numerous other statutes which could potentially end their careers or land them in jail.That military personnel are being exposed to court martial via contemptuous language and falseheadlines (ie, news report which erroneously stated an officer had defied a Presidential order) is oneof the strongest public policy reasons why Attorney General Holder and/or US Attorney Taylor should be convinced to step in on their own motion, which is their unquestionable right by statute,to request a straight forward
quo warranto
hearing on the two basic core issues now in dispute.1. Does Obama’s birth status having been governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948, as wasadmitted by Obama, prevent him from satisfying the “natural born citizen” requirement of theConstitution.2. Should Obama be forced to present, to the District Court for the District of Columbia, proper legal documentation to prove his place of birth by a form of identification regularly accepted by theGovernment for legal purposes.
POINT I: WHETHER A WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO CAN BE ISSUED TO REMOVE ASITTING PRESIDENT?A. Applicability of Statute 16-3501.§ 16-3501
applies against any person within the District of Columbia who “usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises… a public office of the United States.” Under the statute, the writ of quo warranto is issued by the DC District Court
in the name of 
the United States.
 
QUO WARRANTO LEGAL BRIEF
Page 3 of 25
The seminal SCOTUS case which has interpreted this statute is Newman v. United States ex Rel.Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915). The opinion is truly one of most rational and clearly writtendecisions in Supreme Court history and by itself serves as a thorough education on the history of quo warranto as well as the proper statutory interpretation. I suggest everyone read the entire case.According to SCOTUS,
 Newman
at 552, the statute applies to
any
public office:
The Revised Statutes declare that the District of Columbia shall be the seat of government, and “alloffices attached to the seat of government shall be exercised in the District of Columbia.” The Code…provides that the… court shall have jurisdiction to grant quo warranto “against a person whounlawfully holds or exercises within the District a . . . public office, civil or military.” It was probably because of this fact that national officers might be involved that the Attorney General of the United States was given power to institute such proceedings…
 
…the District Code, in proper cases, instituted by proper officers or persons, may be enforceableagainst national officers of the United States. The sections are therefore to be treated as generallaws of the United States, not as mere local laws of the District. Being a law of general operation, it can be reviewed on writ of error from this Court. American Co. v. Commissioners of the District,224 U. S. 491; McGowan v. Parish,228 U. S. 317 .
 Years later, any doubts as to the accuracy of this interpretation were completely nullified whencurrent federal statute16-3501 revised the predecessor code to include officers of “the UnitedStates” and not just the District of Columbia. Neither the statute nor any existing federal case provides an exception to the office of President or any public office of the United States.CONCLUSION: An action in Quo Warranto is the statutory legal device available to challenge theeligibility of a sitting President.
B.
Constitutionality
of using the federal quo warranto statute to remove a sitting President
.There are two sections of the Constitution which allow for the removal of the President.Article 2,Section 4 allows for impeachment. This is the remedy for removal of the President should he partake in high crimes or treason. A quo warranto action as to POTUS eligibility does not appear to be covered by impeachment.The second section of the Constitution which provides the removal of the President isArticle 2,Section 1, Clause 6:
 In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability todischarge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President,and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability,both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
 
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...