Obama Ineligibility: The Quo Warranto Statute: The Only Constitutional Means of Removing a President Other Than Impeachment

DAMNING proof that the test required to become a lawyer is WAY too easy!!!


.

Suppose your test would include a loyalty oath?

I get the feeling Obama and Rahm are playing you all. Not for not having the supposed correct paper work but for having it and letting you all work yourself up into a tizzy.

All it will take is one display of the long form birth certificate (do you want more?) and your whole anti-Obama balloon is popped leaving you with egg on your face.

later Don Quixote

I like where you're going OP ~ please continue ~ I took a look at your site and it is not an easy read for the non-legal-beagles among us...distill, if you can...

indeed, it is quite difficult...
In the mean time I found this:

Quo warranto
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

And:
Quo warranto:


[link to legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com]

A legal proceeding during which an individual's right to hold an office or governmental privilege is challenged.

In old English practice, the writ of quo warranto—an order issued by authority of the king—was one of the most ancient and important writs. It has not, however, been used for centuries, since the procedure and effect of the judgment were so impractical.

Currently the former procedure has been replaced by an information in the nature of a quo warranto, an extraordinary remedy by which a prosecuting attorney, who represents the public at large, challenges someone who has usurped a public office or someone who, through abuse or neglect, has forfeited an office to which she was entitled. In spite of the fact that the remedy of quo warranto is pursued by a prosecuting attorney in a majority of jurisdictions, it is ordinarily regarded as a civil rather than criminal action. Quo warranto is often the only proper legal remedy; however, the legislature can enact legislation or provide other forms of relief.

Statutes describing quo warranto usually indicate where it is appropriate. Ordinarily it is proper to try the issue of whether a public office or authority is being abused. For example, it might be used to challenge the Unauthorized Practice of a profession, such as law or medicine. In such situations, the challenge is an assertion that the defendant is not qualified to hold the position she claims—a medical doctor, for example.

In some quo warranto proceedings, the issue is whether the defendant is entitled to hold the office he claims, or to exercise the authority he presumes to have from the government. In addition, proceedings have challenged the right to the position of county commissioner, treasurer, school board member, district attorney, judge, or tax commissioner. In certain jurisdictions, quo warranto is a proper proceeding to challenge individuals who are acting as officers or directors of business corporations.

A prosecuting attorney ordinarily commences quo warranto proceedings; however, a statute may authorize a private person to do so without the consent of the prosecutor. Unless otherwise provided by statute, a court permits the filing of an information in the nature of quo warranto after an exercise of sound discretion, since quo warranto is an extraordinary exercise of power and is not to be invoked lightly. Quo warranto is not a right available merely because the appropriate legal documents are filed. Valid reason must be indicated to justify governmental interference with the individual holding the challenged office, privilege, or license.

The question is why hasn't the NoBama team put the document out there to settle the issue? Boom stop the speculation and distraction from real issues like where are all these trillions of dollars going and NOTHING is getting better?
What 'chage'? We have yet more of the arrogance in government who supposedly work for we the people but instead expect us to trust them. They ignore the law with utter contempt when it suits them yet they pass ever more draconian laws against we the people leading us into a totalitarian state while all the while proclaiming the 'goodness' of our 'democracy' when we are defact a republic albeit a corporate republic at that which only serves the purpose of the lobbyists in DC. Rather than 'uphold, defend and protect the Constitution' all they do is ignore it and look for ways to circumvent the provisions within. Based on this alone our whole government (well 90% plus) is not only in violation of their oaths of office but are in fact enemies of the state they proclaim to represent!

Indeed!

Read this:

My Mother's Birth Certificate - And Obama's

Total time it took me to find my mother's 1913, born-in-a-farmhouse birth certificate: 10 minutes!

WHERE IS OBAMA'S?

[link to www.postchronicle.com]

Four years ago, when I had just about completed the lengthy legal and financial vetting process required by the U.S. government to place my then-92-year-old-mother in a nursing home, I was asked to produce her birth certificate as "proof" of her citizenship. While she was born in America, had voted in every election for untold decades, and paid her taxes religiously, that wasn't good enough to qualify my elderly mother –deaf, legally blind, and confined to a wheelchair – to be admitted to the facility I had chosen for her near my home.

Frankly, I didn't think finding my mother's birth certificate was possible, given the fact that she had been born in a farmhouse in Storrs, CT, along with nine of her 10 siblings, to parents who didn't speak English. Despairing that she would never be "qualified" to receive the care she desperately needed, I set about to find the document, which I was sure had vanished in the unreliable record-keeping of 1913.

First I called an official in Hartford, the capitol of Connecticut, who recommended that I call the Storrs record-keeping office.

That took two minutes.

Next I called the Storrs office and was told to call another number.

That took two minutes.

When I called the third number, I explained to the woman who answered the phone that I was "asking something impossible." I gave her my mother's first name and her father's last name.

Within four minutes, she said, "Here it is!" She had found my mother's birth certificate, and it surprised me when I learned my mother's "real" first name and "real" last name had changed significantly as she and her family became Americanized.

When I expressed my amazement, the woman said: "That's nothing...we're routinely asked to find birth certificates from the 1800s, and we do that all the time!"

Total time it took me to find my mother's 1913, born-in-a-farmhouse birth certificate: 10 minutes!

WHERE IS OBAMA'S?

PART TWO:

I have uncovered a plethora of evidence - within and without the Constitution - which I strongly believe proves that the framers provided Congress with the power to remove a President who is found to be ineligible. This makes sense because not every person who is found to be ineligible is guilty of a crime.

HYPOTHETICAL:

Two double agents born in the evil nation of “KILLAMERICASTAN” sneak a child into America over the Canadian border and later obtain false documents indicating they are US citizens and that their child was born in the United States. The child is raised like a Manchurian Candidate and believes his parents are US citizens and that he was born in the US. The child grows up a gifted politician and eventually becomes President. After being sworn in, the truth is discovered by US Intelligence and proved beyond any doubt. The President then refuses to leave office since he didn’t do anything wrong and had no knowledge of the plot.

What happens?

Well, the President has done nothing to be impeached. He’s not guilty of any high crimes or misdemeanors, bribery or treason. Did the framers leave us naked in such a situation? I don’t believe so. We will return to this shortly.

SEPARATION OF POWERS

My respect for the separation of powers in our Constitution is the core reason I was so willing to drop the eligibility fight once the Electoral College met. I understand and respect the Constitution. And I would never further damage it by aiding a new Constitutional crisis which might help to bring our Republic down.

We must respect the separation of powers or we will lose the Constitution and the Republic for which it stands.

The separation of powers argument will be the proper undoing of every single POTUS eligibility law suit running through the courts at this moment in time. They will all fail. And they should, because for any of them to prevail, the separation of powers would be violated.

Even in law suits where federal courts have been petitioned to request Congress investigate - by way of mandamus - Obama’s eligibility (as opposed to seeking removal), the courts will dismiss on the basis of separation of powers limitations and/or subject matter jurisdiction, even if the plaintiffs were found to have passed the difficult standing tests (and that’s not going to happen either).

While I respect the litigants and the efforts they have made, I take issue with some of the tactics employed and I’m also not that impressed with many of the pleadings. I hope that, by publishing this brief, I will correct some of the previous errors and provide the public at large with the best possible education so that proper pressure can be applied to authorized Government officials. Knowledge is power. I seek to empower you.

Should those officials not respond, I also hope the following will act as a template for any attorneys who may wish to pursue a quo warranto petition. This should save time and resources.

I have reached out to some of the attorneys who impressed me, but none have brought a law suit which can succeed in light of the separation of powers enumerated in the Constitution.

IS THERE A CONSTITUTIONAL SOLUTION?

It appears there is a Constitutionally viable method available for the eligibility issue to be litigated which does not violate the separation of powers enumerated in the Constitution. I strongly believe the federal quo warranto statute provides the only Constitutionally viable means by which a sitting President can be removed from office if found to be a usurper, whether such usurpation is intentional or unintentional. Full details and analysis below, but first let’s discuss the following:

REVIEW OF CURRENT QUO WARRANTO ACTIVITY

As far as I can tell, only one attorney has filed for an actual quo warranto claim at this point in time. Unfortunately, that attempt will fail as it was brought on behalf of private plaintiffs. As you will see below, any action in quo warranto must be brought on behalf of the United States. The attorney needed to first petition the Attorney General or US Attorney in DC to institute an action in quo warranto. Additionally, that same action was brought in the wrong venue. According to the statute, a quo warranto action to challenge the eligibility of a United States officer - whether elected or appointed - can only be brought in the District Court of the District of Columbia.

Another attorney has sent a “pre-litigation” letter to Attorney General Holder. But the statute requires a “verified petition” be forwarded to the Attorney General and/or the US Attorney requesting consent plaintiffs be allowed to institute a quo warranto action in the name of the United States. No such petition has been filed.

This “letter” sent to AG Holder insists he recuse himself due to an alleged conflict of interest since the Attorney General’s office is the designated defender of the President. But that is only true as to the President’s official actions. A Quo warranto dispute is not related to official activity of the President’s office. It relates to whether the President is eligible to hold the office and that is not an “official action” undertaken by the President. The statute defines quo warranto as a civil action. I believe the President would have to hire private counsel to defend him.

So, there’s probably no legal conflict of interest requiring Eric Holder to recuse himself. Any conflict of interest which exists is probably limited to the personal gratitude AG Holder may have for Obama since he appointed him. But that’s not the type of conflict which requires recusal. For example, a Supreme Court Justice does not have to recuse himself in a dispute involving the President who appointed him.

It’s not fair to suggest AG holder won’t do his job because he owes personal allegiance to Obama. I believe in fighting a fair fight even if others fight unfairly against me. It’s only fair that the man be given the chance to do the right thing. Furthermore, no verified petition has even been forwarded to the Attorney General’s office.

The federal quo warranto statute provides that the “United States attorney” may institute an action in quo warranto on his own motion. The US Attorney for the District of Columbia is Jeffrey Taylor. He was appointed to that position in 2006 by the Bush administration and certainly has no conflict of interest. I am not aware of anybody who has contacted US Attorney Taylor in this regard. It will only take one of those officials to bring the action, not both.

WHY EVERY EFFORT SHOULD BE MADE BY THE PUBLIC TO PRESSURE AG HOLDER AND US ATTORNEY TAYLOR TO INSTITUTE - ON THEIR OWN MOTION - AN ACTION IN QUO WARRANTO ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES WITHOUT EX RELATOR PLAINTIFFS

While arguments about whether the military make the best plaintiffs have been raging, the simple truth is that a quo warranto case with the best chance of success ought to be initiated with no private plaintiffs at all. The federal quo warranto statute shows a preference for cases brought on behalf of the United States by the Attorney General or the US Attorney. And until respectful pressure is applied to those officials, the nation is deprived of the most perfect avenue to justice. Until this course of action is exhausted, I pray that all private attorneys briefly delay requesting consent from these officials while an effort is made to persuade them that it’s in the best interests of the nation for them to proceed on their own motion.

This is not a private issue. The controversy is raging. Nobody can deny that. AG Holder and US Attorney Taylor need to consider that the citizens, the military, the Government - as well as Obama himself - will all be better off once clear title to the office is established.

Thread: Obama Approval Ratings Sinking Like a Stone

Excellent post!