Follow up on Quo Warranto as it Relates to Removing Obama/Soetoro

IMPEACHMENT OR QUO WARRANTO?

by Devvy Kidd, ©2011, blogging at www.devvy.com

(May 17, 2011) — My column Wednesday May 11 has brought a ton of email with questions about a legal process known as Quo Warranto.

I must repeat that I am not an attorney nor have I had any legal training. However, I can read and I have spent the equivalent of months in reading time on all the lawsuits filed regarding Obama/Soetoro’s birth certificate and the issue of natural born citizen. There are many superb legal analysis dealing with the issue of standing for plaintiffs in those lawsuits. If a person really wants to understand this issue, you have to spend the time doing the research and evaluating the submissions by attorneys involved going back to 2008. There just isn’t any other way to understand complicated legal issues.

In my column yesterday, The Conundrum of Removing Obama/Soetoro From Office, I provided foot notes for very important legal analysis by lawyers who are experts in constitutional law and the subject matter. I selected those four as they were germane to that column. Once you read them, one can fully understand why I used them.

Over the past 2 1/2 years, I have continued to read postings on the following sites: Leo Donofrio, Mario Apuzzo, Stephen Pidgeon and Dr. Orly Taitz, as well as filings by Cort Wrotnowski. All attorneys (except Cort) involved in cases against Barry Soetoro. Many of their  filings in federal court have been posted so we can learn the arguments and law.

To answer one question that came in via email:

“An interesting point of view regarding Barry as a usurper rather than just a fraud. It made me wonder if the same method could be used to remove judges for ‘usurping’ all the power that they have stolen for themselves over the years.”

Many states allow recall as a method to remove judges except for their state Supreme Court. As for removing judges below the Supreme Court Level using a Quo Warranto, I’m not sure. Every state has oversight judicial committees which follow procedures; I guess that one is for future research.

The Quo Warranto is available at the state and federal level. Activist federal judges in this country have been running amok on the bench for decades. The Outlaw Congress has the legal authority to remove federal judges, but that has been as rare as a blizzard in Miami. As I have said for at least a dozen years, one of the biggest failures of Congress after Congress is their refusal to remove biased, activist judges. Just look at the Ninth “Silly” Circuit Court. Their decisions are over turned more times than a gymnast on the mat, yet those same judges continue to sit on the bench for life while we pay them to make bad decisions higher courts throw out.

Without the benefit of LexisNexis, I did some more research (I’m sure there are many lawyers out there who know of more) and found this interesting case:

Lansing district judge sends heavyweights to fight AG’s ouster attempt

“Brennan and Nolan want the Michigan Supreme Court to bypass the COA, which has original jurisdiction of Schuette’s quo warranto motion to unseat Clarke.”

Here in Texas as well as many states I randomly checked have a quo warranto statute:

Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code – Chapter 66 Quo Warranto

Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Section 66.001 – Grounds

“An action in the nature of quo warranto is available if: (1) a person usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or executes a franchise or an office, including an office in a corporation created by the authority of this state; (2) a public officer does an act or allows an act that by law causes a forfeiture of his office;”

Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Section 66.002 – Initiation Of Suit

“(a) If grounds for the remedy exist, the attorney general or the county or district attorney of the proper county may petition the district court …”

Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Section 66.003 – Judgment

“If the person against whom the information is filed is found guilty as charged, the court: (1) shall enter judgment removing the person from the …”

As for removing an individual at the federal level using a quo warranto, as I pointed out you must be able to qualify under Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell. (Please take the time to read the entire Footnote 1 below.) I would not qualify. Going back to my previous column, I also believe Dr. Orly Taitz does not qualify. But, I think former presidential candidates Chuck Baldwin and Alan Keyes would be able to as they were directly impacted by Obama/Soetoro’s alleged election even though he was ineligible to appear on the ballot. Baldwin has declined, but I believe Dr. Keyes still could as I cited in my last column [emphasis mine]:

“Quo warranto is intended to prevent a continuing exercise of an authority unlawfully asserted, and is not appropriate for moot or abstract questions. Where the alleged usurpation has terminated, quo warranto will be denied. (People v. City of Whittier (1933) 133 Cal.App. 316, 324; 25 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 223 (1955).) By the same token, because quo warranto serves to end a continuous usurpation, no statute of limitations applies to the action. (People v. Bailey (1916) 30 Cal.App. 581, 584-585.)”

While that cite is from California law, I would think it could be argued the same applies at the federal level. Perhaps Dr. Keyes could sit down with some of the great attorneys involved in those citizenship cases like Stephen Pidgeon and Mario Apuzzo and discuss going for a straight federal Quo Warranto. They would be the ones to provide expert legal advice to Dr. Keyes.

Let’s look at Newman again:

Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell (Emphasis mine)

“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.

“Unless the right to maintain quo warranto proceedings under the District Code were limited to persons actually and personally interested, every officer attached to the government at Washington would be subject to attack by persons having no claim in the office or interest therein different from that of every other citizen and taxpayer of the United States.

“As §§ 1538-1540, Code District of Columbia, apply to actions in quo warranto instituted by authorized parties against national officers of the United States, they are general laws of the United States, and not merely local laws of the District of Columbia, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals of the District construing those sections is reviewable by this Court under § 250, Judicial Code.”

I know it’s easy to accuse me of being an arm chair quarterback after the fact. A person who has no legal training, but that isn’t the case. In my columns since early 2009, I have raised the legal issue of this ‘thing’ called a quo warranto by reading and learning from Leo Donofrio. As a matter of fact, there is another lawsuit that has run its course, meaning denied for hearing by the U.S. Supreme Court, you might find of interest: Rodearmel v. Clinton. That lawsuit was filed in January 2009 on behalf of a 19-year veteran of the Foreign Service Officer under the State Department, David Rodearmel, a retired Lt. Col. in the U.S. Army Reserve Judge Advocate General Corp. While I support and respect Judicial Watch in their pursuit of making sure no one is above the law, I simply did not understand why they didn’t use the Quo Warranto for Rodearmel’s case.

The defendants (mother government) moved to dismiss and in their filing, there is an important footnote; number 6 at the bottom of page 25:

6 “The D.C. Court of Appeals has observed that a plaintiff who seeks to directly attack the appointment of an official (as opposed to attacking an action of that official) will rarely if ever have standing. See Andrade v. Lauer, 729 F.2d 1475, 1496-97 (D.C. Cir. 1984). In the same case, the court suggested that the only proper way to assert such a direct attack is through an action for a writ of quo warranto. See id. at 1497 (citing cases). A quo warranto action may only be brought by the Attorney General of the United States or the United States Attorney or, if these Executive Branch officials decline a request, by a private party who has obtained leave of court. See D.C. Stat. §§ 16-3502-3503; see also Rae v. Johnson, 1993 WL 544295, at *1”

Footnotes found in legal filings are very important. What the one above says is quite plain and easy enough for even me to understand; let’s apply it to Rodearmel. He is attacking the appointment of an official (Hillary Clinton) which the court says “will rarely if ever have standing.” Pretty straight forward.

Exactly why the U.S. Supreme Court denied the writ of certiorari:  (emphasis below is mine)

“ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is ordered and adjudged by this Court that the District Court dismissed for lack of standing…”

And:

“The appeal is therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction.”

Does that mean the Supreme Court is saying jurisdiction belongs to the District Court in Washington, DC, under a Quo Warranto? It seems to me that is the case if you read Footnote 6 above:

“observed that a plaintiff who seeks to directly attack the appointment of an official….the court suggested that the only proper way to assert such a direct attack is through an action for a writ of quo warranto…”

Going back to Newman v US ex Rel. Frizzell:

“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.”

Rodearmel most certainly has an interest in the office (Secretary of State) peculiar to himself (He is an employee of the State Department and the Secretary of State is Hillary Clinton) and it is appointive. But, that case is over and Madame Clinton is still running around the world playing big shot accomplishing nothing. Another “teflon Don” given a pass by the U.S. Senate when they confirmed her appointment even though it is in violation of the emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution – which many of them knew during the confirmation process.

If you read the links in my previous column and the ones below, I believe you can understand and possibly agree with me that time and dismissals points to the Quo Warranto as the only legal remedy to remove Obama/Soetoro from office; emphasis below are mine:.

§ 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.

§ 16-3502. Parties who may institute; ex rel. proceedings.

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. The writ may not be issued on the relation of a third person except by leave of the court, to be applied for by the relator, by a petition duly verified setting forth the grounds of the application, or until the relator files a bond with sufficient surety, to be approved by the clerk of the court, in such penalty as the court prescribes, conditioned on the payment by him of all costs incurred in the prosecution of the writ if costs are not recovered from and paid by the defendant.

§ 16-3503. Refusal of Attorney General or United States attorney to act; procedure.

If the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of the United States, on the relation of the interested person on his compliance with the condition prescribed by section 16-3502 as to security for costs. *End*

There are a lot of very intelligent attorneys working on the citizenship issue, so I guess we’ll have to wait and see what happens with any remaining legal proceedings still on-going as well as the firestorm I believe will hit with Dr. Jerome Corsi’s new book due to be shipped May 17, 2011. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the challenges to get Obama/Soetoro on state ballots in 2012 is probably going to result in more advanced lawsuits this time around, as well as possibly running up against any new laws passed by states requiring citizenship verification for a presidential candidate. Obama/Soetoro’s handlers know it and we know it.

One note in another case:

Hornbeck v. Salazar: New Court Filings Related To Obama’s Usurpation Including An Affidavit Regarding Obama’s New Forged Birth Certificate

“New court filings related to Obama’s usurpation including an affidavit regarding his newly released forged birth certificate. The filings below were submitted on 5/11/2011 in Louisiana in the Hornbeck v. Salazar lawsuit which is regarding Obama’s order to shut down offshore oil drilling. If the media did their job we would know what happened at yesterday’s oral arguments for this case.

“UPDATE: Via atty. Taitz; Yesterday I had a an oral argument in Hornbeck v Salazar. This case deals with the fact that Obama administration de facto destroyed oil and gas industry in the gulf of Mexico by placing a moratorium and later, when the federal judge placed an injunction on the moratorium, Obama regime continued destroying the oil and gas industry by refusing to grant drilling permits. Most of the rigs left the region and moved to Brazil. Recently Obama visited Brazil and congratulated them on their offshore deep water drilling and stated that US will be their biggest customer, showing him as the the most antiAmerican president this nation ever saw.

“My argument was that the damages suffered in the case at hand were rooted in the same problem: antiAmerican usurper in the White House, who got there by virtue of fraud and use of a forged birth certificate and invalid Social Security number, issued to another individual in another state.”

This posting is from someone who says he/she attended the oral arguments in the case above; click here. It’s my understanding the documents scanned at this link were also submitted in the above case.

Footnote One

Links:

1 – Constitutional Authority of Oregon Judges Challenged Why the “Quo Warranto” issue just will not go away!

2 – NH Rep. Laurence Rappaport speaks with The Post & Email about Eligibility, the Constitution, and State Sovereignty

3 – Judge Arthur J. Gonzalez claims right to commit fraud

4 – THE SCRUBBING OF AMERICA:
How Professor Lawrence Solum Disgraced Himself To Protect Obama’s Eligibility

5 – Jeffrey Toobin Issued False Legal Statements to Anderson Cooper Regarding Vattel and the 14th Amendment.

25 Responses to "Follow up on Quo Warranto as it Relates to Removing Obama/Soetoro"

  1. RacerJim   Thursday, May 19, 2011 at 9:22 AM

    We should all be gathered en masse in Washington DC demanding the usurper be arrested, tried, convicted and appropriately punished for Treason, Bribery and other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

  2. cort wrotnowski   Wednesday, May 18, 2011 at 7:56 PM

    Hi Dennis, yeah, I’m a pro se kinda guy, but the way you are handling the question of “redress of grievances” is rubbing me the wrong way. What the heck is “civilian ‘grand jury'”. The term is common law grand jury and is a still valid part of the U.S. Constitution. Judge Lamberth abused the 1946 Criminal Procedure guide by asserting that the common law grand jury was correct in their presentment and that he had to accept it. But his wise ass come back was that he did not have to “do anything” about it. Wow. What a bum. And he is supposed to be one of our better judges. Sad, very sad. So, the fault does not lie with common law grand juries. It lies with demented judges like Lamberth.

    Jurisdiction, standing, and all these other “legal precepts” which only serve to filter out plaintiffs are an affront to what this nation is supposed to stand for. There ARE original principles to which to refer which are supposed to trump the nonsense we have to argue about because it has been reduced to some statutory law. The fundamentally unconstitutional nature of these restrictions is what we should be fighting rather than trying to be clever by half in the search for the right narrow path to tread to a judge who would hear the case.

    Who am I going to call? The answer is that I am going to call Original Jurisdiction and they damn well better answer because they may be a whole bunch of pissed off people looking for them.

    The notion that there is some “political character” is nonsense. This is the same tortured crap Gary Kreep had to fight over in his 9th Circuit arguments and which was used against LTC Lakin, MD. The open discussion of the judges in front of Kreep were trending towards the realization that the “political question” actually comes after and not before the issue of eligibility. Obama’s blood sucking satanic lawyers argued the opposite with Judge Colonel Denise Lind and got away with it. Remember? She’s the one who created the “embarassment doctrine.”

    But you know, I gotta hand it to you…what was an obstacle may actually be an effective weapon in our hands: “The political question” has implicitly dictated the decisions of virtually all these judges whether they articulate it or not. As an implicit factor, it has clearly misguided this judges. Cool. This could be a really good argument. Thank you.

  3. cort wrotnowski   Wednesday, May 18, 2011 at 7:30 PM

    I think Nutn2say has a point. Petition for redress of grievances is right there in the Constitution. Well? I am going research this line of attack….anyone wanna help?

  4. NUTN2SAY   Wednesday, May 18, 2011 at 6:21 PM

    When it comes to a violation of the Supreme Law of the Land which is what America has on its hands right now….WE THE PEOPLE must use the Supreme Law of the Land to protect America from that violation!

    Excuses! Excuses! Excuses! Is all I’ve gotten since I made this comment this morning.

    Why can’t people understand that the legal tool that the Founding Fathers gave to us… THE PETITION FOR THE REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, is the most powerful legal devise in all America to be used by us citizens to defend ourselves against government tyranny short of going to a revolutionary war! AND NOBODY WILL USE IT! I will say it again to be clear. NOBODY WILL USE IT! Why?

    Don’t people understand that the Petition for the Redress of Grievances is like a Quo Warranto on steroids!

    All these excuses for not using the PETITION just goes to reaffirm my suspicions. NOBODY IN AMERICA REALLY CARES ABOUT THE DISINTEGRATION OF THEIR OWN HOMELAND!

    IF THEY DID, THEN THE PETITION FOR THE REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES WOULD HAVE BEEN STARTED LONG AGO!

  5. Bob1943   Wednesday, May 18, 2011 at 5:29 PM

    Quote:

    “If Obama is an unconstitutional president, the judicial system seems to say, so what! Everybody “suffers” equally as a result of that fact; therefore no one in a particular suffers.”

    Isn’t that beyond absurd? How are people who believe in the Constitution, for example, possibly affected the same as the Marxist/Socialist who voted for the usurper?

    Make no sense at all to say everyone is affected the same……just a lousy cop-out to keep from doing anything about the usurper.

  6. Dennis Varnau   Wednesday, May 18, 2011 at 4:18 PM

    From my perspective as an attorney and peace officer, I have taken oaths to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies both foreign and domestic, too many times to remember the count. I too am very concerned about how the Constitution has been riddled over the years, to the point where we now have an illegitimate president in office and not one representative in Congress takes the nbC clause seriously, not even Ron Paul it seems. And then we have the Indiana Supreme Court ruling that the police can enter any home at will and homeowners cannot respond defensively to an illegal entry in clear violation of the 4th Amendment, allegedly to prevent violence against the police [from what I heard on the news reports]. That makes it ripe for a whole lot of criminals to fake being police, breaking in at will, and not having to worry about any defense from the occupants of the home.

    In my quo warranto case, the way it has been handled by the courts leaves one to question a lot about the integrity of a lot of things from beginng to end. All I can do is keep on fighting, using the established protocol, and “never give up the ship.”

    Sometimes it seems like there are more “domestic enemies” in our country today than patriotic Americans, and I am not talking about those who just come out to wave a flag every fourth of July and then hide behind their closed doors the rest of the year. The overwhelming majority of citizens just don’t seem to care one bit about what is going on around them, while they have their heads soaked in sports, parties, drugs, etc., as the country decays away.

    So, who are YOU going to call? Who are you going to complain to, when most in elected positions are only there to line their own pockets rather than preserve our Republic? I fear it is not going to get any better, but worse in short order as the dollar completely collapses. And when those sucking off the government dole lose their support, where do you think that is going to lead? Does not look good at all down the road!

  7. Dennis Varnau   Wednesday, May 18, 2011 at 3:49 PM

    NUTN2SAY, what is in the Constitution is the guarantee of due process and equal protection. Those candidates have the right to petition the courts to protect their individual rights, and the mechanism that gets them into the court forum to do that is the quo warranto action.

    Like Greg Goss says, “who you gonna call?” when it comes to the filing of your Redress of Grievances? There is some “political” character to that action, I would think, as I am not sure, never did it or researched it, because nbCitizens trying to get the Article III courts to do anything that they have not grown up being taught as acceptable procedure gets you absolutely nowhere, as can be seen by the civilian “grand jury” attempts to accomplish something peacefully through that process.

    It ends up political in nature, and you know where that leads, as Mao said: “Political power comes out of the barrel of a gun.” I think it was he who said that. Anyway, there are a lot of individuals [as a national evening news report the other day covered] called “individual sovereign citizens” who think it is their right to shoot elected officials, judges, etc., if they trash the Constitution too much. How much I don’t know, seeing as how it has been ignored pretty much already. But if the system ends up not working, even with centuries old acceptable protocol, I’m sure by that time there will be enough of those kind of individuals who will follow up on their beliefs, to the point where we will end up having to physically re-fill a lot of government positions, for sure.

    So, what we have to use at this time is the proper protocol in the courts, and if the judges end up being too anti-Constitution in too many of those “sovereign individual” minds, I’m sure some, or a whole collection of them all over the country, will have had too much to take, and start cleaning house their way from their perspective all over the place simultaneously, and then we will have a REAL mess on our hands, for sure.

  8. observer   Wednesday, May 18, 2011 at 3:05 PM

    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Yes, Orly’s Quo Warranto ended up in the hands of an Obama appointee for the position, and from what I recall, nothing was ever done in violation of the law. Our government has been taken over by criminals who have completely thrown away our Constitution and any statutes that have been passed. They make their own laws, which makes them outlaws.
    ========================================
    This makes me look back to the time when just such “students” broke into the offices of presidents of universities and performed “sit-ins” and were allowed to do so by same authorities. They should all have been expelled instead and allowance of entry of students who were serious about their education and serious about their futures and the future of the country in which they lived and were blessed. Instead these thugs were treated as legitimate and this attitude now lives in the same sort of tactics – only this time in the highest offices of the country.

  9. Jordana   Wednesday, May 18, 2011 at 2:54 PM

    Both Terry Lakin and Dr. Keyes should do a Quo Warranto. McLame doesn’t have the stones to do it; he ran such a godawful campaign and practically gave it away to Obama on a silver platter.

  10. NUTN2SAY   Wednesday, May 18, 2011 at 1:57 PM

    The same people where these applications for Quo Warranto are being submitted or elsewhere.

  11. NUTN2SAY   Wednesday, May 18, 2011 at 1:56 PM

    It is not in the Constitution! It is not Constitutionally Protected like the Petition for the Redress of Grievances!

  12. NUTN2SAY   Wednesday, May 18, 2011 at 1:53 PM

    That does not explain why Quo Warranto is being used and not the Constitutionally Protected Supreme Law of the Land PETITION FOR THE REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES. Especially a “CLASS ACTION” Petition for the Redress of Grievances.

  13. Dennis Varnau   Wednesday, May 18, 2011 at 12:26 PM

    NUTN2SAY, Quo Warranto came before the Constitution from English Law, and is definitely not an “inferior” legal device, but rather the one that should initially have been used in court. It is the only LEGAL way [not a politically-dependent action like impeachment] in the courts available to an individual with standing to remove a usurper from office under our system of jurisprudence. It’s been that way for as long as we have had our Constitution.

    Why the attorneys have not used this approach to remedy the usurpation to date, one can only guess. Quo warranto is an extraordinary remedy that is only used in a small percentage of all cases specifically where there is an elected or appointed individual that is illegally in position (usurping). The overwhelming majority of attorneys probably have little if any knowledge about it than what they were taught in law school, unless they personally had a case to prosecute through the courts.

    The other presidential candidates who were “cheated” out of becoming president by an ineligible candidate, have standing to bring this LEGAL action in that D.C. District Court. The reason why they have standing is because if Obama was not on the ballot, being legally ineligible, then one of those other candidates would have been President, assuming the winner was initially a genuine eligible candidate himself prior to the election. All of those other candidates each still have a legitimate claim to the office since Obama’s votes won’t count if he is adjudicated to be a usurper by a court of law in a petition for quo warranto. Obama would be ousted, and a new election would have to be held to determine which of the remaining candidates would be the real legal president.

  14. NeilBJ   Wednesday, May 18, 2011 at 12:20 PM

    @NUTN2SAY

    A lot of us do care about the violation of the Constitution, but it seems that due to doctrine of standing created by judicial fiat no one can establish standing unless he can show that he has suffered an injury in fact as a result of a violation of the Constitution. It seems that you can’t sue to merely prove that the Constitution has been violated. You have to show that you have suffered harm, and a particularized harm at that.

    If Obama is an unconstitutional president, the judicial system seems to say, so what! Everybody “suffers” equally as a result of that fact; therefore no one in a particular suffers.

    That raises an interesting question, albeit in some regards a silly question. If your standing to sue based on an alleged violation of the Constitution is a numbers game, how many people would have to be affected before the status of a particularized harm no longer applies — an entire voting district, an entire state, many states?

    I far as I can tell, the doctrine of standing makes it virtually impossible to challenge Obama. I believe all the law suits (Berg, Donofrio, and Apuzzo) were dismissed on those grounds.

    Arizona (my state) Governor Brewer vetoed the latest presidential eligibility bill, and in doing so, she said that presidential elections are a federal responsibilty. Then what about the fact that Arizona requires presidential and vice-presidential candidates to submit a sworn affidavit attesting to the fact that they meet the constitutional requirements for president? Is that not the state taking over a federal responsibility?

    Does a citizen have a right to sue if he has reason to believe that a candidate is not eligible? Doe the citizen have to prove that the person attesting to his eligibility has done so knowing that he is not eligible?

    There has to be a way to enforce the Constitution without all this judicial mumbo-jumbo.

  15. Greg Goss   Wednesday, May 18, 2011 at 11:44 AM

    Whom are you going to petition? The same people that verified the electoral vote? The same people that have had the evidence in their hands since ’08 and have probably been sent it a few hundred more times? The same people that say “We need to drop this birther nonsense and deal with the issues?” The same people who ignored the 2 million of us on 9/12? Need I continue?

  16. Jon   Wednesday, May 18, 2011 at 11:19 AM

    Years ago I recall Orly Taitz following up on Quo Warranto and stating that the legal actiion would have to be filed through the District of Columbia, an assistant attorney general was identified as the point person and he shortly resigned from that position, I expect her filing then went to Holder who has it filed in the basement without action, a typical Obama move just don’t respond and wear out the opposition.
    ———————
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: Yes, Orly’s Quo Warranto ended up in the hands of an Obama appointee for the position, and from what I recall, nothing was ever done in violation of the law. Our government has been taken over by criminals who have completely thrown away our Constitution and any statutes that have been passed. They make their own laws, which makes them outlaws.

  17. NeilBJ   Wednesday, May 18, 2011 at 11:08 AM

    Inspector General Walpin would have been an ideal canidate to initiate a Quo Warranto action against Obama. I don’t remember all the details, but he was fired by Obama for supposedly conducting an improper investigation into Sacremento Mayor Kevin Johnson’s misuse of federal funds.

    IG Walpin could have challenged his firing by asking Obama by what authority do you fire me? You are not the constitutionally authorized president of the United States and therefore you have no authority to act as president and fire me.

    There are probably many individuals who have been harmed by actions Obama that took against them. The only problem is to find these individuals and convince them to initiate Quo Warranto actions against Obama.
    ———————–
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: I thought I had read that IG Walpin did file a Quo Warranto, but perhaps I am mistaken. I believe he filed a lawsuit over the loss of his position, which he claimed was politically-motivated. Kevin Johnson is an ardent Obama supported, or was at that time.

  18. NUTN2SAY   Wednesday, May 18, 2011 at 10:46 AM

    There is nobody in America that really cares about this violation of Constitutional Law!

    If there was somebody, then they would knock off this Quo Warranto nonsense, and use the U.S. Constitution to fight this crime against the Constitution. Quo Warranto is not in the Constitution! The Constitutional right of the PETITION FOR THE REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES is!

    But either those who have demonstrated the ability to take legal action on this matter on a individual basis, for some strange reason find themselves unable to make use of that legal device the Founding Fathers gave to WE THE PEOPLE for times like this. They prefer to utilize inferior legal devices that are not in the Constitution which makes all these legal actions suspicious!

    I’m starting to think that all these inferior legal actions are just to get somebody their fifteen minutes of fame. They don’t want to succeed. They just want attention and maybe make a quick buck by skimming from the money they ask from people for donations to the cause.

    There is no other way for rational people to think. Constitutional Law it appears is to be deliberately avoided! Use non- Constitutional legal devices instead. This makes the whole situation a sad joke on WE THE PEOPLE!

    If there is a lawyer out there (which I am not) who really cares about removing the usurper from the White House, that lawyer would use the PETITION FOR THE REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES in the form of a CLASS ACTION PETITION FOR THE REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES!

    This has not been done, but it should be done, and it isn’t being done!

    Somebody should start explaining why it is that an inferior legal devise that is not in the U.S. Constitution is superior to the Supreme Law of the Land as given to WE THE PEOPLE by our Founding Fathers!

    After the passing of more than two years and the usurper is now planning on an illegal re-election…things are starting to get silly now!

  19. Dennis Varnau   Wednesday, May 18, 2011 at 9:17 AM

    In my opinion, as an attorney, who actually has a current quo warranto case, pending since February 27, 2009, in the Ohio 12th District Court of Appeals, against a sheriff [Wenninger] that has been in office illegally since January 1, 2001, quo warranto is the ONLY way Obama can be removed, by law, through an original action brought in the D.C. District Court, by any one of the other candidates who ran for president in 2008.

    Those candidates have the right to due process and equal protection under the Constitution. If there were no way for those candidates to rectify the fact of an illegally qualified candidate winning an election over them, then they would be denied their Constitutional rights. That is why I personally believe there is this one court in the land for federal quo warranto actions over the geographical jurisdiction [D.C] that includes the President’s Office, otherwise there would be no viable way for any presidential candidate to seek legal justice within the court system where a usurper has illegally prevailed in a presidential election.

    Dr. Alan Keyes definitely has standing to file such case in that Court, and I believe that the Court would have an extremely hard time trying to deny the fact that he does have legitimate standing to bring such case in that Court.

    It’s probably not too late to bring it now, because even if Obama is removed in the next election, Dr. Keyes, if he prevailed in securing a writ of quo warranto, he [if he were the only other candidate running] would be entitled to the salary and other compensatory damages Obama has been paid since holding office, and it would be Obama who has to pay the adjudicated amount determined in a separate lawsuit.

    One major problem is that there were more than two candidates running in 2008. If Obama was determined by the Court to be a usurper, then there would have to be a runoff election between all those 2008 candidates to determine who the rightful winner should be, and that winner would be entitled to the monetary damages and the position if the term had not yet run out. The other major problem is that by the time said action would be completed, unless put on an extremely accelerated calendar to get it adjudicated prior to the next election, it still would be hard to have another national election in time to determine who would be the rigthful office holder, before the regularly scheduled election in 2012. It would be a real mess, all because of the many damnable persons that knowingly were involved in pushing a usurper into office in the first place – “treason” for all, in my opinion, requiring more than a simple “tar and feathering.”

    Quo Warranto cases survive once started even if the Relator becomes deceased, as the estate of the Relator would be entitled to any damages determined by a Court. So, once started, it’s sort of like being pregnant, unless the Relator dismisses the case himself.

  20. A pen   Wednesday, May 18, 2011 at 7:37 AM

    In one of the dismissals of Alan Keyes suits the judge claimed Keyes lost by such a margin that it made no sense to disenfranchise the voters who picked Obama just to protect Keyes legitimate right to challenge the usurper. Now, ask again whether the system is worth even trying to navigate given the ease which blatant violations like that are available to the political elite. Just keep banging your heads against the wall, it’ll be 2012 then 2016 then …..and the usurpation will mean nothing to the people by then.

  21. Larry, Larry, Quite Contrary   Wednesday, May 18, 2011 at 5:39 AM

    Congratulations! You’re an excellent researcher! Our courts are as big of a problem to honest American people as our negligent Congress. You have done your homework, and the enlightenment is appreciated here.

  22. ER   Wednesday, May 18, 2011 at 4:21 AM

    excellent post, the way to go

  23. MichaelN   Wednesday, May 18, 2011 at 3:17 AM

    Justice Antonin Scalia has casually blown the whistle on the judges.

    He should be brought to a judicial oversight committee to ‘please explain’

    Quoting Justice Antonin Scalia:
    “Now, in asserting that originalism used to be orthodoxy, I do not mean to imply that judges did not distort the Constitution now and then, of course they did. We had willful judges then, and we will have willful judges until the end of time. But the difference is that prior to the last 50 years or so, prior to the advent of the “Living Constitution,” judges did their distortions the good old fashioned way, the honest way — they lied about it. They said the Constitution means such and such, when it never meant such and such.”

    “It’s a big difference that you now no longer have to lie about it, because we are in the era of the evolving Constitution. And the judge can simply say, “Oh yes, the Constitution didn’t used to mean that, but it does now.” We are in the age in which not only judges, not only lawyers, but even school children have come to learn the Constitution changes. I have grammar school students come into the Court now and then, and they recite very proudly what they have been taught: “The Constitution is a living document.” You know, it morphs.

    Well, let me first tell you how we got to the “Living Constitution.” You don’t have to be a lawyer to understand it. The road is not that complicated. Initially, the Court began giving terms in the text of the Constitution a meaning they didn’t have when they were adopted.”

    http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/guest_commentary/scalia-constitutional-speech.htm

  24. Obama Researcher   Tuesday, May 17, 2011 at 10:29 PM

    I like the idea of Terry Lakin doing a Quo Warranto. He certainly has standing and it fits his case perfectly.

  25. Chapped   Tuesday, May 17, 2011 at 9:43 PM

    We should all be outraged.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.