Editorial: Oct. 13, 2009 — Quo Warranto is Our Inalienable Right!

BOTH IN COMMON LAW AND IN NATURAL LAW

by John Charlton

For those who are the true sons of the American Revolution no conclusion in law could be more obvious, clear, and simple.

In common law the English Sovereign claimed a right to question the holders of offices which he had the right to bestow, and if upon finding they did not have proper title, removed them from office.   This he did because it was his royal right.  This action was called quo warranto, from the Late Latin phrase meaning, “By what warrant or right do you hold office?”

According to the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States, it is We the People who promulgate the Constitution.  Hence that government receives its authority and office of power from us.

We the People, to form a more perfect union . . .

Therefore the common law right to issue a quo warranto action is now transferred to We the People.

It is our inalienable right, just as much as it was the inalienable right of the English Monarch; because just as natural law grants to the author of government and office the right to question officers for proof to their holding thereof, so We the People have always, everywhere, in every court, forum, or jurisdiction, for whatever reason, the right to demand and receive proof that an elected or appointed office which exercises authority in the name of the Constitution which WE THE PEOPLE PROMULGATED, show definitive and authenticated proof that he, as the holder of the office, received it lawfully, entered upon it according to due process, and was eligible for it in the moment of time in which he did.

If one uses one’s common sense, Such a Claim also is most reasonable

No one is harmed by presenting evidence.

If proof exists it can be divulged without harm.

What harm is there in showing proof of U.S. Citizenship, residency, or age?

None! Zippo!

Against Zero harm you would have to be insane to demand that the people spend a year litigating in court.

Against Zero harm you would have to be insane to demand that the people travel thousands of miles, pay tens of thousands of dollars to file papers, initiate action, wait months, fall on their knees and beg.

Against Zero harm?

If one can prove that one’s holding of an office under the Constiution is just, one does not hesitate to prove it.

To refuse to prove it for a year, is already proof that it is unjustly held!

Hence, I say, “Out with the usurper!”

Quo warranto is the inalienable right of We the People!

As such the use of this right CANNOT LAWFULLY BE RESTRICTED by any statute, any theory of standing, any claim of jurisdiction, or any proof of harm or injury.

If even one 8 year old child, U.S. Citizen, has a doubt, that is sufficient grounds to move a Quo Warranto action.

The logic could not be simpler, if you accept the sovereignty of the people.

0 Responses to "Editorial: Oct. 13, 2009 — Quo Warranto is Our Inalienable Right!"

  1. Jacqlyn Smith   Tuesday, October 13, 2009 at 9:58 AM

    Does the fine of $20,000 that Land imposed on Orly now give her standing and a right to discovery of the FRAUD’s documents to prove her case is not frivolous…..what are your thoughts John???

  2. Harry H   Tuesday, October 13, 2009 at 9:40 AM

    Beautiful defense, John, of “the right to demand and receive proof.” We are not slaves to any power, including the power of a fraudulent election. We stand on the Constitution and say to Obama, show us you are a natural born citizen or remove yourself from OUR White House.

    And thanks to Charles Lincoln for reminding us of Judge Carter’s earlier statement that “what the people will not accept is being locked out of court.” That is why this issue will not go away until Obama goes away.

  3. John Charlton   Tuesday, October 13, 2009 at 9:28 AM

    Mr. Lincoln,

    My quip about the 8 year old, was oratorical hyperbole.

  4. Pingback: The Common Law Writ of Quo Warranto «

  5. charleslincoln3   Tuesday, October 13, 2009 at 9:10 AM

    I disagree that the doubts of an 8 year old child are enough to trigger quo warranto—an 8 year old cannot even file suit for necessaries without a guardian or “next friend”—but I strongly support Randy Barnett’s thesis that quo warranto is one of the rights originally embodied in royal prerogative writs whose exercise is plainly reserved to the people by the Ninth Amendment. See “The Lost Constitution” (Princeton U. Press 2004).

    I’m with Orly in New York City today and won’t have much time to write more than that, except to note that the people do not have to get on their knees and beg. It is our right to demand proof positive of compliance with the constitution. It is our PRESUME non-compliance and act accordingly.

    Every state has the right to accept but then impound Federal money distributed to it under this administration, pending resolution of quo warranto. Every taxpayer who believes he or she has been injured in his person or property by Obama’s policies has the right to sue for Racketeering alleging Denial of the Intangible Right to Honest Services, as well as ordinary wire and mail fraud, as well as Bank fraud, under 18 U.S.C. Sections 1341, 1343, 1344, and 1346, and to seek as his/her remedy to have him removed from office for failure constitutionally to qualify. Flast v. Cohen standing thus combined with RICO standing is the modern solution.

    Quo Warranto as a reserved right of the people under the 1st and 9th Amendments is the traditional, constitutional, solution. Either way, the people win. As Judge Carter said on October 5, 2009, everybody can understand that sometimes their side wins in court and sometimes it doesn’t but what the people will not accept is being locked out of court.

  6. Paulajal   Monday, October 12, 2009 at 11:02 PM

    Glad to see you’re not backing down! Defending the Constitution trumps everything else in so far as the Court’s jurisdiction is concerned. Additionally the Court can write any kind of writ necessary so as to achieve its fundamental purpose- checking the other two branches of government from unlawful behavior, and protecting the individual’s innate rights from tyranny.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.