by Leo Donofrio, naturalborncitizen, ©2021
(Jan. 11, 2021) — In my previous post, I discussed a Writ of Quo Warranto – the very statute specifically enacted by Congress to challenge fraudulent or mistaken federal election results. I explained that a sitting President could be ousted from the White House by a civil jury at the District Court for the District of Columbia if fraud or even just plain error led to a President having been erroneously elected.
If this happens, the person ousted is not considered to have ever been President. The wrongful election is void. That’s the difference between quo warranto and impeachment. The law removes a legally sworn in President by impeachment for conduct while in office. But the law removes an illegally sworn in person by the statutory Writ of Quo Warranto, regardless of conduct.
I promised further research, and having found a perfect case from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, I will keep this post short and punchy. If anyone tells you that a President of the United States can only be removed from office by the impeachment process, send them here.
In Drake v. Obama, 664 F.3d 774 (2011), a class of various plaintiffs sued in federal district court in California to challenge President Obama’s eligibility after he had been sworn in as President. The class consisted of citizens, military, ex-military, state legislators, third party candidates and their electors. Alan Keyes was running for President, with Wiley Drake as his VP. The district court dismissed most of the claims based on lack of standing, but with regard to the candidates/electors, the claim was dismissed, not on standing, but on jurisdiction. The district court held that the only proper venue for a federal quo warranto action was in the D.C. District Court, not in California.
On appeal, the 9th Circuit affirmed, holding that a federal quo warranto action must be brought under the quo warranto statute enacted by Congress. And since this was the direct holding in the case, the following quote is precedent:
“The District Court properly dismissed Plaintiff’s quo warranto claims under D.C.Code § 16-3503, because the proper venue to file such claims against the President of the United States would be the District of Columbia. See D.C.Code § 16-3501;” Drake v. Obama, 664 F.3d at 784.
There it is. The most liberal federal judicial circuit in the nation held that a sitting President may be subjected to defending a quo warranto action for removal in the D.C. District Court, pursuant to the federal quo warranto statute, § 16-3501.
This is the proper legal procedure. The candidate plaintiffs in Drake v. Obama had no possibility of winning after the election, and this played into the Court’s statements. But they didn’t need to reach that issue, as the case was brought in the wrong venue. The actual holding of the case states that “the proper venue to file such claims against the President of the United States would be the District of Columbia.”. Therefore, the Court’s statement on venue is the established precedent of the case.
The Court specifically held that a sitting President can be subjected to defending his election by a writ of quo warranto brought in the D.C. District Court.
President Trump can never say he exhausted every legal option to present the evidence of election fraud and error before the American people, if he fails to avail himself of the very statute enacted to correct fraud and error in federal elections. The people who bravely testified and signed sworn affidavits deserve their day in court.
Looking for all of your news in one place? Try Whatfinger, your one-stop aggregator of news, opinion and everything else.