Quo Warranto Challenges Legitimacy of Biden Regime Appointees

by Sharon Rondeau, h/t KC

(Apr. 19, 2023) — An April 16 article in NationalFile describes a case filed with the U.S. attorney for the District of Washington, DC alleging that without sworn affidavits containing their oaths of office, Biden-regime appointees are serving illegitimately.

NationalFile’s source is a “Standard Newswire” press release dated April 14, 2023 which begins:

On April 12, 2023, Todd S. Callender, Esq. of Disabled Rights Advocates PLLC, and Kenneth W. Ferguson, Esq. of Ferguson Law, P.A., filed on Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto, on behalf of Petitioner, Lisa McGee, to the US Attorney in the District of Columbia, requesting: 1) true, correct and non-defective required affidavits of Oaths of Office for the appointed and elected cabinet members of the Biden Administration; or the immediate removal of all named parties for failure to abide their this statutory requirement; and 3) if removed, then to void all their official acts ab initio.

Those whose written oaths of office were requested but reportedly not provided to McGee or proved deficient include Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona; Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm; U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland; Vice President Kamala Harris; and CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky, among others.

The source shown on the press release, vaxxchoice.com, was partially non-functional when The Post & Email accessed it Tuesday afternoon. We therefore contacted one of the indicated law firms, dradvocates.com, and late Tuesday night received confirmation of McGee’s representation from David Willson, Attorney at Law, with a 21-page Quo Warranto brief attached.

Page 4 of the brief alleges that the federal statute violated is 5 US Code 3332, which states:

An officer, within 30 days after the effective date of his appointment, shall file with the oath of office required by section 3331 of this title an affidavit that neither he nor anyone acting in his behalf has given, transferred, promised, or paid any consideration for or in the expectation or hope of receiving assistance in securing the appointment.

“2. For those individuals who have failed or refused to produce an affidavit as required by 5 U.S. Code § 3332, demand that those persons provide the US Attorney and this Court with the compulsory affidavit within ten (10) days,” the filing continues.

Regarding “those individuals who do not produce the 5 U.S. Code § 3332 affidavit within ten (10) days as described above; as well as, those who have admitted they do not possess the requisite affidavit and those who have produced defective affidavits,” the brief calls for the individuals to:

Immediately terminate their appointments or positions;

Render all official acts, bills, laws, regulations, or any official actions whatsoever, including the appointment of any subordinates void ab initio and;

Replace and restore all proper, former office holders until competent replacements can be lawfully appointed.

The brief goes on to outline the requirements for oaths of office, including wording stating that the oath-taker must affirm:

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

“The issue before the US Attorney is straightforward,” the document states on page 7. “Petitioner has sought the required affidavits prescribed in 5 U.S. Code § 3332 from all appointees referenced via the Freedom of Information Act requests; and not one of the aforesaid appointees have produced a compliant affidavit consistent with the applicable statutes. Either the affidavit(s) are nonexistent, wanting, defective or the appointee has failed or refuses to provide the mandated affidavit to hold their respective offices.”

Consequently, the attorneys wrote, “Petitioner respectfully requests the US Attorney seek the Court to issue a writ of quo warranto and enforce the relief sought in Part II for the individuals referenced, as the legitimacy of each to hold their respective positions or offices are demonstrably in question.”

The majority of McGee’s FOIA requests were submitted in early February 2023, the brief states, with a July 2022 request for Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s oath reportedly provided months later via a “deficient copy” (p. 13).

Pages 15 and 16 enumerate McGee’s requests and their outcomes, including that in addition to Austin, Walensky and Garland’s offices provided documents “not properly notarized or sworn,” among other defects.

“A petition for quo warranto is an appropriate method of determining whether a person is eligible to the office or position to which the individual was appointed or elected,” the attorneys asserted on page 17, citing Newman v. U.S. of Am. ex rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537, 544 46 (1915).

In the same paragraph, the attorneys cite Sibley v. Obama, 866 F. Supp. 2d 17 (D.D.C. 2012), aff’d, 2012 WL 6603088 (D.C. Cir. 2012), which refers to a case filed by Montgomery Blair Sibley, then an attorney in the Washington, DC area, and, according to U.S. District Judge John D. Bates at the time, “asserts so-called ‘birther’ claims against President Barack Obama, aiming to have him ousted from office and to have his name removed from the ballot in November 2012 because he supposedly was not born in the United States.”

“Since not one of the appointees referenced have produced a compliant, mandatory Oath of Office affidavit, it follows that the Petitioner has established a prima facie case for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto based upon the FOIA requests and the individuals responses to same,” McGee’s legal team asserted on pages 19-20. “In turn, the burden now shifts to the respondent-appointees to prove Petitioner otherwise; and to produce the affidavits as required by law.”

“…while writs are extraordinary remedies, this petition has demonstrated that there are uncontroverted, substantial pertinent facts that show the Petitioner is entitled to the requested relief; and a peremptory writ of quo warranto ought to be sought and issued along with the relief requested in Part II,” the brief concludes.