LEO DONOFRIO CAN TAKE OBAMA DOWN!!!!!

Leo's Band

A Real Super Hero

Thank You Leo For Not Giving Up On America!

QUO WARRANTO LEGAL BRIEF The Federal Quo Warranto Statute Is The Only Constitutional Means of Removing a Sitting President Other Than Impeachment LEO DONOFRIO CAN TAKE OBAMA DOWN!!!!!

quoa-warranto a new hopemilitary can now retreat in peace


The issue of whether the President can be removed from office other than by impeachment is the single most important question presented with regard to challenging the eligibility of a sitting President.

THE CONSTITUTION HAS PROVIDED CONGRESS WITH THE AUTHORITY TO REMOVE THE PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE IN CASES OTHER THAN IMPEACHMENT.

Evidence of this power is directly written into the Constitution. The most obvious section is Article 2, Section 1, Clause 6 which states in full:

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.


A comprehensive investigation appears to reveal that the framers intended Article 2, Section 1, Clause 6 - as it applied to the POTUS - for two distinct purposes.

- the first purpose is the commonly accepted purpose: to provide for a vacancy in the office of President

- the second purpose was to provide Congress a means to remove the President should it become clear that he is not entitled to hold the office, for example - a classic quo warranto situation or if the President becomes disabled.


The 25th Amendment is quite an amazing grant of power when you consider the President can be forced to step down if Congress believes he’s lost his mind. That’s certainly a much greater power than just being authorized to decide how to fill the vacancy if he loses his mind.

QUESTION: If Congress has the power to remove a President should it become known he was a usurper, then why doesn’t the 25th Amendment address that?

ANSWER: Because by 1967 - when the 25th Amendment was ratified - Congress had already exercised their authority on this issue by enacting the federal quo warranto statute which allows for the removal of any United States officer found to be a usurper.


Article 1 Section 8 Clause17 states:

The Congress shall have power…To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States,…

Compare the wording of Clause 17 with §16-3501 of the federal quo warranto statute:

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.

When you read the two back to back, it appears Constitutional that the office of President - being in the District of Columbia - should be governed by the federal quo warranto statute.


USC CODE: TITLE 3 THE PRESIDENT Chapter 1. Presidential Elections and Vacancies

Please review §19:

Vacancy in offices of both president and vice president; officers eligible to act

§ 19. (a) (1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President.

CONCLUSION: The federal quo warranto statute provides the only Constitutional means by which a sitting President may be removed by the Judicial branch.

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.


First petition the Attorney General or US Attorney in DC to institute an action in quo warranto.

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.

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 himself.

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

U.S. ATTORNEY JEFFREY A. TAYLOR

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.

§ 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…


If either official bring an action in quo warranto upon their own motion, such an action is brought on behalf of the United States and no leave of the court is necessary.

As written, it’s possible any US attorney might be eligible to institute such a quo warranto action. Notice that in the statute - “attorney” isn’t capitalized in either 16-3502 or 16-3503 when the “United States attorney” is mentioned. Of course, US Attorney Taylor is certainly authorized, but this needs further research.

*************************************************************************************
Here is the danger Leo Donofrio doesn't mention. If obama thinks Atty Donofrio and thousands of Amercians are about to expose him as a FRAUD he will declare martial law to conceal his true identity. Obama can declare martial law for any reason and not tell anyone initially thanks to george bush and the "war on terror". The war on terror for some in the government could be any disagreement or "rebellion" as the government would call it, that seeks to expose the truth about obama or government corruption.
*************************************************************************************
Leo Donofrio:
If AG Holder and US Attorney Taylor refuse to institute an action in Quo Warranto on their own motion, the same statute provides for all “third persons” (any citizen) to request, via verified petition, that either of those two officials institute an action in Quo Warranto on plaintiffs’ behalf, subject to leave of the District Court of DC.

If AG Holder and US Attorney Taylor refuse to bring the action on their own motion, Mario Apuzzo and I are committed to acquiring as large a set of plaintiffs as possible to petition these officials on plaintiffs’ behalf [but in separate law suits]. “Third persons” are any citizens of the United States.

If the officials refuse consent to bring the action “ex relator” on behalf of such “third persons”, then the statute provides that any “interested persons” (a subset of “third persons”) may petition the court without the consent of the two officials.

Leo Donofrio explains:
An action in Quo Warranto should ask for two simple issues to be resolved:

1. That a court determine whether Obama’s birth status having been governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 prevents him from eligibility as a natural born citizen under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.

2. That Obama produce his long form birth certificate to AG Holder and/or US Attorney Taylor.

(Yes Leo I am interested as many are who want to expose the FRAUD obama. Include me in any lawsuit. I will serve the papers also sir!)

§16-3501 of the federal quo warranto statute:

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.


(Obama has usurped,intruded,unlawfully holds and exercises the office of the president of the United States!)


////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Additional Information
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Quo Warranto:

The common law writ of quo warranto has been suppressed at the federal level in the United States, and deprecated at the state level, but remains a right under the Ninth Amendment which was understood and presumed by the Founders, and which affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents. Revival of the writs must be combined with reviving standing for private prosecution of public rights, subverted by the decision in Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923)

A critical key to achieving federal constitutional compliance is to resurrect quo warranto and other common law writs. This involves reasserting and strengthening the original All-Writs Act and repealing or declaring unconstitutional legislation, such as the Anti-Injunction Act, and those Rules of Judicial Procedure, that have restricted the jurisdiction of federal courts to accept petitions for these writs and grant a fair hearing ("oyer") and a decision on the merits ("terminer") on such petitions.

The Practice of Extraordinary Remedies, Chester James Antieau, 1987, Chapter on Quo Warranto.

A Treatise on Extraordinary Legal Remedies, Embracing Mandamus, Quo Warranto and Prohibition, James L. High, 1896, Section on Quo Warranto.

A Treatise on the Legal Remedies of Mandamus and Prohibition, Habeas Corpus, Certiorari, and Quo Warranto, Horace g. Wood, 1896, Section on Quo Warranto.

Revival of the writs must be combined with reviving standing for private prosecution of public rights, subverted by the decision in Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923), which is discussed in this article by Steve Winter