...........................................................................................
Leo Donofrio is 'PUNTING" the 'BALL' and says quote, "The blog is taking too much of my time and energy." If this is true Leo has wasted my time as others. I have followed Leo on his blog and was inspired by him to believe obama could be exposed as a FRAUD through Quo Qarranto. Leo explained the process and documented how it could be done. Now Leo has removed all his documented information and left us all 'out to dry'. One day Leo exclaims he will not give up and the next he says he does not have enough time all of a sudden. I have documented some of Leo's outstanding work about Quo Warranto. I thought it was worthy of documenting and trying to disseminate. I can't believe Leo is giving up. He did this once before and later starting informing us again. Leo don't give up and don't let us down!
...........................................................................................
Quo Warranto For “Interested Persons”.
The information Leo posted on Oct 8, 2009 explains how Americans can expose obama as a FRAUD. This post is important to all who want to know how to expose obama as an imposter. Leo is correct I believe. This will work. I can't understand why Leo did not bring this action in the DC Court or represent someone who was directly injured by obama such as Sarah Palin or Geral Walpin.
Leo has deleted this information from his blog but it is still cached by google.
Quo Warranto For Interested Persons
...........................................................................................
Section 16-3503 of the federal quo warranto statute allows an “interested person” to approach the DC District Court concerning a quo warranto trial (by jury) without requiring the permission of the US Attorney General or the US Attorney for DC.
An “interested person” may sign a “certified complaint” which states facts and those facts must be sworn to under penalty of perjury. Only facts may be sworn to, not allegations. The “interested person” gathers up all facts known to him/her and puts them in the petition, swears to them under oath and hands that in to the Court. Pretty simple, folks.
One fact which could safely be sworn to is that Obama was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 and that he was – at birth – a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. These are facts admitted by Obama. These facts have never been laid before the DC District Court. These facts are not in the complaint before Judge Carter. Why not?
16-3503 states:
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…
Plaintiffs in Barnett v. Obama allege that they have standing which is unique and special compared to the public at large. Therefore, they should have availed themselves of 16-3503.
But they’ve never even tried.
Plaintiffs have only attempted to avail themselves of 16-3502. All citizens are considered “third persons” under 16-3502, but all citizens don’t have unique standing and therefore 16-3502 requires permission by the Department of Justice to use the name of the US – ex relator – ina quo warranto proceeding.
But if you are an “interested person” under 16-3503 – aka a person with unique standing – then you do not need permission from the Department of Justice for the quo warranto.
The DC District Court examines the certified petition prior to allowing the suit to go forth based upon that petition. If the court is satisfied that the person issuing the petition is an “interested person” then that person is not needed any longer for the trial.
Once the name of the United States is allowed to be used, the “interested person” may step off, and the facts alleged are to be tried independently. For example, facts concerning what makes the President ineligible have nothing to do with the particular plaintiffs in Barnett v. Obama. So there’s no need for them to travel across the country for the trial. The trial is brought against the alleged usurper in the name of the United States.
There’s nothing stopping the plaintiffs from petitioning the DC District Court right now based upon facts known and verifiable as to the President’s British birth.
Why has this option been ignored? 16-3503 provides an excellent chance for review of these facts. There it is. Why not use it? A golden opportunity is being thrown by the way side.
Either the DC District Court will agree that these military persons are “interested persons” or it will not. Either the DC District Court will agree that 2008 Presidential candidate Alan Keyes is an “interested person” or it will not.
If the DC District Court does not agree that these plaintiffs are “interested persons” under the statute, then plaintiffs can make the same arguments they are making now before Judge Carter.
I don’t see any tactical advantage at all in avoiding the DC District Court.
Why give one of your tickets away for free? Why give away your best ticket for free? Why not avail yourself of the very statute created by Congress to review the eligibility of all US national office holders?
Doing so also avoids “political question doctrine” issues because the quo warranto statute is a congressional exercise of Constitutional authority to review the President’s eligibility. Why not kill two birds with one stone? Also, all arguments that a quo warranto action is too late now that he’s been sworn in are just patently bogus.
Quo warranto can only be invoked against somebody holding an office under false title.
Quo warranto only applies to actual usurpation not possible usurpation. It is the legislature’s sole enactment which allows judicial review of the President’s eligibility. And it appears that serious attempts are being made to avoid it. Before going off point and trying to force this issue upon courts which have not been given such authority, an action should have been brought – and still can be – under 16-3503.
Look people, I’m trying to help. Read this over a few times until it sinks in.
.........................................................................................
Leo I read this over a few times. I agree. Why have you deserted America and punted? Story Reports
.........................................................................................
THE WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO
Leo has deleted this information but I have preserved it for your information and mine.
Leo is the citizen lawyer that has inspired me and others to believe the system can still work if applied correctly. Leo has prsented enough information for any US citizen or other interested person to explore the option of using Quo Warranto to expose the FRAUD obama. I wish I knew if any other lawyer or interested party has attempted to use Quo Warranto to expose the IMPOSTER obama. I believe this is possible. Of course I don't know how the DC Court would respond.
I appeal again to Leo Donofrio to file a Quo Warranto in Dc Court before giving up on America and all those who believe in the possiblity of removing obama from office because of Quo Warranto.Story Reports
THE WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO
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.
Chapter 35 SUBCHAPTER I
ACTIONS AGAINST OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES
Actions Against Officers Of The United States QUO WARRANTO Chaper 35 Sub Chapter I
Chapter 35 SUBCHAPTER II
ACTIONS AGAINST OFFICERS OR CORPORATIONS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Actions Against Officers Or Corporations Of The District Of Columbia
Chapter 35 SUBCHAPTER III
PROCEDURES AND JUDGMENTS
Procedures And Judgments
..........................................................................................
Constitution.org Quo Warranto
§ 4.19 STANDING — PRIVATE PERSONS SUING IN OWN NAME UNDER STATUTES PERMITTING WITH LEAVE OF COURT
It is now fairly common for states by statute or court rule to allow private individuals, under certain circumstances at least, to bring actions in quo warranto (or its modern equivalent) with leave granted by court.’
Frequently by statute or rule the individual seeking leave must be an “interested person.”
Other courts have often said that “a person who has no greater interest than the public generally cannot maintain an action….”4 Generally claimants to the public office involved have been accepted as “interested persons,”5 and there has been expressed at times the unfortunate notion that only such claimants are “specially interested.”6
Statutes authorizing private persons to bring quo warranto in their own names customarily require them to post security for costs.17
§ 4.21 STANDING – PRIVATE PERSONS BRINGING IN OWN NAME UNDER STATUTES AUTHORIZING SAME AFTER ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS REFUSED TO BRING ACTION
Statutes and rules of court in a number of jurisdictions permit private individuals to bring quo warranto, either in their own name or in the name of the state, after they have requested the attorney general to commence such action and he has refused.l
Notwithstanding the unqualified language of the statutes, e.g. “a private person,” “any citizen,” “any elector”, courts operating under these statutes have been inclined to rule that persons generally cannot bring quo warranto under these statutes, but that the action can be brought only by individuals with special interests.2
The appellate courts add: “The private interest alleged must be directly, substantially and adversely affected by the action sought to be challenged in the quo warranto proceeding. The damage to that private interest must be then occurring or certain to occur; the petitioner cannot rely on an expected damage to his private interest.” Significantly, the court adds that “the private interest of one citizen may be an interest shared by other members of the community for purposes of establishing quo warranto standing.”6
§ 4.26 THE INITIAL PLEADING OF THE APPLICANT – THE COMPLAINT, PETITION OR INFORMATION
Generally, as in other civil actions, the initial pleading of an applicant for quo warranto or its statutory equivalent is denominated a complaint.1 Occasionally it is referred to as a petition,2 or an information.3
When the attorney general brings the action in quo warranto in vindication of a public right, it has customarily only been necessary that he allege in general terms that the defendant is unlawfully usurping a public office or franchise, there being no need to set forth the particular facts.4 Even when a private individual is bringing this kind of action to vindicate public rights, it has not ordinarily been necessary for him to do more than allege the defendant was usurping the public office or franchise without lawful authority.5 The rule permitting such broad pleading has often been criticized, and modern statutes have been drawn so as to require greater specificity.6
When an individual is the real party in interest in bringing action for quo warranto, his pleading must positively, with certainty and specificity set forth the facts on which he relies.7 They must be set forth clearly and without ambiguity,8 sufficient to indicate the unlawful nature of the defendant’s actions.9 Legal conclusions are not sufficient.10 In some states the complaint must allege that the individual seeking relief has a private interest in the matter and that the action sought to be challenged by quo warranto has harmed that interest.11 When an individual making application for quo warranto is able, as under many statutes, to assert his own claim to the office occupied by the incumbent defendant, the plaintiff must set forth facts indicating his own right to the office.12
(Record Master)
Who can allege their interests were harmed? Who has a private interest? Who can assert their own claim to the office occupied by the incumbent defendent? Who can set forth the facts and is considered a “real party” in interest in bringing action for quo warranto?
SARAH PALIN
She is an individual that is the real party in interest in bringing action for quo warranto.
Sara Palin could file a complaint/petition via the federal quo warranto statute at 16-3501:
“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.”
Leo D.
As you can see, the statute is very specific. The office of President is in the District of Columbia. The District Court for the District of Columbia is the only court which has the authority to hear a quo warranto complaint to remove a US national office holder from the District of Columbia .
The only remaining statute which controls quo warranto is the District of Columbia Code. And all actions brought thereunder must be brought in the District Court for the District of Columbia.
Judge Carter: “The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district.”
……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
C. Quo Warranto Claims (Judge Carter Ruling)
Plaintiffs encourage the Court to issue a quo warranto writ against President Obama
challenging the President’s right to hold his office. The Complaint recognizes that the District of Columbia would be the appropriate district in which to bring this writ, but alleges that bringing this request to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia would be futile because the United States Attorney is biased and Judge Robertson within that district had already rejected a similar case in which President Obama’s qualifications were challenged.
Compl. ¶¶ 32 – 35.
The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because
President Obama holds office within that district. The quo warranto provision codified in the District of Columbia Code provides, “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.” D.C. Code §§ 16-3501 – 16-3503. Should a person other than the Attorney General of the United States or the United States Attorney wish to bring a quo warranto claim, that person must receive leave of court to do so. Id. at § 16-3502. This leave of court must be granted, according to the text of the statute, by the District Court for the District of Columbia.
At oral argument, Plaintiffs encouraged the Court to apply the District of Columbia’s quo
warranto statute pursuant to California choice-of-law provisions because the District of
Columbia is the residence of Defendants. Plaintiffs’ contention is wholly misplaced because,
while this Court can apply the law of other jurisdictions where appropriate, it is precluded from robbing the D.C. court of jurisdiction as to any quo warranto writ against President Obama because the D.C. Code grants exclusive jurisdiction to the District Court for the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs’ quo warranto demand is hereby DISMISSED for improper venue.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Judge Cater Ruling Case No SACV 09-0082 DOC-AN 10/29/2009
POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE.
Congress is the branch the Constitution empowers to remove a sitting President. The power to judicially enforce any review of POTUS eligibility is a pre-requisite to judicial involvement as the federal courts do not have the power to issue simple advisory opinions. A declaratory judgment is more than an advisory opinion. This is because a declaratory judgment must have the power of enforcement attached whereas an advisory opinion does not.
The declaratory judgment requests of plaintiffs in the Barnett case had to be dismissed because the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. It’s really that simple. Judge Carter’s analysis of this issue was perfect.
QUO WARRANTO
Because a quo warranto is the only proper action to review the eligibility of a sitting President – and because such an action requires a trial of facts – Congress empowered the DC District Court to hold such a trial (by jury if requested by either party) when the eligibility of the President (or any US national office holder) is called into question.
There is no political question doctrine defense available to a sitting President for a quo warranto brought in the DC District Court. This is because Congress properly exercised its Constitutional authority to review a President’s eligibility via the quo warranto statute which also provides for the removal of an ineligible person from that office if necessary.
The US Attorney General and the US attorney have been empowered by Congress to institute a quo warranto on their own volition. Furthermore, any person may request that these officers do the same. If consent is not given by the DOJ, section 3503 of the quo warranto statute allows an “interested person” to petition the DC District Court on its own. The Barnett plaintiffs failed to avail themselves of this option.
Additionally, the Department of Justice has created a genuine conflict of interest as to 3502 requests by any “third person” (meaning any citizen). By defending the President in this eligibility litigation involving quo warranto, it isn’t possible for the Department of Justice to remain impartial.
Therefore, either a special prosecutor must be named for purposes of allowing the Congressional intent of the quo warranto statute to be realized, or the DC District Court may waive the requirement and examine any verified petition on its own consent.
The conflict will eventually be tested in the DC District Court.
JUDGE CARTER DID NOT HOLD THAT QUO WARRANTO WAS IMPROPER TO CHALLENGE THE ELIGIBILITY OF A SITTING PRESIDENT.
This was the most extraordinary part of today’s ruling. It opens the door wide for a proper eligibility challenge in the DC District Court where the hurdle for standing is different from ordinary federal cases.
Please take note that the Department of Justice attorneys argued before Judge Carter that quo warranto – even if brought properly in the DC District Court – could not be used to challenge the eligibility of a sitting President. Judge Carter’s ruling did not support the Department of Justice position.
The ruling today affirms that the proper venue for challenging the eligibility of a sitting President is the DC District Court.
This is a very encouraging ruling for those contemplating a quo warranto challenge to President Obama’s eligibility in the DC District Court.
Here is Judge Carter’s correct ruling on the quo warranto issue:
C. Quo Warranto Claims…
The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district. The quo warranto provision codified in the District of Columbia Code provides, “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.” D.C. Code §§ 16-3501 – 16-3503. Should a person other than the Attorney General of the United States or the United States Attorney wish to bring a quo warranto claim, that person must receive leave of court to do so. Id. at § 16-3502. This leave of court must be granted, according to the text of the statute, by the District Court for the District of Columbia.
Nothing in today’s ruling appears to question the power of the DC District Court to issue a writ of quo warranto to President Obama which would require him to prove his eligibility to hold the office of President. I must commend Judge Carter for his exercise of judicial restraint on this issue. (Leo Donofrio)
.........................................................................................
Sarah Palin or Geral Walpin could today bring obama to his knees if she would petition the DC District Court by using the Quo Warranto Federal Law In Washington DC.
Sarah Palin or Geral Walpin can challenge obama as an ursurper to the office of the President and succeed.
Sarah, Geral why have you not done this? I have not heard you speak of any challenge to Obama.
America is waiting for you to take action. America needs you to seek to remove obama because he was not a natural born citizen at birth. You have standing with the DC District Court through Quo Warranto.
Please expose obama before it is too late!!
Quo Warranto Information At Constitution.org
..........................................................................................
Leo 'our quaterback' was moving the 'ball' down the field of Quo Warranto with this information below. It is the template or outline for a "game changer". Our 'quarter back' has now punted for 'less points'. I want to win Leo. I didn't want to settle for 'less points'. Leo has left the 'game' because he is injured. I think Leo is frustrated with other lawyers who have used the system incorrectly. I hope Leo is able to return to the "game" soon and take the "ball", "Quo Warranto" to the Dc Court and win the "game"!
..........................................................................................
Leo Donofrio
“The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion…”
“By virtue of their position, they, at their discretion and acting under the sense of official responsibility, can institute such proceedings in any case they deem proper.”
“IN ANY CASE THEY DEEM PROPER.”
- There is no qualification that there be a certain amount of evidence one way or the other.
- There is no qualification that the officials must consider public opinion or political party affiliation.
- There is no “standing” to prove. If your title is US Attorney General or United States attorney, you have standing.
- There is no need to consult with Congress because, as SCOTUS noted in their opinion, Congress has already acted on the issue by enacting the quo warranto statute.
All that is required is that the official deems a quo warranto statute proper. His discretion is unassailable judicially.
Even if both officials are convinced Obama is eligible, it’s still proper for them institute a quo warranto proceeding because the evidence emerging now is that, by leaving the controversy as is, a floodgate of litigation will ensue. And like the waters over New Orleans levees, this floodgate has the ability to wreak havoc on our nation.
Regardless of whether one believes Obama’s online COLB is real, no citizen can tell the Government to check a web site for their birth certificate rather than bring it in to the DMV or send it to the federal Government for a passport. You have to actually mail your BC in to them if you don’t bring it in person.
I recognize that the Constitution does not require a birth certificate as a qualification, but that’s not the issue anymore.
The issue is whether the Attorney General and/or a United States attorney deems it proper for Obama to provide the same proof of identity as ordinary citizens in order to avoid FORESEEABLE complications which are destined to rot public faith.
Obama ought to encourage these officials to institute an action in quo warranto for the good of the nation and for the good of his own legacy.
THREE WAYS TO BRING QUO WARRANTO
1. The US attorney and/or the US Attorney General institute the case on their own motion – which is the best way this could happen. No leave of the court need be requested. There will be a hearing and a trial of facts.
2. If no authorized Government attorneys will bring the action on their own motion, then any citizen may join a law suit as “third persons” and such law suit, by way of verified petition, shall be brought to the US Attorney and/or the Attorney General to ask their consent to use the name of the United States. If the Government gives consent, then you must request permission from the court to bring the suit as well. And if the Court says yes, you will have a hearing on the merits.
3. If the Government will not give consent, then “interested persons” may request leave of the court to institute the action in quo warranto. But standing will be – according to SCOTUS in Newman – restricted to anybody who was ousted from the office of POTUS (and nobody is going to meet that requirement) or, in the alternative there might by cases under the civil service laws which provide standing.
3. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF TITLE 16 CHAPTER 35 (Quo Warranto) OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CODE.
Chapter 35 is entitled “QUO WARRANTO”. Subchapter I is entitled “Actions Against Officers of the United States.” Subchapter II is entitled “Actions Against Officers or Corporations of the District of Columbia“. Please note that the original DC quo warranto statute was first enacted in 1901. While SCOTUS interpreted that statute as controlling national officers, Congress modified the statute in 1963 to its current form which erases any possible doubt that the statute applies to all Officers of the United States.
Furthermore, the District of Columbia Code is federal law. It’s enacted by Congress and the actual United States Constitution is included in the District of Columbia code. I have seen the most erroneous comments online wherein it has been argued that a “local DC code is not federal law”. Besides the ultimate federal law – the Constitution – being placed directly in the DC code, SCOTUS has stated – in the seminal quo warranto DC code case, Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915) – that the District Code applies to all…
“…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…”
I must reiterate that the code’s text does not provide any exceptions for any public office, not even POTUS.
CONCLUSION: The District of Columbia Code is the only means by which a federal quo warranto action can be instituted and its application is strictly limited to public offices of the United States or local DC offices within the ten square miles of the District of Columbia. No public office, ie POTUS, is exempt by the statute.
THE WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO
.........................................................................................
Petition The DOJ as “third persons” under 16-3502 and get permission of the DOJ to use the name of the US in a quo warranto proceeding! Out Obama.
I have recorded additional information Leo Donofrio has written about Quo Warranto. This information is available at the link below and I will post it again here. Leo explains Juge Carter's ruling and documents how the door was left open to Quo Warranto. Leo you need to walk through the door you were talking about for America.
.........................................................................................
Petition The DOJ as “third persons” under 16-3502 and get permission of the DOJ to use the name of the US in a quo warranto proceeding! Out Obama.
Petition The DOJ as “third persons” under 16-3502 and get permission of the DOJ to use the name of the US in a quo warranto proceeding! Out Obama.
Leo Donofrio
Congress has not defined “natural born citizen” while they have defined “naturalized citizen” and “citizen by statute”. Since neither the Congress nor the courts have defined “natural born citizen”, we are left without a legal working definition.
Faced with a sitting President who admits to having been a British citizen at birth, the need for a quo warranto to be instituted is of the utmost importance to the future of this nation.
“The DC District Court”, has the power, “to issue a writ of quo warranto to President Obama which would require him to prove his eligibility to hold the office of President.”
JUDGE CARTER DID NOT HOLD THAT QUO WARRANTO WAS IMPROPER TO CHALLENGE THE ELIGIBILITY OF A SITTING PRESIDENT.
This was the most extraordinary part of today’s ruling. It opens the door wide for a proper eligibility challenge in the DC District Court where the hurdle for standing is different from ordinary federal cases.
QUO WARRANTO
Because a quo warranto is the only proper action to review the eligibility of a sitting President – and because such an action requires a trial of facts – Congress empowered the DC District Court to hold such a trial (by jury if requested by either party) when the eligibility of the President (or any US national office holder) is called into question.
There is no political question doctrine defense available to a sitting President for a quo warranto brought in the DC District Court. This is because Congress properly exercised its Constitutional authority to review a President’s eligibility via the quo warranto statute which also provides for the removal of an ineligible person from that office if necessary.
The US Attorney General and the US attorney have been empowered by Congress to institute a quo warranto on their own volition. Furthermore, any person may request that these officers do the same. If consent is not given by the DOJ, section 3503 of the quo warranto statute allows an “interested person” to petition the DC District Court on its own.
The Department of Justice has created a genuine conflict of interest as to 3502 requests by any “third person” (meaning any citizen). By defending the President in this eligibility litigation involving quo warranto, it isn’t possible for the Department of Justice to remain impartial.
Therefore, either a special prosecutor must be named for purposes of allowing the Congressional intent of the quo warranto statute to be realized, or the DC District Court may waive the requirement and examine any verified petition on its own consent.
The conflict will eventually be tested in the DC District Court.
(Leo will you test it? Can you follow through with the 'conflict'? Don't let America down)
..........................................................................................
Here is Judge Carter’s correct ruling on the quo warranto issue:
..........................................................................................
C. Quo Warranto Claims…
The writ of quo warranto must be brought within the District of Columbia because President Obama holds office within that district. The quo warranto provision codified in the District of Columbia Code provides, “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.” D.C. Code §§ 16-3501 – 16-3503. Should a person other than the Attorney General of the United States or the United States Attorney wish to bring a quo warranto claim, that person must receive leave of court to do so. Id. at § 16-3502. This leave of court must be granted, according to the text of the statute, by the District Court for the District of Columbia.
Nothing in today’s ruling appears to question the power of the DC District Court to issue a writ of quo warranto to President Obama which would require him to prove his eligibility to hold the office of President. I must commend Judge Carter for his exercise of judicial restraint on this issue. (Leo Donofrio)
..........................................................................................
Quo Warranto For “Interested Persons
Section 16-3503 of the federal quo warranto statute allows an “interested person” to approach the DC District Court concerning a quo warranto trial (by jury) without requiring the permission of the US Attorney General or the US Attorney for DC.
An “interested person” may sign a “certified complaint” which states facts and those facts must be sworn to under penalty of perjury. Only facts may be sworn to, not allegations. The “interested person” gathers up all facts known to him/her and puts them in the petition, swears to them under oath and hands that in to the Court. Pretty simple, folks.
One fact which could safely be sworn to is that Obama was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 and that he was – at birth – a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. These are facts admitted by Obama. These facts have never been laid before the DC District Court.
16-3503 states:
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…
All citizens are considered “third persons” under 16-3502, but all citizens don’t have unique standing and therefore 16-3502 requires permission by the Department of Justice to use the name of the US – ex relator – ina quo warranto proceeding.
If you are an “interested person” under 16-3503 – aka a person with unique standing – then you do not need permission from the Department of Justice for the quo warranto.
The DC District Court examines the certified petition prior to allowing the suit to go forth based upon that petition. If the court is satisfied that the person issuing the petition is an “interested person” then that person is not needed any longer for the trial.
Once the name of the United States is allowed to be used, the “interested person” may step off, and the facts alleged are to be tried independently.
The trial is brought against the alleged usurper in the name of the United States.
Quo warranto can only be invoked against somebody holding an office under false title.
Quo warranto only applies to actual usurpation not possible usurpation. It is the legislature’s sole enactment which allows judicial review of the President’s eligibility. And it appears that serious attempts are being made to avoid it. Before going off point and trying to force this issue upon courts which have not been given such authority, an action should have been brought – and still can be – under 16-3503.
.........................................................................................
Leo Explains Quo Warranto Radio Interview
..........................................................................................
quo warranto
“By what warrant do you hold office”?
The DOJ is now in direct conflict of interest by defending him in the Barnett case. But for 16-3503 their permission is not necessary. The statute says the case may be prosecuted by “any attorney”.
How Congress Is Sanitizing The Natural Born Issue
Everyone needs to read this report. It’s truly one of the best articles ever written on the natural born citizen issue. Leo D.
..........................................................................................
..........................................................................................
What a citizen can do to EXPOSE THE FRAUD obama!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
..........................................................................................
..........................................................................................
Apply to DOJ is first step. If they refuse and you are an “interested person” then according to 16-3503 you may go before the court without their permission to use the name of the US…if the court finds your petition sufficient in law then the writ will issue and the President will stand trial.
Remember:
All citizens are considered “third persons” under 16-3502, but all citizens don’t have unique standing and therefore 16-3502 requires permission by the Department of Justice to use the name of the US – ex relator – ina quo warranto proceeding.
(Lets All Petition The DOJ as “third persons” under 16-3502 and get permission of the DOJ to use the name of the US in a quo warranto proceeding!) Story Reports
*****************************************************************************************
NOTE HOW TO EXPOSE THE FRAUD OBAMA IN DC COURT!
*****************************************************************************************
Section 16-3503 of the federal quo warranto statute allows an “interested person” to approach the DC District Court concerning a quo warranto trial (by jury) without requiring the permission of the US Attorney General or the US Attorney for DC.
An “interested person” may sign a “certified complaint” which states facts and those facts must be sworn to under penalty of perjury. Only facts may be sworn to, not allegations. The “interested person” gathers up all facts known to him/her and puts them in the petition, swears to them under oath and hands that in to the Court. Pretty simple, folks.
One fact which could safely be sworn to is that Obama was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 and that he was – at birth – a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. These are facts admitted by Obama. These facts have never been laid before the DC District Court.
16-3503 states:
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…
All citizens are considered “third persons” under 16-3502, but all citizens don’t have unique standing and therefore 16-3502 requires permission by the Department of Justice to use the name of the US – ex relator – ina quo warranto proceeding.
Don’t get confused. Unless your an intersted person under 16-3503 you need permission to go before the court.
*****Everybody: 16-3502*****
Petition The DOJ as “third persons” under 16-3502 and get permission of the DOJ to use the name of the US in a quo warranto proceeding! Then you become an “interested person” and sign a “certified complaint” which states facts and those facts must be sworn to under penalty of perjury. One fact which could safely be sworn to is that Obama was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 and that he was – at birth – a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. These are facts admitted by Obama. These facts have never been laid before the DC District Court.
This is what I can do and any US citizen that is not an "interested person" such as Sarah Palin or Geral Walpin for example. These two people have injured by obama and can go directly to the DC Court.
Leo has provided the template. Leo has deleted the template from his blog. I have preserved it. Leo stated it was for our use. I urge Americans to use this procedure that Leo has said will work. I also believe it will if applied as Leo has explained. I am disappointed that leo has deleted this excellent information on his blog for us to use. Leo must have known someone would preseve it
Comments On
Leo Donofrio says he is to busy
'Quo Warranto for 'Interested Persons'' - Leo Donofrio; Plus Related Items: Are You 'Interested?' InvestigatingObama.com
No comments:
Post a Comment