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

President Obama appears to have set the seal on a dollar collapse

This is more excellant information from by John Browne


When President Obama took over the reins of government just six weeks ago, he stood at a historic crossroads. His decision on which route to take will make a profound impact on the future of the American economy and its currency. He could have persuaded a frightened Congress to initiate a structural change that would transform the U.S. economy from its dependence on debt-fueled personal consumption back to a path of productive growth. Instead, he took the easy route: attempting to delay the pain with stimulus and inflation, rewarding his benefactors without truly addressing our structural deficits. Disappointing for a man who campaigned on ‘hope’ and ‘change.’

Obama could have remained true to his electoral promises to halt taxpayer abuse and to focus spending on infrastructure. This would have created some 35,000 new, wealth-creating jobs for each $1 billion spent. It also would have left the private sector to deleverage, allowing the desperately needed economic restructuring to take place in a productive, free-market manner. Instead, he bowed to a socialist Congress by boosting entitlements, the very programs which, over the past four decades, have depleted America’s wealth and encumbered future generations with some $60,000,000,000,000 of debt.

Rather than ‘hope’ and ‘change,’ Obama has chosen to expand existing programs, casting a cloud over our children and grandchildren. His program is as old as Marx: ramp up government spending on and control over health and education to increase the federal government’s share of GDP, in this case by two-thirds to some 34 percent. This will continue the serious erosion of American wealth, and with it the U.S. dollar.

In his budget last week, President Obama chose to raise taxes on individuals and businesses. In the face of a worldwide recession that is fast sliding into a depression and even towards an economic catastrophe, it was a surprising decision. It will likely serve only to deepen and prolong the economic decline. Despite the destructive tax hikes, the budget still forecast the largest deficit in world history.

For the foreseeable future, deficits will be measured in trillions, not billions. To put these vast sums into perspective, consider just one billion, or one thousandth of a trillion. A billion minutes ago, Jesus was alive. A billion hours ago, humankind was in the Stone Age. But in just the past eight hours and twenty minutes, even before Obama’s budget clicks in, the Government has spent $1 billion!

Investors will understandably conclude that Obama’s budget will put a near-mortal wound in the U.S. dollar and be tempted to sell or even short the greenback. Beware, as things are not that simple! While Obama’s budget has halted healthy economic restructuring and placed the U.S. dollar under long-term threat, several important short-term factors will postpone the inevitable.

First, it is vitally important to realize that the present recession is not restricted to the United States. It is worldwide. Asset prices are dropping around the globe and cash is already a king. As fear spreads, investors are running for safety in the world’s most widely held currency, the U.S. dollar. As a result, the dollar is rallying.

Second, the vast asset boom, from which the world is deleveraging, was based on a vast oversupply of cheap U.S. dollars. Investors borrowed low interest-cost dollars, converted them into their domestic currencies (driving down the dollar), and invested in local assets. Deleveraging is causing the dollar ‘carry trade’ to unwind, driving the dollar upwards.

Third, many investors, including major corporations and central banks, have diversified their currency holdings into the Euro. The world recession is hitting Europe extremely hard, particularly the large international exporters such as Germany, and the newly capitalist countries of the former Soviet Union. The plight of Eastern Europe has widened political cracks within the European Union to the point where there is now a serious risk that the euro and even the European Union could fail. David Charter of The Times writes, “…The lack of EU leadership and direction…threatens to wrench apart both the euro and the EU itself.”

If the Euro appears under serious threat, there could be a massive financial panic and a stampede into U.S. dollars, driving it to unexpected highs. This is likely to add temporarily to a recessionary fall in the dollar price of gold. In light of this unfolding evidence, it is becoming increasingly risky to sell short the U.S. dollar. In the long-term however, President Obama appears to have set the seal on a dollar collapse.


Obama’s budget has halted healthy economic restructuring and placed the U.S. dollar under long-term threat, several important short-term factors will postpone the inevitable. Obama appears to be an idiot but is in fact a communist.

Commercial real estate collapse will lead to financial collapse in 2009

Gerald Celente , the world's #1 Trends forecaster states that we're moving into the Greatest Depression in history - starting in 2009!

Commercial real estate collapse in march will lead to financial collapse in 2009


....................................................................................



....................................................................................

The US Collapse Of 2009 - This Will Blow Your Mind......



....................................................................................

The United States of America will shortly be known as the USSA United Socialist States of America.

Obama and his useful IDIOTS are changing the USA into the USSA (United Socialist States Of America

(A Georgia Gentleman // Feb 7, 2009 at 9:57 am)

Maybe one should open a history book, going back to the 1860’s, and take a look at the war of Northern oppression ( commonly called the “Civil War” ). Might it really needed to be termed the War of federal oppression.

Might we not need to stop at ascension of State sovereignty, and continue on to a
possible thought of succeeding from a union of states, governed by an oppressive
socialist regime, which is hell bent on destroying the United States of America,
and reducing OUR country to another communist government controlled , state owned gulag for those, once of a free nation of the people, by the people, and for the people.

We might only need to turn to the history of communism, and to the writings of Karl Marx , and the communist manifesto, to understand the new demoncratic plan of federal governance of all people, business and institutions, all state governments included, that is now in motion in the chambers of the house, senate, and in the office of the presidency.

They socialists inside the beltway are moving quickly to consolidate their power, and once consolidation is complete, the power will only be to the federal government, and the states now will be totally subservient to federal control. The will of the people will only bring on the imprisonment,(the useful idiots) and deaths of those who will question the authority of the federal government, this as seen in every instance where socialism and communism has come to power.

The lead in to this can currently be seen in the attack by the socialists in the federal government on the free speech of the people through dissent of the current
activities of the new socialist congress, senate, and office of the presidency. If the people, and the states allow this cancer to spread, and consolidate its power, the United States of America will shortly be known as the USSA. United Socialist States of America.

....................................................................................
....................................................................................
To keep and bare arms is not limited to just fire arms, it is an all inclusive statement. Shall not infringe is an all inclusive command, Look it up. Therefore no state and no federal gun laws are valid. Shall not infringe is an absolute prohibition to writh any laws pertaining to ones self defense choice of weapons. Some may be great with a sword other are excellent with a bow and arrow, you can not qualify what arms are, because anything can be used as a weapon.

Plain and simple no gun laws or any kind of weapons laws are valid and are in fact a crime against the constitution which is defined as an act of High Treason. This exactly what it boils down to, all government agencies state and federal are violating the constitution which under the laws voids the authority they attempt to exercise. A direct violation of their oath of office and an inpeachable criminal offense.

Until the constitution is restored and all of the unconstitutional laws on the books are repealed, government does not exist legitimately. (ie Obama is illegitimate or a bastard) They are in breech of contract and have self terminated any authority we gave by consent. We as individuals have to answer to the law and government is required to do the same or there is no constitution and therefore no authority to be governed. This is the way the writers of the constitution menat it to be, read their notes!

We must understand Marxism for what it is. “Father Karl” himself laughed at the idea that he had propounded an economic theory. The Communist Manifest sums itself up as “the abolition of private property.” Read correctly, it is the destruction of private property.

THE book exposing this from his Marx’ own writings in by the late Rev. Richard Wurmbrand , The title is Marx & Satan, and is available from Voice of the Martyrs US website for a mere $5. (Marx & Obama)

On the real economic side, we have Keynesian economics. John Maynard Keynes explained the real intent himself in his book The Economic Consequences of the Peace:

“”By a continuous process of inflation, governments can confiscate secretly and unobserved an important part of the wealth of their citizens. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction - and does it in a manner in which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.”

( I would agree with this, "one man in a million". I am the one man in a million. Become aware of Obama and he fellow communists and reason why you are seeing the daily destruction of the US economy and its financial system! You could be the next "one man in a million".)

We must end the Fed and its fiat currency. We must assert states’ rights. We must elect Constitutionalists. And we must do it, however small a minority freedom-lovers may be. As George Washington said. “Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest may repair. … The event is in the hand of God.”

....................................................................................
We must assert states’ rights!
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
You may not have heard much about it, but there’s a quiet movement afoot to reassert state sovereignty and stop the uncontrolled expansion of federal government power. Almost half of the state legislatures are considering or have representatives preparing to introduce resolutions which reassert the principles of the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution and the idea that federal power is strictly limited to specific areas detailed in the Constitution and that all other governmental authority rests with the states.

The founding fathers believed in a balance between state and federal power. This state sovereignty movement clearly arises from the belief that the balance of power has tilted too far and for too long in the direction of the federal government and that it’s time to restore that lose balance.

The emergence of this movement is a hopeful sign of the people asserting their rights and the rights of the states and finally crying “enough” to runaway government. With the threat of increasingly out of control federal spending, some of these sovereignty bills may stand a fair chance of passage in the coming year.

These sovereignty bills are not the first step towards secession or splitting up the union, nor are they an effort to block collection of the income tax, appealing though that might be. For the most part, they are not so much political statements of independence as they are expressions of fiscal authority directed specifically at the growing cost of unfunded mandates being placed upon the states by the federal government. Despite the movement picking up steam as he came to office, the target of these bills is not "President" Obama, but rather the Democrat-dominated Congress whose plans for massive bailouts and expanded social programs are likely to come at an enormous cost to the states.

What this movement is most similar to is the Nullification Crisis of 1832 where the State of South Carolina asserted that it had the right to nullify the authority of federal laws within its borders. In this case the states are not asserting anything as broad as the Doctrine of Nullification, but are merely reasserting the limits which the 10th Amendment places on federal authority, specifically as it applies to spending, the idea being that they don’t have to pay for federal mandates if their legislators choose not to.

As things stand right now it looks like Oklahoma, Washington, Hawaii, Missouri, Arizona, New Hampshire, Georgia, California, Michigan and Montana will all definitely consider sovereignty bills this year. They may be joined by Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Alaska, Kansas, Alabama, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania where legislators have pledged to introduce similar bills. Twenty states standing up to the federal government and demanding a return to constitutional principles is a great start, but it remains to be seen whether legislatures and governors are brave enough or angry enough to follow through. As the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress push for more expansion of federal power and spending that may help provide the motivation needed for the sovereignty movement to take off.

....................................................................................
HISTORY OF LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS SOUTH CAROLINA

Date Body Action Description with journal page number
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2/12/2009 House Introduced HJ-6
2/12/2009 House Referred to Committee on Invitations and Memorial
Resolutions HJ-6
2/18/2009 House Member(s) request name added as sponsor: Haley
2/19/2009 House Member(s) request name added as sponsor: Clemmons
2/24/2009 House Member(s) request name added as sponsor: Horne, Wylie,
Huggins, Allison, Parker, A.D.Young, Millwood,
Simrill, Willis, Herbkersman
2/24/2009 House Committee report: Favorable Invitations and Memorial
Resolutions HJ-8
2/25/2009 House Member(s) request name added as sponsor: Cato
2/25/2009 Scrivener's error corrected
2/26/2009 House Member(s) request name added as sponsor: Littlejohn,
J.R.Smith, Hiott, Erickson
2/26/2009 House Adopted, sent to Senate [emphasis added]

South Carolina now joins Oklahoma as having officially passed a 10th Amendment-based resolution through their respective House chambers.