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
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
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)
………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
(Record Master)
Sarah Palin 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 can challenge obama as an ursurper to the office of the President and succeed.
Sarah 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 save the US before it is to late.
Quo Warranto Information At Constitution.org
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Leo D.
“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.
