Obama Citizenship

Further Leo Donofrio Comments on Quo Warranto

By Phil

Leo Donofrio recently posted another article on his views of the quo warranto statute.

A key quotation includes the following:

District of Columbia Code Section 16-3501 states:

§ 16-3501. Persons against whom issued; civil action.

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.

This is the only statute in the entire body of United States federal law which specifically provides for removing all officers of the United States located in the District of Columbia, whether appointed or elected.  InArticle 1 Section 8 Clause 17, Congress was given broad sweeping authority over every possible legal case involving offices of the Government of the United States located in the District of Columbia.  The office of President of the United States is in the District of Columbia and is certainly governed by the United States Constitution.  Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 states:

 Congress shall have Power  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??

Due to a little thing called ?SEPARATION OF POWERS?, Congress is the only branch which has the authority to remove a sitting President.  For a comprehensive review of this issue, please see my prior series of posts entitled, Quo Warranto Legal Brief: part 1, part 2, and part 3.

An additional comment by Mr. Donofrio concerning Dr. Orly Taitz and other interested parties is also included below…

There exists a statute enacted by Congress wherein it exercised Constitutional authority to  challenge the credentials of, and/or remove, a sitting President found to be a usurper by failing to possessArticle 2 Section 1 qualifications for holding the office of President of the United States.  The Statute exists in the District of Columbia Code, the same Code which includes the United States Constitution.

District of Columbia Code Section 16-3501 states:

 

§ 16-3501. Persons against whom issued; civil action.

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.

This is the only statute in the entire body of United States federal law which specifically provides for removing all officers of the United States located in the District of Columbia, whether appointed or elected.  InArticle 1 Section 8 Clause 17, Congress was given broad sweeping authority over every possible legal case involving offices of the Government of the United States located in the District of Columbia.  The office of President of the United States is in the District of Columbia and is certainly governed by the United States Constitution.  Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 states:

 Congress shall have Power  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??

Due to a little thing called ?SEPARATION OF POWERS?, Congress is the only branch which has the authority to remove a sitting President.  For a comprehensive review of this issue, please see my prior series of posts entitled, Quo Warranto Legal Brief: part 1, part 2, and part 3.

Since Barack Obama received the requisite number of electoral votes and has been sworn in as President, his eligibility for that office can only be challenged by Congress.  Congress, via the DC Code quo warranto statute, has exercised that authority to challenge the sitting President?s eligibility by authorizing exactly one specific court - the District Court for the District of Columbia - with the power of carrying out the ministerial task of holding a trial of fact concerning questions as to the President?s eligibility to hold the office of President.

Section 16-3544 of the DC Code provides for a jury trial as to all issues of fact on this issue of Presidential eligibility. The provisions of  16-3502 also provide the only means available under the law where an action to challenge President Obama?s qualifications can be institutedwithout the acquiescence of any Judge or Justice.  Every prior attempt to have this issue litigated has been squashed by a plethora of justices on grounds of personal standing, subject matter jurisdiction, or, as to SCOTUS, unknown reasons.  So the DC Code should be the center of attention for all concerned about POTUS eligibility questions.

While there are many law suits pending in a multiplicity of jurisdictions around the United States, not one of those law suitshas availed itself of the District of Columbia Code?s  quo warranto statute, the only statute which specifically provides for a trial as to the issue of whether the President of the United States is eligible to the office of President.

Because all of these law suits are a distraction from the exclusive Constitutional means available to any new or pending litigant on this issue, I am restricting this blog?s content and all discussion therein to issues concerning the DC Code quo warranto statute and to issues concerning Constitutional qualifications for President.

I am doing this to keep the light shining on what I feel - as an attorney - is the very truth of the law.  I have worked hard to gain people?s faith in my legal analysis, and I?ve tried to keep the discussion of this blog pure and free from spin and sensation so as to educate my readers as to the cold hard facts of the law and to its limitations which we must abide by if we are to preserve our Constitution.

Moreover, I have never taken any donations for this effort and I never will.

From now on, I will not allow comments to be posted which mention the names of, or which identify in any way with, law suits and/or attorneys, who refuse to acknowledge the applicable authority of the DC Code quo warranto statute.  I wish the other attorneys no ill will.  I just don?t have faith in their tactics.

Comment:

My final comment on Orly Taitz.

I admire her fighting spirit. I spent hours on the phone talking to her days before she filed her Lightfoot case with the California Supreme Court. I pointed out the specific California Code which the original Keyes case failed to utilize - California Elections Code Section 8148 - a statute which placed a duty on the California Secretary of State similar to NJSA 19:13-22, the statute which I based my preceding New Jersey State court case on.

http://law.onecle.com/california/elections/8148.html

I told Orly how to adopt my strategy how to ?fuse? the California and Federal Oath of Office the Secretary Of State had to take with the ballot protection duty mandated to her under Section 8148.

I also told her that the Keyes case could have proceeded simultaneously as a separate action against just the California SOS directly to the California Supreme Court since that court has ?original juridiction? for cases involving writs of mandamus. Seehttp://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/about.htm

I found the following California case and forwarded it to her as an example.

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/boxer/petition.htm

And I found another case in California and forwarded it to her as well.

I felt she was sincere and I tried to help her as best I could.

I explained to her in detail the theory of my case regarding the issue that Obama was not a natural born citizen because of his father?s British citizenship and I discussed the possibility with her that she could file another suit outside of the Keyes case. I told her to take a case straight to the California Supreme Court and that?s exactly what she did. Orly gave interviews where she discussed the originality of my NJ case theory and she was smart enough to see that the legal issue of Obama?s British birth was important and that it should have been part of the Keyes casebefore Obama was sworn in.

And she did something about it. And I give her alot of credit for listening, learning and trying to be a good American. I really do.

But when she issued the original consent form for the military plaintiffs, I wrote to her with my concerns. It was frightening to me. I was afraid she might get herself in trouble the way it was written or that a soldier might get a court martial for signing it. She eventually changed the consent form. But it?s still problematic. The consent form could be much less inflammatory and simply say, ?I consent to be a plaintiff in a suit to respectfully request Barak Obama prove his eligibility to be President?. I don?t think the military should be involved at all in the eligibility issue, but if they are going to go forward, I believe the attorneys ought to be protecting them as much as possible from UCMJ violations and other federal laws pertaining to sedition and insubordination.

The current consent form she is using is unduly dangerous and goes far beyond any consent she needs to sue in their name.

Then when I saw that she republished the false and very dangerous headline from WND (reposted at Drudgereport) stating that one of her clients had ?defied a Presidential order?? I was shocked, totally shocked, and I no longer could have anything to do with her. I lost faith completely. No attorney should have allowed such a statement to go public. We?re seeing the fall out from that on the front page of The Globe this week with a picture of Officer Easterling and the headline ?MUTINY?.

I was afraid that out of the millions of people who saw that headline, many of them would be active military, and all would be wondering how Officer Easterling got away with defying a Presidential Order (when he actually did no such thing)? and that vibe of defiance could spread to any number of others. This is dangerous stuff.

Orly lost my faith the moment she republished that false headline. I hope she keeps herself and her active military plaintiffs out of legal harm, but that faith cannot be replaced.

Her accounts of meeting Scalia and Roberts are so puzzling. Roberts might have figured the best way to deal with her presence in a classy way was to do exactly as he did.

Scalia is known to be a bit of a wildcat. I don?t understand how he could ?not remember her case and my case, Cort?s case? etc, yet he tells her she only needs four votes, ?Get four?, and ?I?ll hear the case?, but he don?t remember any of these cases. How does that add up? I don?t know. How does he ?know? he will hear her case if he doesn?t have a recollection of these cases?

It?s all rather freaking me out. I have no frame of reference for any of it and I can?t imagine what?s going to be played out. I think we can all agree it?s bizarre.

But if Scalia was making a joke, I don?t think it?s funny. If he wasn?t making a joke, and he?s now offering his conference vote up in public before being briefed and without discussion from the other Justices, then I?m even more freaked out. Seriously. That?s just weird. We?re not supposed to get ?weird? from SCOTUS Justices.

Regardless, SCOTUS doesn?t have original jurisdiction for a quo warranto unless it?s in aid of appellate jurisdiction. So a quo warranto can?t startwith SCOTUS. It would be unconstitutional. I?m preparing a blog post on this issue.

The only case she could possibly get before them - without going through the DC District Court via the DC Code quo warranto statute - is the Lightfoot case should SCOTUS reconsider it. But even if they did, the separation of powers in our Constitution would not allow SCOTUS to act on Lightfoot v. Bowen now that Obams has been sworn in since the judicial branch doesn?t have the authority to remove a sitting President unless so authorized by Congress. Congress didn?t authorize SCOTUS to remove a sitting President, they authorized the District Court for the District of Columbia with the power to hear original cases for writs of quo warranto concerning United States public offices in the District of Columbia. SCOTUS would only have appellate jurisdiction to review such a case, but SCOTUS doesn?t have original jurisdiction to the Presidential eligibilty issue. (More on this in a pending blog post.)

That?s my final word on all of this. I?ll probably make reference to any legitimate court activity that takes place as to any of the cases pending, but other than that, I won?t be allowing discussion of Orly?s case or Orly?s episodes of adventure on this blog or in comments, and the same goes for ALL of the other attorneys acting on the issue for all of the reasons set forth in the text of this blog.

Leo C. Donofrio

-Phil

Full post as published by The Right Side of Life on March 15, 2009 (boomark / email).