Devvy Kidd  
US~Observer takes on Judicial Branch

  Devvy's Home Devvy's Archive Devvy's Reading Room Devvy's Dose of Reality - Audio Devvy's Video Collection

Devvy's e-mail alerts


Video Collection

Click Me

I can still hear their screams!

US~Observer's fight against the Judicial Branch

Help me make this movie!

Devvy's Radio Archives


Constitutional Militias

Eddy the Leopard

Follow up on Quo Warranto as it relates to removing Obama/Soetoro

By: Devvy
May 12, 2011

My column Wednesday May 11 has brought a ton of email with questions about a legal process known as Quo Warranto.

I must repeat that I am not an attorney nor have I had any legal training. However, I can read and I have spent the equivalent of months in reading time on all the lawsuits filed regarding Obama/Soetoro's birth certificate and the issue of natural born citizen. There are many superb legal analysis dealing with the issue of standing for plaintiffs in those lawsuits. If a person really wants to understand this issue, you have to spend the time doing the research and evaluating the submissions by attorneys involved going back to 2008. There just isn't any other way to understand complicated legal issues.

In my column yesterday, The Conundrum of Removing Obama/Soetoro From Office, I provided foot notes for very important legal analysis by lawyers who are experts in constitutional law and the subject matter. I selected those four as they were germane to that column. Once you read them, one can fully understand why I used them.

Over the past 2 1/2 years, I have continued to read postings on the following sites: Leo Donofrio, Mario Apuzzo, Stephen Pidgeon and Dr. Orly Taitz, as well as filings by Cort Wrotnowski. All attorneys (except Cort) involved in cases against Barry Soetoro. Many of their  filings in federal court have been posted so we can learn the arguments and law.

To answer one question that came in via email:

"An interesting point of view regarding Barry as a usurper rather than just a fraud. It made me wonder if the same method could be used to remove judges for ‘usurping’ all the power that they have stolen for themselves over the years."

Many states allow recall as a method to remove judges except for their state Supreme Court. As for removing judges below the Supreme Court Level using a Quo Warranto, I'm not sure. Every state has oversight judicial committees which follow procedures; I guess that one is for future research.

The Quo Warranto is available at the state and federal level. Activist federal judges in this country have been running amok on the bench for decades. The Outlaw Congress has the legal authority to remove federal judges, but that has been as rare as a blizzard in Miami. As I have said for at least a dozen years, one of the biggest failures of Congress after Congress is their refusal to remove biased, activist judges. Just look at the Ninth "Silly" Circuit Court. Their decisions are over turned more times than a gymnast on the mat, yet those same judges continue to sit on the bench for life while we pay them to make bad decisions higher courts throw out.

Without the benefit of LexisNexis, I did some more research (I'm sure there are many lawyers out there who know of more) and found this interesting case:

Lansing district judge sends heavyweights to fight AG’s ouster attempt

"Brennan and Nolan want the Michigan Supreme Court to bypass the COA, which has original jurisdiction of Schuette’s quo warranto motion to unseat Clarke."

Here in Texas as well as many states I randomly checked have a quo warranto statute:

Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code - Chapter 66 Quo Warranto

Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Section 66.001 - Grounds

"An action in the nature of quo warranto is available if: (1) a person usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or executes a franchise or an office, including an office in a corporation created by the authority of this state; (2) a public officer does an act or allows an act that by law causes a forfeiture of his office;"

Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Section 66.002 - Initiation Of Suit

"(a) If grounds for the remedy exist, the attorney general or the county or district attorney of the proper county may petition the district court ..."

Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Section 66.003 - Judgment

"If the person against whom the information is filed is found guilty as charged, the court: (1) shall enter judgment removing the person from the ..."

As for removing an individual at the federal level using a quo warranto, as I pointed out you must be able to qualify under Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell. (Please take the time to read the entire Footnote 1 below.) I would not qualify. Going back to my previous column, I also believe Dr. Orly Taitz does not qualify. But, I think former presidential candidates Chuck Baldwin and Alan Keyes would be able to as they were directly impacted by Obama/Soetoro's alleged election even though he was ineligible to appear on the ballot. Baldwin has declined, but I believe Dr. Keyes still could as I cited in my last column [emphasis mine]:

"Quo warranto is intended to prevent a continuing exercise of an authority unlawfully asserted, and is not appropriate for moot or abstract questions. Where the alleged usurpation has terminated, quo warranto will be denied. (People v. City of Whittier (1933) 133 Cal.App. 316, 324; 25 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 223 (1955).) By the same token, because quo warranto serves to end a continuous usurpation, no statute of limitations applies to the action. (People v. Bailey (1916) 30 Cal.App. 581, 584-585.)"

While that cite is from California law, I would think it could be argued the same applies at the federal level. Perhaps Dr. Keyes could sit down with some of the great attorneys involved in those citizenship cases like Stephen Pidgeon and Mario Apuzzo and discuss going for a straight federal Quo Warranto. They would be the ones to provide expert legal advice to Dr. Keyes.

Let's look at Newman again:

Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell  (Emphasis mine)

"An interested person within the meaning of the provisions of the District Code in regard to quo warranto proceedings is one who has an interest in the office itself peculiar to himself whether the office be elective or appointive.

"Unless the right to maintain quo warranto proceedings under the District Code were limited to persons actually and personally interested, every officer attached to the government at Washington would be subject to attack by persons having no claim in the office or interest therein different from that of every other citizen and taxpayer of the United States.

"As §§ 1538-1540, Code District of Columbia, apply to 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, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals of the District construing those sections is reviewable by this Court under § 250, Judicial Code."

I know it's easy to accuse me of being an arm chair quarterback after the fact. A person who has no legal training, but that isn't the case. In my columns since early 2009, I have raised the legal issue of this 'thing' called a quo warranto by reading and learning from Leo Donofrio. As a matter of fact, there is another lawsuit that has run its course, meaning denied for hearing by the U.S. Supreme Court, you might find of interest: Rodearmel v. Clinton. That lawsuit was filed in January 2009 on behalf of a 19-year veteran of the Foreign Service Officer under the State Department, David Rodearmel, a retired Lt. Col. in the U.S. Army Reserve Judge Advocate General Corp. While I support and respect Judicial Watch in their pursuit of making sure no one is above the law, I simply did not understand why they didn't use the Quo Warranto for Rodearmel's case.

The defendants (mother government) moved to dismiss and in their filing, there is an important footnote; number 6 at the bottom of page 25:

6 "The D.C. Court of Appeals has observed that a plaintiff who seeks to directly attack the appointment of an official (as opposed to attacking an action of that official) will rarely if ever have standing. See Andrade v. Lauer, 729 F.2d 1475, 1496-97 (D.C. Cir. 1984). In the same case, the court suggested that the only proper way to assert such a direct attack is through an action for a writ of quo warranto. See id. at 1497 (citing cases). A quo warranto action may only be brought by the Attorney General of the United States or the United States Attorney or, if these Executive Branch officials decline a request, by a private party who has obtained leave of court. See D.C. Stat. §§ 16-3502-3503; see also Rae v. Johnson, 1993 WL 544295, at *1"

Footnotes found in legal filings are very important. What the one above says is quite plain and easy enough for even me to understand; let's apply it to Rodearmel. He is attacking the appointment of an official (Hillary Clinton) which the court says "will rarely if ever have standing." Pretty straight forward.

Exactly why the U.S. Supreme Court denied the writ of certiorari:  (emphasis below is mine)

"ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is ordered and adjudged by this Court that the District Court dismissed for lack of standing..."


"The appeal is therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction."

Does that mean the Supreme Court is saying jurisdiction belongs to the District Court in Washington, DC, under a Quo Warranto? It seems to me that is the case if you read Footnote 6 above:

"observed that a plaintiff who seeks to directly attack the appointment of an official....the court suggested that the only proper way to assert such a direct attack is through an action for a writ of quo warranto..."

Going back to Newman v US ex Rel. Frizzell:

"An interested person within the meaning of the provisions of the District Code in regard to quo warranto proceedings is one who has an interest in the office itself peculiar to himself whether the office be elective or appointive."

Rodearmel most certainly has an interest in the office (Secretary of State) peculiar to himself (He is an employee of the State Department and the Secretary of State is Hillary Clinton) and it is appointive. But, that case is over and Madame Clinton is still running around the world playing big shot accomplishing nothing. Another "teflon Don" given a pass by the U.S. Senate when they confirmed her appointment even though it is in violation of the emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution - which many of them knew during the confirmation process.

If you read the links in my previous column and the ones below, I believe you can understand and possibly agree with me that time and dismissals points to the Quo Warranto as the only legal remedy to remove Obama/Soetoro from office; emphasis below are mine:.

§ 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.

§ 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. *End*

There are a lot of very intelligent attorneys working on the citizenship issue, so I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens with any remaining legal proceedings still on-going as well as the firestorm I believe will hit with Dr. Jerome Corsi's new book due to be shipped May 17, 2011. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the challenges to get Obama/Soetoro on state ballots in 2012 is probably going to result in more advanced lawsuits this time around, as well as possibly running up against any new laws passed by states requiring citizenship verification for a presidential candidate. Obama/Soetoro's handlers know it and we know it.

One note in another case:

Hornbeck v. Salazar: New Court Filings Related To Obama's Usurpation Including An Affidavit Regarding Obama's New Forged Birth Certificate

"New court filings related to Obama's usurpation including an affidavit regarding his newly released forged birth certificate. The filings below were submitted on 5/11/2011 in Louisiana in the Hornbeck v. Salazar lawsuit which is regarding Obama's order to shut down offshore oil drilling. If the media did their job we would know what happened at yesterday's oral arguments for this case.

"UPDATE: Via atty. Taitz; Yesterday I had a an oral argument in Hornbeck v Salazar. This case deals with the fact that Obama administration de facto destroyed oil and gas industry in the gulf of Mexico by placing a moratorium and later, when the federal judge placed an injunction on the moratorium, Obama regime continued destroying the oil and gas industry by refusing to grant drilling permits. Most of the rigs left the region and moved to Brazil. Recently Obama visited Brazil and congratulated them on their offshore deep water drilling and stated that US will be their biggest customer, showing him as the the most antiAmerican president this nation ever saw.

"My argument was that the damages suffered in the case at hand were rooted in the same problem: antiAmerican usurper in the White House, who got there by virtue of fraud and use of a forged birth certificate and invalid Social Security number, issued to another individual in another state."

This posting is from someone who says he/she attended the oral arguments in the case above; click here. It's my understanding the documents scanned at this link were also submitted in the above case.

Footnote One


1 - Constitutional Authority of Oregon Judges Challenged Why the "Quo Warranto" issue just will not go away!

2 - NH Rep. Laurence Rappaport speaks with The Post & Email about Eligibility, the Constitution, and State Sovereignty

3 - Judge Arthur J. Gonzalez claims right to commit fraud

How Professor Lawrence Solum Disgraced Himself To Protect Obama’s Eligibility

5 - Jeffrey Toobin Issued False Legal Statements to Anderson Cooper Regarding Vattel and the 14th Amendment.


Gold: Ageless beauty and the one precious metal that never loses it's value - unlike
paper currency.

Get the facts and protect your assets today.

Random Acts of Marketing

Simply the best! Devvy's Archive CD

US Observer banner

News With Views

Buy Made in the USA

Devvy's HomeColumn ArchiveReading RoomAudioVideo Collection
Sign-up for Devvy's E-mail Alerts

• Contact Devvy •

© 2011, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, Devvy Kidd

Design by Ron Lee

Jeff Rense

America's Gold Vault

Random Acts of Marketing

Devvy's Reading Room