11
Comments (6)
sorted by:
2
Trilby 2 points ago +2 / -0

It looks like this is a writ that could be filed by just about anyone (the Demandant) against Respondant Dementia Joe to make him prove in a court of law that he is rightfully occupying the office of President (he's not) This writ would put the onus is on him. But I'm not sure what would be the appropriate court in which to file. SCOTUS are a bunch or compromised cowards as we know, so, not there. That's the best I can do with my 2005 vintage JD.

1
asking_question [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Interesting. Whether it would prevail is a great point. As a step, it seems a way to have a hearing on the evidence.

1
3stepsahead 1 point ago +1 / -0

Where did you hear this term?

2
asking_question [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

As a legal term, it is describe in the link of the post, or, for example, from Cornell Law School:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/quo_warranto

According to this description, it is used "to challenge a person's right to hold a public or corporate office"

This is a way to present evidence that, so far, has only been ignored rather than refuted.

Do legal-pedes agree?

1
Trilby 1 point ago +1 / -0

It is definitely interesting. But as I said, the onus is on the Resp. to bring evidence that he belongs in the particular public office. The Demandant raises the question but does not have to bring evidence himself. At least in the opening stage. There are always back-and-forth briefs filed in court cases. But which court??? That's the puzzle...

1
Porkster420 1 point ago +1 / -0

No standing.