Then let’s all do all part to inform at least Donjr, Ivanka and Giuliani of this:
“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…”
The term “interested person” pertains to those parties who have an interest in the office being challenged by quo warranto which is a more particular interest than just members of the public at large. The statute gives any “third person” the right to relate facts concerning an illegal election to the AG and/or US Attorney, but if the DOJ officials refuse to act, ordinary third persons can’t take it any further.
Already have. Along with state legislatures. Working of putting some teeth back into Sovereign States, myself, along with a lot of other people. Hitting this from multiple angles.
For the naysayers:
But the statute also makes clear, at § 16-3523, that when the DOJ refuses, “any attorney” can bring the action in the name of the United States on the relation of an “interested person”, if the court finds the petition “sufficient in law”. It would be a flagrant violation of the absurdity doctrine should the DOJ be able to stop all interested parties from having their day in court by not responding at all.
Furthermore, the statute’s section regarding such refusal has an official title:
“§ 16–3523. Refusal of United States attorney or Attorney General of the District of Columbia to act; procedures.”
When the federal quo warranto statute was originally enacted in 1901, this title was different, reading:
“§1540 If Attorney-General and District Attorney Refuse.”
The statute was updated in later years, substituting the U.S. Attorney for the D.C. District Attorney, because the U.S. Attorney is more proper to challenge the lawful title of national offices such as President, as opposed to local officials. But the title of this section of code was also updated to add the words “to act”, and “procedure”, rather than just refuse.
What do you want to bet, we have no "standing". Even so, I'm still trying to move things ahead on this. Along with putting some teeth back into State Sovereignty.
Donald J. Trump – while President – questioned the legality of Biden’s election. Congress has enacted a statute for this very behavior. How can Congress impeach Trump for the very conduct they condoned by enacting a law to facilitate? How can partaking in that legal behavior be a high crime or misdemeanor? It can’t. It isn’t. And this impeachment was designed to scare Trump and the nation from examining the one legal procedure which could oust Biden from the Office of President.
Quo warranto is the law. Know the law. Give the right law in the right venue a chance.
The United States Supreme Court has held that this statute applies to any office of the United States. In 2011, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed the statute applies specifically to the Office of President of the United States.
Quo warranto is the exact legal process in our national history used to correct election fraud, error, or lawlessness. For example, in a case from 2003, New York’s highest court held that when a voting machine jammed, causing just 37 votes to be challenged, a writ of quo warranto was the proper procedure, stating:
“Challenges to the outcome of a general election based upon alleged voting machine malfunctions necessarily fall within the purview of quo warranto.”
The bottom line is that SCOTUS has held that an election of any United States official can be challenged based on fraud or error by a writ of quo warranto. And the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that the proper venue to challenge the election of a sitting President is the D.C. District Court. We have a statute. We have a venue. Bring the receipts, President Trump.
If you don’t bring the receipts by quo warranto, then you will have quit. It’s all in or all out. There’s no other options left. This must be done. You have to give the proper law in the proper venue a chance. If you quit now, it will be broadcast as an admission that there was no fraud, error, or lawlessness by election officials.
As soon as Biden is sworn in, you can file the complaint. The gaslighting of America will only end by counter-punching with a verified complaint showing all of the evidence. Then comes a jury trial.
I'm all for anything that fucks with their game.
Then let’s all do all part to inform at least Donjr, Ivanka and Giuliani of this:
“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…”
The term “interested person” pertains to those parties who have an interest in the office being challenged by quo warranto which is a more particular interest than just members of the public at large. The statute gives any “third person” the right to relate facts concerning an illegal election to the AG and/or US Attorney, but if the DOJ officials refuse to act, ordinary third persons can’t take it any further.
Already have. Along with state legislatures. Working of putting some teeth back into Sovereign States, myself, along with a lot of other people. Hitting this from multiple angles.
I’m righ there with you, always have been.
“Quo Warranto”
I’m in contact with my Vinyl Design Guy, I’m ordering up 200 bumper sticker sized vinyls.
I’m getting one especially made 54” wide to emblazon across my Tailgate. Let the world see it and question it.
I will hand these out in my town to every person currently flying the flag upside down at this present time.
Big Tech is censoring these Words.
For the naysayers: But the statute also makes clear, at § 16-3523, that when the DOJ refuses, “any attorney” can bring the action in the name of the United States on the relation of an “interested person”, if the court finds the petition “sufficient in law”. It would be a flagrant violation of the absurdity doctrine should the DOJ be able to stop all interested parties from having their day in court by not responding at all.
Furthermore, the statute’s section regarding such refusal has an official title:
“§ 16–3523. Refusal of United States attorney or Attorney General of the District of Columbia to act; procedures.”
When the federal quo warranto statute was originally enacted in 1901, this title was different, reading:
“§1540 If Attorney-General and District Attorney Refuse.”
The statute was updated in later years, substituting the U.S. Attorney for the D.C. District Attorney, because the U.S. Attorney is more proper to challenge the lawful title of national offices such as President, as opposed to local officials. But the title of this section of code was also updated to add the words “to act”, and “procedure”, rather than just refuse.
What do you want to bet, we have no "standing". Even so, I'm still trying to move things ahead on this. Along with putting some teeth back into State Sovereignty.
In the article, it clearly lays out the Standing. They actually can’t refuse to act. It’s in the settled statements.
I wish you the best of efforts, I have to go approve the designs in a hour and pay for them.
Scored a 52” wide by 10” H Tailgate Vinyl in Trump Red for $25. It’ll be applied sometime Saturday if the weather allows.
Archive inbound
https://archive.is/wip/8phXC
Somebody get this to President Trump pronto. I'm so sick of Biden I could Puke.
Donald J. Trump – while President – questioned the legality of Biden’s election. Congress has enacted a statute for this very behavior. How can Congress impeach Trump for the very conduct they condoned by enacting a law to facilitate? How can partaking in that legal behavior be a high crime or misdemeanor? It can’t. It isn’t. And this impeachment was designed to scare Trump and the nation from examining the one legal procedure which could oust Biden from the Office of President.
Quo warranto is the law. Know the law. Give the right law in the right venue a chance.
Who is Donofrio?
The United States Supreme Court has held that this statute applies to any office of the United States. In 2011, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed the statute applies specifically to the Office of President of the United States.
Quo warranto is the exact legal process in our national history used to correct election fraud, error, or lawlessness. For example, in a case from 2003, New York’s highest court held that when a voting machine jammed, causing just 37 votes to be challenged, a writ of quo warranto was the proper procedure, stating:
“Challenges to the outcome of a general election based upon alleged voting machine malfunctions necessarily fall within the purview of quo warranto.”
Donofrio further states:
The bottom line is that SCOTUS has held that an election of any United States official can be challenged based on fraud or error by a writ of quo warranto. And the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that the proper venue to challenge the election of a sitting President is the D.C. District Court. We have a statute. We have a venue. Bring the receipts, President Trump.
If you don’t bring the receipts by quo warranto, then you will have quit. It’s all in or all out. There’s no other options left. This must be done. You have to give the proper law in the proper venue a chance. If you quit now, it will be broadcast as an admission that there was no fraud, error, or lawlessness by election officials.
As soon as Biden is sworn in, you can file the complaint. The gaslighting of America will only end by counter-punching with a verified complaint showing all of the evidence. Then comes a jury trial.