Below are the major precedents and links to the statute and prior research. Please get this information out everywhere. (Use our share buttons.) Fear of President Trump filing a quo warranto action in the D.C. District Court is driving the new impeachment and 25th Amendment fallacies.
THE BLUFFS
These are pure bluffs being used as bargaining chips to get President Trump off focus on quo warranto. The impeachment procedure requires 17 Republican Senators to comply. And there are not 17 Republican Senators willing to permanently destroy their political careers for Biden & Pelosi. She needs 2/3rds of the Senate to convict an impeachment. Without a conviction, impeachment is nothing more than a failed indictment ending with an acquittal. Does Pelosi really want to see President Trump acquitted again? No. This is bluff #1. Ignore it.
So what about the 25th Amendment? That’s even more delusional, as ultimately Pelosi will need 2/3rds of both the House and the Senate to make it stick. This is bluff #2.
Read the entire 25th Amendment, and then it will be clear that even if Pelosi could get Pence and a majority of executive branch officers to commit to a coup, she still needs 2/3rds of the House and Senate to override Trump’s essential veto which is written in the actual text of the 25th Amendment at Section 4, clause 2, which states:
“Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.” (Emphasis added.)
Ok, so even if Pelosi initially pulls it off under Section 4, clause 1, the 25th Amendment at Section 4, clause 2 says, “Thereafter”, meaning immediately thereafter, even one second thereafter, the President can transmit a written declaration that no disability exists. And then Pelosi will need 2/3rds of both the House and the Senate to override the President’s transmission. And that ain’t gonna happen, people.
They are bluffing, and President Trump must immediately call their bluffs by filing an action for quo warranto in the D.C. District Court to oust Biden from the office of President. Below are the two main judicial precedents which verify President Trump can, in fact, bring an action there for a jury trial to oust Biden from office based on either fraud or even just plain error.
QUO WARRANTO BY CIVIL JURY
“In a writ of quo warranto proceeding…Issues of fact shall be tried by a jury if either party requests it. Otherwise they shall be determined by the court.”
And don’t think a skilled trial attorney can’t find a fair jury in D.C. Voir Dire is a science, and with social media it’s now a very exact science. By far, a jury trial to determine the legality of the election is our best bet. There’s a very good reason why most civil cases settle rather than go to a jury. It’s called uncertainty.
And all of the evidence gathered in all of the states will be entered, with sworn affidavits, in the verified complaint that initiates the action. Furthermore, the D.C. District Court will be required to take Judicial Notice of the decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court that officials there invited illegal voting by encouraging voters to violate the law claiming indefinitely confined status.
JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS AND THE STATUTE
“In 1902 Congress adopted a District Code, containing a Chapter on quo warranto which though modeled after the English statute differed therefrom in several material particulars. The writ was treated as a civil remedy; it was not limited to proceedings against municipal officers, but to all persons who in the District exercised any office, civil or military.” Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537, 544 (1915).
Note that the United States Supreme Court’s opinion here itself put these words in italics; all; and any office, civil or military.
And the 9th Circuit affirmed that the federal writ of quo warranto statute is the proper means by which a Presidential election can be challenged after the suspect POTUS is sworn in:
“Plaintiffs concede that the District Court for the District of Columbia is the proper venue to issue a writ of quo warranto under D.C.Code § 16-3503…The District Court properly dismissed Plaintiff’s writ of quo warranto claims under D.C.Code § 16-3503, because the proper venue to file such claims against the President of the United States would be the District of Columbia. See D.C.Code § 16-3501.” Drake v. Obama, 664 F.3d 774, 784 (2011).
Review the federal quo warranto statute here.
Prior research reports are here and here.
The law provides an answer. If President Trump refuses to initiate quo warranto, then he can never claim to have given our law and Judiciary a chance to make things right. This is the exact law enacted for this moment. And SCOTUS knows this. Perhaps it’s why they haven’t dismissed any of the election law suits still pending for mootness.
And perhaps this is why SCOTUS denied all motions to expedite yesterday. While expedition was denied, it’s important to note that SCOTUS did not dismiss the actions brought by President Trump, Lin Wood or Sidney Powell as being moot. Why didn’t SCOTUS dismiss all of the election cases as being moot? It’s a fair question. The answer must be that determinations in those cases can be used as evidence in a quo warranto action.
The pending election actions at SCOTUS do not require expedition at this time, because a writ of quo warranto can be used to oust a usurper only after they take office. This is also why these cases aren’t moot. Perhaps we will all owe SCOTUS an apology when this is done. I would love to be wrong. I will get down on my knees and beg forgiveness if it plays out like this.
Let’s give the law a chance to work, America. Our nation is based on one legal document, the Constitution. It may yet save us.
story and photo source: https://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com
[…] here is actually higher than any of the lawsuits I discussed prior. Those seemed doomed to fail. A writ of quo warranto is as close to ironclad as we’ve seen […]
I would seem like now would be the time to use this writ. Let’s get this over with, already. We have your back, #PresidentTrump!