Definition of Quo Warranto; Lincoln and Taitz muse over Carter's dismissal of the Obama case
Bob Hurt
You might find this info interesting. See below
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Hurt
2460 Persian Drive #70
Clearwater, FL 33763
+1 (727) 669-5511
Donate to my Law Scholarship fund
Learn civil litigation with Jurisdictionary
Subscribe to Lawmen Newsletter FREE
Download Files FREE from the Lawmen Archive
Improve your financial fortunes with GetZooks!
Save Fuel
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Charles Lincoln
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 1:20 PM
Subject: Definition of Quo Warranto
My personal analogy definition of quo warranto perhaps makes it the clearest:
Have you ever been to one of those fancy, invitation-only, parties they give in Santa Monica, Pacific Palisades, Beverly Hills or Century City, say for some Big Star's birthday or around Oscar Season or to benefit AIDS victims or Gay Rights or something like that?
Well, "Quo Warranto" is what they say to me when I walk in and somebody recognizes me and it means: "What did YOU do to get in here?" (with the implicit if not explicit question added: "Wow, you must have a really good printing press at home, that invitation looks GENUINE, embossed and engraved and everything!!!!!")
The definition below looks very competent and complete to me. I'd only add that "warranto" is etymologically related to "warranty" or "guarantee" as in "Warranty Deed" or "Guarantee of Title." The term itself derives from feudal times when all lawful authority passed by way of "fees" (i.e. grants to large territories as "royal property" which included the right to collect taxes or fees", giving rise to the name of the "feudal" system of land-tenure and government, combined---When a king said, "I'm making you Earl of Oxford" or "Duke of Lancashire", what it meant was, "I'm giving you the right to all the income from Oxford or Lancashire, and the right to the service of all the people who live within those counties."
It is certainly true that quo warranto is rarely used "in modern times." I just reviewed the phrase on Lexis, and found exactly 79 case which used or cited the term in the entire history of the United States Supreme Court---of those, approximately the last 9, all the decisions since 1945 in fact, were, one line entries:
"Motion for leave to file petition for writ of/information in the nature of quo warranto denied."
It
seems that between 1902-1936, the time of Oliver Wendell Holmes and Chief
Justice William Howard Taft, the Court and congress BOTH decided very radically
to restrict the usage of the writ and/or information to prevent challenges to
authority. The writ is basically a "dead letter" in the law
that many patriots and constitutionalists are essentially trying to resurrect
in modern times to curtail the vast expansion of governmental authority and
intrusion into private life that began with the income tax in 1913, accelerated
dramatically under Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s, and continues
exponentially and unabated today, although the simple truth is that, in the
United States Courts, quo warranto has
always been a fairly scarce genie, rarely let out of the bottle, even in the
early days of the Republic.
Deo Vindice
"May the Lord God be with you,
and with thy spirit!"
Charles E. Lincoln, III
Spiritual Patriot
Tel: 512.968.2500
|
Quo Warranto A legal proceeding during which an individual's right to hold an office or governmental privilege is challenged. In old English practice, the writ of quo warranto—an order issued by authority of the king—was one of the most ancient and important writs. It has not, however, been used for centuries, since the procedure and effect of the judgment were so impractical. Currently the former procedure has been replaced by an information in the nature of a quo warranto, an extraordinary remedy by which a prosecuting attorney, who represents the public at large, challenges someone who has usurped a public office or someone who, through abuse or neglect, has forfeited an office to which she was entitled. In spite of the fact that the remedy of quo warranto is pursued by a prosecuting attorney in a majority of jurisdictions, it is ordinarily regarded as a civil rather than criminal action. Quo warranto is often the only proper legal remedy; however, the legislature can enact legislation or provide other forms of relief. Statutes describing quo warranto usually indicate where it is appropriate. Ordinarily it is proper to try the issue of whether a public office or authority is being abused. For example, it might be used to challenge the Unauthorized Practice of a profession, such as law or medicine. In such situations, the challenge is an assertion that the defendant is not qualified to hold the position she claims—a medical doctor, for example. In some quo warranto proceedings, the issue is whether the defendant is entitled to hold the office he claims, or to exercise the authority he presumes to have from the government. In addition, proceedings have challenged the right to the position of county commissioner, treasurer, school board member, district attorney, judge, or tax commissioner. In certain jurisdictions, quo warranto is a proper proceeding to challenge individuals who are acting as officers or directors of business corporations. A prosecuting attorney ordinarily commences quo warranto proceedings; however, a statute may authorize a private person to do so without the consent of the prosecutor. Unless otherwise provided by statute, a court permits the filing of an information in the nature of quo warranto after an exercise of sound discretion, since quo warranto is an extraordinary exercise of power and is not to be invoked lightly. Quo warranto is not a right available merely because the appropriate legal documents are filed. Valid reason must be indicated to justify governmental interference with the individual holding the challenged office, privilege, or license. West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved. quo warranto (kwoh wahr-rahn-toe) n. the name for a writ (order) used to challenge another's right to either public or corporate office or challenge the legality of a corporation to its charter (articles). (See: writ, corporation) Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved. QUO WARRANTO, remedies. By what authority or warrant. The name of a writ
issued in the name of a government against any person or corporation that
usurps any franchise or office, commanding the sheriff of the county to
summon the defendant to be and appear before the court whence the writ
issued, at a time and place therein named, to show "quo warranto"
he claims the franchise or office mentioned in the writ. Old Nat. Br. 149; 5
Wheat. 291; 15 Mass. 125; 5 Ham. 358; 1 Miss. 115. A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.
|
In a message dated 11/1/2009 10:37:06 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, charles...@rocketmail.com writes:
Dear Dr. Taitz:
Law, up to a point, is a very stern dialog between two opposing forces---the litigants, the actual parties in interest, but sometimes the judge plays a key role in developing the nature and mapping the countures of that litigation. Dialog by definition means the give and take of ideas, of criticism, of Hegelian "thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis," or Toynbean "challenge and response", even of a dialectical analysis of "the contradictions inherent in all things" which may owe their origins to unequal and very widely disparate ideological, political (power), or economic factors---all of which considerations are or may be important in maximizing the legitimate effect of the law. In the litigation dialog, or dialectic process, you make a terrible mistake to personally disparage the honor and integrity of those with whom you disagree, especially when the ones you disparage are those who have CONSISTENTLY given you not one but many "openings." I am talking about your criticism, on your blog today, quoted below, of Judge David O. Carter.
So far as I am aware, as of today, Sunday, November 1, 2009, on the Feast of All Saints Day, there have only been two major statements concerning the Obama litigation which can be attributed to Judge Carter, and you have as of today repeatedly expressed your "anger, frustration, and disgust" that these statements (one made in Court on July 13 2009, another made in a written order entered on October 29, 2009) are not or do not appear to be entirely consistent. I can understand your frustration, but think that the perspective a former Judicial Extern for the Ninth Circuit, Judicial Law Clerk for the Southern District of Florida, might be useful. Good judges are always thoughtful, but not always encouraging.
Good judges will point out the flaws in a party's argument and presentation, even if those judges are basically in favor of your ultimate goals. Good judges know that BAD presentation of the law and fact, if allowed to proceed, will ultimately lead to an inevitable reversal on appeal, and so should be shut down. Good judges know that politics and law are distinct realms of life, and that if the Courts are to have any meaningful role, that they must be cool, calm, objective and dispassionate to a fault. Now, based on my experience over nearly a quarter of a century, I CAN tell you that bad judges outnumber Good Judges by a factor of 11-to-one at best. You and I do not disagree about Judges Clay Land or R.A. Lazzara in Georgia and Florida respectively, but I STILL think that you are making not a small but a collossal mistake not to study Judge Carter's opinion more carefully, and that you are all-but-strangling the cause into which you have invested so much time, toil, and talent, so much blood, sweat, and tears by attacking and criticizing him publicly at this particular juncture.
In that, for better or for worse, you invited me into this process, I cannot sit by silently while you continue to ignore what I'm saying. I just can't, and again I apologize for publcly disagreeing with you on strategy at this point, but since you have insisted on making your strategy and even your strategic thought processes public, I have to keep talking publicly myself. But I also want to question the wisdom of continued public discussions.
I have been involved in law and litigation, directly or indirectly, for twenty-two years now and in that entire time, I have never seen a case that was "managed" so publicly and with such an emphasis on "mass participation and awareness" of litigation strategies and decisions as this present litigation against Obama, especially the Barnett v. Obama sector of it. I frankly think this is insane. In a real war, I am not aware that the generals and their chiefs-of-staff and staffs all get together with everyone else to discuss strategy and then publish their deliberations for the enemy to see and read and study, yet that is exactly what's going on here. Am I truly in a time-warp/vacuum or is this just an insane way to fight a serious fight? Once again, I beg of you to stop the public airing of all your "anger, frustration, and disgust" as I believe you put it day-before-yesterday. The time has come for some quiet deliberation in the only place where you can ever find any quiet: in a very small room alone!
Earlier today, on the Feast of All Saints, the Commander-in-Chief of the Revolutionary Army wrote as follows to all her soldiers, and published it for the enemy to read, contemplate, and roll out of their chairs over backwards on the floor laughing at us all for acting like children who didn't get enough candy (or maybe are suffering from too much sugar because they got too much) while trick-or-treating last night:
Question about RICO and my answer
Posted on | November 1, 2009 | 2 Comments
Jonathan
Submitted on 2009/11/01 at 4:08am
Dear All, I am still for the motion of charging obama for fraud under R.I.C.O. using 39 SS#’s and having 50 addresses in the USA. This to me stands out like the proverbial sore thumb!
Answer: My concern is, that for RICO we need conspiracy, we need to show, who else participated. To find connections with others, we need discovery. We asked Carter for discovery. Originally he allowed discovery to proceed even before scheduling conference, but then he made 180 turn, stayed discovery (stopped it) and ultimately dismissed the case with a decision that looks like it was written by Obama’s defense firm. People are saying that he was threatened and pressured. I don’t know what exactly was the pressure. What he was afraid of ? Judge Land is relatively young- late 40s, clearly wants a career promotion within Obama regime, but Judge Carter looks like he is in late 60s. I was hoping that in this age he would put the country ahead of his career, how many years does he have left to work? People are saying that he was threatened. If he was, he has much more protection then I do. I have no protection and get death threats and my car was already tampered with. His courtroom was swarming with secret service and security. If he were to go public about threats, if he were to identify ones who threatened him, we could start fighting back this mafia that took over the country. Yet he cowered under pressure. He used his order to promote Obama plant Gary Kreep and attack me, even though he knew that I was the one who brought this action and all the other actions and I was the only one who was really fighting, while Kreep joined this case the last moment and used it as a money making machine. He did something absolutely despicable for a judge. He included in his order mention of some letters he got from scum, who alleged that I suborned perjury. It never happened, there was no shred of evidence, I had no opportunity to read those letters, to respond, to deny such allegations. As a judge he knew that he had no right to include such slander. He simply allowed this mafia to play their usual game, their usual set up, to use him, a federal judge, as a tool, to assassinate my character. This is cowardness at best, selling out at worst. Even if Carter provides an opening in his final judgment, how do you go back and argue any case in front of a person like this, how do you address him “your honor”?
Orly
Deo Vindice
"May the Lord God be with you,
and with thy spirit!"
Charles E. Lincoln, III
Spiritual Patriot
Tel: 512.968.2500
s
