US Attorney Jeffrey Taylor Resigns
On May 28, Jeffrey Taylor resigned as acting US Attorney for the District of Columbia. I have not heard from one person who got a response from him regarding their quo warranto letters.
I did hear from one person who had proof that their QW letter to Taylor had been rerouted to the White House.
There is much speculation as to why Taylor resigned. I think it’s interesting to note that while he didn’t file a quo warranto regarding Obama’s eligibility, he also never told anyone who wrote to him that Obama was actually eligible and that Obama had been properly vetted which was the canned response from all of Congress.
Taylor never made such a statement.
It will be interesting to see now whether his successor in the DC US Attorney’s office – Channing Phillips – will issue a statement saying Obama is eligible.
Was Taylor pressured to resign because he wouldn’t vouch for Obama? I don’t know. But I do know Taylor didn’t have the support of enough US citizens. So America gets what America deserves – the destruction of its Constitution because the great majority of US citizens don’t care about their Constitution.
My suggestion to anybody who does care is to send your quo warranto letters to US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald. Perhaps since the DC Code statute is vague in its wording – only requiring “the US Attorney” to file for the quo warranto – it could be used by any US Attorney. That is not my original interpretation, but after seeing this fiasco play out, and listening to the lame excuses favoring Obama’s eligibility, I don’t see why any US Attorney couldn’t use the statute. The statute just says “the US Attorney”.
I think Patrick Fitzgerald is your best bet now. At least you’ll probably get a response from his office.
June 1, 2009 at 8:18 AM
I think your original interpretation is correct. It’s the DC Code, the statute clearly speaks of QW for DC, and it says “the US attorney”, not “a US attorney”. A specific US attorney seems to be meant here, and that would logically only be the one for DC.
So let’s see what happens with Phillips. But I don’t have any real hopes. :\
June 1, 2009 at 9:38 AM
I for one, never heard back from Jeffrey Taylor. I will take your latest advice and send a letter off to Patrick Fitzgerald and will let you know if I do indeed get a response.
All very sad this whole thing, I have to say.
June 1, 2009 at 9:45 AM
Hi,
I believe this to be the address for Patrick Fitzgerald. Please correct me if you find something different/better:
PATRICK J. FITZGERALD
United States Attorney
219 South Dearborn St.
Chicago, IL 60604
June 1, 2009 at 9:53 AM
Bad news! But, not unexpected! I wonder what threats were used to persuade Taylor that he should not give any reasons for his resignation and more specifically, not say anything about the usurpation.
While Fitzgerald has proven himself to be a maverick in the past I have no confidence in his courage to take on the Attorney General by even thinking of filing a quo warranto.
In my opinion his handling of the Valerie Plame leak case was disgraceful and his obtaining a conviction of Libby (even if he was guilty of misspeaking) was a travesty of justice.
June 1, 2009 at 9:55 AM
I should have stated in the preceding comment that I was one of those who sent a quo warranto letter to Taylor, received back a signature acknowledging delivery, but never received a reply.
June 1, 2009 at 11:13 AM
The government is asking for tips on how the public would like them to be more transparent.
http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/ideafactory.do?discussionID=2236
This is one hot subject.
June 1, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Hi Leo,
Wise counsel, urging we go to “any” U.S. attorney. And, I am so pleased to see you are still engaged.
Robare
June 1, 2009 at 1:15 PM
These backhanded deals should be publicized as much as possible. Of course they asked the man to resign and of course, his replacement will do anything they ask
June 1, 2009 at 2:35 PM
Leo,
if you hear anything from your sources other than the approved reason for his resignation from our state-run media, would you plz post it? this administration is very quickly moving to silence all non-approved information sources. the problem is, if we rely entirely on alternative media, we can’t really sift through the b/s.
your sources are much closer to this than we are. plz keep us informed? – thanx!
June 1, 2009 at 3:21 PM
Hello Leo,
My receipt came back with an unreadable stamp. Who knows if he actually read it, there was no response from his office.
I looked up Atty. Fitzgerald’s address. Someone please correct this if it is wrong.
Patrick J. Fitzgerald
U.S. Attorney
Federal Building
219 S. Dearborn St.
5th Floor
Chicago, Ill. 60604
Ph. # (312)353-5300
June 1, 2009 at 4:11 PM
First I would like to say how much I as a citizens appreciate your efforts in regard to the Obama eligibility issue. I have nothing but respect for you, your keen mind, legal talents and integrity. May God Bless your efforts to save our Country and Constitution.
I am heart sick to learn of US Attorney Taylor’s resignation. Why he has chosen this time when our Country desperately needs him is a matter for his own conscience. I am a citizen who has tried to bring the eligibilty issue to the general public by posting on the Glenn Beck 912 Project. I post dailey, have spirited debates and legal research to educate, inform and enlighten. I had posted an open letter for the public to copy and send to Att. Taylor for Quo Warrento, as I read your post that, this needed urgent attention. There was not the great response that I would have expected from a group of 600,000 people, but some wrote to Att. Taylor. I like you are puzzeled by the public’s apathy towards protecting our Constitution from a usurper President. I will keep going forward and as you suggest turn my letter writing attention toward Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald. Last night after posting all week-end for hours regarding the Obama eligibility, I became discouraged and wrote this as a challenge to the apathetic among us:
OUR SHINING STAR DIMS
As nation made up of a free society we are a threat to all other Nations who are oppressive to its people. Our founders in their wisdom knew it would be hard to maintain the freedom that was given to us and created our Constitution with it’s checks and balances in the hope that the protection built within it, would withstand time. It has until now. We have a usurper in the White house, every day that he is there means many less freedoms for the American people, until one day soon there will be freedom no more. To the people all over the world who envied us and our freedoms we will no longer be a beacon of freedom and hope. They will strive to come here no more, as we will be exactly like the rest. A light will have gone out in the world and we will be plunged again into the darkness of oppression. Gone will be what our Founders envisioned for our future, and our children. In it’s place will be a fascist mediocracy, where we will only be allowed to rise to the level of our own incompetence, awarding indolence over hard work and stupidity over common sense. It is so simple to give up and say “What can I do? I am one person.” Million of us are saying it. Few are making an effort to change, the dark change that has come our way. The original few, the patriots who fought to give us our wonderful Country and Constitution, a few was enough. I pray that is still true. For all the hero-patriots who have sacrificed themselves, may it not have been in vain.
June 1, 2009 at 5:20 PM
Leo, you have a great blog – I have not visited it in a while. I thought you had given up on this. If you are still concerned, how about “organization” – offer some action points that people can follow. At this time, I think people complain and comment on articles and blogs but have no clear voice as it is scattered all over. I agree with the premise of seriousness and numbers regarding success of getting this issue heard. Oddly, however, many people seem to still be unaware of the complexity (legally) and still blindly depend upon snopes.com as irrefutable proof that all is okay! Your blog is vastly informational – perhaps in way technical. Since you have a stream of people that come to this site and understand well the mechanics and the aim that is needed to have our voices heard, what about some organization: simplify in a checklist and organize some sites so that the voices get more centralized. Perhaps some “challenges” to everyone to run through the checklist. This will help to aggregate larger numbers if actionables are made more clear and more familiar. Thanks for your essays.
June 1, 2009 at 5:38 PM
Everything we have learned since these “interesting times” began, shows me just how much courage and fortitude the founding fathers had.
Lots of people want something done… lots of comments have SHOUTING and strong emotion in them… but to stand up and take the lead??
Ah, now that’s where the rubber meets the road…
that’s putting your money where your mouth is…
Where is Paul Revere and friends when you need them??
June 1, 2009 at 5:43 PM
Leo, my prior comment is not meant for you. You have already stood up and been counted. Bless you for being such an inspirational teacher!
June 1, 2009 at 6:49 PM
Leo,
I think most people just lost any hope that Mr. Taylor would do anything – which indeed turned out to be the case. He was just too afraid, I suppose. Obama was certain to replace him, but it seems that he tried his best to hang on. Now he is in the unemployment line, like many other people.
I referred to your site today at
http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/4438-4049
You did all you could, but the system is corrupt and broken. You can’t play by the rules when nobody in power is playing that way. Frankly I think the worldnetdaily billboard campaign may prove useful.
June 1, 2009 at 9:25 PM
[...] Donofrio, attorney and Plaintiff in Donofrio v. Wells, posted an article today encouraging those who would have otherwise sent letters to US Attorney Jeffrey Taylor to investigate [...]
June 1, 2009 at 10:40 PM
Thank you for this article.
I think plenty of people wrote in. There has been a campaign at http://www.statute3501.com with action items that I believe thousands, if not millions, of people followed. I wrote several times and started it with a phone call until they stated they didn’t want any more calls.
Part of the problem is that many people still do not know about Obama’s doubtful eligibility to serve. THEY JUST DON’T KNOW. The networks won’t say anything; Fox News won’t report the story; not everyone gets The Washington Times, which has reported on it; and not everyone has internet access. And, if King Hussein gets his way, he will shut that down soon. At that point, I have no idea what will happn, but it’s not going to be pretty.
I’m writing to Taylor first thing in the morning. Thank you for that.
June 2, 2009 at 1:45 AM
[...] http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/ [...]
June 2, 2009 at 2:23 AM
Doesn’t the D.C. Code statute have a progression whereby an average citizen and/or interested party can request quo warranto if the A.G. or U.S. Attorney won’t do it?
[Ed. I will try to do more on this later.]
June 2, 2009 at 6:10 AM
Glad to see you are back. You had indicated that two months would be a sufficient wait before filing directly to the court. What are your thoughts on taking that action?
[Ed. Still thinking about this. I have some grand ideas based on some of the recent firings in DC and the GM thing... but I have absolutely no resources for litigation.]
June 2, 2009 at 7:56 AM
How does one (non-attorney) go about sending a quo warranto letter to US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald?
Thanks, bb
June 2, 2009 at 12:17 PM
The critical question of whether Obama meets the Constiutional test of citizenship must be resolved. His inordinate reluctance to lay the matter to rest by simply releasing a verified copy raises serious issues. Reported expenditures by the Obama campaign in an attempt to dismiss or otherwise deter bona fide lawsuits is cause for concern. If Obama is a citizen, let him release the document . What is he trying to hide?
June 2, 2009 at 12:39 PM
Leo,
I sent three emails to Taylor and one letter to each (Taylor and Holder) and NEVER GOT any kind of response from anyone. I didn’t bother sending an email to Holder as I figured that he would not even open any such communication from anyone that advocated against Obama. But I was rather disappointed that I didn’t get any sort of reply from Taylor, especially with Dr. Orly also pulling him into the Quo Warranto issue.
I have a GOvernor who has just been soundly rebuked by the Legislature of Nevada and maybe he might be willing to go out on a limb NOW in trying to start something to get Obama taken out. The Legislature all got totgether to gang up on Gibbons and his VETO of practically all NEW TAXES in Nevada and they overrode practically all of his VETOs the other day. His whole campaign promise and everything he has done since being in office was to keep taxes low and the budget under control, but the LIB-DEMS came along and trounced him. Perhaps in view of the way his own state has been forced into compliance with the Lib-Dem issues, he might be a bit more than ameniable to trying to get something done. What do you think??
Might there be a possible opening here??
June 3, 2009 at 8:47 AM
Hi Leo,
Glad to see you are still “on top of things”. I miss your regular input and feel sad the we seem to be running out of options. I will follow your advice and resend my letter to Mr. Fitzgerald. I have sent him several letters in the past, all of them ignored, but I will try again.
I hope God will continue to bless you, Leo, and give you the way to defeat the evil that has come into our lives.
June 3, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Leo,
Good to see you come out of hiding. Miss ya.
June 3, 2009 at 3:56 PM
Hi Leo,
It is just nice to hear from you again.
I have been worried about you.
I understand your frustration with ‘we the people’
But have faith, Americans sit on the couch for quite a while.
But when they get pushed too far, the get going big time.
Here in Florida the surveillance (RFID and cameras) have gone up overnight on the interstates and privately managed toll roads.
The sheeple don’t get it yet. But they are going too!
Don’t forget to come play in the moonlight some time.
My treat!
[Ed. Wish I had a swing coach like Hennie Bogan.]
June 3, 2009 at 8:57 PM
The fix has been in place with Obama for a long, long time. The Democratic party let his citizenship slide then the Republicans did the same. The U.S. Supreme Court wouldn’t allow even one of the lawsuits for Obama’s citizenship to get past the preliminary “lets vote to see if we’ll review this issue”. Now Taylor resigns after having the ability to take action on the eligibility issue. There’s big money behind this whole Obama presidency. He who has the Money has the Power. Too many people all across our government have turned a blind eye to this fiasco. They’re either padding their bank accounts &/or they fear for their lives. America is on the verge of a very dark time in its history.
June 3, 2009 at 10:09 PM
My letter to Patrick Fitzgerald is in the envelope along with the criminal complaint of Walter Fitzpatrick III. I am also sending it to the U.S. attorney in my state, whom I had previously contacted about Obama’s lack of eligibility. She had responded that it was not her job to investigate another federal official and referred me to the DOJ.
After sending two letters to the DOJ, I finally got a vapid response from the “Criminal Division” with no return address, name or signature on the letter. I enclosed a copy of that to the U.S. attorney, stating that it was the only response I received and that it was wholly inadequate.
I also stated to both of these U.S. attorneys that citizens’ grand juries have met and continue to convene to vote on the evidence regarding Obama’s elibility. I stressed that these grand juries can and will reconvene to discuss public officials who fail to uphold their oath to the Constitution and that the verdicts will be made public.
June 3, 2009 at 11:39 PM
It’s a shame that not even our U.S. Attorney General Taylor
will face up to “Imposter Obama” about his Natural Born
Citizenship!! I hope AG P.Fitzgerald follows thru with
the quo warranto against Imposter Obama.
June 4, 2009 at 5:48 AM
I emailed Patrick Fitzgerald’s office at dc.outreach@usdoj.gov on March 19th asking that he urge Jeffrey Taylor to institute quo warranto and included my letter to Taylor. I received no response. I’ll try again.
June 4, 2009 at 6:19 AM
Leo,
I sent one letter of support for quo warranto action each to Jeffrey Taylor and Eric Holder on May 23, 2009 at their two separate addresses (555 Fourth Street NW, and 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW respectively).
I have received the USPS certified mail service green card proof of service to Jeffrey Taylor stamp dated by (undecipherable signature) May 28, 2009.
I have received the USPS certified mail service green card proof of service to Eric Holder stamp dated by (undecipherable signature) May 29, 2009. The name and date are smudged somewhat, but appear to be the same as the signature on the Jeffrey Taylor green proof of service card.
I have received no direct reply correspondence from either party.
June 4, 2009 at 7:02 AM
Letters will go out today to U.S. Attorney Channing Phillips and Patrick Fitzgerald at their Washington mailing addresses.
June 4, 2009 at 11:45 AM
US Dept of Justice, Office of Special Counsel
Patrick Fitzgerald
United States Attorney
Bond Federal Building
1400 New York Avenue, NW, 9th Floor
Washington, DC 20530
June 4, 2009 at 11:50 PM
I am praying that, before Obamas feet hit American soil from his “I am King” tour, there will have been a consensus in the White House to have him removed as POTUS. Ye therein lies the real trouble.
Its filled with theives!
June 5, 2009 at 10:05 AM
Rumor has it, Mr. Taylor was forced to quit or face ‘criminal charges’ and the misery of the DC thugery. Rumor also has it that he was ready to take action on the quo warrantos and the DC thugs told him NO or else.
June 5, 2009 at 10:15 AM
Hi Leo,
Hope you’ve been well. If I have your previous postings correct, Jeff Taylor has a beef to file a quo warranto himself, if he was forced to resign. At some point, high in the food chain, people don’t get fired. I don’t think anyone’s job has been cut either.
You are probably aware of President Obama’s first executive order and HR 985, the Free Flow of Information Act.
I am disappointed at a few of the things that have been going on regarding this issue. It is unfortunate that one letter is not enough for public officials to act. But in this case I don’t think it would have mattered how many letters he got and we will never know how many he received.
What is promising is that you feel Mr. Fitzgerald would respond to a letter.
June 5, 2009 at 2:19 PM
I am not sure which address to use for Fitzgerald–any idea?
United States Attorney’s Office
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
219 S. Dearborn St., 5th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 353-5300
United States Attorney’s Office
Northern District of Illinois, Western Division
308 W. State St., Ste 300
Rockford, IL 61101
Phone: (815) 987-4444
[Ed. Either address is good. ]
June 6, 2009 at 4:12 PM
Hi Leo,
I also never received any response to my letter to Taylor but I did get the green card back signed about a week after sending it certified and restricted delivery.
Just curious, how did the letter writer know that their letter was rerouted to the White House?
I’ve talked about the eligibility issue to anyone who will listen…most people think I’m crazy, even family, but I really don’t care. I even spoke to an attorney in our family here in NJ and her response was that “the case was thrown out”. So I pressed her on whether she knew that none of the cases were ever heard on their merits and she had to concede that was true. She didn’t seem to be aware of your case at all.
Traditional media are helping to sink the country. If they don’t report it, people are either unaware or think it’s a conspiracy.
I will continue to fight on….look at all the sacrifice that was made on D-Day to protect our Constitution and freedoms and most people could really care less.
June 6, 2009 at 4:15 PM
Leo,
I forgot to ask you one thing:
Would the Chrysler dealerships being put out of business be able to file a collateral lawsuit re: the eligibility issue?
I heard a letter from a small town successful dealer, Mr. Joseph, about being put out of business and bankrupted and it made me sick.
Just wondering if he has any recourse along this line.
Thanks.
[Ed. This is an interesting question. I believe there is enough wiggle room in the Newman decision that would allow QW here.]
June 6, 2009 at 8:17 PM
Well, Mr. Donofrio, it would seem your pessimism has been aptly placed. The resignation of Mr. Taylor is not terribly surprising but indeed unfortuante for the preservation our republican integrity. Thanks for the spotlight on AG Fitzgerald and the weak hope of other AGs being within the realm of reason to prosecute on our behalf.
Like you, and it is very hard to concede, it is VERY probable that NOTHING will come of the pursuit of justice.
The general electorate-citizenry is intentionally ignorant and apathetic.
The media is incompetent and biased.
Our representatives are self serving and witless.
My last hope was that litigators and concerned citizens would come forward and make a difference. Unfortunately the birthers and the conspiracy theorists have the high ground. NOONE believes that the facts are already there that warrant discovery.
I am disgusted and done.
1SG Nosworthy
June 6, 2009 at 8:28 PM
Taylor is another gutless coward, to go with the rest of the self serving, worthless, oath takers, in our government, what a disgrace.
June 7, 2009 at 8:09 AM
Since I was a little tough on you (last letter/email), I sent a more Diplomatic one this time (lol)…..
The Blueprint to Defeat Obama/Soetoro
First, know the opposition (and their goals) – it’s NOT really Obama/Soetoro – it’s a powerful group of individuals (Bilderburgers, CFR, TC…etc.).
Their goals are to put their ‘puppets’ and ‘policies’ in place (Worldwide) – an insane attempt at World domination (no joke).
They watched the 1st hour of each James Bond movie and skipped the last hour (where the EVIL plan fails!).
Realize that no one (in power) is going to come to the rescue – they are either in on it or a “coward”.
UNLESS, the new US Attorney (DC) Channing Phillips surprises us!
Make our fellow citizens aware – friends, family, neighbors, co-workers (be careful with work rules that restrict discussions about Politics & Religion).
Be patient – EVIL is self-destructive – Obama/Soetoro and ‘Group’ will dig their OWN graves.
With our fellow citizens aware, the transition (when EVIL fails) will be much easier.
Just remember, there are four [4] stages when trying to make others aware of the truth (although, some will respond without objection).
Stages of finding out the truth:
1) Denial
2) Ridicule
3) Violence
4) Acceptance
The first two are the longest stages – the 3rd is the worst – and, finally, the 4th is ‘victory’
It’s important to continue with the Lawsuits, Grand Juries, Press Releases…etc. as they contribute a GREAT deal to ‘awareness’.
Good Luck to us ALL!
Thanks,
Kal
June 7, 2009 at 3:58 PM
Thank you Leo for posting this. I’m slightly stunned and yet at the same time not entirely surprised.
June 7, 2009 at 4:55 PM
I don’t think Patrick Fitzgerald will act on the Quo Warranto. He has had many chances to indict Obama in the Rezco matter and refuses to do so. He could have caught Jesse Jackson in the act but for some unknown reason decided to blow the whole investigation. He is in the tank for Obama and I’m not holding my breath.
June 9, 2009 at 9:07 AM
The 1964 divorce documents exposed on Plains Radio clearly show that Obama WAS a British subject at birth and can NEVER be or become a “natural born citizen”.
http://www.plainsradio.com/obama1.html
Thank you for your work and are there any updates on any of the Quo Warranto actions?
June 11, 2009 at 5:29 AM
Hi
There is a legal remedy for a US Attorney for the District of Columbia not doing their job.
I think you are being very hard on the US people. They aren’t lawyers, but you are and you have a moral duty to complete your mission.
Regards
Mark
June 11, 2009 at 11:41 AM
Gee,
I think I’d take “no response” as a “oh, we put your letter in the box marked: ‘RECYCLE – PAPER ONLY’.”
June 11, 2009 at 4:08 PM
[Ed. Below is a very well written letter and request sent to Taylor by Mr. Strunk. Interesting that Taylor resigned a few days later.]
Taylor got the following on May 26, 2009 and resigned effective May 29, 2009.
SERVICE of NOTICE of Relator’s Verified Quo Warranto Complaint affirmed 5-19-09
Wednesday, May 20, 2009 3:06 PM
From:
“Christopher Strunk”
NOTICE_of_Relator_Quo_Warranto_Verified_Complaint_w_Exhibits_052009.pdf (2739KB)
service sent via regular and certified mail to Attorney General Eric Holder 70090080000239518358as well as to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Mr. Jeffrey Taylor 70090080000239502371; and Barack Hussein Obama in esse 70090080000239502364
593 Vanderbilt Avenue, #281
Brooklyn, New York 11238
Christopher-Earl: Strunk © in esse
The Honorable Jeffrey Taylor
U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia ,
United States Attorney’s Office
555 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Re: U.S. and ex rel. Strunk v Barack Hussein Obama in esse
Subj: NOTICE of Verified Quo Warranto Complaint with Title 16
Chapter 35 of The District Of Columbia Code in its entirety
The Honorable Jeffrey Taylor
I, Christopher-Earl : Strunk © in esse, relator, am the interested-party in the above referenced matter and hereby demand that your office institute a proceeding against in the name of the United States against the individual Barack Hussein Obama in esse (a/k/a Barry Soetoro) who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully exercises, a franchise conferred by the corporate United States office of the President (POTUS) for failing to prove eligibility as a natural-born-citizen with Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the united States’ Constitution as a matter of first impression. That Relator’s original Verified Complaint is attached herewith, with the proviso that relator will use the duplicate to demand a jury trial on the issues of fact and decision on question of first impression with the District Judge in Strunk v DOS et al. 08-cv-2234 by Cross Motion to the Defendant’s motion to dismiss on or before June 1, 2009 if within seven days your office has not responded in the affirmative, nevertheless will go to the District Court as of right.
Relator refers your Honor to what the Supreme Court of the united States (SCOTUS) held as instructive:
The seminal SCOTUS case which has interpreted the Quo Warranto statute is Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915). The opinion serves as a thorough education on the history of quo warranto as well as the proper statutory interpretation. According to SCOTUS, Newman at 552, the statute applies to any public office:
The Revised Statutes declare that the District of Columbia shall be the seat of government, and “all offices attached to the seat of government shall be exercised in the District of Columbia .” The Code …provides that the… court shall have jurisdiction to grant quo warranto “against a person who unlawfully holds or exercises within the District a . . . public office, civil or military.” It was probably because of this fact that national officers might be involved that the Attorney General of the United States was given power to institute such proceedings…
…the District Code, in proper cases, instituted by proper officers or persons, may be enforceable against national officers of the United States . The sections are therefore to be treated as general laws of the United States , not as mere local laws of the District. Being a law of general operation, it can be reviewed on writ of error from this Court. American Co. v. Commissioners of the District, 224 U. S. 491; McGowan v. Parish, 228 U. S. 317.
The next essential decision is in Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 at 546 (1915), the Supreme Court interpreted the role of the AG and US attorney as follows:
The District Code still treats usurpation of office as a public wrong which can be corrected only by proceeding in the name of the government itself. It permits those proceedings to be instituted by the Attorney General of the United States and by the attorney for the District of Columbia . By virtue of their position, they, at their discretion and acting under the sense of official responsibility, can institute such proceedings in any case they deem proper. But there are so many reasons of public policy against permitting a public officer to be harassed with litigation over his right to hold office that the Code not only does not authorize a private citizen, on his own motion, to attack the incumbent’s title, but it throws obstacles in the way of all such private attacks. It recognizes, however, that there might be instances in which it would be proper to allow such proceedings to be instituted by a third person, but it provides that such “third person” must not only secure the consent of the law officers of the government, but the consent of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia before he can use the name of the government in quo warranto proceedings.
Further, in ANDRADE v. LAUER, 729 F.2d 1475, 234 U.S.App.D.C. 384 (1984), the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has held that the defacto officer’s doctrine does not prohibit “collateral attacks” of official actions based upon a public officer’s lack of eligibility. These are not quo warranto suits to remove the official, they are civil suits to challenge a specific action of that official.
In the Andrade case, the plaintiffs were Government employees who lost their jobs to “reduction in force” ordinances which cut whole departments from the Government budget. The plaintiffs sued alleging those who did the cutting were not Constitutionally qualified to make such decisions in that their appointments violated the appointments clause of the US Constitution.
The DC District Court held that the plaintiffs had no standing other than to bring a “direct attack” in quo warranto to remove the alleged usurper. But the DC Court of Appeals reversed and said the plaintiffs, who had suffered real injuries, could bring such an action on a case by case basis if they could prove their injury in fact (being fired) was caused by a Government official who was not eligible to serve.
Further, in UNITED STATES of America ex rel. STATE OF WISCONSIN v. FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, 248 F.2d 804 (1957), the US court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, provided an on point discussion of quo warranto in the district courts:
There have been submitted to this court only two instances in which original quo warranto jurisdiction has been specifically conferred upon federal district courts. The revised statutes of 1878 vested jurisdiction in these courts of proceedings brought by the United States Attorney for the removal of persons holding office contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment. Rev.Stat., Sections 563(14), 626(14), (1786). This Act was repealed in the Judicial Code of 1911, 36 Stat. 1168. In 1901, Congress specifically authorized the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to issue quo warranto in the name of the United States . Act of March 3, 1901, 31 Stat. 1419, Title 16, Section 1601 of the D.C. Code (1940). However, this grant is strictly limited and is confined solely to situations involving franchises and public offices held within the District of Columbia . There is no other specific statutory provision vesting original jurisdiction in the district courts in quo warranto actions.
Furthermore, before the Quo Warranto statute existed there is a precedent for a sitting, voted in, sworn in, Senator, Albert Gallatin was thrown out of office in 1793 for being constitutionally ineligible to be a Senator, not having the 9 year requirement as a U.S. citizen. The full congressional link and the procedure they used follows:
http://books.google.com/books?id=qkMFAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA223-IA8&lpg=PA223-IA8&dq=Albert+Gallatin+ineligible+Senator&source=bl&ots=GO4Ii8iPv7&sig=NVpzF2CVNYUnIWYpNdjESd9gvYA&hl=en&ei=YIiwSaOeOteitgfYiIHEBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPA221,M1
Relator in consideration of the above referenced SCOTUS and other decisions comes forth here with a direct not collateral attack upon the usurper intransigence who after all is in esse and merely poses as the corporate administrator POTUS. The Usurper as an individual in esse only has it in his interest to regain his corporate office were the issues of fact adjudicated.
1. That relator is the sovereign employer of the POTUS who exercises authority over my personal grant of power of attorney permission given to administer the united States of America (Inc.);
2. Relator duly fired Barack Hussein Obama in his corporate capacity for cause on January 23, 2009 after he took the oath of office by timely return of the offer of contract wishing no contract thereby revoked power of attorney due to his failure to prove eligibility as a natural born citizen;
3. That Barack Hussein Obama in esse usurps that office and presumably wishes to have a Quo Warranto forum to prove his eligibility to be able to return to the corporate office capacity as evidenced by the fact he simulates the corporate POTUS duties.
4. Further as to relator standing, as the particularized injury different than the general public, is evidenced by the related FOIA case where I complaint of injury and as a result of irreparable harm caused by the Usurper personally not only the particular speech injury and informational injury, but according to the opposition counsel I am to be sanctioned for something which as of right under statute I am entitled too and having been wrongly withheld by the POTUS Executive while under the Usurper.
5. The nature of my injury caused by the Usurper is the subject of my response in opposition to a partial dismissal as to the Usurper now in default and whose actions are void ab initio, and that the Defendant DOS answer to my complaint there demands further discovery with production of documents and interrogatories, and that this action is intertwined and inseparable.
I would be more than willing on or after June 1, 2009, to elaborate on this demand with an expanded memorandum that would also encompass the respectable work of the attorney Leo Donofrio, Esq. of New Jersey , Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. of California , Mario Apuzzo, Esq. of New Jersey and John D. Hemenway, Esq. of Washington District of Columbia as none represent relator. However this is the required statutory notice of a pre-existing intent required of me.
On a personal note of great importance to me, I am a natural-born citizen of two married natural-born born citizens that makes me eligible to become president, however my son when reaching 35 and having resided in the USA for 14 years at election may not be a natural-born citizen because my wife at the time of his birth in New York was not a citizen and as such because there is no interpretation as to the nature of Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 is a matter of first-impression dear to me and is effecting my liberty now onward.
Your immediate response to this urgent matter is warranted and by way of a copy the additional parties-in –interest listed below they too are duly notified. I may be reached during the day at (845) 901-6767 .
Sincerely yours,
Dated: May 20th, 2009 /s/ Christopher-Earl : Strunk, in esse
Brooklyn , New York _________________________________
Christopher-Earl: Strunk © in esse
Attached: Verified Quo Warranto Complaint with Demand for Jury Trial and Decision on Question of First Impression with exhibits
Cc:
The Honorable Eric Holder
U.S. Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington , DC 20530-0001
Barack Hussein Obama in esse
c/o The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
— On Tue, 5/19/09, Christopher Strunk wrote:
From: Christopher Strunk
Subject: Relator’s Verified Quo Warranto Complaint affirmed 5-19-09
To:
Date: Tuesday, May 19, 2009, 4:35 PM
The letter is being produced for service sent via regular and certified mail to Attorney General Eric Holder as well as to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Mr. Jeffrey Taylor; and Barack Hussein Obama in esse.
The letter will be a two page memorandum and will adress the following;
1. That I am the sovereign employer of the POTUS who exercises authority over my grant of power of attorney permission given to administer the united States of America Inc.
2. I duly fired Barack Hussein Obama (Respondent) for cause on January 23, 2009 after he took the oath of office by timely return of the offer of contract wishing no contract thereby revoked power of attorney due to his failure to prove eligibility as a natural born citizen.
3. That Respondent in esse usurps that office and presumably wishes to have a Quo Warranto forum to prove his eligibility to be able to return to the corporate office capacity.
4. I hereby give my permission for a Quo Warranto jury trial of the issue of facts.
5. I have read the above Quo Warranto Complaint With Demand For Jury Trial And Decision On Question Of First Impression with exhibits attached and aver that it is related to the FOIA Case 08-cv-2234 for Extraordinary Relief in the Nature of a Writ of Mandamus and I know its contents; the facts stated in the Complaint herein are true to my own personal knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The grounds of my beliefs as to all matters not stated upon information and belief are as follows: 3rd parties, books and records, and personal knowledge. except as to those stated upon information and belief, which I believe to be true.
/s/ Christopher-Earl : Strunk, in esse
________________________
Christopher-Earl : Strunk © in esse
Sworn to before me
This 19th day of May 2009
/s/
_____________________
Notary Public
June 12, 2009 at 10:39 PM
I haven’t been following Channing Phillips. Has there been any statement about the quo warranto deadline? Or otherwise?
June 14, 2009 at 12:14 PM
Leo,
I have been trying to find a way to contact Inspector General Gerald Walpin, who was recently fired by Obama. I have had no luck. The one web site that would be helpful has been shut down.
http://www.cncsig.gov/PDF/Bios/MeetWalpin.pdf
Certainly he should have standing to bring a quo warranto action against Obama. Whether or not he would be willing to do this is another question. Yet he intially refused to resign and was claiming he was fired for doing his job. Is he gutsy enough to do this once informed of his options?
(You need not post my message, but a general comment regarding my request would be helpful.)
[Ed. Excellent post and concept. Walpin would have standing under Newman.]
June 15, 2009 at 8:49 AM
I sent this message to Patrick Fitzgerald today by certified mail. I’m hoping it does soom good.
Jack
June 15, 2009
Dear U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald,
Section One of Article Two of the United States Constitution contains the clause: “No person except a natural born citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” I believe that we can clearly determine from these words that the Signers of the Constitution did not consider themselves “natural born”, or else there would be no need for a grandfather clause. This tells us a great deal. It cautions us, for example, not to equate the term “native born”, or born on the soil, with “natural born”, which means a citizen by birth, not by law. Indeed, the two Signers who went on to become U.S. Presidents, George Washington and James Madison, were both native born, each being born in the State of Virginia, but still, due to insertion of the grandfather clause, they obviously did not see themselves as natural born citizens. Being a citizen “by nature” then has nothing to do with being born on the soil. Natural born, rather, relates to parentage and split loyalties.
The Signers were fearful of a circumstance where a foreign power could hold jurisdiction over both our country and our armed forces. In order to prevent this from occurring, they restricted the Presidency to people born to both an American father and American mother, each without any foreign jurisdiction.
Barack Obama, by his own admission, and like the Constitutional Signers, had a father who was a British Subject. This clearly makes him a citizen by law, not by nature, because at birth Mr. Obama was subject to foreign jurisdiction. The 14th Amendment may define Mr. Obama as a citizen, but not a natural born citizen.
I am a believer in the law because, as St. Thomas More suggested, it protects me. Our Constitution is the country’s most precious document of law. It should not be cast aside merely for convenience, or because of public sentiment. That is why I respectfully ask your intercession via the quo warranto statute. If Mr. Obama’s eligibility is not called into question now, it will surely be questioned as he leaves office. I dread that scenario, both for our country, and to all who bowed down to public sentiment, because of the legal and social chaos that it will leave in its wake.
June 16, 2009 at 11:45 AM
I don’t recognize my country anymore.
ABC TURNS PROGRAMMING OVER TO OBAMA; NEWS TO BE ANCHORED FROM INSIDE WHITE HOUSE
Tue Jun 16 2009 08:45:10 ET
On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care — a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!
Highlights on the agenda:
ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.
The network plans a primetime special — ‘Prescription for America’ — originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.
MORE
Late Monday night, Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay fired off a complaint to the head of ABCNEWS:
Dear Mr. Westin:
As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC’s astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform “town hall” at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news “will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda.” This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming. Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party’s views to those of the President’s to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party’s opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers.
In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda. If that is the case, this primetime infomercial should be paid for out of the DNC coffers. President Obama does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on free airtime. The President has stated time and time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC should pay for your airtime.
Respectfully,
Ken McKay
Republican National Committee
Chief of Staff
June 16, 2009 at 12:31 PM
PS World Net Daily or the Pajamas Media or somesuch with a camera crew could go to DC and film serving on the DA personally.
June 17, 2009 at 6:06 PM
If anyone here actually believes that an Obama-appointed Attorney General and an Obama-appointed DC-Circuit US Attorney would launch a Quo Warranto proceeding against Obama himself, then I’ve got ocean-front property to sell you in Arizona… and I don’t even own property in Arizona!
Should he be taken away in irons for his actions? Undoubtably. Will anyone dare stand up and do their Constitutional duty? Sadly, no.
Also, legally-speaking, Obama could NOT fire Walpin. Not without 30 days notice. What’s the penalty for Obama’s action? Anyone care to bet me that the White House will eventually claim that the firing was NOT ordered by Obama or Sasquatch, and that some poor aide is going to get the axe over this. Aide to be fired, Walpin not to be reinstated, investigation into abuse of funds by Obama supporters dropped, media snoozes.
Heck, the media even has a ready-made international crisis in Iran, and they can’t even be bothered to focus on that, so busy are they trying to drum up support for TOTUS’ universal health care.
June 20, 2009 at 8:49 AM
[...] If you believe there is enough doubt about Obama’s eligibility to warrant a public inquiry, please consider writing, in your own words, a letter to the proper authorities, politely and respectfully asking them to bring (or permit a third party to bring) the matter before the DC District Court. Attorney Leo Donofrio suggests writing to U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, since the U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia Jeffrey Taylor has resigned. [...]
June 20, 2009 at 5:03 PM
It looks like the deck is already stacked. May the lives of all of the many hero-patriots who have died in our cause not be in vain.
HNG
June 24, 2009 at 10:30 PM
[...] US Attorney Jeffrey Taylor Resigns [...]
July 9, 2009 at 2:25 AM
On June 12, I sent documents to US Atty Fitzgerald at USDOJ, 1400 NY Ave NW, Washington, DC 20530, certified mail, restricted delivery, return receipt required.
Track and confirm showed receipt (but no recipient) on June 18, so a two working day delivery took five working days.
On June 29 and 30, not having received the return receipt, I filed two complaints with the Postal Inspectors:
https://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/forms/MailFraudComplaint.aspx
https://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/forms/mlntrcvd.aspx
I received a form letter email saying, basically, we’ll check on it, don’t call us, we’ll call you if we find anything.
On July 6, a week after submitting my mail theft complaint, I finally received my return receipt from the packet that I sent to the USDOJ on June 12, restricted delivery, return receipt required. It should have been delivered no later than June 16, but the date of delivery on the return receipt was June 26, not June 18 as reported by Track and Confirm. “Received by (printed name),” “Signature”, and the “Agent/Addressee” check boxes were all left blank. In a blank space, there is a scribbled signature which looks like “A Urler”.
In a two-day delivery zone, it took twenty-two working days to get a confirmation card back. Whether that proves anything to a court, it proves to me that snoopy eyes (not spooks) are tampering with certified mail.
In plain English, I still have no idea who received it and whether it got to the DOJ or not. I seriously doubt that Mr. Fitzgerald ever saw it.
For the duration, I have 0% confidence in the mails going into Washington, D.C..
MinutemanCDC_SC
[ed. very interesting. thanks for being vigilant and reporting back. it doesnt surprise me.]
July 17, 2009 at 6:09 PM
If anyone truly beleives the current economy breakdown & the failed scare tactic of “islamic terrorism” are REAL events and not Illumenati engineered hoaxes (which hey very much are) then that person has to also beleive we’ve really been to the moon. Especially since there was no technology on eary in the 1960’s which would approach the level of technologically advanced tools required for such an event. If not, then why is such a huge deal made of a low level orbit which is all current NASA activities are.
My pc is infected w/ tracking software I picked up through an attachment sent to me from “jack”. Anyone know how to remove such?
July 24, 2009 at 9:17 AM
Mark,
A couple of thoughts come to mind.
1. Install a second disk drive in your computer and install all programs on one disk and store all data files on the second disk. This technique preserves your data if you pick up a nasty virus or trojan that corrupts your programs. Good preventive medicine.
2. Try to identify exactly which piece of virus, trojan, or malware you have on your system and then make certain your antivirus software will remove it. You DO have antivirus software on your system, don’t you? If you don’t, buy Norton 360 or other current system antivirus software, and you will be protected for one year, after which time you will have to renew the antivirus software subscription.
3. Set your antivirus software up so that it protects your system against onerous e-mails and browser attacks, and keep it running – all the time. It’s important.
I hope this is helpful.
July 24, 2009 at 10:15 AM
Everybody take a deep breathe, there is too much hyperventilation here.
check this out : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2sE-McQks0
[Ed. This is an interesting interview. I would suggest readers watch all parts. I haven't dissected all points made but there are some very interesting questions raised. The US in bankruptcy and passing us essentially as chattel to the bankers has always fascinated me but I haven't done enough research myself into it. It wouldnt surprise me at all to learn that the original concept of the country has been transmogrified into a financial Matrix where we only think we are the owners of our land and money and lives while these bankster elites play this game where they sit around sipping tea and laughing about how they own us and we dont even know it...]
July 24, 2009 at 1:41 PM
Probably went down the same black hole Dr. Orly Taitz’s lawsuit encountered at the United States Supreme Court. The suit, styled “Obama v. Keyes”, was re-filed on July 15 in the US District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana Division. Judge David Carter heard the case and found for plaintiffs. Pursuant to Court order, Occidental College, where Barry Soetoro (a/k/a Barack Obama) studied, released student records which show that Soetoro attended college there as a foreign aid student from Indonesia.
[Ed. As far as I know this case holding was a hoax.]
Also of interest is Reserve Army Major Cook’s suit alleging that Obama is not qualified to issue military orders as C-in-C because he is not an American citizen. His original orders were recalled after he refused to comply. The Army, interestingly, did not court-martial him, but since then, he has been fired from his job of 15 years with Simco, Inc., a defense contractor. Hmmm….wonder why?
This citizenship matter is not going away. Obama claims he has released a copy of his birth certificate; what he released was a questionable Certification of Live Birth. Both his grandmother and half-sister are on record as stating he was born in Kenya.
[Ed. Not sure those Kenyan interviews prove that point. ]
The mainstream media have been thunderously silent in their coverage of this controversy.
I have no idea where Obama/Soetoro was born–and reports are that he has spent over a million dollars in legal fees to prevent disclosure of his BC. However, it would seem to me that if he HAS a verifiable birth certificate proving his American citizenship, he would be quick to release it instead of spending a million bucks trying to prevent its release.
August 10, 2009 at 10:26 AM
It is settled law for the last 110 years, that any person born within the jurisdiction of the US is a natural born US citizen. See the decision for “US vs Wong Kim Ark”.
[Ed. Snip. Did you even bother to read this blog? Wong Kim Ark does not agree with you and clearly indicates that the native born child of an alien is not a natural born citizen. The case says that person is a "citizen" not natural born. When you've familiarized yourself with the facts, you may post again... I'm not going to repeat the same thing over and over. Scroll down my front page and read the post on WKA. Then feel free to post again.]
August 11, 2009 at 7:42 AM
Leo,
I quote from your blog below and you list 2 points but I think you can add a third and that is the eye of the needle test.
While the Constitution might not state what a NBC is To me the SCOTUS clearly states below what a NBC is. I think you make it clear else where that a NBC can only be one thing and the SCOTUS have said what that one thing is.
Obama can’t pass through the eye of the needle because there is doubt as to what type citizen he is. He fails the test.
======
SCOTUS clearly states in Minor, six years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment, that the definition of “natural-born citizen” is not found in the Constitution:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
That passage establishes two important legal facts which cannot be overturned by any Birth Certificate.:
1. it establishes as precedent that the definition of natural-born citizen is not contained in the body of the Constitution and that we must look elsewhere for the definition
2. it establishes doubt that persons born in the US to foreign parents can be President
August 11, 2009 at 11:23 AM
Tex,
Well said. In all my posts on other blogs I have quoted from or referred to that key passage from Minor v. Happersett. And I have concentrated on your item #1, the definition about which there is no doubt.
Lately, I have begun to worry about the cases about which there is doubt. If the question of who is an NBC is ever brought before a judge, can we be sure that a judge would not be influenced by the doubtful cases and rule that Obama is a natural born citizen?
What complicates the analysis in my view is the fact that Chief Justice Waite questions whether the children born in the U.S. are “citizens” without reference to the citizenship of their parents; he does not use the phrase “natural born citizens”. Was he still talking about who is a “natural born citizen”, or did he switch contexts and is now talking about “citizen”? It is not immediately clear to me.
Someone with better analytical skills than I have needs to sort this out.
August 11, 2009 at 12:52 PM
NeilBJ Says: August 11, 2009 at 11:23 am Tex,
NeilBJ,
Any thing I say is just an opinion as the person in HI the talking heds Leo etc.
If a Judge ever hears the case I think it would have a much better chance then of having a day at the SCOTUS.
All I want is for the SCOTUS to make it clear as a bell as to what a NBC is as in regards to POTUS. Then we can all go home because then we will know what the Law is.
I would hope that all in Congress and Obama would also want such a thing. That is if their oath means anything at all.
I agree with Leo that the syatem is broken and likely at the voting booth is were we will see a check on this but only with the educated voter that cares about our Laws and way of life.
Obama, Bush, McCain many others by their action and deeds have shown us what they think of their oath and duty. So there is no help coming from those in power now.
I also wonder if some of what is going on goes back to Howard Dean and the way he was treated after his loss.
Well the only thing that might happen is an action going to the SCOTUS and that will likely only come after they have solidfied their hold and someone is damaged and brings up the NBC thing in a defense but I am no attonery just my thoughts.
I am thinking here were they let the Soldier off the hook rather than having a court battel.
Tex