Chapter 35§ 16-3501 Persons against whom issued; civil action.

A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.

The federal statute for quo warranto was tailor made by the legislature to challenge any person occupying any public office of the United States under questionable title thereto.

This legal brief considers all relevant issues pertaining to the proper legal use of the extraordinary writ of quo warranto to determine Presidential eligibility.  The brief will be sent via regular and certified mail to Attorney General Eric Holder as well as to the US Attorney for the District of Columbia, Mr. Jeffrey Taylor, along with an open letter requesting their direct attention to the issues contained herein.

Please note from the start that only one of these officials need bring the action in quo warranto.  The applicable statute vests both officials with the same mutually exclusive authority to do so.  The statute requires either/or, not both.  And the statute also provides a separate mechanism by which their official consent is not necessary to an action in quo warranto where the “third person” petitioning for the writ is also an “interested person”.

Regardless, I fear justice will never prevail on this issue.  By Justice I mean that the relevant issues will probably never be decided on the merits by any court.  Yet, I believe every man charged with the duty to uphold the law must be given his rightful chance to follow and be guided by the rule of law.  And until every effort is made to most effectively bring an action in quo warranto, I personally can’t be satisfied  I’ve done everything in my power to protect the Constitution and the Republic.  Thanks to my readers for pointing this out. (Also see my apology to SCOTUS for previous inflammatory comments along with removal of noted image.)

Since an action in quo warranto is unquestionably the correct legal device to challenge the eligibility of any public office holder and since quo warranto has not been properly set in motion or explained to the public, this brief will attempt to educate the public and the proper officials as to the need to resolve the Obama POTUS eligibility issue in a single quo warranto hearing rather than subject the nation to a floodgate of litigation from plaintiffs with proper standing to bring collateral attacks challenging, on the basis of POTUS ineligibility, any number of potential orders and actions to be issued by the Obama administration.

Additionally, having studied controlling quo warranto cases, I have come to the conclusion that military plaintiffs probably do not have any special standing to institute an action for quo warranto which differs from the standing of the general public.  Please consider that this statement is not based on emotion but on the following;

1) the controlling statute

2) the seminal US Supreme Court decision

3) other relevant SCOTUS and federal cases

When these are examined together, it appears no special standing exists for military personnel to institute actions in quo warranto under the statute.

However, there is a civilian subset of “third persons” who do have a viable claim to quo warranto standing to challenge Presidential eligibility in a direct legal attack on Obama’s title to office.  And so long as this civilian subset exists, there’s no good reason to subject our military to possible court martial by recklessly exposing them to UCMJ Article 88 violations as well as numerous other statutes which could potentially end their careers or land them in jail.

That military personnel are being exposed to court martial via contemptuous language and false headlines (ie, news report which erroneously stated an officer had defied a Presidential order) is one of the strongest public policy reasons why Attorney General Holder and/or US Attorney Taylor should be convinced to step in on their own motion, which is their unquestionable right by statute, to request a straight forward quo warranto hearing on the two basic core issues now in dispute.

1. Does Obama’s birth status having been governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948, as was admitted by Obama, prevent him from satisfying the “natural born citizen” requirement of the Constitution.

2. Should Obama be forced to present, to the District Court for the District of Columbia, proper legal documentation to prove his place of birth by a form of identification regularly accepted by the Government for legal purposes.


A. Applicability of Statute 16-3501.

§ 16-3501 applies against any person within the District of Columbia who “usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises… a public office of the United States.”  Under the statute, the writ of quo warranto is issued by the DC District Court in the name of the United States.

The seminal SCOTUS case which has interpreted this statute is Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915).  The opinion is truly one of most rational and clearly written decisions in Supreme Court history and by itself serves as a thorough education on the history of quo warranto as well as the proper statutory interpretation.  I suggest everyone read the entire case.

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.

Years later, any doubts as to the accuracy of this interpretation were completely nullified when current federal statute16-3501 revised the predecessor code to include officers of “the United States” and not just the District of Columbia.

Neither the statute nor any existing federal case provides an exception to the office of President or any public office of the United States.

CONCLUSION:  An action in Quo Warranto is the statutory legal device available to challenge the eligibility of a sitting President.

B. Constitutionality of using the federal quo warranto statute to remove a sitting President.

There are two sections of the Constitution which allow for the removal of the President.  Article 2, Section 4 allows for impeachment.  This is the remedy for removal of the President should he partake in high crimes or treason.   A quo warranto action as to POTUS eligibility does not appear to be covered by impeachment.

The second section of the Constitution which provides the removal of the President is Article 2, Section 1, Clause 6:

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

Many have argued that only Congress can remove a sitting President and that the separation of powers enumerated in the Constitution denies the courts any legal ability to remove a sitting President.  But with the federal quo warranto statute, Congress has delegated that authority to the District Court of the District of Columbia by providing for the removal of the President (and other public officers) by quo warranto where the President is found to be a usurper to the office even if he assumed the office with a good faith belief he was eligible.

Consider the following scenario:  A quo warranto action is instituted by AG Holder or, in the alternative, US Attorney Taylor on their own motion.  In that case, there must be a hearing on the merits (this will be explained in detail below).  Further assume Obama then produces a perfect long form birth certificate proving he was born in Hawaii, but then the District Court of DC holds that since Obama was also a British subject at the time of his birth, he is not a “natural born citizen” and is therefore not legally occupying the office of President.  Further assume that the DC District Court’s ruling is upheld by SCOTUS.

Under this fact pattern, Obama would not have broken any laws and so he couldn’t be impeached, but he would be removed from office pertaining to the removal authority of Congress enumerated in Article 2, Section 6, and so delegated by federal statute Chapter 35, §16-3501.

CONCLUSION: Congress has provided for the removal of a sitting President found to be ineligible by enacting the federal quo warranto statute .


[this brief will be continued in part 2]


45 Responses to “QUO WARRANTO LEGAL BRIEF: part 1”

  1. Law made easy. Write a book.

  2. Deminimis Says:

    CONCLUSION: An action in Quo Warranto is the statutory legal device available to challenge the eligibility of a sitting President.

    It’s great that you start by asking the right question — but I would point out the following:

    1) The remedy of quo warranto is the ouster of the official being challenged.

    2) The US Constitution explicitly provides that Presidents may be removed only via impeachment, and that Congress has the SOLE power to initiate and try impeachments.

    In other words, while your logic applies to lesser officials, it cannot apply to the US President because the Constitution specifically divests the courts of jurisdiction.

    [Ed. Didn’ you read the whole brief. I took on this issue. Congress has the power to provide for the removal of the President, not just under the impeachment clause but also under Article 2, Clause 6:

    …the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President… ]

  3. bob strauss Says:

    At this point, in the usurping of the presidency, does the vice president have a duty, to step in on behalf of the people, or does he just wait, in the wings, for a court order? Is Biden doing his job, when it comes to upholding his oath of office, or is he obstructing justice? Is he an innocent bystander or is he in on the fraud,and usurping?

    [Ed he has no power as to any of this.]

  4. […] This evening, Leo Donofrio, Plaintiff in Donofrio v. Wells, reports that he has released the first part of his legal briefing stating his opinion of challenging the President’s authority via a prerogative writ known as quo warranto. […]

  5. Leo, you previously made it clear that you believe Obama was born in Hawaii….Common sense tells me that a person does not hire three law firms and spend upwards of a million dollars in legal fees to keep from spending about twenty bucks to provide a pristine birth certificate….With that being said, here is my question….Who is going to provide an unbiased third party forensic document examiner to inspect the “pristine” birth certificate that will be produced for the court by Obama?
    We already know that the courts will not rule against Obama in regards to the “natural born citizen” issue, even though it’s clear thst he doesn’t meet the requirements…..I’m not sure exactly what it is that he doesn’t want anyone to see in regards to his birth certificate, but there is little doubt that a problem for him there lies…..I would hate to see Holder provide the perfect opportunity for Obama to pull a fast one over on “we the people”……Who would be the expert to examine the document?

    [Ed. I want a decision on the merits as to nbc. If Hawaii officials say whatevere bc comes forth is pristine, that’s going to be the end of it. I don’t believe Obama would have come this far without controlling the bc issue. I don’t think he’s worried about that. But the BC did provide deep cover for the British citizen issue for a very long time. I can’t answer all of your questions. My instinct tells me Obama has the bc locked down no matter what happens. The other issue is out of his control, but the courts have protected him on that one and will probably continue to do so. My objective now is to just provide the legal truth and protect military people from judicial harm.]

  6. curi0us0nefromthe60s Says:

    You’re a gifted and level headed man Mr. Donofrio. I love your style.

  7. Leo we all want you to win. I will pray every day for you.

    Obviously you never really left this case. Obviously you have been working hard every day researching this problem. And your hard work has come up with a solution.

    I too like Apuzzio’s energy and spirit and well thought out approach. Nice to see my 2 favorite lawyers working together. You are my top guy. I am so proud of your coming up with the proper definition of NBC. I have been reading all the writings and begging lawyers to begin these cases for over a year now.

    My poor daughter and grand daughter think I am consumed by this Obama problem for some time now. They are right. I must see my country free before I pass to the spirit world.

  8. Michele in Tampa Says:

    I believe that Obama, if pressed, could produce proof via a long form birth certificate that he was born in Hawaii. I believe that his choosing not to do so is part of his politics of distraction. When his citizenship is questioned based upon the place of his birth, he knows, that with the main stream media in his pocket, anyone that brings this up will be looked at as some far out conspiracy kook (and I admit, some of them are). As long as this is the issue that the media comments on, Obama feels safe that the general public will not hear about the real issue of his eligibility under the Constitution or if they do hear about it from a friend or relative that understands what the real issue is, they will sweep it all under the carpet as more of the same.

    Thank you Leo for your continued efforts.

    [Ed. I tend to agree with the reader. Obama was a Constitutional scholar. He had to know the nbc issue, as to his father’s British/Kenyan heritage might bar him from POTUS eligibility. I’m sure he read the law in the light most favorable to him. But you can’t seriously imagine that he didn’t have stress over it and some fear. It would have been nice to see him open a discussion nationally on the issue to find out before subjecting the nation to this stress, whether he was a nbc. He hid the issue and never discussed it. He hid it right beneath the huge green distraction at Fight The Smears.]

  9. Leo,
    You sir, are a constitutional explorer, mining the crevasses and caves to find the jewels left behind by the framers. I think that you may have found Obama’s Kryptonite.

  10. I am praying that this next find you are working on works! I am also praying it works before too long as our country is being destroyed minute by minute. The clock ticks and we Americans loose more and more of our Constitution and rights as citizens of our freedom of speech, to bear arms, and to benefit as Americans by our Constitution.

    Thank you Leo for coming back and as another commenter said, “finding the jewels left behind by the framers”. Stick to it with resolve, please.

    Not that it matters anymore, I don’t believe BO was born in Hawaii. You are a gambler and I believe he is bluffing. My gut has always served me very well and I don’t ever give a person who is willing to harm others to gain power the benefit of of doubt.

  11. Leo: Can any US Attorney be used to make claim for the United States on this?

    [Ed I’ve been trying to figure that out. The way the statute is written, it’s possible such an interpretation is correct. I’m looking into this. Good question. Exciting issue.]

  12. Leo: Prove to Holder that we’re not “A Nation of Cowards.”

  13. Mr. Donofrio,

    Are you tracking Dr. Taitz’s effort to appeal to a congressional judiciary committee?


    If they were to enquire into the matter and find substance in the argument, what would be their next step as allowed by law?

    SFC Nosworthy

    [Ed. I believe Congress has already provided the means for the quo warranto hearing on the matter. A congressional committee, can’t make a law that’s retroactive and is able to usurp the Constitution as to A1 S2 C5… what can they do? They can’t impeach him.
    The only way the full issue gets adjudicated is by quo warranto.]

  14. Mr. Donofrio,

    I rarely have ideas that are this good and worth mentioning (as you would say “aha”)…The letter that is to be submiited to the US and DC counselors should be printed in the major newspapers (Washington Times, NYT, etc.). I’m somewhat doubtful if the MSM will pick up that the prosecutors have been put on notice, but it couldn’t hurt. Your ethical approach to financing this cause could post the relevant costs of the 10 or so papers will be used. Your cognizance of the PR necessity could be assisted in this tact…who knows, perhaps the various journalists will actually attempt to contact you to explain this matter.

    [Ed Hey, I hope stuff like this happens. I’m not taking donations. I’ve changed my mind. But if people want to handle that and make it happen, I think it’s a great idea. ]


  15. Mr. Donofrio,

    As per the public notice of the letter to the US and DC counselors, I’m sure you can see that it might benefit by giving them pause to ignore or sit on the matter. In addition to the media, members of congress and the courts read the papers and will wonder as to the veracity of the contention (Senator Blowhard and the Chief Justice are inlikely to read the Right Side of Life or listen to Plains Radio-no offense intended). The printed article should encourage the reader to contact identified parties to perform their duties or state why such is not in the best interest of the United States. That’s about it.

    [Ed I think that’s made clear in my next blog. Stay tuned, hoping to publish before going on radio tonight.]


  16. A very big concern is this —

    The entire line of succession: VP, Speaker, Secretary of State ALL were in on this fraud, if indeed it was — which I for one, have ALWAYS believed.

  17. nice write up

    i understand that you will be needing an “interested party” for legit path forward, who would that be? Cuirous to know.

  18. I have the “Heritage Guide to the Constitution” and in it, Article II, Section 1, clause 6 is indicated as having been changed by the 25th Amendment.

    Section 1 of the 25th Amendment says this

    Section 1.
    In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

    Section 4 of the 25th Amendment says the following:

    Section 4.
    Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit 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, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

    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.

    Here’s how I understand the 25th amendment:

    The 25th amendment prescribes the procedures for removing the President from office, either permanently or temporarily, due to physical or mental disabilities.

    Section 1, in effect, reflects back to Article II, Section 1, clause 6, so it still applies regarding removing the President from office for cases other than physical or mental disability.

    Is my understanding correct?

    [Ed. A2 S1 C 6 has not been repealed, in fact, the 25th amendment supports my position. See my next blog for in depth discussion on this issue. ]

  19. ComancheShaman Says:

    Leo,,my admired friend, I could use some advice on proceedure for my case, CV09-410-PHX-ROS filed in Dist. Court the Dist. of Arizona, a civil action with jury demand and proposed extrordinary and specefic relief. case brought under 42 U.S.C.@ 1983 and 42 U.S.C. @ 1985 and one count of intentional infliction of great emotional distress by way of A.R.S. 13-2006 (A1,B) and 18 U.S.C.@ 912 and the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. Any thing you can advise me of I will be in debt and grateful for. Clark Hamblin, Az.

    [Ed. Clark, your case and all others will be dismissed on separation of powers. Read my latest blog. Sorry for the bad news. My next blog explains why I feel this way about all pending cases.]

  20. How can a man born with Dual Nationality to the US and the UK at birth (and later to Kenya, and possibly Indonesia) have allegiances ONLY to the United States as President? He can’t. At best, Obama is a citizen — not a NBC!

    Don’t take my word for it. Here are the words spoken in Congress in 1866.

    “… every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANY FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY IS, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen.” — Rep. John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment, Congressional Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., pg 1291 (March 9, 1866)

  21. Deminimis says “The US Constitution explicitly provides that Presidents may be removed only via impeachment”. Incorrect.

    The Constitution does give Congress the sole power to bring and try Impeachments.

    Then Article II, Section 4 says of the “President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States” that, IF Impeached and Convicted of a high Crime or Misdemeanor, they SHALL be removed from Office.

    It applies equally to any civil Officer of the United States as to the President and Vice President.

    It does not say that Impeachment is the sole means of removing any of them.

    If it had said that, then the Presidential eligibility clause would have been, not just rendered ineffective, but entirely contradicted.

  22. Sending Letters to Representatives seeking their proactive push to solve the crises: Here’s my attempt, hopefully others will do likewise in their own words and emotives:

    Dear Senator Kyl,

    I am not sure why you entered politics, or why you continue in office, and while I want a response please do not insult me with a form letter response again completely devoid of factual information regarding this subject.

    Neither John McCain or Barrack Obama are Natural born citizens. Your ‘senate resolution” 511 while an opinion, is hardly respectful of the constitution. Allowing Hillary to become Secretary of State, by making an end run around the Constitution is another OUT OF CONTROL action by you and the rest of Congress.

    While our country and the rest of the world are experiencing great difficulties, is it any wonder that this country continues to fall apart, when their leaders place themselves, both above the LAW, and ABOVE the people they were meant to serve.

    You cannot refute Barrack Obama’s own admission that he was born of a foreign national father, of Kenya, and that the British Nationality Act of 1948 governed his citizenship (DUAL) at birth. Therefore, as Obama himself acknowledges by endorsing SR 511 you need 2 US Citizen parents to be qualified to be a natural born citizen. The birth certificate issue is a mere distraction in Obama’s case unlike McCain’s.

    THIS ISSUE WILL not go away, and like the ground swell to Watergate, regarding Nixon, might I suggest that you get in front of this situation.

    As far as the Court’s go, they have so far violated our 1st Amendment right of redress, by utilizing their judicially created doctrines to forstall acting on the merits of every attempt by the people to lawfully enforce the law of the land. Insulting the people by telling them they have no standing to enforce the mandates of the US Constitution only angers and adds fuel to the energy of the people who seek justice.

    Quo Warranto action is being pursued as we speak, and if the law and justice are to be found in this country, then it is just a matter of time before we the people again have to do YOUR job for you again, because as you have demonstrated in the past, you up till now lack the spine to standup for the principles that this country was founded on and to which your party use to uphold. [I refer to your vote for the 700 billion bailout, as an example.]

    ONE LAST THING: This is a crises that is causing our military members great danger, as they are trapped in a Hobson’s choice,[look it up] to either obey orders of a Comander in Chief, and Later be found to have aided unlawful orders of a usurper, or disobey orders, and be court martialed for disobeying lawful orders….this will not stand, and its high time you shed your personal concerns and realized that ACTION ON YOUR PART is necessary to protect and defend the citizens you expect to step forward and surrender their lives so that you may continue to enjoy the comforts this country has thus far provied for you and your family.

    Please answer this one question, will you insist that Eric Holder, USAG, appoint a special prosecutor to prosecute the Quo Warranto action challenging Barrack Obama’s eligbility to hold the Office of the Presidency?

    May you be so empowered as to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do.


    Shawn [clipped LN]

    [Ed well written.]

  23. ComancheShaman Says:


    *WHEREAS, it is expressly stated within the Preamble to the Constitution of *the United States that “WE the people of the United States”, (a)in order to **”establish justice”, (b)”promote the general welfare”, (c) and “secure the **blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”, and whereas, Article III, *Section 2, paragraph 3 states; The trial of all crimes , except in cases of **impeachment, shall be by jury;”; Amendment IX states; ” The enumeration in *the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage *others retained by the people.”, and whereas, Amendment X states; “The **powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited *by it to the states, are reserved to *the states respectively, or to the people.” **And under F.R.Civ.P rule 38. Whereas, there is no material matter of fact
    *contained within this Civil Action, that the Constitution nor any law or **statute removes from the people of the United States, the authority to **determine, in the interest of justice, all relevant facts and issues of this action, *by aproper jury of the people, Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all matters *and issues, and on each of the counts.

    *Respectfully Submitted to this Honorable Court,

    *Clark Hamblin, Pro Se Litigant

  24. ComancheShaman Says:

    15. Defendant #1 did release his memoir, “Dreams from my Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance”, published in 1995. On page three of that *memoir he wrote, in paragraph 2, and I quote: ” I was impatient in those **days, busy with work and unrealized plans, and prone to see other people as *unnecessary distractions.”
    **16. On August 9, 1995, Defendant #1 did have an audio recorded **interview with “eyeonbooks”. Defendant #1’s first sentence, in his first **answer, is as follows, directly quoted from the authorized transcript of that *interview: “My father is a black African, was a black African. My mother is a *white American.”.”

    **17. In that same interview, by way of reference to paragraphs 16, is a *portion of the answer to question 5. Defendant #1’s response, paragraph **1,stated here as a direct quote; ” me, as an African and an American trying *to understand my place in a divided society.” .

    ** 18. In that interview, by reference to paragraph 16 of this complaint, *Defendant #1 did also say the following, here stated as a direct quote from *answer 2, paragraph 1: ” I got the idea of writing a book while I was at **Harvard Law School, where I served as president of the Law Review. In **listening to a number of debates going back and forth about affirmative **action and voting rights…….”.” in paragraph 2, of that answer was , as a **direct quote “So the first book, at least, that I needed to write was a book **that came to terms with that divided heritage.”.

    **19. As a United States Senator, a Harvard Law School graduate
    *that had been the President of the Harvard Law Review, a licensed ***practicing civil rights lawyer, and a teacher of Constitutional Law, ***Defendant #1 did have a great and wide understanding of the construction *and the process of drafting the United States Constitution.

  25. I tend to agree with the reader. Obama was a Constitutional scholar. He had to know the nbc issue.

    When one aspires to obtain a certain something or goal one must first look at how obtainable it is. When your desire outweighs your honesty one has no problem in cheating or bending the rules for a favorable outcome. We see this everyday, in sports it’s doping/steriod abuse, in gambling it’s card count, in government it’s the black market/Iran-Contra.

    Since the beginning, I have said that with Obama a constitutional scholar, he and his handlers have planned out the scenarios long ago my friends. He knows what he is doing and knows what he is going to do. If you think that he or his handlers don’t check this blog and others on a daily basis you are truly delusional. This would be saying they only watch the 6:30 news. They know whats coming. The web bot tells them whats being discussed on the internet.

    The thing that I find most interesting is the attacks by his administration on the media. The media in some regards has turned on him starting to drive down his public support. You must question his motives in his decisions and is he doing things on purpose. Case in point. The economy which has been in decline for some time now and was broadcast by him to be the worst since the great depression, but yet out of the 18 positions that need senate confirmation for the Treasury Dept. only one position has been filled (fact) Tim Giethner. He has focused on everything but the Treasury Dept. Paul Volker is on record as saying it is a shame and an embarassment to the administration. Why would he not staff the Treasury in such a critical time? Could he be purposely trying to drive the stock market down or does he truly not understand economics.

    This is why we need the determination of whether or not he is eligible. If he is, so be it and we will suffer the consequences of a popularity contest. If not, he must be removed before the country becomes the Divided States of America. This, by the way, has already begun. With states introducing sovereignty bills/legeslation/gunrights ect. ect. The states see whats coming down the pike.

    Leo,Orly,Appuzo,Berg,Akeny and others, for the love of god and for country, this has to be pursued to unfortunatley the bitter end.

  26. Leo, about your apology to the SCOTUS. Good for you. Have they apologized to you in return, for how their clerk treated your original case?

  27. And I also think that his Indonesian citizenship/adoption is part of the puzzle and part of what’s being hidden in plain sight. If it’s true that he did NOT have a passport until he became a senator, then he HAD to have traveled on a foreign passport after the age of majority. His Occidental records may show that he was considered a foreign student, which may also be why those records are hidden away.

    It’s too curious that Claire McCaskill tried to expand the Senate resolution, declaring McCain a NBC, to include anybody born outside the US. She’s one of Obama’s most ardent supporters. It’s no coincidence and I don’t think it was a smokescreen. Where there’s smoke–there’s fire.

  28. btw, Leo, God bless you. You’re a patriot, in the true spirit of our Founding Fathers.

  29. Sent a email to Michael Savage, maybe, since he interviewed Berg, he will try to contact you for an interview, I sent him links to here, but I have no idea how else he or his people can contact you Leo. Maybe you could post a press email addy?

    [Ed. I appreciate that. Thanks]

  30. Hoping in NH Says:

    Leo, I applaud your work and your creativity and tenacity in pursuing actions to prove that Obama does not qualify due to not being a NBC. I have several comments regarding your current efforts to develop a Quo Warranto brief that I’ll submit here.

    First, I know that your original legal efforts focused entirely on the NBC issue, ignoring other Obama citizenship issues that have been raised within other legal actions (likely because your filing was one of the first).

    [Ed I did include the BC issue. Furthermore, the status is nbc “at birth”, the Indo thing isn’t relevant to me. His paremts couldn’t have waived his US citizenship when he was a child. I dont have filing pending right now. I hope it doesnt come to that.]

    However, should you not also provide for Quo Warranto related questions stemming from those other citizenship issues? (eg. forfeiture of citizenship due to becoming an Indonesian citizen, potential education as a foreign student, possible use of foreign passport after age 21 with no records of re-naturalization.) If yours is the only Quo Warranto brief filing that results in any further legal actions, wouldn’t you want all of the issues concerning Obama’s eligibility to be reviewed? Also, if your dual-citizenship-at-birth focus does not bear fruit and no other issues are raised, couldn’t a court decision against the issues of your brief then be referenced to sway a judge to decide against other Quo Warranto cases brought against Obama?

    Second, it looks like you have been in contact with the plaintiffs in the Ankeny v. Daniels case, and so are familiar with the case.

    [Ed. Ive not been in touch with them.]

    Although I am not an attorney or legal scholar of any nature, their use of the following to support their case looks to be very strong logic:
    A) That any discussion of the meaning of NBC and one’s qualification as an NBC must be based upon the meaning/definition of NBC held by the authors of our Constitution at the time of it’s writing.
    B) The “Law Of Nations” clear description of NBC established the meaning of NBC to our Founding Fathers.
    C) That Congress does not have the power to change the meaning of any words within the Constitution.
    (The above is from a recount of their recent hearing that can be found at: http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=4243)

    [ed. yes, I agree with that, but there’s no way to get around the separation of powers. judicial branch can’t act now that he’s sworn in.]

    Third and finally, I see that many blog commenters have been raising the claim that only Congress can impeach/remove the POTUS (and that this is unlikely due to the existing Democratic majorities within Congress at this time). You have addressed this also, but in a manner stating that the Constitution provides an additional mechanism of removal via the use of Quo Warranto legal actions. I’d like to propose another view.

    In my non-legally-trained view, a POTUS will not have to be removed since if Obama is a usurper he is not a true, legal POTUS, and can not be shielded from legal action as a true, legal POTUS is. Therefore anyone should be able to bring Obama to trial, or at least initiate actions that result in his removal from office.

    [Ed. I’ve addressed this in my brief. In theory, it may seem possible (if it’s proved he isn’t eligible, no court has ever decided the issue and he might have been born in Hawaii), but since the Govt recognizes him as POTUS, the courts will recognize him and no court will ever see it this way or act on it. So, while many things are “possible” only that which is actually practical has even the slightest chance of working. furthermore, it would be a recipe for disaster should this happen. Civil war is a possible outcome. This is NOT going to happen the way you desrcibe.]

    I believe that most people, both for and against Obama believe the following:
    1) We The People chose a majority of Democratic Electors during the general election in November of 2008.
    2) The electors met in December of 2008 and cast their votes.
    3) The elector’s votes were counted and certified by Congress in January of 2009 without objection by any members of Congress, and concluded that a majority of electoral votes were cast for Obama/Biden.
    4) Obama was sworn into office in January of 2009 and is now POTUS.

    However, what the above overlooks is the very first step:
    0) Obama was not qualified for the office (due to the NBC clause and/or other citizenship issues).
    Therefore Obama could not legally run for the office, could not legally be voted for by the electors, could not legally be certified winner by Congress, and could not legally be sworn into office.

    It’s all a house of cards built upon the shakiest of foundations. Therefore all that’s needed is to prove that he’s not qualified for the office. (I know, that’s not an easy task since Obama has locked up all pertinent documents.) That proven, everything else should automatically be reversed since he could not legally be considered for any of the steps 1-4 above. Congress wouldn’t have to impeach a POTUS since Obama could not legally be POTUS. So he’d just simply need to be removed from the premises, (hopefully arrested on any number of fraud, perjury, treason?, etc. charges,) and then have Congress follow the steps prescribed by the Constitution to recognize Biden as (acting) POTUS.

    I realize that it isn’t that simple. But I believe that the house-of-cards analysis is valid in this application, and that may nullify any arguments against challenges to a sitting POTUS.

    [Ed. it’s probably not going to be adjudicated at all, but the only possible way it will ever happen now is through QW. ]

  31. Sounds great.But Ed Hale will blow this for you.He already came up with a new scheme.He claims he’s got millions of dollars available from some investors that contacted him.Good grief!He does this every time.And when it doen’t pan out,he’ll say-“AAWWW.it was obots.Ed dun did made another mistake”Leo,this is too important to allow Ed to destroy what you are trying to educate people.We can help you get on other shows.Just ask your readers.Plains Radio is not for people that are serious about this matter.I don’t mean the gullible listeners,but the owner.

    [Ed. It’s not the only people I’ll talk to. I needed to get the message out tonight and they happened to get in touch… spread the word, I’m talking to whoever. Let’s go.]

  32. […] section of the brief contains important new information supporting the conclusions discussed in Part 1 of this legal brief [my […]

  33. KatyinIndy Says:


    I cannot believe you were back on Plains Radio! All of the decent people have left there! Ed made comments about you that you should know about. Ed said that you were a plant by the Obama Team through JimBot, a person in the chat room. He told a long story of how you were being paid to pretend to be challenging Obama when all the while, you were being paid and worked for the Obama Team!

    Surely you haven’t forgotten Ed’s story about Obama having AIDS and herpes; not to mention, that he shot a Bigfoot – twice!

    Ed is all about the money – he is now charging $10/month for his chat room. Get a clue & dump this lying varmint like the rest of us decent conservatives have!

    [Ed I know about all that. I forgive him. He apologized and admitted his mistakes. I’m easy to make up with. If Obama would have stuck around the chess tournament in Philly (he stayed at the hotel during the tourney that I won…) I would have had a drink with him at the bar as well… screw it, let’s believe in miracles. Love will win everything. Everything.]

  34. Leo, I admire you as a humble Christian and your willingness to forgive, but some people are self-serving and repentant in word only. Your testimony this evening was powerful and God will be gloirfied. We invite you to pease come visit the Patriot’s Heart Network. You are greatly admired and prayed for in our group. We will support you in any way possible. We also have a radio network with many listeners, a prayer warriors group, chatroom, volunteer groups, personal pages and blogs. Our focus is to unite all the Patriot Groups that are striving to restore our country and oust the Usurper in any manner possible under the Constitution. We are uniting for one purpose and we are putting our personal differences aside for the common good of our great America, our home, God bless her.
    You are welcome at Patriot’s Heart Network any time. Any one of our hosts would be delighted to have you as a guest to assist you in spreading the word of your latest endeavour. http://www.patriotsheartnetwork.com
    Please know that you have a large group of supporters who lift your name in prayer and who seek favor on your efforts, an endowment of wisdom and a final sucess which will deliver our beloved mother land out of the hands of the usurper. If you have any needs please let us know we will move Heaven and Earth to help you accomplish your goals.
    Yours in His service,

  35. Personally, I don’t care if Ed was married to Bigfoot and gave birth to the Obama twin. If Ed can bring attention to Leo’s Quo Warranto and rally patriots who are willing to help with this Constitutional Crisis, it’s a very good thing.

    Neither Rush nor Hannity have the courage to talk about it!

  36. Stephanie Says:

    Leo, Have you tried the Steve Malzberg show WOR 710. He interviewed Orly Taitz a week ago & they were both excellent. He is bright, polite & he has good questions. Thank you for your hard work.

    [Ed Please read my previous blog post on that particular edition of the Steve Malzberg show. Just scroll down a bit. Mistakes were made on that interview.]

  37. USE the official source,
    and again, you have to make certain you comply with the DETAILS of
    28 USC Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 81 (2) quo warranto,
    because your opponents will dwell on the details of procedure!
    now, also,
    always use the official source in your briefs!
    1 USC Section 205 District of Columbia Code shall be printed at the Government Printing Office; Library of Congress is directed to cooperate in preparation
    put 1 in the title box and 205 in the section box
    on left click on Law Library of Congress
    put in search box
    “district of columbia code”
    and it takes you to
    Welcome to the online source for the
    District of Columbia Official Code
    where you can scroll down on left to
    Title 16 Particular Actions, Proceedings
    then Chapter 25. Quo Warranto
    click the +
    go to subchapter I. Actions Against Officers of the
    United States
    and read all the links,
    then go back
    to http://uscode.house.gov
    and double check the details of
    28 USC Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 81
    (2) these rules are applicable to proceedings for
    quo warranto, to the extent that the practice of such
    proceedings is not set forth in statutes of the U.S.,

    just make sure to double check procedure
    because your opponents will
    double check any instance of the federal law
    where quo warranto exists

  38. Leo,

    You have discussed two Senators that were removed in the early history of the US. You have researched all the Presidents with respect to their Constitutional qualifications.

    Shouldn’t the historical membership of Congress be reviewed to find all those members who served without being qualified and without being removed?

    I have a list of Senators from the Senate website.
    The representatives are harder to get.

    Apparently the Constitution does not require citizenship, residency, or a minimum age for judicial appointments. The “judgment” of the “judges” is wholly in the hands the Senate.






    get foreign investors to make a movie proving REASONABLE DOUBT!

  40. […] review of this issue, please see my prior series of posts entitled, Quo Warranto Legal Brief: part 1, part 2, and part […]

  41. […] see the President removed or to even have him face an inquiry as to his eligibility.  (See parts 1, 2 and 3 of my legal brief on quo […]

  42. […] see the President removed or to even have him face an inquiry as to his eligibility.  (See parts 1, 2 and 3 of my legal brief on quo […]

  43. […] Many of you may be under the impression that the only remedy to remove a President found to be usurping the office would be through the impeachment process powers granted to the United States Congress in the Constitution, but that would be inaccurate.  As Leo Donofrio argues in part one of his three part brief: …Congress has delegated that authority to the District Court of the District of Columbia by providing for the removal of the President (and other public officers) by quo warranto where the President is found to be a usurper to the office even if he assumed the office with a good faith belief he was eligible. [i] […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: