Archive for the Uncategorized Category


Posted in Uncategorized on January 27, 2021 by naturalborncitizen

[UPDATE: This will be my final post. Last time this blog went dark for eight years. I don’t expect to be back. I have published everything I had to say.]

This will be a short post (for me). Because it’s a simple question. Simple logic determines the answer. Congress has enacted a federal statute designed specifically to test a federal office holder’s right to office. The federal quo warranto statute is located in the Code of Law for the District of Columbia at Chapter 35. § 16-3501 states:

“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 United States Supreme Court has held that this statute applies to any office of the United States. In 2011, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed the statute applies specifically to the Office of President of the United States.

Quo warranto is the exact legal process in our national history used to correct election fraud, error, or lawlessness. For example, in a case from 2003, New York’s highest court held that when a voting machine jammed, causing just 37 votes to be challenged, a writ of quo warranto was the proper procedure, stating:

“Challenges to the outcome of a general election based upon alleged voting machine malfunctions necessarily fall within the purview of quo warranto.”

Will Congress impeach themselves for that body having previously enacted a statute to contest election results? § 16-3545 states that Biden/Harris will be ousted from the Office of President if the evidence goes against them:

“Where a defendant in a quo warranto proceeding is found by the jury to have usurped, intruded into, or unlawfully held or exercised an office or franchise, the verdict shall be that he is guilty of the act or acts in question, and judgment shall be rendered that he be ousted and excluded therefrom and that the relator recover his costs.”

Isn’t any talk of ousting Biden from office now considered an impeachable offense by Congress? Are they going to impeach and remove themselves for allowing this statute to exist? In New York, the Court of Appeals (which is their highest tribunal) must also be impeached and removed then. Insanity.

The problem in America right now isn’t folks asking questions about the 2020 federal election. The problem is that the nation needs a better understanding of law. Had the nation been informed that our system of jurisprudence has always provided a legal means to investigate election irregularities after a person is sworn in, perhaps the riot at the Capitol would never have happened.


Censorship of facts and law can do nothing but destroy America. I honestly believe big tech is trying to do just that. The blood is on the hands of the censors, not the people asking questions. There are no stupid questions. Only stupid replies. And when questions are so obvious, stupid replies stand out.

Therefore, the censors will stop the questions rather than give stupid answers. When folks can’t ask questions, violence may unfortunately happen. I condemn all violence. Those who invaded the Capitol should be prosecuted. But the censors bear great responsibility along with the criminals who broke the law. I believe in the law. So should you. But if you censor the law, if you censor quo warranto, then you create conditions for lawlessness to flourish.

Frustrated hopeless individuals will do desperate things. The law provides hope. And even if you lose in court, at least you were not suppressed from bringing your case. Regarding the 2020 election, the law provides a statute, a venue, and a procedure to bring the receipts of election fraud, or even just plain error. That law is a writ of quo warranto.

By censoring the law, both Congress and big tech are playing a very dangerous game. Perhaps that’s why the nation’s Capitol is on lockdown? Censoring legal speech is dangerous. I don’t believe big tech is trying to stop violence by doing it. These are brilliant people. They know exactly what they are doing by censoring legal speech protected by the 1st Amendment.

Big tech is attacking the 1st Amendment, and by doing so they expect violence. Unfortunately, some folks fell for the trap, and now they must be prosecuted. And as long as people stay on those platforms, they are giving power to the violent intentions of big tech. You hold the power in your clicks, your wallets, and your choices.


And as for this impeachment now, just read the title to this post again. We are no longer a nation governed by law, if the conduct codified by a Congressional statute can also be the very basis of an impeachment.

Donald J. Trump – while President – questioned the legality of Biden’s election. Congress has enacted a statute for this very behavior. How can Congress impeach Trump for the very conduct they condoned by enacting a law to facilitate? How can partaking in that legal behavior be a high crime or misdemeanor? It can’t. It isn’t. And this impeachment was designed to scare Trump and the nation from examining the one legal procedure which could oust Biden from the Office of President.

Quo warranto is the law. Know the law. Give the right law in the right venue a chance.

[Special thanks to for covering my work on quo warranto. Check out their podcast today on big tech censoring quo warranto. It inspired this post.]


Posted in Uncategorized on January 23, 2021 by naturalborncitizen

Donald J. Trump, please pay close attention to the following legal strategy. You can’t sit back on defense for the Senate’s pending attack on America. This so called impeachment trial fiasco is aimed at stopping the American people from holding the line concerning election fraud, error and blatant lawlessness in the 2020 election. If you are still willing to COUNTERPUNCH, rather than meekly playing defense, then you MUST bring the receipts to institute an action in quo warranto to oust Joe Biden and Kamala Harris from office right now.


We have all heard this type of no comment interview parry before, “We cannot interfere with pending federal court litigation.” You need pending litigation in the D.C. District Court, President Trump, and you need it before the Senate trial begins. How can the Senate try you, when pending litigation has yet to be decided or dismissed by a federal district court?

If your behavior on January 6th in telling people to march peacefully to support the Representatives and Senators contesting the election is a high crime or misdemeanor, then the D.C. District Court must dismiss a pending quo warranto suit, the D.C.. Court of Appeals must affirm such dismissal, and the United States Supreme Court must also confirm dismissal prior to the Senate trial. If you have instituted quo warranto, and the Court has not dismissed it, then the Senate trial is premature. This is why you must use the quo warranto statute tactically now.

If the federal Judiciary seeks to retain any semblance of normalcy in the face of such a massive prima facie case showing evidence of fraud, error and lawlessness supported by hundreds of sworn affidavits, the favorable Wisconsin Supreme Court decision, video evidence, and voting machine irregularities, it will be required to allow a jury trial under the statute. These are issues of fact. And issues of fact get a trial in the version of America we all remember.

The law specifically designed for this by Congress – the same tribunal attempting to convict you – is the federal quo warranto statute. How can they convict you for insurrection, if their entire case is built around punishing you for contesting the election, when they themselves have enacted a federal statute giving all federal election contests for fraud, error and lawlessness a venue in the D.C. District Court?

How can the Senate seriously convict you for availing yourself of their own laws?

It’s a good question, right? How can your behavior be a high crime or misdemeanor, if Congress has enacted a statute to specifically accommodate such behavior? It’s an absurd impeachment for the very reason that they have impeached you for behavior they themselves, as Congress assembled, enacted legislation to support and accommodate.

Therefore, in order to take advantage of the argument I am making, you must institute an action for quo warranto immediately. Then you can make this rational argument. But until you avail yourself of their own law to contest a bogus election, then you can’t make this argument effectively. Your failure to institute quo warranto will leave history with the relevant question of why you didn’t.

Cloak yourself in their law. If the very act of alleging fraud, error and lawlessness is what they are impeaching you for, then why did Congress enact the quo warranto statute? Has there ever been a quo warranto action with such a plethora of irregularities, and hundreds of witnesses swearing under oath to election atrocities?

What the hell did Congress intend when they enacted the federal quo warranto statute, if not that it should apply to a moment like this?

This is a rational important question that America needs to be focused on. But only by requesting the DOJ to bring quo warranto and filing a verified complaint can you make the proper use of both the question and the law.


Build it and they will come.”

Just change the words to, bring it and they will come. Quo warranto that is. Bring it and just like in the Texas case, other states will join you. The State Legislatures in Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin can intervene in the quo warranto as interested parties. In fact, they can bring their own actions in quo warranto. Other states will enter briefs in support as amici curiae, just as they did in the Texas case.

Let’s all go back to near midnight on December 7th, 2020. The State of Texas filed a massive original jurisdiction action at SCOTUS laying out the facts of complete and utter lawlessness having overtaken the electoral process in four states. On December 9th, you intervened, and on that same day, the State of Missouri and sixteen other states filed an amici curiae brief together. Read Point 3 of that brief – filed by seventeen States:

“The Bill of Complaint Alleges that the Defendant States Unconstitutionally Abolished Critical Safeguards Against Fraud in Voting by Mail”

So here we had Texas, supported by seventeen States of the Union, going to the United States Supreme Court alleging that the Defendant States created the conditions for fraud to flourish by abandoning laws enacted by their Legislatures to combat unlawful election activity. And now Congress wants to remove your ability to ever hold office for joining that suit.

How can it be a high crime or misdemeanor if eighteen States of the Union supported it? This is a damned witch hunt. Just like Russia. Just like Ukraine. Our legal norms are being eroded by this witch hunt and you need to COUNTERPUNCH rather than play defense. Quo warranto is the offensive tactic called for.

Texas and those seventeen States will join you, by directly intervening in quo warranto, bringing their own quo warranto, or at the very least entering briefs on your behalf. And all of this prior election litigation will be entered into the verified complaint for quo warranto. The Texas case was decided on standing, not the merits. The proper venue for standing is the D.C. District Court. So go there, and they will come.


This is a good spot to alert your legal team, should they actually be considering quo warranto, about the passive way the Attorney General and U.S. Attorney have deflected quo warranto actions in the past. § 16-3503 of the statute states:

“If the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of the United States, on the relation of the interested person…”

The term “interested person” pertains to those parties who have an interest in the office being challenged by quo warranto which is a more particular interest than just members of the public at large. The statute gives any “third person” the right to relate facts concerning an illegal election to the AG and/or US Attorney, but if the DOJ officials refuse to act, ordinary third persons can’t take it any further.

However, if those third persons are also interested persons, they can go around the DOJ officials and file a certified petition with the D.C. District Court requesting leave to issue the writ bringing Biden/Harris into court to defend. If the Court finds the petition is sufficient in law, then the writ will issue, and there will be a jury trial if either party requests a jury.

It’s very important to take notice of the language in 16-3503, “sufficient in law”. This means that when the D.C. District Court exercises it’s discretion, it does not do so by judging the actual facts certified in the petition. Instead, the statute requires that the petition only be analyzed by the Court as to the law. If the law provides for an action in quo warranto, based on the allegations of fact in the petition, then the petition is sufficient in law, and the action proceeds to the fact-finding stage. §16-3544 states:

“Issues of fact shall be tried by a jury if either party requests it. Otherwise they shall be determined by the court.”

This illustrates my point, in that the court decides whether to allow the action, not based on their own view of the allegations, as that will be left to the jury, or to the court later, after the writ is issued, should neither party request a jury. When you initially request leave of the court to file the action, after a refusal of the DOJ officials, the court’s decision whether to allow the action to go forward is not based on an examination of the ultimate veracity of your allegations, but whether the petition is sufficient in law.

In other words, if the fraud, error, or lawlessness described in your petition were proved true, the petition is sufficient in law if you are an interested person asking for the specific relief offered by the statute. The analysis here is similar to a motion for summary judgment in a personal injury case.

Whenever you bring a law suit for personal injury, the other side will consider a motion for summary judgment, and the court can only dismiss the case if, after reading all of the plaintiff’s allegations of fact as being true, no basis in law exists for the suit.

So, if you fell in a grocery store, and it’s not clear whether the fall was due to your own clumsiness, or negligence of the store, the court will not dismiss the case on summary judgment, because in order to grant such dismissal, the court must assume negligence on the part of the store, but find that the law provides no relief for such negligence.

If the store was on government property, and you failed to file a notice of claim within 30 days, as required by law, then your case can be dismissed on summary judgment, even if the court assumes your allegations of negligence are correct. Your complaint is insufficient in law, because you failed to file the requisite notice of claim.

I make this point to stress that while the D.C. District Court has discretion to determine whether the writ can be issued to bring Biden/Harris into court, that discretion, by the very text of the statute, is limited to sufficiency in law, not fact. And the determination whether the petition is sufficient in law is subject to review in the D.C. Court of Appeals and at SCOTUS based on long established legal norms.

I know those norms have been habitually violated in persecuting the Trump administration by activist jurists, but with every norm that is blatantly violated in trying to “get Trump”, the very rot in the system that governs all of us becomes more exposed to us as a nation.

And perhaps that is God’s design in full view. President Trump is not a perfect man, but he has stood up for the American People against the rotten federal deep state apparatus. And in doing so, Donald Trump has singlehandedly allowed the poisonous snake to bite him, again and again.

Trump is literally a deep state snake handler sucking all of the poisonous venom out of this corrupt federal old boy globalist cabal to defend the American People from it. And their persecution of Trump is not about him…at all. It’s about punishing us for getting in the way of their cartel. Full stop.


DOJ officials are going to hamper any quo warranto action’s potential, whether by Trump or State Legislatures, by not responding at all. They have tried this before and it has worked before. In Sibley v. Obama, 866 F.Supp.2d 17, 20 (2012), the D.C. District Court held as follows:

“Furthermore, as a matter of statute, plaintiff is not entitled to institute a quo warranto proceeding himself. Under Chapter 16, § 3503 of the District of Columbia Code, an ‘interested person’ may institute such a proceeding only if the Attorney General and the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia refuse to institute one on his request. Plaintiff submitted a request to Holder and Machen for them to begin a quo warranto action in November 2011, but he has not received an answer from them. Plaintiff has cited no law to support his assertion that a lack of response in this context should be considered a refusal. Since the refusal condition of D.C.Code § 16-3503 has not been met, plaintiff’s quo warranto petition is not ripe.”

That opinion was issued in June 2012, seven months after the plaintiff had contacted the DOJ in November of 2011. The DOJ did not respond at all to the request of plaintiff to institute quo warranto against President Obama. In not responding at all, neither to deny the request or grant it, the court held that, under the statute, an interested person’s right to petition the court directly was not ripe until the DOJ actually refuses.

This creates an absurdity in the law, in that if this ridiculous analysis is correct, the DOJ can stop all interested parties simply by never responding at all. Of course we have precedents to overrule absurdity. Under the absurdity doctrine, a court must construe the statute by applying the plain meaning of the text used unless it would lead to absurd or nonsensical results that the legislature could not possibly have ever intended.

In this case, clearly, the statute mentions three categories of potential plaintiffs; third persons; interested persons (a subset of third persons); and persons claiming true title to the office in question (a subset of interested persons). The statute means that third persons who are not interested parties may never bring the action without DOJ consent.

But the statute also makes clear, at § 16-3523, that when the DOJ refuses, “any attorney” can bring the action in the name of the United States on the relation of an “interested person”, if the court finds the petition “sufficient in law”. It would be a flagrant violation of the absurdity doctrine should the DOJ be able to stop all interested parties from having their day in court by not responding at all.

Furthermore, the statute’s section regarding such refusal has an official title:

“§ 16–3523. Refusal of United States attorney or Attorney General of the District of Columbia to act; procedures.”

When the federal quo warranto statute was originally enacted in 1901, this title was different, reading:

“§1540 If Attorney-General and District Attorney Refuse.”

The statute was updated in later years, substituting the U.S. Attorney for the D.C. District Attorney, because the U.S. Attorney is more proper to challenge the lawful title of national offices such as President, as opposed to local officials. But the title of this section of code was also updated to add the words “to act”, and “procedure”, rather than just refuse.

This is important, because the statute now regards “refusal to act” in the title, rather than the previous simple refusal. And the title of § 16-3523 also mentions the “procedure” following such lack of action.

The plaintiff in Sibley v. Obama should have pointed this out to the Court, because both the title of the section, and the words thereunder, indicate that a refusal to act triggers the right of an interested party to petition the Court directly. If the statute had required a written or verbal refusal, the Court’s holding would be less absurd, but the statute only mentions “refusal to act” in the title, and refusal to “institute a quo warranto proceeding” in the text. Therefore, the Court obviously erred in denying that the case was ripe. It is lack of action by the DOJ that makes it ripe. Seven months of no action is certainly a refusal to act or institute.


Trump can make very good use of this absurd precedent in the D.C. District Court by immediately requesting that the Attorney General, and/or the U.S. Attorney, institute an action in quo warranto to test the lawful title of Biden/Harris to their current offices.

Under the statute, Trump must do this before he can petition the court directly. But if the DOJ officials simply do nothing, attempting to stop him from ever petitioning the Court directly, Trump can rely on Sibley v. Obama in his motion to dismiss the impeachment, because the quo warranto request will still be pending before the DOJ.

If the DOJ officials have not refused to institute quo warranto, then – according to the D.C. District Court’s precedent – the DOJ officials are still considering it. And if Biden’s own DOJ will not refuse to bring an action in quo warranto against him, then how can Trump be impeached for questioning the legality of the election?

This is why Trump must officially request that Biden’s DOJ institute quo warranto against Biden immediately. It creates a catch 22 for them. If they do officially refuse Trump’s request, this makes his case ripe to petition the D.C. District Court directly. But if Biden’s DOJ pulls the same tactic as was done to the plaintiff in Sibley v. Obama, then Trump can rely on the precedent stating that the DOJ is still considering an action against Biden to oust him from the Office of President.

And if Biden’s own DOJ won’t stand up for him by officially refusing to institute a quo warranto to oust him from the Office of President, then how can the Senate convict Trump for insurrection resulting from his questioning the legality of the election? It’s all a ridiculous absurdity.

Let the poison flow out from the wound. Institute a quo warranto request now. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain, possibly the Office of President of the United States of America.


Posted in Uncategorized on January 19, 2021 by naturalborncitizen

See my previous reports for case law and analysis of the federal quo warranto statute. The bottom line is that SCOTUS has held that an election of any United States official can be challenged based on fraud or error by a writ of quo warranto. And the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that the proper venue to challenge the election of a sitting President is the D.C. District Court. We have a statute. We have a venue. Bring the receipts, President Trump.

If you don’t bring the receipts by quo warranto, then you will have quit. It’s all in or all out. There’s no other options left. This must be done. You have to give the proper law in the proper venue a chance. If you quit now, it will be broadcast as an admission that there was no fraud, error, or lawlessness by election officials.

As soon as Biden is sworn in, you can file the complaint. The gaslighting of America will only end by counter-punching with a verified complaint showing all of the evidence. Then comes a jury trial.

Furthermore, because of the widespread persecution of politicians who supported an investigation of the election, such as Georgia State Senators Brandon Beach and Burt Jones, alternative standing as interested persons under the quo warranto statute has been created for them to bring quo warranto actions too.

Beach and Jones were both stripped of their committee chairs. Therefore, they now have standing to petition the D.C. District Court to try the case before a jury, because that is the only way they can now prove their innocence and justification.

Simply put, the anti-MAGA conspirators have overplayed their hand in persecuting stop the steal politicians and patriotic citizens. In doing so, they caused very real injuries that need adjudication. These parties now have an interest in quo warranto which is unique and particular to them as opposed to the general public at large. Such particular injuries create unique standing.

Nobody right now is talking about quo warranto other than at this blog. That will change soon. We are a nation of laws. And we have an established means of testing elections. Those means, laws, cases, etc. have existed from the very start of our nation.

Challenging elections for fraud or error is nothing new or shocking in American Jurisprudence. So why the hysteria now? Because they know we have the receipts. And they know quo warranto is the legal procedure designed by Congress to bring them. Congress enacted the quo warranto statute. It’s their baby. There are literally hundreds of quo warranto cases on election fraud or error, if not thousands, in our national history.

In a recent New York case, a quo warranto action was deemed proper to challenge an election when the voting machine jammed causing just 37 votes to be questioned. Compare that to Coffee County in Georgia, where the local officials refused to verify the Presidential election this year because they could not get a voting machine to give consistent results.

No fraud was even suggested in the New York case, and you don’t even need to prove fraud when simple error can be shown. And there were other voting machine discrepancies in other counties as well. Add to all of this the missing postal service truck filled with ballots; the poll watcher complaints; the election statutes that were violated; late ballots counted for weeks after the election in violation of federal statute 3 U.S.C. § 1. There exists a plethora of election irregularities far beyond the amount of evidence needed to survive a motion for summary judgment.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court actually gave Trump a huge win when it held that election officials provided an illegal definition of indefinitely confined status which resulted in approximately 200,000 illegal votes being cast where the margin of victory was only 20,000 votes. That alone is sufficient to challenge the results in Wisconsin.

The Pennsylvania Legislature asked Mike Pence – on January 5th – for an extension to possibly decertify their electors after they discovered 202,377 more votes may have been counted than were actually cast. Election officials in Pennsylvania certified the results without accounting for the discrepancy. This particular issue alone is enough for Sean Parnell to bring a quo warranto regarding his lead vanishing in the middle of the night.

None of these issues were debunked. They were denied. There’s a difference. And in our system of law, when sworn affidavits are brought, the plaintiff gets their day in court where a jury decides whether allegations have been debunked. Issues of triable fact have been raised by witnesses who have subjected themselves to perjury. They deserve their day in court too. Let the jury decide. That’s how we do it in the USA.

Put Congress at the top of the conspiracy theory pyramid for enacting a federal statute to challenge the validity of federal elections. Under their quo warranto statute anyone who ran for federal office that has the receipts must now bring them to the D.C. District Court where a jury trial on the merits awaits.

In the weeks ahead, I will be publishing more research on strategies and analysis for those who either had an election stolen from them, or who have been persecuted for trying to stop the steal.

All of the cases brought before the election were not quo warranto actions, and therefore such cases faced difficult procedural hurdles. All were also somewhat premature in that quo warranto actions may be instituted only after the contested office is taken over.

I can assure you that Biden and Pelosi and the whole anti-MAGA universe is focused on misdirecting your attention from quo warranto. So far they have done a good job of manipulating attention spans. We need to steer the ship back on course. Defending their bogus attacks is the wrong tactic. The COUNTERPUNCH is quo warranto. We will see you in court.

What you are witnessing now in D.C. is an attempt to criminalize use of the law, research, investigations and discussion. War has been declared on the MAGA movement. Our weapon is the law. Don’t give up on it yet. It may still save us.


QUO WARRANTO: The Two Words Biden & Pelosi Fear Most

Posted in Uncategorized on January 12, 2021 by naturalborncitizen

 I can confirm that Rudy Giuliani has been reading the research published on this page. I am not aware of any decision yet, but the MAGA nation must get up to speed now. Don’t be distracted. Quo Warranto is where your attention needs to be. Ignore all the fake shiny objects. President Trump has a clear judicial path to four more years, the next four years, not 2024.

Below are the major precedents and links to the statute and prior research. Please get this information out everywhere. Fear of President Trump filing a quo warranto action in the D.C. District Court is driving the new impeachment and 25th Amendment fallacies.


These are pure bluffs being used as bargaining chips to get President Trump off focus on quo warranto. The impeachment procedure requires 17 Republican Senators to comply. And there are not 17 Republican Senators willing to permanently destroy their political careers for Biden & Pelosi. She needs 2/3rds of the Senate to convict an impeachment. Without a conviction, impeachment is nothing more than a failed indictment ending with an acquittal. Does Pelosi really want to see President Trump acquitted again? No. This is bluff #1. Ignore it.

So what about the 25th Amendment? That’s even more delusional, as ultimately Pelosi will need 2/3rds of both the House and the Senate to make it stick. This is bluff #2.

Read the entire 25th Amendment, and then it will be clear that even if Pelosi could get Pence and a majority of executive branch officers to commit to a coup, she still needs 2/3rds of the House and Senate to override Trump’s essential veto which is written in the actual text of the 25th Amendment at Section 4, clause 2, which states:

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.(Emphasis added.)

Ok, so even if Pelosi initially pulls it off under Section 4, clause 1, the 25th Amendment at Section 4, clause 2 says, “Thereafter”, meaning immediately thereafter, even one second thereafter, the President can transmit a written declaration that no disability exists. And then Pelosi will need 2/3rds of both the House and the Senate to override the President’s transmission. And that ain’t gonna happen, people.

They are bluffing, and President Trump must immediately call their bluffs by filing an action for quo warranto in the D.C. District Court to oust Biden from the office of President. Below are the two main judicial precedents which verify President Trump can, in fact, bring an action there for a jury trial to oust Biden from office based on either fraud or even just plain error.


§ 16-3544:

“In a quo warranto proceeding…Issues of fact shall be tried by a jury if either party requests it. Otherwise they shall be determined by the court.”

And don’t think a skilled trial attorney can’t find a fair jury in D.C. Voir Dire is a science, and with social media it’s now a very exact science. By far, a jury trial to determine the legality of the election is our best bet. There’s a very good reason why most civil cases settle rather than go to a jury. It’s called uncertainty.

And all of the evidence gathered in all of the states will be entered, with sworn affidavits, in the verified complaint that initiates the action. Furthermore, the D.C. District Court will be required to take Judicial Notice of the decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court that officials there invited illegal voting by encouraging voters to violate the law claiming indefinitely confined status.


“In 1902 Congress adopted a District Code, containing a Chapter on quo warranto which though modeled after the English statute differed therefrom in several material particulars. The writ was treated as a civil remedy; it was not limited to proceedings against municipal officers, but to all persons who in the District exercised any office, civil or military.” Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537, 544 (1915).

Note that the United States Supreme Court’s opinion here itself put these words in italics; all; and any office, civil or military.

And the 9th Circuit affirmed that the federal quo warranto statute is the proper means by which a Presidential election can be challenged after the suspect POTUS is sworn in:

“Plaintiffs concede that the District Court for the District of Columbia is the proper venue to issue a writ of quo warranto under D.C.Code § 16-3503…The District Court properly dismissed Plaintiff’s quo warranto claims under D.C.Code § 16-3503, because the proper venue to file such claims against the President of the United States would be the District of Columbia.  See D.C.Code § 16-3501.” Drake v. Obama, 664 F.3d 774, 784 (2011).

Review the federal quo warranto statute here.

Prior research reports are here and here.

The law provides an answer. If President Trump refuses to initiate quo warranto, then he can never claim to have given our law and Judiciary a chance to make things right. This is the exact law enacted for this moment. And SCOTUS knows this. Perhaps it’s why they haven’t dismissed any of the election law suits still pending for mootness.

And perhaps this is why SCOTUS denied all motions to expedite yesterday. While expedition was denied, it’s important to note that SCOTUS did not dismiss the actions brought by President Trump, Lin Wood or Sidney Powell as being moot. Why didn’t SCOTUS dismiss all of the election cases as being moot? It’s a fair question. The answer must be that determinations in those cases can be used as evidence in a quo warranto action.

The pending election actions at SCOTUS do not require expedition at this time, because quo warranto can be used to oust a usurper only after they take office. This is also why these cases aren’t moot. Perhaps we will all owe SCOTUS an apology when this is done. I would love to be wrong. I will get down on my knees and beg forgiveness if it plays out like this.

Let’s give the law a chance to work, America. Our nation is based on one legal document, the Constitution. It may yet save us.

LD 1.12.21

9th Circuit: Quo Warranto In DC District Court Is Proper Action For Trump To Contest Biden’s Election Based On Fraud

Posted in Uncategorized on January 11, 2021 by naturalborncitizen

In my previous post, I discussed a Writ of Quo Warranto – the very statute specifically enacted by Congress to challenge fraudulent or mistaken federal election results. I explained that a sitting President could be ousted from the White House by a civil jury at the District Court for the District of Columbia if fraud or even just plain error led to a President having been erroneously elected.

If this happens, the person ousted is not considered to have ever been President. The wrongful election is void. That’s the difference between quo warranto and impeachment. The law removes a legally sworn in President by impeachment for conduct while in office. But the law removes an illegally sworn in person by the statutory Writ of Quo Warranto, regardless of conduct.

I promised further research, and having found a perfect case from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, I will keep this post short and punchy. If anyone tells you that a President of the United States can only be removed from office by the impeachment process, send them here.

In Drake v. Obama, 664 F.3d 774 (2011), a class of various plaintiffs sued in federal district court in California to challenge President Obama’s eligibility after he had been sworn in as President. The class consisted of citizens, military, ex-military, state legislators, third party candidates and their electors. Alan Keys was running for President, with Wiley Drake as his VP. The district court dismissed most of the claims based on lack of standing, but with regard to the candidates/electors, the claim was dismissed, not on standing, but on jurisdiction. The district court held that the only proper venue for a federal quo warranto action was in the D.C. District Court, not in California.

On appeal, the 9th Circuit affirmed, holding that a federal quo warranto action must be brought under the quo warranto statute enacted by Congress. And since this was the direct holding in the case, the following quote is precedent:

“The District Court properly dismissed Plaintiff’s quo warranto claims under D.C.Code § 16-3503, because the proper venue to file such claims against the President of the United States would be the District of Columbia. See D.C.Code § 16-3501;” Drake v. Obama, 664 F.3d at 784.

There it is. The most liberal federal judicial circuit in the nation held that a sitting President may be subjected to defending a quo warranto action for removal in the D.C. District Court, pursuant to the federal quo warranto statute, § 16-3501.

This is the proper legal procedure. The candidate plaintiffs in Drake v. Obama had no possibility of winning after the election, and this played into the Court’s statements. But they didn’t need to reach that issue, as the case was brought in the wrong venue. The actual holding of the case states that “the proper venue to file such claims against the President of the United States would be the District of Columbia.”. Therefore, the Court’s statement on venue is the established precedent of the case.

The Court specifically held that a sitting President can be subjected to defending his election by a writ of quo warranto brought in the D.C. District Court.

President Trump can never say he exhausted every legal option to present the evidence of election fraud and error before the American people, if he fails to avail himself of the very statute enacted to correct fraud and error in federal elections. The people who bravely testified and signed sworn affidavits deserve their day in court.


Posted in Uncategorized on January 7, 2021 by naturalborncitizen

Here’s the punchline up front: Biden can be ousted from Office by a Writ of Quo Warranto as determined by a civil jury. This is not a fairy-tale. This is not a “Hail Mary”. This is the proper legal procedure our government provides for erroneous or fraudulent elections. And President Trump will have a much better chance of succeeding if he starts the process before Biden is inaugurated. Spread this post everywhere fast. This action needs to be filed yesterday.

If the State Legislatures moved faster in early November, they could have appointed electors then. Biden would have run to SCOTUS and lost. That didn’t happen, but the Legislatures are moving fast now. Pence could have bought them more time. But Pence has failed us. All he had to do is kick it back to the Legislatures for a few days. Instead he gaslighted America by indicating that President Trump asked him to “unilaterally” override the Constitution. No he didn’t. He asked Pence to obey the Constitution over a statute.

The unconstitutional Electoral Count Act of 1887 is virtually unreadable. Nobody understands it. Nobody can say if it’s even a statute or a legislative rule. (Don’t believe me? Read this.) But we certainly know that it does not override the Constitution, which grants the Legislatures plenary authority over who gets the electors. So why didn’t Pence let Biden run to SCOTUS for help? Because Pence is a sad creature of politics. He is as deep state entrenched as you can possibly get. Just ask General Flynn. I haven’t trusted Pence since he threw Flynn to the wolves.

It’s truly a blessing that state legislatures are coming around to see the actual fraud in their states, and it’s not too late to right the ship. President Trump can institute a statutory Writ of Quo Warranto. This is a rarely tested federal statute that gives Trump a genuine chance for a jury to decide whether the election was stolen.


Chapter 35 from The Code of the District of Columbia is entitled “Quo Warranto”. § 16–3501 states:

“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 President is a public officer of the United States. If the President obtained the office by fraudulent means, or by mistake in the electing process then he unlawfully holds the office, and a Writ of Quo Warranto may be issued to oust him from that office.

§ 16-3502 of the Quo Warranto statute states that the proceeding may be instituted by the Attorney General or the U.S. Attorney without leave of the District Court. That means if Trump moves fast – before Biden puts a new AG in – the current AG or U.S. Attorney may bring the action without seeking a Judge’s permission. If Attorney General Rosen and U.S. Attorney Sherwin are unwilling to bring the case, then Trump can petition for leave of the District Court on his own relation under § 16-3503. If the District Court allows Trump to bring it, any attorney can act in the name of the United States:

§ 16-3541: When a quo warranto proceeding is against a person for usurping an office, on the relation of a person claiming the same office, the relator shall set forth in his petition the facts upon which he claims to be entitled to the office.

If the facts are sufficient, then comes a trial and judgment:

§ 16-3544: Issues of fact shall be tried by a jury if either party requests it. Otherwise they shall be determined by the court.

§ 16-3545: Where a defendant in a quo warranto proceeding is found by the jury to have usurped, intruded into, or unlawfully held or exercised an office or franchise, the verdict shall be that he is guilty of the act or acts in question, and judgment shall be rendered that he be ousted and excluded therefrom and that the relator recover his costs.

And that, America, is how it’s done. This is now the only way forward. And Trump needs to bring two counts in order to get the process started immediately. If he waits until Biden is sworn in, his chances of the new AG, or U.S. Attorney, bringing the action go way down. Rosen and Sherwin might not do it either, but we know for sure Biden’s men won’t. Unlike the Republicans, the Democrats are a real party. They NEVER break ranks the way Pence did yesterday. The District Court Judge will have to sit in judgment of the petition’s evidence before it goes to a jury, unless the AG or U.S. Attorney institutes the case. If the Judge punts, he could get overturned on appeal, but it would be much better not to bother with judicial approval.

Biden is not President yet. But he is “President-Elect”. § 16-3501 applies to “a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States“. According to the Presidential Transition Act, the President-Elect is entitled to a massive monetary budget to prepare for taking office, and that my friends makes his status a government franchise. This is why the action can be instituted immediately against Biden regarding his status as President-Elect. Trump can add another count to the action, challenging for the actual Office of President, only after Biden is sworn in as president.


The case will be styled, United States v. Joe Biden, and we get a jury trial. If Trump has to pray leave of the District Court to file, and the Judge refuses, he can appeal – with guaranteed standing – to the DC Circuit, and then to SCOTUS. Standing is directly granted by the statute.

In a follow up post, I will do a deep dive on various Quo Warranto cases, but trust me on this one – standing is granted in the statute. § 16-3503 states: “[T]he interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued.” The case law is quite clear that an “interested person” is the person who would hold the disputed office, but for the unlawful election of the other party. This means that, while every citizen is interested in who is President, we don’t have standing. But Trump does, because his interest is in holding the office. You can take that one to the bank, folks. Trump is the only person who has standing.


At this point you may be asking whether the quo warranto statute conflicts with the Constitution, which states that the President shall be removed from office by impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate. The answer is no. It doesn’t conflict, because if a Writ of Quo Warranto is issued against a United States office holder, that person, in the eyes of the law, has never legally held the office.

The Constitution does say that Congress has the sole authority to impeach and the Senate to convict, and that the President shall be removed upon conviction, but the Constitution does not say that impeachment is the sole means of removing all persons from the office. The Constitution must be read as a whole, not in pieces.

Article I, § 8, cl. 17 states:

The Congress shall have power…To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States,…

Compare the wording of Clause 17 with §16-3501: “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…”

When you read the two back to back, it certainly appears that the Quo Warranto statute is constitutionally provided for. The office of President – being in the District of Columbia – is, of course, governed by the federal quo warranto statute.

Let me make this easy to understand: Impeachment is used to remove a President who was legally sworn in. A Writ of Quo Warranto is used to remove a person who was illegally sworn in as President.

A person unlawfully sworn in is not the President of the United States, and never was President of the United State. His holding the office was a legal fiction. And we have confirmation of this in the Senate.


While the Constitution doesn’t provide for impeachment of Senators or Representatives, it does provide for their “expulsion” by a vote of two thirds of all members of each body respectively.  Article 1, § 5 states:

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

Like impeachment for a President, expulsion is sometimes erroneously assumed to be the only constitutional process by which a Senator or Representative can be removed from office.  But history has proved that false. For example, there have been fifteen Senators removed by the constitutionally enumerated process of expulsion.  But that list doesn’t include James Shields who was removed from a Senate seat in 1849. Shields was removed after it was discovered that he had not been a US citizen for the requisite nine years.  However, he was not removed pursuant to the expulsion power. Instead, the Senate held that his election was entirely void. 

Shields even offered his resignation, but it was not accepted by the Senate. (Congressional Globe, 42d Congress, 2d Session, pg. 222.) Even though he had been sworn in and had served as a Senator until March 1849, his election was made void and the seat declared vacant. The Senate held that he was never an actual Senator, and so his removal is not recorded as an expulsion. You can’t expel a person from an office they never held. Grasp that idea tightly.

The Congressional Globe account of the Shields removal is directly preceded (on pg. 221) by an account of a similar precedent regarding a Mr. Albert Galatin, who was elected to the US Senate from Pennsylvania in 1793. It was later found that he had never become naturalized.  The Senate again voided his election stating that the election wasn’t just “voidable”, but that since there was no way to cure the qualification defect, the election was completely “void”, as if it never happened.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it explicitly state that the Senate may remove a Senator by making a determination that his election was void and that he was a usurper.  But that’s exactly what happened twice.  If the power to remove a usurper wasn’t constitutionally allowed, the Senate couldn’t have voided his election.  But they did. So here is precedent to remove Senators other than by expulsion.  If the Senate can remove a usurper without expelling him, Congress can provide for a usurpation in the Office of President without impeachment. Impeachment is for a legally seated President. Quo Warranto removes an unlawfully seated person who was never legally President.


In Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537, 544 (1915), the United States Supreme Court interpreted the federal quo warranto statute and affirmed that any office of the United States may be vacated by a Writ of Quo Warranto:

“In 1902 Congress adopted a District Code, containing a Chapter on quo warranto which though modeled after the English statute differed therefrom in several material particulars. The writ was treated as a civil remedy; it was not limited to proceedings against municipal officers, but to all persons who in the District exercised any office, civil or military.

Note that the Court itself put “all persons” and “any office” in italics, as this was the very first Supreme Court case to interpret the statute. Read the case. Understand it. Use it.


The history of our nation includes many instances of the writ of quo warranto being issued to correct voter fraud, election fraud, ineligible candidates holding office, and even honest mistakes, or technical failures at polling stations that led to the wrong person taking office. I am preparing a much more in depth brief on such cases, but let’s finish with one very relevant recent example from the State of New York in 2002. In The Matter of Delgado v. Sunderland, 97 N.Y.2d 420 (2002), 767 N.E.2d 171, voting machine error was at issue:

“In this dispute over the November 6, 2001 general election for three seats on the City of White Plains Common Council, petitioner Larry Delgado commenced this Election Law article 16 proceeding by order to show cause initially seeking the impoundment of all voting machines and ballots used in the election, and a recount…He alleged that a voting machine in the City’s 18th Election District jammed, costing him scores of votes and placing Hockley’s election in doubt.”

The Court’s opinion is directly on point to our discussion:

“Supreme Court found, and it is not disputed, that a voting machine malfunctioned in the 18th Election District. The effect of that malfunction, however, remains a disputed issue of fact which cannot be resolved merely by recanvassing. Under these circumstances, the proper vehicle for challenging the results and contesting title to the public office of the purported winner is a quo warranto action, now codified in Executive Law § 63-b (see People ex rel. McLaughlin v. Board of Police Commissioners of City of Yonkers, 174 N.Y. 450). The power to commence a quo warranto action is vested in the Attorney General, to be used only after the alleged ‘usurper“‘has taken office (see Executive Law § 63-b).” (Emphasis added.)

It’s very clear that election disputes come in all shapes and sizes. And we have a long history of statutory law and case precedents for every fact pattern under the sun. Here the Court makes clear that a simple recanvass or recount could not resolve the issue, and that a quo warranto action was called for to determine the cause of the “malfunction”. Therefore, you don’t even need to prove fraud if the voting machines were subject to error.

Also note that the Court highlighted the fact that a quo warranto action can only be brought after the alleged ‘usurper’ has taken office. It’s important here to understand that even if the office holder in this case did nothing wrong, in that a defective voting machine error was the cause of the dispute, the person holding the office is described as a “usurper”. The Court itself put that word in quotation marks.


In 2010, a California attorney named Orly Taitz petitioned the District Court for the District of Columbia to challenge the eligibility of President Obama. Judge Royce Lamberth held that, because she was not an actual candidate for President, she had no standing. Fortunately, the Court issued two in depth written opinions, but the most important aspect of those opinions is what is not written in them. Nowhere in the Court’s opinions do they state that the President of the United States cannot be removed by quo warranto.

Read both opinions here: Taitz v. Obama, 707 F.Supp. 2d 1 (2010); Taitz v. Obama, 707 F. Supp. 2d 57 (2010).

Lamberth also published an egregious mistake that we must debunk right now, because the Court of Appeals decision he relied on also made the same insane error:

“Contrary to plaintiff’s repeated assertions, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has held that only the Attorney General may bring a quo warranto action against a public official. Andrade v. Lauer, 729 F.2d 1475, 1498 (D.C.Cir.1984) (citing United States v. Carmody, 148 F.2d 684, 685 (D.C.Cir. 1945)) (‘[T]his court has stated that actions against public officials (as opposed to actions brought against officers of private corporations) can only be instituted by the Attorney General.’).” Taitz v. Obama, 707 F. Supp. 2d at 59.

This holding would appear to deny President Trump from bringing a quo warranto on his own relation if neither the Attorney General, nor the U.S. Attorney, will agree to institute the action. But this is truly a whopper of a mistake.

The statute is uanmbiguous in granting an interested party standing. Moreover, the statute, at § 16-3503, specifically states that “any attorney” can bring the action. § 16-3503 bears the title: “Refusal of Attorney General or United States attorney to act; procedure.” Therefore, this is the section that details the “procedure” for bringing a quo warranto action specifically when those officials refuse to act. It states:

“If the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of the United States, on the relation of the interested person on his compliance with the condition prescribed by section 16-3502 as to security for costs.”

Duh. What the hell was Lamberth thinking? Actually, what the hell was the Court of Appeals thinking? I’m thinking the deep state simply doesn’t want anyone bringing a quo warranto action other than government officials. But that’s not what the statute says, and the main case cited by both Lamberth, and the Court of Appeals, also does not say what they said it said. Let’s take a closer look:

“[T]his court has stated that actions against public officials (as opposed to actions brought against officers of private corporations) can only be instituted by the Attorney General. See United States ex rel. Noel v. Carmody, supra, 148 F.2d at 685.” Andrade v. Lauer, 729 F.2d 1475, 1498 (D.C.Cir.1984)

Actually, that’s not at all what the Court of Appeals said in Noel v. Carmody. The Court of Appeals in that case held exactly opposite to what is stated in this quote. The problem is that the Court of Appeals in the Andrade case, as well as Judge Lamberth in his District Court opinion in the Taitz cases, both failed to acknowledge that the Court in Noel v. Carmody discussed separately, the federal quo warranto statute, and the prior common law useage of quo warranto. With regard to the federal statute, the Court of Appeals held:

“The action may be brought by the Attorney General ‘or on the relation of a third person.’ The circumstances which entitle a third person to the writ are explicitly set out. If the Attorney General and the District Attorney refuse to act on the request of the ‘person interested’ the court may issue the writ on such person’s verified petition ‘if * * * the reasons set forth in said petition are sufficient in law.'” United States v. Carmody, 148 F.2d 684, 685 (D.C.Cir. 1945) (Emphasis added.)

How could the Court of Appeals in Andrade and Judge Lamberth get this so wrong? Both the statute, and the holding in Noel v. Carmody, are perfectly clear that an interested party (a candidate) may institute the action even if the government officials refuse to bring it. They tried to stretch the opinion in the Carmody case, where the Court was discussing the common law procedure, as if the statute didn’t exist:

“Obviously the statute leaves the former common-law principles governing the issuance of writs of quo warranto in full force.” Noel v. Carmody, 148 F.2d at 685.

This simply means that where the statute is not applicable, the common law principles remain in force. The statute is not limited by the common law, but rather vice-versa. In discussing the common law, the Court in Noel v. Carmody quoted from a textbook, and a State of Washington case from 1900, which pre-dated the federal statute enacted in 1902. They used this quote, not to state that a private party was prevented from instituting a statutory quo warranto if the DOJ officials refused, but simply to show the different public interest gravities between a quo warranto for a private office, as opposed to a public office:

“The cases which hold that a taxpayer may not test the authority of a public officer by writ of quo warranto4 are not relevant here. They involve a right belonging to the whole body of the public which can be protected only by a public representative. The distinction has been well stated as follows:5 “In the strictest sense, the usurpation of a public office and the abuse of a public franchise are not, at common law, private injuries, and the remedy by quo warranto must be on the suggestion of the attorney general.” Ibid.

At common law, only the Attorney General of a state could institute a quo warranto proceeding, but as Judge Lamberth is fully aware of, most of the states, and the federal government, have replaced reliance on the common law by enacting statutes that are very specific. And while the principles of quo warranto remain, the procedures enacted by statute supersede common law.

Therefore, neither the Andrade case, nor the Taitz cases, are precedent at all for the assertion that DOJ officials can only institute quo warranto actions. That’s a giant heap of judicial bunk. Judge Lamberth was too busy mocking Taitz perhaps too get it straight, but that’s the most innocent reason I can think of. Lamberth even tips his hand in the prior opinion in the same case:

“Even if the Court of Appeals’ precedent did not firmly preclude Ms. Taitz from bringing suit to challenge President Obama’s right to hold office, the one case that discusses the circumstances under which a private person might be able to challenge a public official’s title to office despite the refusal of the Attorney General or the United States Attorney to act, suggests that the ‘interested person’ bringing the action would have had to be actually entitled to the office herself. Newman v. United States ex rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537, 547, 35 S.Ct. 881, 59 L.Ed. 1446 (1915). Ironically enough, Ms. Taitz could never establish such an injury because—as far as the Court is aware—she was not elected president nor could she be as she is not a natural born citizen herself.” Taitz v. Obama, 707 F.Supp. 2d 1,4 (2010)(FN 4.).

That’s what we call a tell in poker. Judge Lamberth is telling you that an interested person can bring an action in quo warranto, both under the very wording of the statute, and the Supreme Court’s precedent in the Newman case. And isn’t it cute that he buries the lead in a footnote. This is exactly the deep state crap we the people need to expose. The judiciary in this nation are infested with creepy crawlers. Don’t be distracted, deplorables, President Trump can, and must, bring a quo warranto action immediately, so that we can have a jury trial to put people under penalty of perjury.

Buried even deeper is the lead they failed to write, but implied directly: Judge Lamberth’s opinion for the District Court – in both opinions cited above – never says that a sitting President of the United States cannot be removed by quo warranto. Judge Lamberth doesn’t say it, because it’s obvious that the federal quo warranto statute, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, clearly applies to all offices of the United States. Last time I checked, the Office of President was part of the United States Government.

We have never experienced a quo warranto action to determine who is the lawful winner of a Presidential election. Yes, it will be a case of first impression that goes up to the United States Supreme Court. One way or another, SCOTUS is going to to hear this case. It’s unavoidable, since both parties will have standing. The only question is who the jury decides is President, and who is the usurper.

By LD on January 7, 2021.


Posted in Uncategorized on December 31, 2020 by naturalborncitizen

But first a recap of previous failed legal maneuvers concerning the election…

Somebody please tell President Trump’s election lawyers there’s a federal statute – 3 U.S.C. § 1 – which requires all elections for Presidential Electors to be completed on Election Day. Then tell his lawyers – and the lawyers for Texas who failed to cite it properly – that 3 U.S.C. § 2 only applies when 3 U.S.C. § 1 is violated. Texas failed to mention 3 U.S.C. § 1 in their brief, so how could Texas rely on 3 U.S.C. § 2, which states:

“Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.”

The day prescribed by law was November 3rd. Multiple States failed to choose electors on that day. Texas failed to invoke 3 U.S.C. § 1 for a violation of federal law. Instead, Texas tried to use 3 U.S.C. § 2 to remedy a usurpation of state law. And in doing so, Texas made it easy for SCOTUS to slap them down as the Court determined that Texas had no right to tell other States how to choose electors:

“Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.”

Had Texas invoked 3 U.S.C. § 1, SCOTUS would have been forced to address a usurpation of Congressional power enumerated specifically in the Constitution to mandate the exact time when Presidential Electors must be chosen. The Defendant States extended federal Election Day in violation of federal law. That created an unfair playing field which caused a violation of equal protection for all voters in states that did play fair in choosing electors on Election Day. The Constitution gives the States plenary authority over every aspect except the time of choosing electors, which is under plenary authority of Congress. See the difference?

And hey now, 3 U.S.C. § 1 was enacted for the core purpose of stopping election fraud. And there’s a SCOTUS unanimous decision from 1997 – FOSTER v. LOVE – wherein the Supreme Court stated that federal Election Day statutes were specifically designed to stop election fraud.

This 9-0 decision of the Supreme Court held that an election is “the combined actions of voters and officials” to make a selection of a winner on Election Day. Not in the middle of the night the day after; a week later; a month later. No. The election must be decided on Election Day. Read the case. Listen to the oral argument.

Were the elections in Pennsylvania and the other swing States decided on November 3rd, the day prescribed by law? No. And yet not one of the cases brought to fix this election disaster has mentioned 3 U.S.C. § 1 or the unanimous holding in the Foster case. None but mine that is. And mine has been sabotaged by the Supreme Court.

Below are links to the papers I filed on December 3rd and 4th with the United States Supreme Court. The Clerk’s Office sat on my papers until December 23rd, and then refused to file the case. The Clerk backdated a letter to me on December 17th, but waited until December 23rd to email it, despite multiple update requests and correspondence between the Clerk’s Office and myself. Supreme Court Rule 39.3 requires the Clerk to give Pro Se parties “due allowance”. This due allowance thing apparently works the exact opposite way it’s supposed to. Trust me on this.

In his judicial opinion, Clerk Scott Harris overruled multiple United States Supreme Court precedents allowing citizens to name States in actions that were not barred by the Eleventh Amendment, when the litigants did not ask for monetary damages or injunctive relief, just like in my case. Not only is the Clerk’s ruling illegal, it’s obviously wrong and counter to prior precedents of the Court. He has effectively overruled multiple SCOTUS decisions. This is usurpation, and it’s in your face America.


On December 26th, I forwarded a new Emergency Application to Justice Alito to stay the usurpation of judicial authority by Clerk Scott Harris in denying to docket my case. (I have embedded that Emergency Application below. Please read it now.)

The Clerk was not appointed by a sitting President, nor was the Clerk confirmed by the Senate. So why is he making a substantive determination of law supported by a one paragraph opinion, signed into law by his hand? How is that legal?

But since I do now have a substantive decision on official Supreme Court letterhead – in an original jurisdiction action – the only court that has appellate jurisdiction over this decision is the United States Supreme Court. So, while my core filing is under original jurisdiction, my appeal of the Clerk’s usurpation of judicial power is under the Court’s appellate jurisdiction. And taking the form of an Emergency Stay, it is properly addressed to Justice Alito.


Think about that question. Share it on social media and in commentary. Call the Supreme Court. Ask them how a low clerk can both, overrule Supreme Court precedent by not allowing my case to be docketed, and forbid a Justice of the Court from reviewing the Clerk’s unauthorized issuance of judicial decree. This cowardly behavior by the Court is eroding whatever is left of its dwindling credibility.

My filing was proper according to Supreme Court Rule 17.4, and it should have been docketed. There is no statute, precedent, or Court Rule prohibiting it.

Do I believe that the Clerk failed to show the papers to at least one of the Justices? No, I do not. How could the Justices not be aware of my case? Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich cited to my case in his Motion to the Supreme Court in the Texas case. So, of course the Justices know about my case.

And it must scare the hell out of them, because they have used the low Clerk as an obstacle placed in the way of them “officially” having to deal with the case. You see, if the Clerk never dockets the case, then the Justices can attempt to avoid responsibility by claiming they never had it before them. That’s a game they have played with me before, and it’s a game they famously lost. (More on that soon.)

The Clerk is certainly taking orders. The Court does not want to go anywhere near my case, because they have already decided in Foster v. Love – in a 9-0 decision – that federal elections must be “consummated” on Election Day. The 2020 Presidential Election was not decided on Election Day. That means 3 U.S.C § 1 was violated. When that happens, 3 U.S.C. § 2 kicks in, sending the decision back to the Legislatures. It’s pretty simple actually. Unfortunately, most of these cases have taken forever and failed to cite the most appropriate law and precedent.

Did I bring this case because I believed the Supreme Court would decide it in my favor? No. I brought the case just to get it docketed. Once docketed, President Trump, the State of Texas, or any other State, or the Legislature of any other State, could have intervened in this case.

The Supreme Court made sure that didn’t happen…and they took their sweet time too. My case was filed four days before Texas filed. That case was handled in a fury by the Court, ultimately decided on December 11th, while no action on my case was communicated to me until two weeks after Texas struck out. How cute. SCOTUS ran out the clock, America. Then they dodged.

And that is why Supreme Court Clerk Scott Harris will not obey Rule 17.4 and docket the case. Did he make this draconian illegal move on his own? Or was he forced to do it? We all know the truth. I have sent the Emergency Application to Chief Justice Roberts’ legal Counsel as well.

Below are links to my initial filings, and my new Emergency Application to Justice Alito is embedded for your review:

Donofrio v Pennsylvania, Et al – Bill of Complaint

Donofrio v. Pennsylvania, Et al – Legal Argument


Posted in Uncategorized on December 24, 2020 by naturalborncitizen

Earlier today I posted about my Election Day SCOTUS case having been denied filing by a clerk making a substantive decision as if he were a Justice of the Court. I prepared an Emergency Application to Justice Alito asking him to stay the ruling of the clerk, and I spoke to a legal foundation that offered to represent me in this matter.

After doing the work, I realized that there is no way these clerks are making substantive judicial rulings on their own. Furthermore, since I served process, the Attorney General of Arizona mentioned my case in their Amicus Motion in the Texas case, which means the Justices knew about my filing.

Therefore, the clerk who denied to docket my case must have been taking orders from the Justices. They don’t want to officially recognize the fact that I picked their lock and found a true legal manner to challenge the election. I had standing, and the Court has jurisdiction, but they don’t want to look the case square in the eyes, because my case would force them to void the election in seven States.

So the Justices put these clerks out there and in a very cowardly manner the Justices of the Supreme Court expose their clerks by forcing them to make substantive decisions of law, which is actually an ethical violation.

If a clerk signs their name to a document that pertains to make a substantive decision of judicial interpretation, that clerk is usurping authority in violation of law. And the Justices who feed these clerks to the wolves are simply cowards.

I do not have a problem with any of the clerks at the United States Supreme Court. I have a huge problem with the Justices. This is the second time I have experienced this tragic phenomenon. I don’t blame the clerks. They are just taking orders.

There is no law in America now. The rot came from the top down, and it will surely rend this nation into factions. Invasion will follow. You can blame the United States Supreme Court for all of it. The Court is not a bastion of justice. The Court is a political animal. And it has failed us.

I don’t plan on posting to this blog again anytime soon.


Posted in Uncategorized on December 24, 2020 by naturalborncitizen

I don’t want responsibility for comments. Feel free to share my posts. Thank you.


Posted in Uncategorized on December 20, 2020 by naturalborncitizen

I want to thank everyone at American Thinker for publishing my piece over there today:

“Who has the power to appoint presidential electors?”

A few more thoughts on the piece. First, if you haven’t read it, please go to AT and do so. Then ponder this:

Will. That’s all it will take. Will. Self-convene by phone, video-conference, in person, anywhere, and set this election straight by choosing Presidential Electors for Trump.

Inferior officials have refused to obey your subpoenas in Arizona. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has just held that laws enacted to protect handicapped voters were trampled on by Wisconsin Election Officials and voters. In Pennsylvania, a United States Supreme Court order to segregate ballots was ignored, and the Legislature’s laws as to ballot deadlines were usurped. In Georgia, the Secretary of State unilaterally did away with the Legislature’s enactments on signature matching. In Nevada, and elsewhere, tens of thousands of people voted twice, or voted after death. All of the above took strong will.

But that was the will to break the law. You, State Legislatures, must now have the will to enforce the law. Your decision is to enforce the law, or to condone the will used to break the law. Those are your only two options.

The Legislatures were given plenary authority to police the appointment of Presidential Electors. That’s the Legislatures’ enforcement power. Call all of their bluffs now. You are terrible poker players if you fold America’s winning hand. The Florida Legislature called all bluffs in 2000, and they were praised for it.

And what about time? 3 U.S.C. § 7 set the time when the electors should meet and give their ballots. But the time is based on all electors having been appointed first. If a state is contested, especially by factions of its own Legislature, as in Arizona now, then the electors have not been finally appointed.

See my previous report, where I explain in detail why December 14th was not set in stone by 3 U.S.C. § 7. Most analysts have misinterpreted the statute. Let’s read it two ways; first, as it is written, then, as it has been misinterpreted:

“The electors of President and Vice President of each State shall meet and give their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment…

If Arizona, or Michigan, or any State, discovered serious fraud that would change the election result, they would have the right and duty to fix the fraud. Let’s say, for example, that Arizona did a forensic audit of Dominion machines in Maricopa County, and it showed fraud, and by correcting the result, Trump has a clear victory.

On Dec. 22nd, the Legislature of Arizona orders the appointment of Trump electors. The second Wednesday in December “next following their appointment” is Dec 30, and the first Monday after that is January 4th.

Now let’s examine how most folks are reading 3 U.S.C. § 7:

“The electors of President and Vice President of each State shall meet and give their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December…”

Full stop. They don’t read the next few words. You see? Most people stop at December, and they ignore “next following their appointment”. Without these words, 3 U.S.C. § 7 would set a date in stone each cycle, just as Congress did with 3 U.S.C. § 1, which states:

“The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President.”

Federal Election Day is set in stone each cycle by the statute. You can look at the statute, look at a calendar, and put your finger on the exact day prescribed by law. You cannot do that with 3 U.S.C. § 7, because you need more information than just the statute and a calendar. You need the date all electors were finally appointed.

For example, had all Presidential Electors been appointed on November 3rd, 2020, then the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December “next following their appointment” would have been December 14th. But all Presidential Electors were not appointed on November 3rd. Appointment is contested in multiple States.

Just because one branch of state government usurps the plenary authority of a state Legislature, and barrels over them in seating electors prematurely, does not erase the plenary authority of the Legislature to police Presidential Election fraud.

So, 3 U.S.C. § 7 has a floating date built into its formula, based upon the day when every State in the Union has finally appointed the electors determined by the Legislature. If the Legislature is still unsure, and it is still investigating, then no final appointment shall have taken place.


Now let’s look past January 6th. And let’s imagine that the United States Supreme Court issues an order after its January 8, 2021 conference, stating that no votes in Pennsylvania can be counted which arrived after the time set by its Legislature for the Presidential Election to end, which was 8 P.M., Nov. 3rd. And let’s assume that two other states see their results overturned by their Legislatures, or the Supreme Court, after January 6th, but before January 20th? What happens then?

Read the Twentieth Amendment, § 3:

“If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President…”

That’s the Constitution of the United States, folks. Nobody knows what that means, because the United States Supreme Court hasn’t fully interpreted Section 3 yet.

But understand this: the Pennsylvania GOP case has been “DISTRIBUTED for conference 01/08/2021″ at SCOTUS. So maybe the Court will interpret Section 3 soon enough. Until January 20th, high noon, we are in muddy Constitutional waters.


After a wrongful election, where one candidate takes office, there’s always the possibility of a Writ of Quo Warranto. Some have argued that only impeachment and conviction in the Senate can remove a sitting President President. But if you get a Writ of Quo Warranto issued, that means the White House occupant it’s issued against was never actually President. Their holding the Office of President becomes a nullity. The person has not technically been “removed” from office, but rather, a Writ of Quo Warranto acts as if that person was never President to begin with.

There is a line of cases that issue Writs of Quo Warranto for false election results caused by fraudulent or faulty tabulation machines, after the wrong person takes office:

“Challenges to the outcome of a general election based upon alleged voting machine malfunctions necessarily fall within the purview of quo warranto.” Matter of Delgado v. Sunderland, 97 N.Y. 2d 420 (2002), 767 N.E. 2d 662.

Here is the federal Quo Warranto statute:

“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.”

If President Trump has the will to keep fighting, then this horrific saga in United States election history still has a very long road to go before the final result is determined.