The Betrayal

How our heritage is sold out Obamas Agenda // Preserve second amendment in CA

A History of Quo Warranto - by John Charlton

Posted on October 10th, 2009 by David-Crockett The Post & Email published COMMON LAW & NATURAL LAW BASIS by John Charlton (Oct. 10, 2009) The nature of a quo warranto proceeding is as important to understand as its history, when considering arguments for and against standing and jurisdiction in cases seeking to resolve the national crisis brought on by the usurpation of the U.S. Presidency by Barack Hussein Obama.

The Definition of Quo Warranto

Quo warranto, is a Late Latin phrase meaning by what warrant or right do you act? In law it is defined by Wests Encyclopedia of American Law, thus: A legal proceeding during which an individuals right to hold an office or governmental privilege is challenged. Again Websters New World Law Dictionary, defines Quo warranto thus 1. A common law writ inquiring into the authority by which a public official claims his/her office. 2. A state action with the intent of revoking the charter of a corporation that has abused or for a long period failed to exercise its franchise.

A History of Quo Warranto in English Law

Lets examine the origins of quo warranto in the legal traditions of England and the United States. First, in England its usage is of great antiquity: Kurt von S. Kynell, in his Saxon and Medieval Antecedents of the English Common Law, discusses this on p. 129-131: When Edward I was crowned in 1274, he was already highly regarded not only as a formidable

warrior, but also as an able an proved administrator, The venerable Dean of Exeter, Henry Bracton, had insisted that all justice flowed from the King, but this was not the autocratic policy it seemed, the implication of Bractons great Common Law treatise being that all Englishmen, including the King were under the law. One of Edwards first moves was to institute the writ of quo warranto,(1) by what authority one held an estate, a manor, a title, especially those which involved siegnorial, or private legal jurisdictions over their tenants. (2) Both public and private courts had long been a function of the feudal system, and not always governed by the emerging Common Law. Overlaps existed, illegalities, secrete proceedings, subterfuges, and many tiny baronial, feudal enclaves. The quo warranto writ was not new, (3) but Edward readily expanded it, attempting to root out illegal franchises, examining former royal patents, and establishing uniform law under the King in their multitudinous governances. Edward had instituted the writ in the year of his coronation, careful not to threaten the established, obviously franchised baronial class of land standing, and exercising some leniences where possible, but still exemplifying the lawful requirements of proof of authority for the stability of the Kingdom. Four years later, the Statute of Gloucester formalized the procedure more rigorously, seeking to eliminate fraudulent or unproven claims by the expedient of summoning all those claiming franchise jurisdictions to appear before either the King or his / or his itinerant justices to show proof of authority.(4) Those who did not appear automatically had their franchises confiscated by the local Sheriff, a practice which unearthed a number of fraudulent exercises of authority. In a manner of speaking, Edwards quo warranto maneuvers were similar in a small manner to his ancestors Domesday Book, but fare more sophisticated, in establishing orderly hierarchies under the Crown for equable laws. To compare the importance of quo warranto, one may say that Edward I was as important to personal actions and rights as Henry II was to real propter actions and rights. (5) Both monarchs made huge strides in the legacy of the Common Law, but quo warranto also helped property disputes in great measure in that it recognized the cumbersome problems of feudal system of layered tenures, especially in light of a rapidly growing mercantilism, charter cities, and the increasing power and influence of trade guilds, certainly including the masons. Another twelve years passed before the next and final step in which the Kings policies on land franchises resulted now in the Statute of Quo Warranto itself, not as a mere subsidiary clause in the Statue of Gloucester. This helped clear up the type of hopeless land fiefdom obligations described by Hollister in which one Roger of St. German held an estate encumbered by no less than eight lord to vassal feudal obligations, a virtually unsolvable Gordian know in the law. . . . Thus quo warranto was as important for what it set in motion as a precedent for Parliament as for what it did in establishing uniform justice for individuals and reforming the hopeless anachronisms of feudalism. The King was indeed the fountain head of law which Bracton had espoused, but, like St. Thomas Aquinas and his juristic liberalism which the influential professor preached at the University of Paris, (7) was in essence the same kind of natural law to which the state must adhere for the well being of all its citizens, including the King; the identical theory claimed also by Bracton and by Stephen / Langton, the archbishop of Canterbury. The law

itself must be subject to the natural law of divine Providence, said Aquinas, the earthly jurisprudence subject to eternal natural law.(8). It is important to remember that the beginnings of statutory law grew out of the judicial writs of the Common Law, and that there existed no true legislative bodies in medieval England. What evolved was judge-made law, exemplifying customs and writs from ancient times; and the English Parliament which quietly began to emanate under Edward was originally a high court.(9) [Footnotes lacking in on-line version.]

The History of Quo Warranto in American Law

The subsequent history of quo warranto in common law is outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lamar in Newsman vs. United States ex Rel. Frizzel: 1. Usurpation of a public office from an early day was treated as a crime, and, like all other crimes, could be prosecuted only in the name of the King by his duly authorized law officers. When a judgment was obtained against the intruder, he was not only ousted from his office, but fined for his criminal usurpation. A private citizen could no more prosecute such a proceeding in his own name than he could in his own name prosecute for the crime of murder, even though the victim was his near kinsman. 2. But, in time, the criminal features were modified, and it was recognized that there might be many cases which, though justifying quo warranto proceedings, were not of such general importance as to require the attorney general to take charge of the litigation. This was especially true in reference to the usurpation of certain municipal offices named in 9th Anne, c. 20. By that act, passed in 1710, it was therefore provided that it should be lawful for the proper officer, by leave of the court, to exhibit an information in the nature of a quo warranto at the relation of any person desiring to prosecute the same against the designated municipal officers. The writ thus came to be used as a means of determining which of two claimants was entitled to an office, but continued to be so far treated as a criminal proceeding as to warrant not only a judgment of ouster, but a fine against the respondent if he was found to have been guilty of usurpation. Standard Oil Co. v. Missouri, 224 U. S. 282. This quasicriminal act was adopted in some of the American states, and formed the basis of statutes in others. It does not seem ever to have been of force in any form in the District of Columbia. Torbert v. Bennett, 24 Wash.Law Rep. 156. And the same Justice continues, describing how quo warranto works in the D.C. Code: 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. It was made available to test the right to exercise a public franchise or to hold an office in a private corporation. Instead of providing

that any person desiring to prosecute might do so with the consent of the court, certain restrictions were imposed and one enlargement of the right was made. These provisions [Footnote 2] have never received judicial interpretation. This case must therefore be determined according to the special language of that Code, in the light of general principles applicable to quo warranto, the prerogative writ by which the government can call upon any person to show by what warrant he holds a public office or exercises a public franchise.

Quo Warrantos Natural Law Basis

From a consideration of the nature and history of quo warranto, one can easily see the natural law basis of this action. 1. It is issued by the sovereign, who has a right to confer an office or benefice, known in law as a franchise 2. It proceeds by granting the defendant the right to prove his title or claim 3. It concludes, in the case of non-proof, removal of office or penalty or both. The sovereigns claim to issue quo warranto is founded upon his title to authority, to which the right to confer offices is attached. Therefore, the authority which confers the office has the right to quo warranto. The defendant has the right to produce evidence to prove his just holding of the office. Quo warranto does not presume guilt in the holder; neither does it presuppose that the holder has the office by his own right. Rather it presumes the holder has a duty to manifest proof of his claim, because such an office is not his, but conferred upon him by the questioning authority. In property rights we see an analogy; for when the owner of a property finds it being used by a nonowner, he asks when did he receive his permission to use it. The owner has the right on account of his title to the property; the user has the duty to respond and relinquish use if he cannot justify his right to use.

Applicability of Formal Quo warrento in U.S. Law

The formal quo warranto proceeding requires the action or consent of the executive branch, which acts in the name of the state or government. The defendant has the duty to prove his claim; the office is his not by intrinsic right, by only such by a proven claim. The court assuming the role of judge in the case, stands between the one who moves the claim and the defendant. The action is a civil proceeding, and is codified in the District Columbia Code.

Applicability of informal Quo warranto to Eligibility Cases

The analogy between property rights and franchise rights, allows the application of the concept of an information request which exists in criminal or civil actions, moved by the executive branch or a representative therefore, to a private party who is injured by the intrusion of another into a franchise or office. This is true because, when injured by one claiming title to an office, the very claim to the title as justification for the injury, requires the claimant to prove his claim. This form of civil action therefore is virtually a quo warranto, but not formally such. There is frequent misunderstanding of the nature of a quo warranto proceeding, when the term while referring to a manner of proceeding, is understood solely as a specific form which is a prerogative writ of the sovereign or executive branch. The right to move an informal quo warranto is ancilliary to some other right not-to-be-injured; and arises in the context when the defendant, charged with the injury, has done so with a claim to a franchise. As such is not a prerogative writ action. It is this invoking of the proceeding of quo warranto, to defend other existing rights, that can be termed the common law right to quo warranto, since it is not based on statatue per se, but arises out of an analogy to the formal quo warranto proceeding in common law, which analogy has its legal justification in natural law. It is properly, however, a natural right, the same claimed by the English sovereign in issuing the first writs of quo warranto, and the basis for the genus of quo warranto proceedings, a special instance or species of which is the formal quo warranto proceeding. The 7th Circuit Court Ruling against the misuse of the formal quo warranto in District Courts was discussed in a previous article at The Post & Email. Tags: Legal Backgrounders //

7 Responses to A History of Quo Warranto - by John Charlton

1. Longknife 21 // Oct 10, 2009 at 3:33 pm The basic problem of any such law that exists today is - What court will enforce it? With the Holderwaffen DoJ defending, what judge will allow a fair trial? How do we get Standing when the Powers-that-Be have decided we should live on our knees. 2. Lynn Dartez // Oct 10, 2009 at 4:12 pm Longknife, It will come down plain and simple the Sword will have to take him down. Im sick of hearing about the Zebra and his cronies. Action must be taken and you know what I mean. There is no other way that things will get any better. It will take an armed Revolution. Thats why they keep pushing us to no end. I think they want us to fire the first shot but we are to smart for that. But on the other hand do we have the time to wait anymore?

Lynn Dartez 3. Jack // Oct 10, 2009 at 4:52 pm US Dist Ct Judge David Carter can rule for Alan Keyes without relying on Quo Warranto the case is CANDIDATE KEYS vs. CANDIDATE OBAMA (not POTUS OBAMA). Dr. Keyes can recover damages, say even $1 or nominal damages; technically leave Obama in office but he is nevertheless doomed (pressure and action by Congress and the public would explode). Think about it for a moment. Then ask: What would you do if you were Judge Carter? Judge Carter surely knows that natural born citizen (as distinguished from citizen) to be POTUS disqualifies Obama since Obamas dad was a British/Kenyan citizen on Obamas birth. Judge Carter surely knows that Candidate Obama, in his individual as opposed to official capacity (that is, before he became POTUS) committed fraud over said ineligibility; and that this damaged Candidate Keyes, outside of any quo warranto action to eject President Obama in his official capacity, the former being justiciable and actionable in his court. Yet at the same time, Judge Carter rightly feels it is unfair to dump the most significant crisis in American history since the Civil War in his courtroom, that being the bloodless coup against our Constitutional Republic, when absolutely no other entity will act, including Congress, the Supreme Court, the Military Joint Chiefs, nor or any major political party or media outlet. So, Judge Carter does the best he really can, which is, leave the Keyes trial scheduled and at the same time leave the Dept. of Justices motion to dismiss pending without decision that is, until events compel him to act. Our collective prayers should be with Judge Carter. 4. Pieter Nosworthy // Oct 10, 2009 at 5:13 pm I encourage folks not to despaireventually, the electorate will arise from its stupor and call BS on the SQ. If this is an unreasonable expectation, we are more screwed than we realize and this nation is wholly transformed into something it was never meant to be. I need this illusion (hope) to function, to rise each morning not thinking this to be true leads to suck starting a 9 milor high powered rifles and bell towersor, gads, stockholm syndrome (identifying with your captors). -Noz 5. Bobbi // Oct 10, 2009 at 6:42 pm No offense to John charlton or Orly Taitz, but Leo donofrio really has the best information on quo warranto. Orly bought the quo warranto in the wrong court. The DOJ has just disqualified itself because it has a conflict of interest as it is representing Obama. Leo has just given some valuable info. http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/quo-warranto-for-interested-persons/

Judge Carter has no subject jurisdiction on quo warranto for a federal officer. the quo warranto must be instituted in DC. 6. Longknife 21 // Oct 10, 2009 at 8:02 pm Bobbi, Is it true that the DoJ has disqualified itself? They should, but I doubt they will under Holder. If so please send link here and/or Editors. 7. NewEnglandPatriot // Oct 11, 2009 at 4:43 am I know Orly filed Quo Warranto at the District Court in DC, but they unconstitutionally never gave her an answer. She filed a letter with U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor asking that he act after more than 40 days passed, and he promptly resigned. Would she not, then, have a right to file it in another court? I agree with Jack above. Judge Carter is downplaying his actions and decisions (or lack thereof) so as to keep tempers cool and allow the case to proceed. He might be running out the clock, but I do think he intends to hear the case if he must. There is a lot of unrest in the country right now, and I dont think our allies in the world are happy with Obama. What if Israel or another country that has absolute proof that Obama was born in Kenya comes forward with that information? I really wish that that African Press International story had been true and revealed. I wonder what happened to them?

Discussion Area - Leave a Comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Submit Comment

Obamas Agenda // Preserve second amendment in CA

Recent Posts
Bitcoins what are they and how to get some welcome Larry Justice has now become just usOrley oh Orley , dont you agree? To all a most happy new year we suggest there is a safty net at the bottom of the fiscal cliffstay tuned to us or post some of your ideas here,and thanks Morgan that great man of God was here,Praise the Lord. our projector blew a bulb, sorry folks,we the people must pray that our bulb is. repaired or we find a new bulb.soon.. so you do not think that God is angered, take a look around the world Dynamite peace prize,now awarded for most used in undeclared wars, very interesting.. TODAY STARTS MYOURYOUR FORTY DAYS OF PRAYERFOR HOPE AND CHANGE , GOD,S WAYSTART NOW PATRIOTS God may withdraw from the elections,why because not many people are consulting Him Did you hear the dnc tonight !!! God is out!!! the do not know Christ gansters..or devilcrats Constitution Gone, no law, no Justice, only justicesreligious values and freedom to follow GODs Laws are GONE, David where are you, Bro. Note to the SupremesDrop the mandate, and the killing clause, Protect and uphold our great constitution,so help you GOD.

Pages
a) States Militias Guarantee RBKA CHANGE IN THE NICK OF TIME The Militia Can Promote Monetary Reform About Barack Obama an ongoing investigation AN EXAMINATION OF OBAMAS USE OF HIDDEN HYPNOSIS TECHNIQUES

IN HIS SPEECHES PART 1 HYPNOSIS BASICS PART 2 WHAT OBAMA IS ACTUALLY DOING PART 3 WHAT OBAMA IS EXACTLY DOING SPECIFIC SPEECHES PLAY BY PLAY PART 4 ADDITIONAL SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF OBAMAS HYPNOSIS PART 5 THE VISIBLE EFFECTS OF OBAMAS HYPNOSIS Is Obama the secret son of Malcolm X? Constitution Class - Michael Badnarik Eurabia - The Fourth Reigh Declaration of the Arab Summit Conference at Algiers The Barcelona Declaration THE STRASBOURG RESOLUTIONS Venice Declaration, 13 June 1980 Interview Bat Yeor Islam: What the West Needs to Know An Interview with Ali Sina on Muslims in Europe Jihad Against the West: Europe Obession Nazi Islam QURANS PROTOCOLS FOR TOTAL WAR Who is a Muslim? Pat Condell Speaks Tribute to the IDF Walid Shoebat Prophecy: Islam and Satan

Older Postings
May 2013 (2) April 2013 (1) December 2012 (3) November 2012 (1) October 2012 (2) September 2012 (3) June 2012 (2) March 2012 (2) February 2012 (2) January 2012 (18) December 2011 (11) November 2011 (5) October 2011 (5) September 2011 (41) August 2011 (2) July 2011 (7)

June 2011 (3) May 2011 (53) April 2011 (28) March 2011 (58) February 2011 (55) January 2011 (22) December 2010 (8) November 2010 (47) October 2010 (9) September 2010 (23) August 2010 (11) July 2010 (97) June 2010 (212) May 2010 (333) April 2010 (313) March 2010 (337) February 2010 (333) January 2010 (316) December 2009 (334) November 2009 (264) October 2009 (294) September 2009 (256) August 2009 (197) July 2009 (182) June 2009 (161) May 2009 (169) April 2009 (215) March 2009 (164) February 2009 (217) January 2009 (281) December 2008 (217) November 2008 (133) October 2008 (64) September 2008 (8) August 2008 (29) July 2008 (8) June 2008 (19) May 2008 (28) April 2008 (40) RSS Syndication

David Crockett Facebook

David T. Baldursson

Recent Comments
Charles on What is your PENALTY for Obamas CRIMES AGAINST AMERICA - Thanks Charles Garret Wideman on POLISH PRESIDENT S PLANE CRASH, KILLS THERE PRES. TOP MILITARY GOLD! Owen Songster on 49 Yrs ago, the BAY OF PIGS, PERHAPS OCEAN CURRENTS AND THE LIKE HAVE MOVED IT TO ITS PRESENT DAY LOCATION ? YOU GUESSED IT THE D.C.LOCATION ! Best Realtor in Dana Point on History repeats itself. You have to read this Realtor Dana Point on Gov. Abercrombie Tells Hollywood Journalist/Radio Host Mike Evans There Is No Obama Hawaii Birth Certificate Dana Point Realtor on Obama hits an all time low -21 ! Daily Presidential Tracking Poll Rasmussen Reports - Thanks Charles Best Real Estate Agent Dana Point on Flashback: Know the Truth About H.R.3200, Obamas Health Care Bill - Thanks IJ Realtor Dana Point on Thanks Fed Up - Abusive Border Patrol Agents w/ Nun Chucks at NM Checkpoint Dana Point Realtor on Taitz Requests Judicial Notice on Individuals Rights Fraud Best Realtor in Dana Point on Indiana Senate Passes SR42 Claiming Sovereignty under the 10th Amendment Real Estate Agent Dana Point on The Taqqiya Muslim Barack Hussein Obama crawls to his Islam Masters Rick Morrow on Oath Keepers Stewart Rhodes on Alex Jones buy apple iphone 5 in delhi on Open letter to Dr. Orly Taitz - By David Crockett lynn on Great, great news. I just got a call and next Thursday I am meeting with a legal counsel ot one of the top committee chairs in Congress - Thanks James ,,, on They Are doing a great job lets all support them: The Post & Email needs your help!
Search

Categories
Select Category

Meta
Log in Entries RSS Comments RSS WordPress.org