Franken's Shenanigans

The Minnesota Recount Folly: We've Been Down That Road
How the Democrats 'won' the Washington governor's mansion in 2004.

Another Obama citizenship case

A new case challenging Barack Obama's natural-born citizenship and, therefore, constitutional eligibility to serve as president has the potential to clear a hurdle that caused several other similar cases' dismissal: the issue of "standing."

More illegal activity by Obama's people, and he's not even in yet!

"When Team Obama announced its infamous change.gov website, Judicial Watch quickly filed a public records request with the agency (General Services Administration—GSA) that authorized it because the campaign clearly didn't meet the strict eligibility requirements for official government websites," Judicial Watch said.

Philip Berg's Last Stand

A second conference has been posted on the docket for the U.S. Supreme Court over the issue of Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the White House, this one scheduled a week after Congress is to review the Electoral College vote tabulation.

Scholar: Cheney confessed to war crime

Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley believes that not only did Vice President Dick Cheney “unambiguously” confess to a war crime during an ABC interview on Monday, but the US’ future as a nation may depend on taking action.

More "news" from Worldnetdaily.com

WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Obama citizenship issue
has merit, AOL poll says
Nation seeks answers to questions
about president-elect's eligibility

Supreme Court refuses 2nd challenge to eligibility Case alleges dual citizenship disqualifies Obama for office

Well, once again the Supreme Court rejected a (non-Quo-Warranto) suit to determine elgibility. Is Worldnetdaily.com the only one covering this?


OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Supreme Court refuses
2nd challenge to eligibility
Case alleges dual citizenship
disqualifies Obama for office
--WND

It's a Miracle! Photo of the Virgin Mary!

Here's a strange one for you.
Really, when was photography invented?
It's actually just poor reporting, slipshod use of the language, I assume.

KCRA Sacramento:
Surveillance video caught a woman taking off with a giant framed photo of the Virgin Mary from the Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament on Friday's feast day.

Governor Blago's Top 10 Craziest Moments

This guy is incredible. This link is to asylum magazine.

Governor Blago's Top 10 Craziest Moments

This one's a personal tragedy

I haven't blogged in a few days, because this week I learned my sister and her husband have been murdered. My family is distraught, Mom, Dad and my 4 brothers and younger sister.

Most of what we have heard has come from the newspapers, especially the local one, the Sacramento Bee.

here's the most recent article:
Natomas couple's slaying shocks colleagues, neighbors Thu Dec 11, 2008
Linda Marie Riley's cubicle, decorated with Hello Kitty memorabilia, has been quiet without her laugh and quirky sense of humor the past two days.... more...

Gov Richardson slips up - Calls Obama an "Immigrant"

Here's Gov Richardson calling Obama an "Immigrant"

Another Link

That Bleeping Birth Certificate

by Steven D. Laib The government should have an affirmative duty to investigate candidate qualifications and to make public any documentation thereof; after all, when they apply for the highest office in the land, they should be held to the strict constitutional standard and every citizen has a right to see that the Constitution is followed.

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/12/06/that-bleeping-birth-certificate/

No Supreme Court Hearing

OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
WorldNetDaily
Supreme Court denies
citizenship challenge
Justices won't give questions
about eligibility full hearing

Here's another link re: facts on Obama's birth
http://sites.google.com/site/obamabirth/

This isn't exactly news, but here's the link to the Calif case of QW: (filed Oct 31, 08)
http://nationalwriterssyndicate.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=780

Quite an education, be sure to read the whole thing.

Apparently, to reply to that, posted abaout the same time, Obama's web site made the FALSE CLAIM that the writ of QW has been abolished:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/gsxy3h to quote:
The situation in the courts of the various U.S. states varies from state to state but is often similar to that in the federal courts. Some states continue to use writ procedures, such as quo warranto, that have been abolished as a procedural matter in federal courts.

The truth is, if the "procedural" QW is unavailable, then the "writ" is still available at common law! There MUST be a remedy for usurpation of office, and states that have established "procedures" (statutes) have those remedies available, but if the statutes are unavailable or inefficient, the common law remedy is still available.

Here is an excerpt from Highs:
§ 615. Constitutional jurisdiction not taken away by legislation
In cases where the jurisdiction is conferred by the organic law of a state, it can not be taken away by legislative enactment or by statutory changes in the form of the remedy. And when the supreme court of a state is vested by the constitution with original jurisdiction in quo warranto, it will continue to exercise the jurisdiction thus conferred, notwithstanding an act of the state legislature attempting to abolish both the original writ of quo warranto and the proceeding by information. In such cases the grant of power by the organic law of the state is regarded not so much as conferring the power to issue a writ of a prescribed form, as to enable the court to hear and determine controversies of a certain character. And the jurisdiction thus conferred can not be taken away by legislative enactment or change in the form of remedy, although new process may be adopted calculated to attain the same end.

Here's another, obliquely referring to our common-law right:
§ 624. Power derived from the people in the United States; when people estopped from questioning title.
Since, under the American system, all power emanates from the people, who constitute the sovereignty, the right to inquire into the authority by which any person assumes to exercise the functions of a public office or franchise is regarded as inherent in the people in the right of their sovereignty. And the title to office being derived from the will of the people, through the agency of the ballot, they are necessarily vested with the right of enforcing their expressed will, by excluding usurpers from public offices. Nor is this right in any manner impaired by statutes granting to electors, in their private capacity as citizens, the privilege of contesting the election of any person assuming to exercise the functions of an office. Such statutes may have the effect of sharing the right with the elector, but they do not take it away from the people in their sovereign capacity.

And Obama used to be a constitutional scholar!

This new administration promises to be the most unconstitutional in history.
Check out the following story:

Judicial Watch Announces Hillary Clinton Constitutionally Ineligible to Serve as Secretary of State

I wonder if anyone "in power" will take notice.

Quo Warranto is again the only remedy.

This blog has a puropse, to facilitate and describe my "epic" project, which is to publish the sources of the Writ of Quo Warranto, mainly "Highs" and "Baileys."

Those 2 exerpts are already "html'ed" but some links need to be fixed before I can upload them. I have also come across some interesting resources, including Google's scans of Highs and a digitized copy of Blackstone's Commentaries.

Good searches to all.

Again, Quo Warranto is not news

In case you're not paying attention to Current Events, here's a recap:

The Constitution requires a president be a "natural born citizen."

Obama be a "natural born citizen."

Several lawsuits are pending to resolve this issue.

NONE of the lawsuits will prevail, because they are not using the "right remedy" for the "right injury."

In essence, these pending lawsuits are asking for an injunction instead of the correct remedy, a Quo Warranto.

Because they are asking for the wrong remedy, judges can dismiss the lawsuit, usually with the reason that the plaintiff "lacks standing to sue."

That phrase is a subterfuge, the reasoning is irrelevant, it merely implies that the wrong remedy was chosen.

The correct remedy for usurpation is Quo Warranto, which is unusual is several respects:

Quo Warranto is rarely used.
Quo Warranto is little understood.
Quo Warranto has different rules of pleading.

First, a little (very little) history:

Quo Warranto is Latin for "what warrant." As its Latin name would suggest, it is part of the ancient Roman Law, which is not only the precursor to all "old world" legal traditions, but the foundation of "British Common Law."


A TREATISE ON EXTRAORDINARY LEGAL REMEDIES, EMBRACING MANDAMUS, QUO WARRANTO AND PROHIBITION. BY JAMES L. HIGH. (the best reference):

593: The origin of the writ may be traced to a very early date in the history of the common law. The earliest case upon record is said to have been in the ninth year of Richard I, A. D. 1198, and was against the incumbent of a church, calling upon him to show "quo warranto" he held the church.4 It was frequently employed during the feudal period, and especially in the reign of Edward I, to strengthen the power of the crown at the expense of the barons.

When the British began to compose the written law (Statutes of Edward I), Quo Warranto was already considered ancient. As stated in the History of the Monarchy

The Statutes of Gloucester (1278) and Quo Warranto (1290) attempted to define and regulate feudal jurisdictions, which were an obstacle to royal authority and to a uniform system of justice for all

There are several famous QW cases from that period, including several that tried to revoke the Charter of the City of London. (It would affect their ability to collect taxes, quite a lucrative "franchise".) again, Highs:

§ 601. ... The-most flagrant instances of such abuse of the remedy occurred in the turbulent proceedings which marked the latter period of the reign of Charles II, when the information was used for the purpose of forfeiting the charters of large numbers of municipal corporations throughout the kingdom. ... To such an extent was the jurisdiction carried that in the celebrated case of the city of London, decided at Trinity term, in the thirty-fifth year of this reign (1684), the entire liberties, privileges and franchises of the city were seized into the hands of the king, where they remained for a period of four years ...

As part of "British Common Law" it is considered part of our American Heritige. Quo Warranto is one of our Fundamental Rights, like "Freedom of Speech," the "Right to Assemble," etc. All of those rights are spelled out in the "Bill of Rights," (first 10 amendments to the Constitution), but Quo Warranto is, several times! (Fifth Amendment, due process of law, Seventh Amendment, Suits at common law).