Quo Warranto For “Interested Persons”.

Posted on October 8th, 2009 by David-Crockett

Leo Donofrio published

Section 16-3503 of the federal quo warranto statute allows an “interested person” to approach the DC District Court concerning a quo warranto trial (by jury) without requiring the permission of the US Attorney General or the US Attorney for DC.

An “interested person” may sign a “certified complaint” which states facts and those facts must be sworn to under penalty of perjury. Only facts may be sworn to, not allegations. The “interested person” gathers up all facts known to him/her and puts them in the petition, swears to them under oath and hands that in to the Court. Pretty simple, folks.

One fact which could safely be sworn to is that Obama was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 and that he was – at birth – a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. These are facts admitted by Obama. These facts have never been laid before the DC District Court. These facts are not in the complaint before Judge Carter. Why not?

16-3503 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…

Plaintiffs in Barnett v. Obama allege that they have standing which is unique and special compared to the public at large. Therefore, they should have availed themselves of 16-3503.

But they’ve never even tried.

Plaintiffs have only attempted to avail themselves of 16-3502. All citizens are considered “third persons” under 16-3502, but all citizens don’t have unique standing and therefore 16-3502 requires permission by the Department of Justice to use the name of the US – ex relator – ina quo warranto proceeding.

But if you are an “interested person” under 16-3503 – aka a person with unique standing – then you do not need permission from the Department of Justice for the quo warranto.

The DC District Court examines the certified petition prior to allowing the suit to go forth based upon that petition. If the court is satisfied that the person issuing the petition is an “interested person” then that person is not needed any longer for the trial.

Once the name of the United States is allowed to be used, the “interested person” may step off, and the facts alleged are to be tried independently. For example, facts concerning what makes the President ineligible have nothing to do with the particular plaintiffs in Barnett v. Obama. So there’s no need for them to travel across the country for the trial. The trial is brought against the alleged usurper in the name of the United States.

There’s nothing stopping the plaintiffs from petitioning the DC District Court right now based upon facts known and verifiable as to the President’s British birth.

Why has this option been ignored? 16-3503 provides an excellent chance for review of these facts. There it is. Why not use it? A golden opportunity is being thrown by the way side.

Either the DC District Court will agree that these military persons are “interested persons” or it will not. Either the DC District Court will agree that 2008 Presidential candidate Alan Keyes is an “interested person” or it will not.

If the DC District Court does not agree that these plaintiffs are “interested persons” under the statute, then plaintiffs can make the same arguments they are making now before Judge Carter.

I don’ see any tactical advantage at all in avoiding the DC District Court.

Why give one of your tickets away for free? Why give away your best ticket for free? Why not avail yourself of the very statute created by Congress to review the eligibility of all US national office holders?

Doing so also avoids “political question doctrine” issues because the quo warranto statute is a congressional exercise of Constitutional authority to review the President’s eligibility. Why not kill two birds with one stone? Also, all arguments that a quo warranto action is too late now that he’s been sworn in are just patently bogus.

Quo warranto can only be invoked against somebody holding an office under false title.

Quo warranto only applies to actual usurpation not possible usurpation. It is the legislature’s sole enactment which allows judicial review of the President’s eligibility. And it appears that serious attempts are being made to avoid it. Before going off point and trying to force this issue upon courts which have not been given such authority, an action should have been brought – and still can be – under 16-3503.

Look people, I’m trying to help. Read this over a few times until it sinks in.

Leo C. Donofrio, Citizen Attorney

Barack Obama and State of Hawaii on the ropes... history
October 14, 2009 10:23 AM Portland Civil Rights Examiner Dianna Cotter

The latest legal turn out of Hawaii leaves very little wiggle room for the state.

On July 27th 2009 The Hawaii Department of Health in a press release declared that Barack Obama was a Natural Born Citizen.

Researcher Justin Riggs on July 29th was informed by email that Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennett reviewed and approved the Statement released by DoH Director Fukino.

Attorney Leo Donofrio has been investigating the irregularities in the State of Hawaii at his blog Natural Born Citizen and has published a copy of the emails between Riggs and the Attorney General's office:


From: Justin Riggs [email address redacted]
Date: Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:03 PM
To: …janice.okubo@doh.hawaii.gov, [redacted other recipient]


…Ms. Okubo,
I am currently a masters degree candidate at …

The reason that I am contacting your organizations is that you are, as far as I can tell from my research, the only two groups that have openly stated that President Obama is a natural born citizen (one of the Article II, Section I qualifications for being President). I would like to document how you came to that conclusion: i.e. what the criteria is for your organization, what evidence the candidate provides, etc.
I thank you for your time, and look forward to receiving a response in the near future.
Sincerely,
Justin W. Riggs


Janice Okubo responded later that day:


From: Okubo, Janice S..
Date: Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:20 PM
To: Justin Riggs [email address redacted]…
Aloha Justin,
The statement was reviewed and approved by our Attorney General Mark Bennett. I am unable to provide further comment.
Janice Okubo
Communications Office
Hawaii State Department of Health…

According to law, the State of Hawaii must now disclose how it came to the decision that is found in Director Fukino’s July 27th Press Release that was approved by the State’s Attorney General. Haw. Rev. Stat. 28-4 states very clearly that formal opinions of the Attorney General must be made public. Further, the Hawaiian Office of Information Practices in 1991 formally set out the requirements that informal opinions of the AG must also be made available for public inspection. According to Donofrio, under the Uniform Rules of Evidence (Rule 510): “when the conclusions of an informal Attorney General opinion are made public by the agency/client, then the accompanying record of that opinion must also be disclosed to the public:”

The State of Hawaii declared that Obama was a Natural Born Citizen and that this disclosure was approved by the Attorney General of the State. The State of Hawaii must now release any and all communications and documentation that led it to making this determination. Because Janice Okubo on July 29th revealed that the decision was approved by the State’s Attorney General, and the state made its Natural Born Citizen statement, the state is now required by law to disclose how it reached that conclusion. As Donofrio explains, there can be no secret law. The State of Hawaii cannot simply make a statement with legal weight, and then when asked to provide how it reached that decision, simply say: ‘You just have to trust us on that’. They must release any and all information that led them to make their public declarations.

On October 5th, Donofrio wrote to the office of the Attorney General, contacting Jill Nagamine:


Subject: Request for AG Opinion letter
Date: Monday, October 5, 2009 8:34 PM
From:”Leo Donofrio” [email redacted]
To: Jill.T.Nagamine@hawaii.gov


Dear Ms. Nagamine,
The following request for Government records is made pursuant to the UIPA.
I request a copy (or access to a copy) of the Attorney General Opinion Letter the Attorney General provided to Department of Health Director Fukino which reviewed and approved her July 27, 2009 statement/press release about President Barack Obama wherein it was stated that he is a “natural-born American citizen.”
I request the opinion letter referenced above whether it was prepared as a formal Opinion Letter under Haw. Rev. Stat. 28-3 (and/or any other authority) or as an informal letter if prepared under Haw. Rev. Stat. 28-4 (and/or any other authority).


Please have your response conform to the OIP administrative rules.


A few hours later he received the following response:


Subject: Re Request for Ag Opinion letter
From: “Jill.T.Nagamine@hawaii.gov”
To: “Leo Donofrio” [email redacted]


Dear Mr. Donofrio:
No formal (emphasis added) attorney general opinion was generated relating to the July 27, 2009 public statement made by Chiyome L. Fukino, M.D. Any other legal advice rendered to our clients is privileged communication. We have nothing to release based on your request.


Very truly yours,
Jill T. Nagamine
Deputy Attorney General
State of Hawaii


With all due respect to Ms Nagamine, this response is disingenuous in the extreme. First, Mr. Donofrio asked for all formal and informal communications. Under the law, the state has to release this information once any part of the resulting decisions are publically released, which happened on July 27th with Director Fukino’s Press Release, and again on July 29th When Janice Okubo informed Mr. Riggs that the Attorney General approved the statement. Second, Ms Nagamine’s response states that the informal communications are attorney client privilege, where none exists.

According to OIP Opinion letter 91-23, the conclusions of an informal Attorney General opinion made public by the agency or client (The Department of Health) the accompanying record of that opinion must be made public.



A client cannot voluntarily and selectively disclose those portions of a communication between the client and the client’s attorney without forfeiting the right to keep other portions of the communication on the same subject matter privileged.


The privilege may be said to be waived when the client relinquishes its protection. The waiver of this privilege follows as a consequence from any conduct by the client that would make it unfair for the client thereafter to assert the privilege. See generally, Marcus, The Perils of Privilege: Waiver and the Litigator, 84 Mich. L. Rev. 1065 (1986)


Similarly, under Rule 510 of the Uniform Rules of Evidence, the holder of a privilege waives it if the privilege holder consents to the disclosure of “any significant part of the privileged matter.”



The response of Ms Nagamine is very clearly not addressing the informal communications between Director Fukino and the Attorney General. By law, the public has the right to see any communications between these two parties once the client, in this case the Department of Health, publically releases the conclusions reached through those communications.

Donofrio is currently filing an appeal with the OIP, and the Judiciary as well. Because of the nature of the law involved, Donofrio will get that judicial review in an expedited manner.

The State of Hawaii will soon be forced to reveal the information it used to declare Barack Obama a Natural Born citizen. This will be very interesting, considering Obama’s Father was a British Citizen. therefore Barack Obama Jr is also a British Citizen, and was at birth by the very nature of his parentage.

Barack Obama, by legal definitions going back to the 1600’s is not, was not, and never has been a Natural Born Citizen. It does not matter where Barack Obama was born; he was a dual American/British/Kenyan citizen. He could have been born on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. itself, and it would not matter. The basic fact of Barack Obama’s parentage remains the same. A Dual Citizen cannot ever be a Natural Born Citizen.

There is absolutely no doubt.

There is an Usurper in the White House, and his name is Barack Obama. He and those who aided him in this usurpation, including the DNC are guilty of Treason to the United States. Every law that has been passed, every treaty signed, every order issued to the military has zero legal weight.

This leads to a singularly terrifying reality that must be dealt with. The United States does not have a constitutional government.

This is the reason the Democrats in Congress are pushing things through as fast as they possibly can, without reading and in the case of the Senate even writing the legislation they are voting on. Once it becomes public knowledge what the Democrats and the DNC have done in their fraud upon America with Barack Obama, they will not be able to get anything done. Rightly so.

This is a scandal and cover-up 100 times the size of Watergate. This time, it won’t be just a President resigning in disgrace, it will also be the DNC Leadership who will be under the criminal investigation microscope for the cover-up, and it is a scrutiny they cannot withstand.

This is the reason Barack Obama is doing everything he can to keep people focused on the irrelevant issue of his birth certificate. He would rather people be thinking about where he was born rather than the citizenship that was conferred upon him by his British father.

The smoke and mirrors have cleared. This is no longer a partisan issue, partisan issues are reserved for constitutional governments, which we do not have. There is only those who understand the peril we are in, and those who do not, and we are all Americans.

Now, what are we going to do about it?


For more info: Hawaii Department of Health press release, Natural Born Citizen, Haw. Rev. Stat. 28-4, Hawaiian Office of Information Practices, OIP Opinion letter 91-23

For more info: Hawaii Department of Health press release, Natural Born Citizen, Haw. Rev. Stat. 28-4, Hawaiian Office of Information Practices, OIP Opinion letter 91-23

QUO WARRANTO Proceedings

Leo Donofrio published

Since federal case law pertaining to the writ of quo warranto is so scarce, research on the issue is rather simple. This is why I am shocked and confused as to why the DOJ did not cite the case UNITED STATES of America ex rel. STATE OF WISCONSIN v. FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION. I recenly explained the strict holding in the case – that no US District Court other than the DC District Court may entertain a quo warranto proceeding.

The deception is circling on all fronts. Decepticons are busy issuing defective legal analysis alleging that there is a private right to bring quo warranto against a United States national office holder. I can tell you with certainty that there is no such right now, and there was none at the common law. But don’t take my word for it. Instead, review the following passages from the leading United States Supreme Court decision pertaining to quo warranto: NEWMAN v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL. WILLIAM J. FRIZZELL:

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… (Emphasis added.)

There was never a private right to bring quo warranto. It was always brought in the name of the government. This is further illustrated by the SCOTUS as follows:

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 provisions2 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. (Emphasis added.)

While all of the above sets the stage, the following establishes definitive precedent by the SCOTUS on this issue:

The District Code still treats usurpation of office as a public wrong which can be corrected only by proceeding in the name of the government itself. (Emphasis added.)

And the following is the policy behind the restriction:

But there are so many reasons of public policy against permitting a public officer to be harassed with litigation over his right to hold office, that the Code not only does not authorize a private citizen, on his own motion, to attack the incumbent’s title, but it throws obstacles in the way of all such private attacks. It recognizes, however, that there might be instances in which it would be proper to allow such proceedings to be instituted by a third person, but it provides that such ‘third person’ must not only secure the consent of the law officers of the government, but the consent of the supreme court of the District of Columbia, before he can use the name of the government in quo warranto proceedings. (Emphasis added.)

Beware of false sentinels.

Get ready, you are going to be hearing much more about the writ of quo warranto in the days and weeks ahead.

Leo C. Donofrio Citizen Attorney