By Liberty Balance
We the people have the ability to take charge of our government through the use of Quo warranto ,
this was given to us by our founding fathers for the purpose of
removing a power holding office who we deem harmful to our country.
The Line in the Sand – Breaking News November 10, 2014 Unified Common Law Grand Jury in every State files writ_quo_warranto.pdf
in every Federal District Court, United States Supreme Court and served
upon every Federal Judge and all 9 US Supreme Court Justices.
Information in the nature of a quo warranto. A proceeding against the
usurper of a franchise or office. Jarman v. Mason, 102 Okl. 278, 229 P.
459, 460.; An extraordinary proceeding, prerogative in nature, addressed
to preventing a continued exercise of authority unlawfully asserted.
Johnson v. Manhattan Ry. Co., N.Y., 53 S.Ct. 721, 289 U.S. 479, 77 L.Ed.
1331.
The
video below walks you through the process step by step. It addresses the
threat to the constitution, foreign armies on American soil and many
more crimes committed against the American people.
Often
times we hear people say, “I wish I knew what I could do to take our
country back. This is it, this is the process to follow to take America
back. Please spread this information far and wide, it’s time we take
America back!
Quo warranto
(Medieval Latin for “by what warrant?“) is a prerogative writ requiring
the person to whom it is directed to show what authority they have for
exercising some right or power (or “franchise”) they claim to hold.
Writ Quo Warranto
The prerogative writ
of quo warranto has been suppressed at the federal level in the United
States, and deprecated at the state level, but remains a right under the
Ninth Amendment, which was understood and presumed by the Founders, and
which affords the only judicial remedy for violations of the
Constitution by public officials and agents. Here are a few writings on
the subject.
Although
some of these writings are copyrighted, we are assured that all the
chapters of all the ones still copyrighted have been attached to
pleadings in various cases, and thus made part of the public record,
thereby putting them into the public domain.
A
writ of quo warranto is not a petition, but a notice of demand, issued
by a demandant, to a respondant claiming some delegated power, and filed
with a court of competent jurisdiction, to hold a hearing within 3 to
20 days, depending on the distance of the respondant to the court, to
present proof of his authority to execute his claimed powers. If the
court finds the proof insufficient, or if the court fails to hold the
hearing, the respondant must cease to exercise the power. If the power
is to hold an office, he must vacate the office.
The writ is unlike a petition or motion to show cause, because the burden of proof is on the respondant, not on the demandant.
By
itself, the writ does not seek the support of the court to order the
respondant to cease the exercise or vacate the office. That would be an
accompanying writ of prohibito or a writ of mandamus. All such writs
contemplate enforcement by the people as militia, although that could
include the sheriff or constable as commander of militia. The right
involved is that of the respondant to present his evidence.
These
writs are called prerogative writs because they are supposed to be
docketed ahead of all other cases except other prerogative writs. The
demandant represents the sovereign, the people, and anyone may appear in
that capacity, even without a personal stake in the decision.
A
writ of habeas corpus may be regarded as a subset of quo warranto, for
cases where the claimed power is to hold a prisoner, but with the
addition of a requirement to produce the prisoner in court, not just
appear to present evidence of authority.
The
prerogative writ of quo warranto has been suppressed at the federal
level in the United States, and deprecated at the state level, but
remains a right under the Ninth Amendment, which was understood and
presumed by the Founders, and which affords the only judicial remedy for
violations of the Constitution by public officials and agents.
Currently
the former procedure has been replaced by an information in the nature
of a quo warranto, an extraordinary remedy by which a prosecuting
attorney, who represents the public at large, challenges someone whohas
usurped a public office or someone who, through abuse or neglect, has
forfeited an office to which she was entitled. In spite of the fact that
the remedy of quo warranto is pursued by a prosecuting attorney in a
majorityof jurisdictions, it is ordinarily regarded as a civil rather
than criminal action. Quo warranto is often the only proper legal
remedy; however, the legislature can enact legislation or provide other
forms of relief.
Statutes
describing quo warranto usually indicate where it is appropriate.
Ordinarily it is proper to try the issue of whether a public office or
authority is being abused. For example, it might be used to challenge
the Unauthorized Practice
of a profession, such as law or medicine. In such situations, the
challenge is an assertion that the defendant is not qualified to hold
the position she claims—a medical doctor, for example.
In
some quo warranto proceedings, the issue is whether the defendant is
entitled to hold the office he claims, or to exercise the authority he
presumes to have from the government. In addition, proceedings have
challengedthe right to the position of county commissioner, treasurer,
school board member, district attorney, judge, or tax commissioner. In
certain jurisdictions, quo warranto is a proper proceeding to challenge
individuals who areacting as officers or directors of business
corporations.
A
prosecuting attorney ordinarily commences quo warranto proceedings;
however, a statute may authorize a private person to do so without the
consent of the prosecutor. Unless otherwise provided by statute, a
courtpermits the filing of an information in the nature of quo warranto
after an exercise of sound discretion, since quo warranto is an
extraordinary exercise of power and is not to be invoked lightly.
Quo
warranto is not a rightavailable merely because the appropriate legal
documents are filed. Valid reason must be indicated to justify
governmental interference with the individual holding the challenged
office, privilege, or license.
Quo
warranto is a Master Stroke against the CABAL… Many more are to come……
It’s a Great beginning even though late.. better late then NEVER!
