Main Menu

There was an Old Man with a beard

With apologies to Edward Lear:

There was an Old Man with a beard,
Who said, ‘It is just as I feared!
Two Owls and a Hen,
Four Larks and a Wren,
Have all sued Barack in my beard!

So somehow I ended up this YouTube video by a fellow who has figured out how to get Barack Obama’s eligibility litigated. He’s going to demand the Attorney General bring a quo warranto action against the President, and if the AG refuses, he things that gives him the right to bring it himself.

Actually the DC statute (D.C. Code §§ 16-3501 – 16-3503) says that the leave of the court is required for someone else other than the Attorney General to bring the action. That said, the court in Taitz v. Obama determined that no one but the Attorney General actually has standing to bring it.

Taitz v. Obama, 754 F. Supp. 2d 57, 78 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 207 (D.D.C. 2010) as precedent to say “[o]nly the Attorney General may bring a quo warranto action against a public official.”

American Jurisprudence

Sherman, set the way back machine…

The first of the 30-something articles on this sited tagged “quo warranto” dates back almost to the site’s beginning, to an article about the Kerchner v. Obama lawsuit in February of 2009. Orly Taitz liked that idea and brought a few of them herself. The protagonist in the current exercise in futility, Zane Grey, seems not to be aware that numerous demands have been made on the Attorney General to bring a quo warranto action (all ignored), and none of them was ever able to get a court to allow them to bring an action themselves.

See also Drake v. Obama, citing Taitz.

Print Friendly

, , , , , ,

53 Responses to There was an Old Man with a beard

  1. avatar
    john January 7, 2013 at 7:54 pm #

    This has already been tried. I think I heard the court state that if the AG IGNORES the case that is not same as refusing to take the case so therefore no can get that authority AG has. In addition, the court cited standing problems where the person had to show a personal vested interest in the position. Quo warranto has been tried but it won’t work.

  2. avatar
    aesthetocyst January 7, 2013 at 8:11 pm #

    What’s next for The Beard? A ‘citizens grand jury’? Followed by a threat on the President (a promise to ‘perform a citizen’s arrest’) and quality time with the Secret Service?

    Birferism: 1 obsession, dead ends

  3. avatar
    Joey January 7, 2013 at 8:28 pm #

    Another Quo Warranto action by Montgomery Blair Sibley was denied Cert at the Supreme Court of the United States today, January 7, 2013. The lawsuit is ex-rel Sibley v The District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics.

  4. avatar
    john January 7, 2013 at 8:36 pm #

    Regarding SCOTUS, I seriously doubt any SCOTUS justice has ever seen birther petition. Most likely these case are being flatly denied by law clerks working for the justices. In conference, the justice merely sees just a name of the case with reccomendation that is be denied by the law clerk. Justices don’t question and follow the law clerks reccomendation

  5. avatar
    aesthetocyst January 7, 2013 at 9:17 pm #

    john: denied by law clerks

    Ah, yes, the Conspiratorial Gatekeeper Hypothesis again. If only those poor, isolated Justices were allowed to witness the brilliance of a legal birf. They’d rend their robes, prostrate themselves, and weep as the scales fell from their eyes …

    Or not.

    john, birfer ‘petitions’ are just more overly-thick stack of frivolous nutjob ramblings. They are common as dirt in the legal system. Plenty of bored people with nothing better to do.

    By the time they make SCOTUS, legal professionals have seen plenty of birfer-style crap.

  6. avatar
    Rickey January 8, 2013 at 12:20 am #

    john:
    Regarding SCOTUS, I seriously doubt any SCOTUS justice has ever seen birther petition.Most likely these case are being flatly denied by law clerks working for the justices.In conference, the justice merely sees just a name of the case with reccomendation that is be denied by the law clerk.Justices don’t question and follow the law clerks reccomendation

    In this week’s orders, SCOTUS disposed of approximately 650 petitions. Do you really expect that the Justices should by themselves read all 650 of them? If each justice spent an hour reviewing each petition, it would take them 27 days to read 650 of them, and that is assuming that they kept at it 24 hours a day.

    Of course they rely upon their clerks. That is why they are very selective about their clerks. Only the best need apply.

  7. avatar
    misha marinsky January 8, 2013 at 12:42 am #

    john: Justices don’t question and follow the law clerks reccomendation

    It’s true. They are paid by Soros to do this. Why haven’t you realized this by now?

    I can confirm this, because Soros and I regularly meet in New York for brunch in Greenwich Village. The International Jewish Conspiracy™ always meets at the Northern Spy Food Company, 511 East 12th Street, for a reason.

  8. avatar
    Joey January 8, 2013 at 12:55 am #

    Rickey: In this week’s orders, SCOTUS disposed of approximately 650 petitions. Do you really expect that the Justices should by themselves read all 650 of them? If each justice spent an hour reviewing each petition, it would take them 27 days to read 650 of them, and that is assuming that they kept at it 24 hours a day.

    Of course they rely upon their clerks. That is why they are very selective about their clerks. Only the best need apply.

    Exactly right, plus Supreme Court Justices’ clerks are often more ideologically “pure” than the Justice they clerk for. Conservative Justices’ clerks are often more conservative than the Justice, and so on. And it only takes four Justices to agree to grant Cert.

  9. avatar
    The Magic M January 8, 2013 at 5:19 am #

    john: Quo warranto has been tried but it won’t work.

    Birthers are in full repeat mode, a clear sign they know that after the oath of office, their legal options are as many as before the elections (meaning zero).

    You can clearly see that in the recent number of old birther memes popping up as new ones:

    * The “Onaka stated the BC is a forgery” meme
    * The “Bishop McRae affidavit” (“Obama’s grandmother said he was born in Kenya”) meme
    * Some other 2009 story I forgot

    etc. which are now getting the “OMG this is huge” and the source detachment treatment (meaning that e.g. the Onaka meme is already being spread without giving any actual source for the claim, therefore entering birther lore as an actual fact and not just an interpretation of “what was not said”).

  10. avatar
    The Magic M January 8, 2013 at 5:54 am #

    misha marinsky: The International Jewish Conspiracy™ always meets at the Northern Spy Food Company, 511 East 12th Street, for a reason.

    Kosher spy food? The 21 century never ceases to surprise me. ;)

  11. avatar
    Northland10 January 8, 2013 at 8:53 am #

    The great clerk conspiracy always amuses me in a absurdity sense. Clerks are selected and employed by the justices and judges and not the executive branch. Their employer has a lifetime appointment not controlled by the President. How much they are paid and impeachment reside with the Congress.

    Joey: Exactly right, plus Supreme Court Justices’ clerks are often more ideologically “pure” than the Justice they clerk for. Conservative Justices’ clerks are often more conservative than the Justice, and so on. And it only takes four Justices to agree to grant Cert.

  12. avatar
    Scientist January 8, 2013 at 9:24 am #

    john: Quo warranto has been tried but it won’t work.

    Everything has been tried and hasn’t worked:

    Post-election lawsuits
    Ballot challeges
    Trying to change state laws
    Lobbying Congress not to certify the 2 elections
    Quo warranto
    Petitions
    Soldiers disobeying orders
    Lawsuits claiming laws signed by the President are invalid
    Websites galore
    “Investigations” by fake cops

    Not only has none of it worked, it arguably helped re-elect the President. The birther noise seemingly drove turnout amongst groups favorable to the Democrats. That is what you and your pals accomplished, john, you probably HELPED Obama. If you guys had simply done and said nothing you would have accomplished no less and possibly more.

  13. avatar
    John Reilly January 8, 2013 at 9:46 am #

    The Supreme Court knows more about the birther cases than John imagines. After all, Dr. Taitz has spoken with Justices Roberts and Scalia about them. And she has encouraged her supporters to make calls accusing the Chief Clerks of treason. Perhaps the reason the cases are not reviewed is not because of some great onspiracvy by lower level personnel, but rather, precisely because the Justices know exactly what the cases are about.

    John, perhaps it might be more succesful to win a case to refrain from telling a judge to his face that he is guilty of treason if he rules against you. Just saying.

  14. avatar
    donna January 8, 2013 at 10:08 am #

    John Reilly: John, perhaps it might be more successful to win a case to refrain from telling a judge to his face that he is guilty of treason if he rules against you. Just saying.

    actually taitz did almost that – she told judge england she was looking for one honest judge

    judges are like attorneys, teachers, law enforcement, etc in that they protect their own

    a parent can say her kid is a brat but don’t you dare tell her that her kid’s a brat

  15. avatar
    Horus January 8, 2013 at 3:16 pm #

    Only congress can impeach a member of SCOTUS.
    Birthers could not get one objection to the Electoral vote count from any Republican congressman, what makes them think they can get them to Impeach Roberts?

  16. avatar
    brygenon January 8, 2013 at 8:14 pm #

    john: Regarding SCOTUS, I seriously doubt any SCOTUS justice has ever seen birther petition. Most likely these case are being flatly denied by law clerks working for the justices.

    That’s generally what happens to obviously merit-less petitions and applications.

    john: Justices don’t question and follow the law clerks reccomendation

    You lie. Thought the specific discussions are not disclosed, Supreme Court Justices constantly question their law clerks. Both justices and clerks are dedicated to the process and vigilant in proper operation of the Court.

  17. avatar
    Rickey January 8, 2013 at 9:32 pm #

    The Magic M: Kosher spy food? The 21 century never ceases to surprise me.

    Misha does not lie. The Northern Spy Food Company really is at 511 E. 12th Street. It’s a nice inconspicuous spot, a perfect venue for plotting the destruction of America.

    http://www.joonbug.com/media/vTT51tUfRIN/northern-spy-food-co-main.jpg

  18. avatar
    Saint James January 8, 2013 at 11:42 pm #

    Got this from Youtube, thought I’d share it with you all!

    ” The FEDS never vetted Obama because of his RACE and FEAR of RACE RIOTS!”…quoted from poster Wanda

  19. avatar
    Paper January 8, 2013 at 11:46 pm #

    511 E. 12th is not in Greenwich Village. That is actually Alphabet City. 511 W. 12th, however, is *almost* in Greenwich Village, almost because 511 is more or less in the middle of the Hudson River.

    This is the difference between feeding the pigeons or feeding the fishes. If you are able to decipher Misha’s code, welcome to the brother and sisterhood. If not, well…

    Rickey: Misha does not lie. The Northern Spy Food Company really is at 511 E. 12th Street. It’s a nice inconspicuous spot, a perfect venue for plotting the destruction of America.

    misha marinsky:
    I can confirm this, because Soros and I regularly meet in New York for brunch in Greenwich Village. The International Jewish Conspiracy™ always meets at the Northern Spy Food Company, 511 East 12th Street, for a reason.

  20. avatar
    gorefan January 9, 2013 at 12:22 am #

    They have deleted the comments from the youtube video. LOL

  21. avatar
    misha marinsky January 9, 2013 at 12:23 am #

    Paper: 511 E. 12th is not in Greenwich Village. That is actually Alphabet City. 511 W. 12th, however, is *almost* in Greenwich Village, almost because 511 is more or less in the middle of the Hudson River.

    “A restaurant and food shop in the east village…”

    https://plus.google.com/115409632083363601142/about?gl=US&hl=en-US

  22. avatar
    Paper January 9, 2013 at 1:54 am #

    Right, but not Greenwich Village. I know it’s a small matter, but such is what conspiracies are made of. ;-)

    misha marinsky: “A restaurant and food shop in the east village…”

  23. avatar
    The Magic M January 9, 2013 at 5:37 am #

    Horus: Birthers could not get one objection to the Electoral vote count from any Republican congressman, what makes them think they can get them to Impeach Roberts?

    That’s one of the most extreme symptoms of their delusion. They constantly yap about how all 535 Congress members are traitors supporting da ebil usurrpurr, yet they always keep coming back to writing whiney/threaty letters to Congress requesting them to go birfer.
    Within their bizarro world, that’s a bit like writing whiney letters to Al Capone saying “you evil evil man, stop all that mob activity now!”. And repeating same after Capone shot your parents. *facepalm*

    That’s the part that has always puzzled me. Usually, conspiracy cranks do not expect the alleged conspirators to switch sides. The ultra-right wingers in my country don’t write letters to mainstream politicians demanding they reinstate the 1937 borders of the Reich.

  24. avatar
    brygenon January 9, 2013 at 6:07 am #

    Behind this “call to action” is a legal crank operating “Team Law”. A few years ago he elected himself governor of Colorado.
    http://www.teamlaw.org/GovernorMadsen.htm

    In a rare bit of sanity, Team Law places Black’s Law Dictionary at the top of its recommended reading list, specifically noting the sixth and eighth editions. TL instructs students to look up every term in any given legal document.

    TL should have taken its own advice. “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.

  25. avatar
    Saint James January 9, 2013 at 8:17 am #

    Rickey: That is why they are very selective about their clerks. Only the best need apply.

    To add that these law clerks are not paralegals nor secretaries, they’re bona fide lawyers. Am I correct Ricky?

  26. avatar
    brygenon January 9, 2013 at 12:48 pm #

    Saint James: To add that these law clerks are not paralegals nor secretaries, they’re bona fide lawyers. Am I correct

    Some of them are not yet technically lawyers. They’re generally young, twenty-somethings. They are the top of the classes of the top law schools. They are the dream hires of the top law firms.

    Perkins Coie competes with Jones Day to hire the top graduates from the law schools of Harvard and Yale and Standford. They hate it when another firm, their competition, snatches their favorite. But when a premium prospect chooses to clerk for a federal judge instead of accepting their offer of a six figure salary and partnership-track position, the richest law firms smile, nod, and suck it up. Clerking pays a meager stipend, but the experience is priceless.

    Our legal system has its problems, but that’s not reason to go for the ignorant, stupid, hateful, and imaginary issues of the birthers. The law-clerk-conspiracy thing could not be farther from reality.

  27. avatar
    LW January 9, 2013 at 2:22 pm #

    I understand that the cream of the crop of Taft Law School is aggressively recruited for plum clerkship positions with the US Postal Service.

  28. avatar
    HKL (Keith away from home) January 9, 2013 at 3:41 pm #

    I didn’t know that the Post Office had sunk that low.

    I think you really mean the Pima County (AZ) Fiduciary Office.

  29. avatar
    The Magic M January 10, 2013 at 4:51 am #

    brygenon: The law-clerk-conspiracy thing could not be farther from reality.

    But it’s also common crank behaviour. I’ve seen that in many cranks in my country who had exhausted all legal paths nationally and then tried to go to the European Court (which also has clerks handling the cases). When their appeals were denied, they claimed the clerks were German jurists and thus part of the Grand Conspiracy of German Courts [tm].

  30. avatar
    Scientist January 10, 2013 at 8:03 am #

    The Justices don’t live in a cave. They have TV and the internet. They go to cocktail parties. I guarantee you that all 9 are aware that the birthers exist and what their claims are, in a nutshell (pun intended). If they thought there was any merit, they would instruct their clerks, “If any Obama eligibiity cases show up, let’s have a good look at them. I want to hear one if we can.” And the clerks would do it, even if they opposed it, because they would know that their boss would likely find out if they disobeyed and that would end their career.

    A more likely conversation would go something like this:

    Justice: By the way, if any appeals from that lunatic Taitz show up, you know what to do with them, right?
    Clerk: Indeed, sir (or ma’am). The vertical file.
    Justice: Save the paper though. It’s chilly in the evenings and I can use it to get the fireplace going.
    Clerk: In case there’s any left over, you don’t mind if I use to housetrain Rex, do you?
    Justice: Of course not. Just don’t show him any pictures of Orly. He’s still a puppy after all….

  31. avatar
    Crustacean January 10, 2013 at 1:41 pm #

    Scientist: A more likely conversation would go something like this:

    That sounds about right, Scientist. I have no legal background, but I love hearing my father-in-law talk about his experience as a federal judge. He’s Republican (appointed by G.H.W Bush), and I have infinite respect for his wisdom. Next time we visit I have GOT to remember to ask him for his thoughts on the birthers. Interesting factor: he is NOT a tech guy – barely knows how to use a computer – so I doubt “PDF layering” is something he’s even heard of.

  32. avatar
    Simplythinkdreams January 21, 2013 at 12:43 am #

    In the Drake vs. Obama opinion it states,

    “Plaintiffs do not predicate their quo warranto claim on any plausible legal basis other than the D.C.Code.5 Thus, in this case, the District Court did not err by dismissing Plaintiffs’ quo warranto claims, as premised on the D.C.Code, for improper venue.”

    Zane Grey did not predicate his quo warranto claim on the District of Columbia Code; rather, it was brought using his God given inherent right to quo warranto protected under the 9th amendment. Thus, Zane is not limited from bringing the action if the Attorney General fails to respond or timely bring the action himself.

    Additionally, others who have brought quo warranto before have also failed to properly bring the action because they did not properly apply the law. This is obvious if you actually read the court cases like Drake vs. Obama where the case was brought in the improper venue. If a correct quo warranto case is brought by anyone other than an interested party, the case must be brought as The United States vs. Obama. One cannot bring the action in their own personal name.

    You can read the actual Notice and Demand sent to the Attorney General here: http://teamlawforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1135

  33. avatar
    Northland10 January 21, 2013 at 9:00 am #

    And on the ninth day, God brought forth the most holy writ of Quo Warranto that all his creation may be protected from a scary guy with a funny name.

    P.s. When Peter later says honor the Emperor, ignore that part.

    Simplythinkdreams:
    In the Drake vs. Obama opinion it states,

    “Plaintiffs do not predicate their quo warranto claim on any plausible legal basis other than the D.C.Code.5 Thus, in this case, the District Court did not err by dismissing Plaintiffs’ quo warranto claims, as premised on the D.C.Code, for improper venue.”

    Zane Grey did not predicate his quo warranto claim on the District of Columbia Code; rather, it was brought using his God given inherent right to quo warranto protected under the 9th amendment.Thus, Zane is not limited from bringing the action if the Attorney General fails to respond or timely bring the action himself.

    Additionally, others who have brought quo warranto before have also failed to properly bring the action because they did not properly apply the law.This is obvious if you actually read the court cases like Drake vs. Obama where the case was brought in the improper venue.If a correct quo warranto case is brought by anyone other than an interested party, the case must be brought as The United States vs. Obama.One cannot bring the action in their own personal name.

    You can read the actual Notice and Demand sent to the Attorney General here: http://teamlawforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1135

  34. avatar
    Arthur January 21, 2013 at 9:12 am #

    Simplythinkdreams: Zane Grey did not predicate his quo warranto claim on the District of Columbia Code; rather, it was brought using his God given inherent right to quo warranto protected under the 9th amendment.

    Quo warranto is a a God-given right? Funny, I don’t remember any religious figure, from any religion, ever saying anything about this.

  35. avatar
    MN-Skeptic January 21, 2013 at 11:25 am #

    Simplythinkdreams:

    You can read the actual Notice and Demand sent to the Attorney General here: http://teamlawforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1135

    Ok, I went over to the link. Discovered it was a Call to Action posted on December 22. Within that posting it states: “Regardless of what Congress does, this action must be in the courts before January 20th.” How ironic that your post here is on January 21.

  36. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater January 21, 2013 at 1:38 pm #

    Simplythinkdreams:
    In the Drake vs. Obama opinion it states,

    “Plaintiffs do not predicate their quo warranto claim on any plausible legal basis other than the D.C.Code.5 Thus, in this case, the District Court did not err by dismissing Plaintiffs’ quo warranto claims, as premised on the D.C.Code, for improper venue.”

    Zane Grey did not predicate his quo warranto claim on the District of Columbia Code; rather, it was brought using his God given inherent right to quo warranto protected under the 9th amendment.Thus, Zane is not limited from bringing the action if the Attorney General fails to respond or timely bring the action himself.

    Additionally, others who have brought quo warranto before have also failed to properly bring the action because they did not properly apply the law.This is obvious if you actually read the court cases like Drake vs. Obama where the case was brought in the improper venue.If a correct quo warranto case is brought by anyone other than an interested party, the case must be brought as The United States vs. Obama.One cannot bring the action in their own personal name.

    You can read the actual Notice and Demand sent to the Attorney General here: http://teamlawforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1135

    Quo warranto has no relevance to the presidency.

  37. avatar
    Simplythinkdreams January 21, 2013 at 5:31 pm #

    MN-Skeptic: Ok, I went over to the link. Discovered it was a Call to Action posted on December 22. Within that posting it states: “Regardless of what Congress does, this action must be in the courts before January 20th.” How ironic that your post here is on January 21.

    I’m pretty sure Zane is proceeding with the case. There is no statute of limitations on Quo Warranto as long as the usurpation of office exists. I just found this blog post featuring my video regarding Zane’s Quo Warranto action.

    Additionally, if you would have clicked the link to the Notice and Demand for a Writ of Quo Warranto within that forum post, you would have seen the actual instrument filed with the Attorney General.

  38. avatar
    Simplythinkdreams January 21, 2013 at 5:33 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater: Quo warranto has no relevance to the presidency.

    Quo warranto always applies when usurpation of an office exists, even the office of President.

  39. avatar
    Simplythinkdreams January 21, 2013 at 5:38 pm #

    Northland10:
    And on the ninth day, God brought forth the most holy writ of Quo Warranto that all his creation may be protected from a scary guy with a funny name.

    P.s.When Peter later says honor the Emperor,ignore that part.

    Where does Peter ever say to honor the Emperor?

    If you don’t understand that quo warranto is a God given right to question “by what authority,” then you don’t have a proper understanding of what it is. If I came to your house and demanded that you leave and that the house was now mine, you wouldn’t just listen to me; rather, you would want to know by what authority I can take your house from you.

  40. avatar
    Arthur January 21, 2013 at 5:54 pm #

    Simplythinkdreams: If you don’t understand that quo warranto is a God given right to question “by what authority,” then you don’t have a proper understanding of what it is.

    Yes, he does. Quo Warranto is a secular principle, not a religious one. I object to you trying to over-paint this with fatuous allusions to natural law, when it so clearly emerged out of terrestrial arguments concerning power, money, and land.

    Quo warranto had its origins in an attempt by King Edward I of England to investigate and recover royal lands, rights, and franchises in England,[1] in particular those lost during the reign of his father, King Henry III of England.[2][3] From 1278 to 1294, Edward dispatched justices throughout the Kingdom of England to inquire “by what warrant” English lords held their lands and exercised their jurisdictions (often including the right to hold a court and collect its profits). Initially, the justices demanded written proof in the form of charters, but resistance and the unrecorded nature of many grants forced Edward to accept those rights peacefully exercised since 1189.[1][4] Later, quo warranto functioned as a court order (or “writ”) to show proof of authority; for example, demanding that someone acting as the sheriff prove that the king had actually appointed him to that office (literally, “By whose warrant are you the sheriff?”).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quo_warranto

  41. avatar
    MN-Skeptic January 21, 2013 at 6:08 pm #

    Simplythinkdreams: Quo warranto always applies when usurpation of an office exists, even the office of President.

    Oh good grief! Your sole argument is that Obama is not a NBC because his father was not a U.S. citizen. Hate to break it to you, but that’s been public knowledge for years. Congress did not see that as an issue four years ago and they didn’t see it as an issue this year. You are doomed to fail. Personally, I don’t care if you waste your time, I’m just a little ticked that you cost taxpayers money in your silly, doomed tilting at windmills. Get a life. Find something productive to do!

  42. avatar
    Simplythinkdreams January 21, 2013 at 6:14 pm #

    MN-Skeptic: Oh good grief! Your sole argument is that Obama is not a NBC because his father was not a U.S. citizen. Hate to break it to you, but that’s been public knowledge for years. Congress did not see that as an issue four years ago and they didn’t see it as an issue this year. You are doomed to fail. Personally, I don’t care if you waste your time, I’m just a little ticked that you cost taxpayers money in your silly, doomed tilting at windmills. Get a life. Find something productive to do!

    Exactly why the people need to stand up and say enough! Pretty soon you will see people bringing quo warranto actions against Congressmen for failing to due their duties in confirming the eligibility of Obama for the President’s office. Maybe then they will wake up and do their jobs! If the people do nothing, this country will fall and the Constitution will be gone.

    Anyways, Obama is costing the taxpayers way more money than Zane Grey who merely wants Obama to prove his eligibility.

  43. avatar
    Majority Will January 21, 2013 at 6:26 pm #

    Another delusional birther troll who fantasizes about representing the people of the U.S. The people spoke when they re-elected President Obama.

    These idiots are under the mistaken impression that the President must prove his eligibility to their satisfaction.

  44. avatar
    justlw January 21, 2013 at 6:28 pm #

    Simplythinkdreams: Exactly why the people need to stand up and say enough! Pretty soon you will see people bringing quo warranto actions against Congressmen for failing to due their duties in confirming the eligibility of Obama for the President’s office.

    It’ll be the new “pet rock.” Kids will be quo warrato-ing after stickball; there will be “flash quo warrantos” in the shopping malls. Tebowing and Kaepernicking: out. Quo warranting after a touchdown: in. Katy Perry will wear a onesie with a quo warranto on it. We’ll all be able to buy Quo Warrant-Os, and enjoy a heaping bowl for breakfast.

    This will continue until the Glee Cast Version of “Quo Warranto” is released, signalling the official Death of the Fad.

  45. avatar
    Scientist January 21, 2013 at 6:40 pm #

    Quo warranto? Speak Murrican or go back to Mexico.

  46. avatar
    MN-Skeptic January 21, 2013 at 6:40 pm #

    Simplythinkdreams: Exactly why the people need to stand up and say enough!Pretty soon you will see people bringing quo warranto actions against Congressmen for failing to due their duties in confirming the eligibility of Obama for the President’s office.

    But Congress DID do their duty. They determined that Obama was qualified for office. They affirmed the vote of the Electoral College. There were no objections, not a single one, from any Senator or any Representative. The fact that you don’t like Congress’ decision is irrelevant. Congress did decide Obama was qualified by their actions. There is not a court in the land which will decide otherwise!

  47. avatar
    Crustacean January 21, 2013 at 6:49 pm #

    justlw: Katy Perry will wear a onesie with a quo warranto on it.

    Darn you, LW, for putting that image in my head! On second thought, thank you, LW, for putting that image in my head!

    But seriously, Quo Warranto?? As far as Obama is concerned, I think there are just under 66 million answers to that question.

  48. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 21, 2013 at 6:56 pm #

    Are you confusing quo warranto with mandamus? Not that it matters.

    Simplythinkdreams: Pretty soon you will see people bringing quo warranto actions against Congressmen for failing to due their duties in confirming the eligibility of Obama for the President’s office.

  49. avatar
    Arthur January 21, 2013 at 7:21 pm #

    Simplythinkdreams: Pretty soon you will see people bringing quo warranto actions against Congressmen for failing to due their duties in confirming the eligibility of Obama for the President’s office.

    If they do what you predict, I predict they will be unceremoniously rejected.

  50. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 21, 2013 at 7:28 pm #

    I never could find that step that went from the Attorney General refusing to bring the Quo Warranto action to “random guy in the street” gaining standing to bring it. Do you know of any case in the past where this happened?

    PS, thanks for dropping by. It’s hard to have a discussion when you don’t allow comments on your video.

    Simplythinkdreams: I’m pretty sure Zane is proceeding with the case. There is no statute of limitations on Quo Warranto as long as the usurpation of office exists. I just found this blog post featuring my video regarding Zane’s Quo Warranto action.

  51. avatar
    Northland10 January 21, 2013 at 7:48 pm #

    Simplythinkdreams: Where does Peter ever say to honor the Emperor?

    Since you asked, 1 Peter 2:17 (not to mention 2:13)

    1 Peter 2:13-17

    Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.

    And for good measure, how about a little Romans 13:

    Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

    Is your understanding of Scripture at the same level of your understanding of the law and Constitution? Is it that an Obot knows scripture better then the “God fearing birthers.”

  52. avatar
    Paper January 21, 2013 at 8:00 pm #

    They did. It was called the election.

    Simplythinkdreams: Exactly why the people need to stand up and say enough!

  53. avatar
    Keith January 21, 2013 at 8:44 pm #

    Simplythinkdreams: If I came to your house and demanded that you leave and that the house was now mine, you wouldn’t just listen to me; rather, you would want to know by what authority I can take your house from you.

    No I wouldn’t.

    I’d just tell you to piss off.

333333 44444
5555555
6666666