Quo Warranto - JUDGES AND PUBLIC OFFICIALS ARE IN TROUBLE

Quo Warranto.
PDF: Big Trouble For Every

Federal Judge & All 9 US Supreme Court
Justices (Video)
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!
305
3
By Josey Wales (Reporter)
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views
Now: 1
Last Hour: 1
Last 24 Hours: 1
Total: 14,566
Quo Warranto.PDF: Big Trouble For Every

Federal Judge & All 9 US Supreme Court
Justices (Video)
Thursday, November 13, 2014 19:38
<a href="http://ox-
d.beforeitsnews.com/w/1.0/rc?cs=5125e7a33c8bf&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE"
><img src="http://ox-
d.beforeitsnews.com/w/1.0/ai?auid=326914&cs=5125e7a33c8bf&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NU
MBER_HERE" border="0" alt=""></a>
(Before It's News)
By Josey Wales
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!
Its A legal proceeding during which an individual’s right to hold an office or

governmental privilege is challenged
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.
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.
Revival of the writs must be combined with reviving standing for private
prosecution of public rights, subverted by the “cases and controversies” doctrine
and the decision in Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923), which is discussed
in an article by Steve Winter, The Metaphor of Standing and the Problem of Self-
Governance.
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!
Critical Reads: More News Mainstream Media Chooses To Ignore By

Josey Wales, Click Here!

Quo Warranto - JUDGES AND PUBLIC OFFICIALS ARE IN TROUBLE

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Quo Warranto - JUDGES AND PUBLIC OFFICIALS ARE IN TROUBLE

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Quo Warranto.

PDF: Big Trouble For Every

Quo Warranto.PDF: Big Trouble For Every

(Before It's News)

Its A legal proceeding during which an individual’s right to hold an office or

A writ of quo warranto is not a petition, but a notice of demand, issued by a

Statutes describing quo warranto usually indicate where it is appropriate.

A prosecuting attorney ordinarily commences quo warranto proceedings;

Critical Reads: More News Mainstream Media Chooses To Ignore By

You might also like