February 22, 2012  

IN – Swibart v Obama

What happens if Obama ignores the CAN-1 filing? Well, the judge may filed a default order and will then establish the issues in adjudication, including those affecting the defaulted party and under Ankeny v Daniels, dismiss the complaint.

Judge Mental posted:

IC 4-21.5-3-24
Default or dismissal
Sec. 24. (a) At any stage of a proceeding, if a party fails to:
(1) file a responsive pleading required by statute or rule;
(2) attend or participate in a prehearing conference, hearing, or other stage of the proceeding; or
(3) take action on a matter for a period of sixty (60) days, if the party is responsible for taking the action;

(a) the administrative law judge may serve upon all parties written notice of a proposed default or dismissal order, including a statement of the grounds.
(b) Within seven (7) days after service of a proposed default or dismissal order, the party against whom it was issued may file a written motion requesting that the proposed default order not be imposed and stating the grounds relied upon. During the time within which a party may file a written motion under this subsection, the administrative law judge may adjourn the proceedings or conduct them without the participation of the party against whom a proposed default order was issued, having due regard for the interest of justice and the orderly and prompt conduct of the proceedings.
(c) If the party has failed to file a written motion under subsection (b), the administrative law judge shall issue the default or dismissal order. If the party has filed a written motion under subsection (b), the administrative law judge may either enter the order or refuse to enter the order.
(d) After issuing a default order, the administrative law judge shall conduct any further proceedings necessary to complete the proceeding without the participation of the party in default and shall determine all issues in the adjudication, including those affecting the defaulting party. The administrative law judge may conduct proceedings in accordance with section 23 of this chapter to resolve any issue of fact.

As added by P.L.18-1986, SEC.1.

63 Responses to “IN – Swibart v Obama”

  1. borderraven says :

    Laugh at me now, or cry with me later.

  2. Stanislaw says :

    borderraven says : February 22, 2012 at 02:43
    Laugh at me now, or cry with me later.

    What we laugh at you so hard that we start crying? ‘Cause that’s what us sane folks have been doing to birthers for years.

  3. NBC says :

    Laugh at me now, or cry with me later.

    Given your inability to be correct about much of anything, I take my bet and laugh at you now. But if you need some company for the crying part, I am sure you will soon have more than enough opportunity to regret your follies.

  4. borderraven says :

    Considering Obama’s success at staying out of prison has hinged on jurisdiction, political question, or failure to state claim for which relief could be granted, and now we have moved into the arena of challenging his ballot access, which is based on 1.) his ability to meet constitutional eligibility, and 2.) a willingness of US Citizens to define “natural born citizen” as the child of a non-immigrant alien; his time is getting short.

    [NBC: Weird that courts and commissions all are finding him to be eligible because of his birth on soil... ROTFL... So much for time getting short. And the funny part... The efforts are strengthening the fact that children born to (illegal) aliens are natural born citizens, a status which cannot be taken away by simple statute... Your immigrant friends will adore you for your contributions here...]

  5. gorefan says :

    “his time is getting short.”

    And what happens when all the ballot challenges fail? Is that what you mean by crying later?

  6. Gerry Nance says :

    gorefan,

    Are you planning a victory party?

  7. Northland10 says :

    Border: Considering Obama’s success at staying out of prison has hinged on jurisdiction, political question, or failure to state claim for which relief could be granted,

    I have 2 more reasons:

    1. No prosecutor has ever charged him with anything.
    2. He is lacking in actually committing a crime.

    For the record, the following is not illegal:

    1. Running for President
    2. Being elected President
    3. Being sworn in as President, twice (see Chester Arthur, sworn in by Justice Waite, who wrote Minor v. Happersett, hmmm)
    4. Running for, being elected, confirmed by Congress and sworn in as President, while being a child of a single or even multiple non-immigrant aliens or even undocumented aliens.
    5. Presidenting while half-Black (or fully Black or other shade, including orange).

    If you are throwing your President in jail, please explain where we might find in Federal law, the appropriate sentence for being elected President (besides loss of private life and increasing grey hair).

  8. Stanislaw says :

    borderraven says : February 22, 2012 at 06:35
    Considering Obama’s success at staying out of prison has hinged on jurisdiction, political question, or failure to state claim for which relief could be granted, and now we have moved into the arena of challenging his ballot access, which is based on 1.) his ability to meet constitutional eligibility, and 2.) a willingness of US Citizens to define “natural born citizen” as the child of a non-immigrant alien; his time is getting short.

    “Any day now, any day now…”

  9. Norbrook says :

    Since one of the “issues” is whether the President is “eligible,” and Indiana has already produced one of the precedent cases, this is a rubber challenge. It’s going to bounce right out of court.

    On the plus side, we get to laugh at borderraven and the rest of the birthers some more.

  10. Stanislaw says :

    Northland10 says : February 22, 2012 at 12:24

    I have 2 more reasons:

    1. No prosecutor has ever charged him with anything.
    2. He is lacking in actually committing a crime.

    Confusing birthers with facts? Not fair!

  11. Gerry Nance says :

    In a government without corruption the AG would have assigned a Special Prosecutor or Independent Counsel to investigate the allegations.

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

    Orly Taitz filed Quo Warranto in DC, first to Holder, then in USDCDC, with zero results.

  12. NBC says :

    With Santorum providing hope to the religious extremists, the continued struggles of Romney to gain credibility has become quite amusing. Let’s pray Santorum wins the primaries…

  13. Stanislaw says :

    Gerry Nance says : February 22, 2012 at 17:26
    In a government without corruption the AG would have assigned a Special Prosecutor or Independent Counsel to investigate the allegations.

    If the government was even as remotely as “corrupt” as you think it is, you and the other birthers would have been shipped off to FEMA camps a long time ago.

    Like most birthers, you confuse “corruption” with “not getting exactly what you want, when you want it.”

  14. NBC says :

    Why the need for a special prosecutor for allegations which are totally unfounded? Such foolishness… Getting a bit desperate?…

    You’re a funny guy…

  15. Obsolete says :

    Fact:
    Obama’s administration, to this point, has been one of the cleanest in history.
    For examples of the opposite, see Reagan & Nixon.

  16. Gerry Nance says :

    I like taking advantage of the blind ignorance and swirling denial of you guys. With citizens like you the US didn’t need Russia as an enemy.

  17. NBC says :

    Projecting lately?… I may be wrong, but so far I have seen most of the denial coming from you my friend..

  18. Ballantine says :

    “In a government without corruption the AG would have assigned a Special Prosecutor or Independent Counsel to investigate the allegations”

    It is really sad that you think a violation of your own made-up definition of natural born citizenship is a crime rather than the Supreme Court’s definition. Holder is bound by the Supreme Court’s definition and, unlike you, he understands what the Supreme Court said. I guess it is too bad that there is no right for the stupid to have anyone pay attention to their ignorant interpetations of law. Have you thought about taking a night class in understanding law yet? It might help.

    “Orly Taitz filed Quo Warranto in DC, first to Holder, then in USDCDC, with zero results.”

    Yes, because she didn’t bother to research what the requirements are to bring a quo warranto claim. Of course, you have not either. Go do some research and tell us why she had zero results. It really isn’t that hard. I am sure you can figure it out if you try hard enough.

  19. NBC says :

    Orly Taitz filed Quo Warranto in DC, first to Holder, then in USDCDC, with zero results.

    You do understand the QW statute and why Orly was denied?… Show us at least some familiarity with the topic…

  20. Obsolete says :

    Speaking of Russia, isn’t it the birthers who write seditious columns for Pravda?

  21. NBC says :

    Really???

  22. Scientist says :

    Harvey Silverglate has written a book “Three Felonies a Day:, in which he argues that current laws are so vague and poorly written that the average American commits 3 felonies every day.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842.html

    So, it is quite possible that Tracy, NBC, I and all the rest of you are felons. We simply haven’t been prosecuted.

  23. NBC says :

    Oh my…

  24. Scientist says :

    That post went in the wrong place somehow.

  25. Gerry Nance says :

    What QW statute, is that like a qui tam?

  26. Northland10 says :

    Border: What QW statute, is that like a qui tam?

    I am not a lawyer so I would not expect commentors to fully understand all of the various issues (as I do not always so I research further), and I am well aware of you personal feelings about the President’s eligibility, laws, tradition and Constitution not withstanding. However, if you are going to make statements regarding Orly’s attempt at Quo Warranto, you should at least know if there is an actual statute (or possibly common law) that she is arguing. To have a case, there actually has to be some controversy in law.

    This might help:

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/03/02/quo-warranto-dc-code/

  27. Gerry Nance says :

    Per the QW statute, Holder should have acted long ago, and allowed Orly to work with a independent counsel to challenge Obama’s eligibility on the merits, granting discovery, allow Obama to present his bona fides, and on reaching a judgement of ouster, handing off to Congress for remedy.

    [NBC: I see, you are not very familiar with the Quo Warranto statute]

    All the more his ouster is delayed, the damages have multiplied, and the costs of mitigation grown.

    Any idea if Judge Malihi is a natural born citizen?

    Most Americans are uneducated on native born of two citizens being nbc.

    [NBC: Such self knowledge you have my friend. After all the Courts have now slammed the door shut and ruled on the merits. Bummer that they rejected your follies.]

    The two Bushes were from long established families, as were many POTUS.

  28. Northland10 says :

    The AG is probably being held up by the pesky detail that Obama is eligible and there is nobody else that currently has a right to the office. Darn facts getting on the way again.

  29. Ballantine says :

    “Per the QW statute, Holder should have acted long ago, and allowed Orly to work with a independent counsel to challenge Obama’s eligibility on the merits, granting discovery, allow Obama to present his bona fides, and on reaching a judgement of ouster, handing off to Congress for remedy.”

    So, you still haven’t read the statute, or being legally illiterate, you still don’t understand what its application is. Of course, you’ll slill keep posting on something you ignorant about because that is what you do.

  30. obsolete says :

    Gerry Nance: “Holder should have acted long ago, and allowed Orly to work with a independent counsel to challenge Obama’s eligibility”

    Who the hell is Orly in the grand scheme of things? What right or qualifications does she have to work with an independent counsel?

    Do you think there is even a 1% chance that she would ever pronounce Obama’s birth certificate genuine if she were to examine it?

    She is dishonest and has too much emotional investment to ever act “independently” in any matter regarding Obama. By mentioning her as a potential investigator, you have shown your judgment is as poor as hers.

  31. NBC says :

    The two Bushes were from long established families, as were many POTUS.

    I see, you are a proponent of royalty?… And with the Bushes we have seen that long established families are no guarantees for a good leadership.
    Sorry my delusional friend.

  32. NBC says :

    What QW statute, is that like a qui tam?

    As I said, totally ignorant.

  33. NBC says :

    Quo Warranto in the Federal Courts does no longer exist, and the only way to initiate a Quo Warranto action against a Federal Office is through the United States District Court For The District Of Columbia. However the statutes and the case law make it clear that Orly is not an ‘interested party’ as she lacks direct interest in the office in question. I have discussed this in quite some detail on this blog.

    Qui Tam is what Berg tried to use to allow him to prosecute President Obama for ‘fraud’. This has nothing to do with Quo Warranto, other than both being Latin words.

    Do you need any more hand holding?

  34. Gerry Nance says :

    obsolete,

    Orly Taitz, is a US Citizen, a registered voter, an elector and a relator, who possesses every right, power, or authority, to challenge Obama, by petition of leave of the court to present information in the nature of quo warranto.

    As relator she bears no burden of proof, as with quo warranto all burden is on defendant Obama, to prove he is a natural born citizen. It has taken him over three years, and he has shown two computer generated items he and Hawaii claim are proof he is a natural born citizen. But, this is a case to certify a person for US President, and we should want to take care, in this rare and historic moment to do right, for sure, the first time.

    So, we the US Citizens are demanding to examine the one sure thing that will undoubtedly forever answer our conscience minds — The vault copy of Obama’s vital statistic birth certificate, from August 4, 1961.

    I’m sorry to be such a pain in Obama’s behind, but he should have just done what we asked. Now we (you and me) will have to be vigilant, and go through this trouble with every POTUS/VP/ or line of succession candidate.

  35. Scientist says :

    So, whatever somebody demands, the President MUST do? If that’s the case, I have a very long list. I demand to be made Ambassador to the beautiful, lush Caribbean island of my choice. I demand to be able to visit any national park I wish to with all other visitors banned for as long as I wish to have the park all to myself. I demand a $500,000/year pension, including a house with a fully stocked wine cellar, free medical care and a limo with a driver.

    And, of course, I demand a pony.

    All of that is just as reasonable as demanding to look in the vault of every candidate for public office.

  36. Gerry Nance says :

    NBC,

    The voters choose from the ballot, but the Political Party chooses who will be in the election.

    Obama is a special case, in that he was born a direct descendant of a British citizen, some the DOI opposes and COTUS prohibits.

    [NBC: He was born on US soil and by our laws a natural born citizen. Many people were born direct descendants of British citizens and still their children were natural born]

    Obama allowed his campaign staff to do all they did, to get him elected, so he bears full blame for the mess he got US into — if anybody has the honor to follow their oath and begin repair of damages.

    [NBC: Blaming the victim... Very 'patriotic' of you]

  37. Gerry Nance says :

    An “information” is a citizen’s communication to the magistrate (His Majesty?) judge about a felony or high crime. An information in the nature of quo warranto, is a “presentment”, not a “writ”, brought be a relator to a magistrate judge to inform of a felony, and relieve the relator of being charged with “misprision” of felony, high crime or treason.

    [NBC: Any argument here? Do you understand the history of Quo Warranto in the United States? Do you even know that a QW against a Federal Office can only be filed in a DC court by someone who has a direct and tangible interest in the office? Do you understand why Orly lacks such direct and tangible interest? Have you even taken the time to inform yourself as to the nature of the QW writ? When you make up definitions like 'natura born' requiring two citizen parents, you make such definitions at the risk of having no legal relevance in our Nation. Surely you'd rather prefer discussing the reality and not your imagination?]

  38. Per Son says :

    My name is Gerry and I am here to say,
    I make legal meanings up in a major way.

    I choose and interpret to my hearts desire,
    But the truth of what I say has on pants afire.

    To be fair, B, I believe what I say, I believe Jihadist Muslims are taking over today.

  39. Per Son says :

    Gerry,

    Only people who have a right to the position can file a quo warranto. So maybe Hillary or McCain. That assumes the courts are wrong and re presidency can be challenged via qw.

  40. NBC says :

    Orly Taitz, is a US Citizen, a registered voter, an elector and a relator, who possesses every right, power, or authority, to challenge Obama, by petition of leave of the court to present information in the nature of quo warranto.

    Nope…

  41. NBC says :

    My name is Gerry and I am here to say,
    I make legal meanings up in a major way.

    A combination of a little bit of ‘knowledge’ combined with a strong desire and dislike can create some fascinating ‘theories’ but when it comes down to defending them with reason, logic and legal arguments, well, the typical birther continues to fail. They have this ‘belief’ that anyone could challenge anyone, standing begone, and that the challenged person should provide his innocence to their satisfaction.

    Oh what a world they must live in.

  42. NBC says :

    Orly Taitz, is a US Citizen, a registered voter, an elector and a relator, who possesses every right, power, or authority, to challenge Obama, by petition of leave of the court to present information in the nature of quo warranto.

    From Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell – 238 U.S. 537 (1915)

    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.

    Fully rejecting Gerry’s claim above, the Court ruled

    While every citizen and every taxpayer is interested in the enforcement of law and in having only qualified officers execute the law, such general interest is not a private but a public interest, which is not sufficient to authorize the institution of quo warranto proceedings

    The mere fact that one is a citizen and taxpayer of the District of Columbia does not make him an interested party who may maintain quo warranto proceedings against the incumbent of an office on the consent of the court, although the law officers of the government refuse such consent.

    An interested person within the meaning of the provisions of the District Code in regard to quo warranto proceedings is one who has an interest in the office itself peculiar to himself whether the office be elective or appointive..

    Ouch… Poor poor Gerry.

    Now what my friend, the facts again do not support your imaginations…

  43. NBC says :

    As to Gerry’s redefinition of ‘information’ here is a more legally informed one…

    information n. an accusation or criminal charge brought by the public prosecutor (District Attorney) without a grand jury indictment. This “information” must state the alleged crimes in writing and must be delivered to the defendant at the first court appearance (arraignment). If the accusation is for a felony, there must be a preliminary hearing within a short period (such as five days) in which the prosecution is required to present enough evidence to convince the judge holding the hearing that the crime or crimes charged were committed and the defendant is likely to have committed them. If the judge becomes convinced, the defendant must face trial, and if the judge does not, the case against the defendant is dismissed. Sometimes it is a mixed bag, in that some of the charges in the information are sufficient for trial and the case is sent (remanded) to the appropriate court, and some are dismissed. (See: grand jury, indictment, charge, preliminary hearing, accusation, felony)

    Which is why a QW has to be initiated by the Attorney General or with leave of Court when the Court finds that the person has a tangible interest in the office…

    Understanding our Laws and Constitution would go a long way here…

  44. Ballantine says :

    And, of course, there is no authority that the President can be removed pursuant to quo warranto statute. No court will need to reach such question unless someone first satisfies the statutory requirements which is very unlikely. Hard to fathom that people like Gerry actually post about things they know nothing about. One wonders if they actually think they are going to fool anyone.

  45. NBC says :

    Correct, in fact Congress voted down an attempt to allow Quo Warranto against the Office of the President but decided against it. Clearly indicating that, under our Constitution, such powers lie solely with the Congress.

  46. Northland10 says :

    Gerry and Orly say yes but Judge Lamberth says no, twice. Guess who wins. He is the judge and Gerry is not. How did Orly’s appeal go? Oops, she forgot that part.

    Having the facts also helped Judge Lamberth.

  47. Gerry Nance says :

    NBC,

    I cannot personally submit a “writ of QW”, i know, but switch the subject of debate to an “information in the nature of QW” (INQW).

    6th Amendment guarantees the right “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation”.

    Key words “informed” and “nature”.

    If I submit an INQW, it is my presentment or indictment informing the AG of nature of my accusation, and is incorporated into the proceeding. After I submit the information, I’m done, as the government is responsible for prosecuting USA vs Obama.

  48. Stanislaw says :

    Northland10 says : February 23, 2012 at 23:14
    Gerry and Orly say yes but Judge Lamberth says no, twice. Guess who wins. He is the judge and Gerry is not. How did Orly’s appeal go? Oops, she forgot that part.

    Having the facts also helped Judge Lamberth.

    That, and actually knowing the law. Birthers never can seem to grasp that part.

  49. Northland10 says :

    Gerry: After I submit the information, I’m done, as the government is responsible for prosecuting USA vs Obama.

    And if the government chooses not to prosecute, they are also done.

  50. ballantine says :

    “6th Amendment guarantees the right “to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation”.

    Key words “informed” and “nature”.

    If I submit an INQW, it is my presentment or indictment informing the AG of nature of my accusation, and is incorporated into the proceeding. After I submit the information, I’m done, as the government is responsible for prosecuting USA vs Obama.”

    Wow, your posts are getting dumber and dumber. Sound like you spent some time with the citizen grand jury idiots. The 6th Amendment required the accused to be informed of charges brought against him. Duh. I would tell you to look up what “presentment or indictment” mean, but such doesn’t matter as you will continue to post and re-post your gibberish.

  51. Gerry Nance says :

    ballantine,

    See

    Bouvier’s 1897 Law Dictionary vol 1 “information”

    Bouvier’s 1897 Law Dictionary vol 2 “relator”

    Anybody can submit an “information in the nature of quo warranto.”

  52. Northland10 says :

    Gerry,

    See Taitz v. Obama

    Dismissed.

  53. Ballantine says :

    “Anybody can submit an “information in the nature of quo warranto.”

    Wrong. An information is presented by the attorney general or someone in his name. NBC explains the issue here.

    http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/quo-warranto-in-the-united-states/

    The information can be based upon the knowledge of a relator. So you keep on writing Eric Holder asking him to bring a quo warranto. Good luck.

  54. NBC says :

    Anybody can submit an “information in the nature of quo warranto.”

    The right to petition is not a right to be taken seriously.

  55. NBC says :

    If I submit an INQW, it is my presentment or indictment informing the AG of nature of my accusation, and is incorporated into the proceeding. After I submit the information, I’m done, as the government is responsible for prosecuting USA vs Obama.

    Or ignoring your complaint. You can indeed as a 3rd party, ask the AG to get involved in prosecuting your ‘complaint’, you can also report a ‘crime’ to any police officer. In both cases, there is no duty to take your complaint seriously and if they don’t, you are done with you QW, unless you have a direct interest in the office.

    I explained in quite some detail that a QW does not give anyone the right to file an ‘information’ and that such ‘information’ is acted upon. There are just too many people out there who would have an overly simplistic view as to the meaning of ‘a crime’ or eligibility, that the legal system protects the intended target of such annoyances.

    You can surely file an information but there is no rule that requires your musings to be taken seriously. You may petition the Court to allow you to proceed in name of the AG but that would require you to have a direct and tangible interest. You and Orly don’t…

  56. NBC says :

    See the Court in Taitz v Obama

    Judge Lamberth

    This is one of several such suits filed by Ms. Taitz in her quixotic attempt to prove that President Obama is not a natural born citizen as required by the Constitution. See U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1. This Court is not willing to go tilting at windmills with her.

    and

    Ironically enough, Ms. Taitz could never establish such an injury because — as far as the Court is aware — she was not elected president nor could she be because she is not a natural born citizen herself.

    The DC Code is quite clear. Have you looked at it yet? Or are data that disagree with your position typically avoided?

  57. Gerry Nance says :

    ballantine,

    Someone has to inform the AG of a felony or be guilty of misprision.
    Definition #3 says a private person, as a relator, can file an information, in the name of the AG.

    RELATOR. A rehearser or teller; one who, by leave of court, brings an information in the nature of a quo warranto.
    2. At common law, strictly speaking, no such person as a relator to an information is known; he being a creature of the statute 9 Anne, c. 20.
    3. In this country, even where no statute similar to that of Anne prevails, informations are allowed to be filed by private persons desirous to try their rights, in the name of the attorney general, and these are commonly called relators; though no judgment for costs can be rendered for or against them. 2 Dall. 112; 5 Mass. 231; 15 Serg. & Rawle, 127; 3 Serg. & Rawle, 52; Ang. on Corp. 470. In chancery the relator is responsible for costs. 4 Bouv. Inst. n. 4022.

    A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Relator

    UNITED STATES CODES
    TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
    CHAPTER 115—TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
    2382. Misprision of treason
    Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.

    18USC Sec. 4. Misprision of felony
    18USC Sec. 2382. Misprision of treason
    UCMJ 134/95 Misprision of Serious Offense

  58. NBC says :

    Someone has to inform the AG of a felony or be guilty of misprision.

    What felony? My goodness sakes Gerry, you’re grasping at straws here… Almost as hilarious as your consular jurisdiction ‘arguments’

    “Misprision of felony” is still an offense under United States federal law after being codified in 1909 under 18 U.S.C. § 4:

    Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

    This offense, however, requires active concealment of a known felony rather than merely failing to report it.[7]

    Educate yourself my friend, educate yourself… Cherry picking is not going to help your ‘arguments’ much.

  59. NBC says :

    Definition #3 says a private person, as a relator, can file an information, in the name of the AG.

    Still not familiar with the actual legal statutes, but rather relying on dated dictionaries? Hilarious…

  60. NBC says :

    Let me help out Gerry

    Andrade v Lauer, 729 F. 2d 1475 – Court of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia Circuit 1984)

    Moreover, this court has stated that actions against public officials (as opposed to actions brought against officers of private corporations) can only be instituted by the Attorney General. See United States ex rel. Noel v. Carmody, supra, 148 F.2d at 685.

    And Quo Warranto against a federal office can only take place in a particular court in DC. What now Gerry? Reality once again trumps your ‘beliefs’. Quite annoying eh?

  61. NBC says :

    Orly tried it all, Quo Warranto, Qui Tam, RICO, and other quixotic attempts, which were all rejected by the Court on simple grounds.

  62. Gerry Nance says :

    So, Romney and Ron Paul, have standing?

  63. NBC says :

    They may have standing, you surely do not… In the end at best the losing party may have hope on standing. But they have a better chance with Congress, where it only takes two objections for the issue to be taken up.
    It’s unlikely that these candidates however will initiate such a foolish action…