This isn't the post promised in the previous one, which is still in the works. I see that either Blogger removed Luke from the contributor list or he did it himself. I didn't do it. I wanted to let everyone know.
I'm not done with Luke. He posted this bit January 11 and it received this interesting comment which is something I myself should have suggested. There's more than one way to skin a cat. These blogs are a great way to catalog current events and your thoughts, but in and of themselves they don't accomplish anything. In this case, a guy has expressed a way to get the facts on record and even named a ready forum. This approach is the best I've seen and can bear fruit, but it will take time and effort devoted to something other than blogging. If the way John Doraemi suggests doesn't work out, a search must be made for hospitable individuals and jurisdictions. I'll even start that process: exclude everyone in Oklahoma. As judges go, we're over our heads in redneck communistas.
I can recommend doing the search quietly, if it's necessary, because if a guy does agree to host a proceeding, DoJ will know about it immediately and it'll drive 'em crazy. I might have kicked the subject around had I thought of it. At one time I had a pretty good education, but I've forgotten more about the law than I know now.
That comment reminded me of the contentious discussion of altenatives to impeaching Bush and Cheney; in particular, of the writ of quo warranto, that "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." The original purpose of the writ was to ask a court to pass judgment on the legitimacy of an individual's holding public office. In recent centuries it has been used mostly to establish the validity of companies and corporations to do such things as conduct business under a given name so as to establish fraud or liability.
But the writ of quo warranto is, happily, still used to challenge people's right to hold office when there may be reason to believe their election was improper, or where, in lieu of other remedies, egregious constitutional infractions have been committed. It was my hope to be able to assemble the necessary documentation and post it online and/or file it myself, but surprise. It's just not that easy. You don't have to be a lawyer to do this, but you need specific things including competent work, so a full-fledged member of the bar would come in handy. The process begins with the filing a motion of intervention of right and application for writ in the nature of quo warranto that sets forth the relevant facts and legal issues and asks the court to pass judgment. Here is an example.
Another thing you need is the proper jurisdiction, and finding it comes first, since while theoretically you may file in any court, not every state allows this kind of proceeding and individual judges can agree to conduct a proceeding or dismiss at the outset. See part three and book four here. In reading this material I realized the motion and application for writ of quo warranto with regard to Bush and Cheney should have been pursued immediately after the Supreme Court shoved them down our throats in 2000; after all, that isn't how elections are supposed to be decided. In some cases the passage of time renders this kind of proceeding moot in the eyes of some judges. And, I became strongly aware that the selection of the state, court and judge where such an action is attempted is absolutely critical and not easily chosen because not every state, court and judge will hear a case in quo warranto, and not everyone that will would proceed against their heroes Bush and Cheney.
That doesn't mean such venues don't exist. They do. Finding an hospitable court to file is the first step with quo warranto, just as finding the right judge is Luke's next step. It's difficult but not impossible—and it's a great idea. It's certainly more promising than continued Waxman arm-twisting.
