Quo Warranto

[BAMAJiPS]

Been having several issues with the actors in my county lately - specifically in court... I've been getting hammered by the machine of "The State" and was wondering what you guys think about the common law remedy of "Quo Warranto"?

It's an interesting concept to me, and I've just learned of it's existence, but wonder how specifically one might use it practically, or if anybody has any knowledge or resource of it's use. I picked up on it in the Carl Miller Constitution series (which I try to watch at least once a year since I learned of it). There seems to be little information about Carl Miller on the net - cases, etc, and not much of Quo Warranto - it seems most Bar Attorneys explain QW in some crap corporate/commercial construct... I want to know about using it in common law respect. Im trying to survive the teeth of "The State" here!

When "The State" EX REL acts against me personally, how have they gained that authority to do so? (I'm referring to child support here specifically). I can understand the state coming after me representing MY CHILDREN who are incapable of acting on their own, but how can the state assume authority to represent another individual while trampling the other down?

Doesn't this violate equal protection under the law?

My state constitution specifically reads in Article 1 Section 35 "That the sole object and ONLY LEGITIMATE end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is USURPATION and OPPRESSION."

I LOVE the wording of that, and it seems most the time when a government actor is presented with that phrase they immediately start to clam up and get defensive.

So, maybe a little more pointedly - how can a child support agency even exist and claim to protect one individual's rights without trampling on another individual's? Not that I want their benefit of representation, but it would seem to me that I could demand the same protection afforded to the other party and they would be obliged to comply under equal protection claims.

I'm sure they wont do that, so I was kind of seeing what other's thoughts might be on Quo Warranto... what gives them the authority to assert themselves into my business and claim they have jurisdiction over me on behalf of another individual??

(Excuse my ramblings - I'm a very scatterbrained individual)

[shikamaru]

Been having several issues with the actors in my county lately - specifically in court... I've been getting hammered by the machine of "The State" and was wondering what you guys think about the common law remedy of "Quo Warranto"?

It's an interesting concept to me, and I've just learned of it's existence, but wonder how specifically one might use it practically, or if anybody has any knowledge or resource of it's use. I picked up on it in the Carl Miller Constitution series (which I try to watch at least once a year since I learned of it). There seems to be little information about Carl Miller on the net - cases, etc, and not much of Quo Warranto - it seems most Bar Attorneys explain QW in some crap corporate/commercial construct... I want to know about using it in common law respect. Im trying to survive the teeth of "The State" here!

When "The State" EX REL acts against me personally, how have they gained that authority to do so? (I'm referring to child support here specifically). I can understand the state coming after me representing MY CHILDREN who are incapable of acting on their own, but how can the state assume authority to represent another individual while trampling the other down?

Doesn't this violate equal protection under the law?

My state constitution specifically reads in Article 1 Section 35 "That the sole object and ONLY LEGITIMATE end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is USURPATION and OPPRESSION."

I LOVE the wording of that, and it seems most the time when a government actor is presented with that phrase they immediately start to clam up and get defensive.

So, maybe a little more pointedly - how can a child support agency even exist and claim to protect one individual's rights without trampling on another individual's? Not that I want their benefit of representation, but it would seem to me that I could demand the same protection afforded to the other party and they would be obliged to comply under equal protection claims.

I'm sure they wont do that, so I was kind of seeing what other's thoughts might be on Quo Warranto... what gives them the authority to assert themselves into my business and claim they have jurisdiction over me on behalf of another individual??

(Excuse my ramblings - I'm a very scatterbrained individual)

QUO WARRANTO along with MANDAMUS are what I call ... "the hammers".

Use very sparingly :).

Quo Warranto, Mandamus, Habeaus Corpus, Prohibition, and others are WRITS. WRITS were the work horses of Common Law judicial process. WRITS were the primary FORMS of ACTION for Common Law.

There is a difference between a petition for a writ and a writ. The former is a plea. A prayer. The latter is an ACTION.

Now, I would expect them to get testy with you when you get close to things, thus be careful :).
You should generate quite a bit of excitement moving forward with lawful process.

You will want to see if your actors have oaths of offices as well as bonds in addition to acquiring the laws (certified copies) mandating they have such. You can start forming your evidence repository with all of this.

Another move could be you challenging the standing of the officers and their claim of jurisdiction.

Here is a decent treatise on some of the writs mentioned:
http://books.google.com/books?id=wRk1AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA732&dq=quo+warranto&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DsULU6OLJuaayQG87IDAAw&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=quo%20warranto&f=false

[BAMAJiPS]

Oh im sure I've ruffled the actor's feathers. I filed an application for writ of habeas corpus after being in an illegal debtors prison here of late. It was denied. I am working on exhausting these actors' bonds as well. I have caught my Circuit Court Clerk backdating thw record to cover thwir rears. I wonder if I erred filing the application for habeas corpus relief under the code of my state and not under a common law remedy. Sounds like there is a difference.

I am THOROUGHLY documenting my issues as of late and have the CoC on video admitting the record was changed.i am in department hell trying to track down her bond because I intend to draw upon it - whether her act was willful or not - there were grave errors in court and I paid the price with my freedom for ir.

My upcoming courses of action are as follow: A civil appeal to fight a frivilous contempt order (how they arrived at that astounds me - by mere decree and fiat; a claim against the CoC's bond; a state judicial inquiry commission complaint and I want most of all to file a Quo Warranto against "The State Ex Rel".

Not only thay but I am awaiting the findings of the city's attorneys on an illegal detention and officers acting under color of law to file a suit via 18 USC 242...

I may not be contributing to the trust at this moment, but ive got a mountain of evidence im about to share and wonder if anyone wants to go along for the ride...

Not sure what the general consensus is here on using USC and state codes against then but using their own corrupt scheme it woukd seem I habe them. I am being met with the typical circling of the wagons by every department I encounter.

So far Quo Warranto seems to be the most powerful weapon in the arsenal ive stumbled upon yet but theres so little info out there on it. Ill be sure to read the lunk. Thanks Shik

[BAMAJiPS]

Excuse the typos please. I'm all thumbs.

[Jethro]

QUO WARRANTO along with MANDAMUS are what I call ... "the hammers".

Use very sparingly :).

Quo Warranto, Mandamus, Habeaus Corpus, Prohibition, and others are WRITS. WRITS were the work horses of Common Law judicial process. WRITS were the primary FORMS of ACTION for Common Law.

There is a difference between a petition for a writ and a writ. The former is a plea. A prayer. The latter is an ACTION.

shik, can you provide any examples of any successful "modern" Quo Warranto actions that have been filed?

[BAMAJiPS]

I can't seem to break out of the local Circuit court. That's what I'm trying to do. I think my next filing will be to the court of appeals, but the real meat and potatoes of my argument is this:

Alabama Constitution Article 1 S35 "That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression." How can "The State" claim to be protecting the other party's rights when it can only do so by violating another person's rights? It's laughable to me. In a civil matter in a circuit court "The State" is going to move on behalf of the petitioner in the case... why? What damages can the state even allege for the court to have standing to hear the case??? Why does "The State" prejudice one party and not the other? It seems a blatant violation of the Equal Protection Clause... so then I move to that argument and try to find some case law... Then there's the question of why this is in my state Constitution: Article 1 s14- "That the State of Alabama shall never be made a defendant in any court of law or equity."

Is that to specifically limit MY right to file a Quo Warranto against the phantom entity known as "The State"??

Who is "The State"??? Why do they have an interest in seeing my adversary win against me in court? Aside from usurpation and oppression, what benefit is it to them that the moving party in the case wins??

Where would this be filed for best results? Circuit Court which I can't seem to escape, District? Federal?

I just can't wrap my head around this fiction called "The State"... it's like this demonic spirit that devours whom it will...

Either way, I know they will be held to greater account and answer to the Almighty some day.

[Moxie]

When "The State" EX REL acts against me personally, how have they gained that authority to do so? (I'm referring to child support here specifically). I can understand the state coming after me representing MY CHILDREN who are incapable of acting on their own, but how can the state assume authority to represent another individual while trampling the other down?

Doesn't this violate equal protection under the law?

Remember, the STATE acts on presumption of jurisdiction. So if someone doesn't want to be in their jurisdiction, they would need to rebut those presumptions, then remove themselves and their property from their jurisdiction.

If someone is in their jurisdiction and doesn't know it, that someone would need to learn about the two jurisdictions then decide which one they want to be in.

Remember, when it comes to public servants, violating God-given rights is par for the course.



My state constitution specifically reads in Article 1 Section 35 "That the sole object and ONLY LEGITIMATE end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is USURPATION and OPPRESSION."

I LOVE the wording of that, and it seems most the time when a government actor is presented with that phrase they immediately start to clam up and get defensive.

Correct. The constitution keeps public servants accountable; problem is, people don't know their God-given rights anymore. On the rare occasion someone brings that to light in front of another who makes their living off people's ignorance, yes they will get defensive.



So, maybe a little more pointedly - how can a child support agency even exist and claim to protect one individual's rights without trampling on another individual's?

Because the child support agency is a STATE agency that manages those who cannot manage themselves. This is why it's important to learn to govern oneself outside of agencies.

(None of this is legal advice.)

[Moxie]

In a civil matter in a circuit court "The State" is going to move on behalf of the petitioner in the case... why? What damages can the state even allege for the court to have standing to hear the case???

Correct. A fiction cannot be damaged.




Where would this be filed for best results? Circuit Court which I can't seem to escape, District? Federal?

I know nothing about Quo Warranto. But, I do know that lower courts (circuit, superior, district) are inferior courts that habitually violate people's rights. Even the Supreme Court admits this. It is the job of the upper courts -- federal, appellate, and supreme -- to "spank" the lower courts.




I just can't wrap my head around this fiction called "The State"... it's like this demonic spirit that devours whom it will...

It is, actually.




Either way, I know they will be held to greater account and answer to the Almighty some day.

Amen to that!

[Jethro]

Is that to specifically limit MY right to file a Quo Warranto against the phantom entity known as "The State"??

In a Quo Warranto action -- or any of the prerogative writs -- the "The State" is not the defendant, it is the plaintiff. You, having an interest in the matter, are the relator ("ex rel") suing in the name of "The State". Quo Warranto is a test of the legitimacy of the office holder; that is, it is to determine whether the purported office holder holds such office lawfully.


Who is "The State"??? Why do they have an interest in seeing my adversary win against me in court? Aside from usurpation and oppression, what benefit is it to them that the moving party in the case wins??

"The State" is the People thereof. The government is their agent. Quo Warranto is to test whether those agents occupy their purported offices lawfully. (One must be careful though, because de facto agents can have authority... if not objected to."

[shikamaru]

shik, can you provide any examples of any successful "modern" Quo Warranto actions that have been filed?

I'd have to hunt for it. More than likely, such successful actions would have occurred more so in the past than nowadays.

[Jethro]

I'd have to hunt for it. More than likely, such successful actions would have occurred more so in the past than nowadays.

Thanks, shik. Seeing some successful "old" QW actions may be just as helpful.

[pumpkin]

I have read some about Quo Warranto. It being a parogative writ, the right is not in its issue, but in its answer. The respondant must answer by what authority he acts. But as in all cases, the identity of the one who issues the writ will make all the difference in the world. Make sure to identify yourself as one of the people, created in the image of God, and endowed by your creator with certain inalienable rights. There are many entities other than people, and an answer that may fail concerning the rights of the people, will be sufficient if applied to another entity. Don't let the court or anyone else assume anything about you.

[lis]

I'd have to hunt for it. More than likely, such successful actions would have occurred more so in the past than nowadays.

http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/sites/default/files/write_quo_warranto.pdf

[David Merrill]

http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/sites/default/files/write_quo_warranto.pdf


Welcome Lis!

That is a big walk down memory lane! Please tell me when and where that is filed in the federal court so I can watch for any reaction on PACER.

[lis]

Welcome Lis!

That is a big walk down memory lane! Please tell me when and where that is filed in the federal court so I can watch for any reaction on PACER.

Let me know your thoughts on this:
http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/breaking-news
"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, see video below."

[David Merrill]

You are new and I would risk making you feel unwelcome if I shared my feelings.

Several suitors in the brain trust got involved with James Timothy TURNER now in federal prison. The mental model I prefer is that oath = separation = sin. This Biblical Hebrew word is both the Mark on Cain's forehead and on the foreheads and hands of those who follow God. Respectively the Sons of Cain and the Sons of Man (Seth). This authority over evil has been lawfully granted to the Sons of Cain so that they will not repeat killing Abel, upon the Sons of Man. But when the Sons of Man come against the Sons of Cain the results are consistently that the Sons of Cain prevail.

If you can find a better explanation for the justice God doled out to Cain after murdering Abel the that is good for you. The model works for me.

The Federal Reserve Act, furnishing elastic currency is a criminal syndicalism organized by Congress. Therefore Congress had to deliver the remedy, which Congress did at Section 16. If you want out of contract with the banksters there is the remedy right there.

For the signers of that paper, there is the Court Security Act of 2007.

[lis]

You are new and I would risk making you feel unwelcome if I shared my feelings.

Several suitors in the brain trust got involved with James Timothy TURNER now in federal prison. The mental model I prefer is that oath = separation = sin. This Biblical Hebrew word is both the Mark on Cain's forehead and on the foreheads and hands of those who follow God. Respectively the Sons of Cain and the Sons of Man (Seth). This authority over evil has been lawfully granted to the Sons of Cain so that they will not repeat killing Abel, upon the Sons of Man. But when the Sons of Man come against the Sons of Cain the results are consistently that the Sons of Cain prevail.

If you can find a better explanation for the justice God doled out to Cain after murdering Abel the that is good for you. The model works for me.

The Federal Reserve Act, furnishing elastic currency is a criminal syndicalism organized by Congress. Therefore Congress had to deliver the remedy, which Congress did at Section 16. If you want out of contract with the banksters there is the remedy right there.

For the signers of that paper, there is the Court Security Act of 2007.

Forgive me, David. For this newbie, you might as well speak Martian. Your reply has nothing to do with my question regarding NLA and its efforts. Thanks.

[lis]

You are new and I would risk making you feel unwelcome if I shared my feelings.

Several suitors in the brain trust got involved with James Timothy TURNER now in federal prison. The mental model I prefer is that oath = separation = sin. This Biblical Hebrew word is both the Mark on Cain's forehead and on the foreheads and hands of those who follow God. Respectively the Sons of Cain and the Sons of Man (Seth). This authority over evil has been lawfully granted to the Sons of Cain so that they will not repeat killing Abel, upon the Sons of Man. But when the Sons of Man come against the Sons of Cain the results are consistently that the Sons of Cain prevail.

If you can find a better explanation for the justice God doled out to Cain after murdering Abel the that is good for you. The model works for me.

The Federal Reserve Act, furnishing elastic currency is a criminal syndicalism organized by Congress. Therefore Congress had to deliver the remedy, which Congress did at Section 16. If you want out of contract with the banksters there is the remedy right there.

For the signers of that paper, there is the Court Security Act of 2007.

I've heard about Tim Turner, but have not yet explored his work. What did he do so heinous as to warrant federal prison? Did he have access to trial by jury in a court of record? Thanks.

[Chex]

Tim Turner indicted for tax crimes (http://www.apalachtimes.com/news/law-enforcement/tim-turner-indicted-for-tax-crimes-1.22875) on Middle District of Alabama on Sept. 18 Posted Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 11:56 AM.

By The jury in the Middle District of Alabama on Sept. 18 charged James Timothy Turner, 56, of Ozark, Ala., with conspiracy to defraud the United States.

The general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, creates an offense "[i]f two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States

18 U.S. Code § 286 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/286)

From Title 18-CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section371&num=0&edition=prelim)

[David Merrill]

I've heard about Tim Turner, but have not yet explored his work. What did he do so heinous as to warrant federal prison? Did he have access to trial by jury in a court of record? Thanks.

Tim tried to do the same thing as this paper you present here. My close friend got involved and Tim made promises that this superfluous jurisdiction your presentment describes could not support and so he went to jail. What I am going to dredge up, rather than putting on you for dredging it up, is like repeating a painful accident for me; you know - when you are in pain and thinking you didn't learn the last time you did exactly the same mistake.

I can justify it by explaining to any readers about the court of record you seem to think these ad hoc gatherings of endorsers might be capable of. Pay close attention to Page 5 - notice the Great Seal of Authority and then remember that I served this directly on the Justices of the Tenth Circuit.


2056

If you look at about any definition for amicus curiae you will learn that both parties must consent to the filing unless the amicus comes from a State. And so you see that it was filed without any talk of prosecuting me for using the Great Seal, which is a Class 5 felony if you are not affiliated with State business. I am the Trustee of the resulting trust aka Patroon. - Nothing special, just know and keep the record - court of record, get it?

I was hoping that they could be lenient about sentencing, which they were. And I was hoping they would shut down the intelligence mill - which they did not, until nearly a year later.


Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. Sorry, that pdf is too large for the Attachments:


2057

[allodial]

One thing that is interesting about the document (Quo Warranto) is that the assertion of the "Constitution of the United States" having a "capstone" "Bill of Rights". It would seem that to the contrary the Constitution for the United States of America has a bill of rights and that the "Constitution of the United States" (as in "Arrangement/Makeup/Constellation of the United States" as a whole thing) is something more abstract and comprehensive or macroscopic than the 1788 charter.

Lots of verbiage problems in the Quo Warranto document.


"The prime directive ordained by the American People "

Star Trek? Wut? The American People aren't the People of America.

Re: Tim Turner.. I have long suspected he was part of an intelligence mill and sting operation. My observation is that he or those associated with him were analyzing lawful remedies and then sending out 'stooges' to make the remedies or those asserting them look bad. Such done by the Feds is IMHO felony conspiracy against rights and a a very nasty type of barratry or champerty.

Re the Quo Warranto document it seems simpler to use a writ of mandamus on a rogue officer and appoint a higher official to deal with that rogue officer if he/she fails to get in line. Judges, like sheriffs, are peace officers too or at least some of them.

The writ of mandamus (http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/reference/extraordinary_remedies/extraordinary_index.html) is probably the most useful, universally available (even to subjects) of all of the prerogative or extraordinary writs. Writs of prohibition and orders to show cause are useful too.

[shikamaru]

I have read some about Quo Warranto. It being a parogative writ, the right is not in its issue, but in its answer. The respondant must answer by what authority he acts. But as in all cases, the identity of the one who issues the writ will make all the difference in the world. Make sure to identify yourself as one of the people, created in the image of God, and endowed by your creator with certain inalienable rights. There are many entities other than people, and an answer that may fail concerning the rights of the people, will be sufficient if applied to another entity. Don't let the court or anyone else assume anything about you.

Great point.