Quo Warranto

Latin: by what right or authority. An ancient common law writ that was issued out of chancery on behalf of the king against one who claimed or usurped an office, franchise or liberty, to inquire by what authority he asserted such a right, in order that the legitimacy of the assertion might be determined. See: Petitions Quo Warranto

Critical analysis of the writ of Quo Warranto

Elements of Quo Warranto

For issuing the writ of quo Warranto, the following ingredients are necessary:

Test an unconstitutional statute
Wrongful occupation;
Nature of the office being public, not private;
Substantive character;
Contrary to statutory provisions or the law.

For quo warranto, with respect to federal and state constitutions, it is not necessary that there must be a breach of fundamental rights or a non-performance of duty. The main issue is – whether the usurper has the authority to hold the office, and if not, then the order passed is an order to oust the usurper from his post.

Even though the locus standi for quo warranto is relaxed compared to writs such as certiorari and mandamus, the applicant must not be completely unrelated to the appointment and office in question. Even if the connection is remote, the ‘link’ itself must exist.

The applicant must not have any malafide or ulterior motives for applying for quo warranto. The purpose of the applicant should be inclined towards acting for the benefit of public interest, and not for personal gain.

Constitutional Law refers to rights carved out in the federal and state constitutions. The majority of this body of law has developed from state and federal supreme court rulings, which interpret their respective constitutions and ensure that the laws passed by the legislature do not violate constitutional limits.

In law, especially English and American common law, 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, power, or franchise they claim to hold. Quo warranto is also used, with slightly different effect, in the Philippines.

United States

In the modern United States, quo warranto usually arises in a civil case as a plaintiff's claim (and thus a "cause of action" instead of a writ) that some governmental or corporate official was not validly elected to that office or is wrongfully exercising powers beyond (or ultra vires) those authorized by statute or by the corporation's charter.

United States

In the modern United States, quo warranto usually arises in a civil case as a plaintiff's claim (and thus a "cause of action" instead of a writ) that some governmental or corporate official was not validly elected to that office or is wrongfully exercising powers beyond (or ultra vires) those authorized by statute or by the corporation's charter.

In New York State, the former writ of quo warranto has been codified. Per Executive Law 63-b, only the Attorney General may, at his or her discretion, "may maintain an action, upon his own information or upon the complaint of a private person, against a person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises within the state a franchise or a public office, civil or military, or an office in a domestic corporation."[20]

20^ "New York Consolidated Laws, Executive Law - EXC 63-b. Action by attorney-general against usurper of office or franchise". FindLaw. 1 Jan 021.

The Courts are not the Government and Have No Lawful Authority Over You.

All government offices are for-profit corporations and must have a corporate charter that is consistent with the Constitution. And all corporations are suable under Monell v. Department of Soc. Svcs. 436 U.S.658 (1978).

You can sue any corporation for their unconstitutional policies, patterns, and practices.

Are they depriving you of your due process rights?

How about a trial by jury?

Did they have a warrant with an affidavit showing probable cause? If they haven’t done that then we need to implode their Corporate Charter with a Writ of Quo Warranto.

In law, especially British and American common-law Quo Warranto is a prerogative writ requiring a person to whom it is directed to show what authority they have for exercising some right, power, or franchise they claim to hold.

Every corporate charter must be consistent with the United States Constitution. You have the choice to not contract with them if you don’t want to. You have a choice to contract with your doctor or not.

You can sue any corporation for their unconstitutional policies, patterns, and practices.

Did they have a warrant with an affidavit showing probable cause? Well if they haven’t done that and we need to implode their corporation with a Quo Warranto. Every corporate charter must be consistent the U.S. Constitution.

======================

intermediate scrutiny

Overview

Intermediate scrutiny is a test courts will use to determine a statute's constitutionality. Intermediate scrutiny is only invoked when a state or the federal government passes a statute which negatively affects certain protected classes (this is described in further detail in the next section). To pass intermediate scrutiny, the challenged law must: further an important government interest and must do so by means that are substantially related to that interest.

As the name implies, intermediate scrutiny is less rigorous than strict scrutiny, but more rigorous than the rational basis test. Intermediate scrutiny is used in equal protection challenges to gender classifications, as well as in some First Amendment cases.

Further courts will sometimes refer to intermediate scrutiny by other names, such as "heightened scrutiny," or as "rational basis with bite." When referred to by these names, courts will typically use the same two prongs used for intermediate scrutiny.

Origin

The Supreme Court created the Intermediate Scrutiny Test in Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976). In Craig, the Court created the intermediate scrutiny test and applied it to a statute which discriminated on the basis of gender. Since then, courts have found that gender is a protected class, and any statute which discriminates on the basis of gender must undergo the intermediate scrutiny test.

Protected Classes

In addition to statutes which discriminate based on gender, statutes which discriminate based on illegitimacy (i.e. children born out of wedlock) are also subject to intermediate scrutiny, according to Matthews v. Lucas, 427 U.S. 495 (1976) and Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762 (1976). These cases may also refer to the level of scrutiny as "elevated scrutiny" or "realm of less than strictest scrutiny).

The First Amendment

CCourts have also held that intermediate scrutiny is the appropriate standard for certain First Amendment issues. Below are a few First Amendment issues dealing with speech for which courts have used intermediate scrutiny.

Further Reading

For more on intermediate scrutiny, see this Illinois Law Review article, this Harvard Law Review article, and this Indiana Law Journal article.

see Also: https://blog.ipleaders.in/all-you-need-to-know-about-the-writ-of-quo-warranto/

https://www.bitchute.com/video/h7fHujX11aHA/

Intro.4.3.5 Statutory Claims

The Writ of Erasure Fallacy

The Constitutionality of Statutes of Repose: Federalism Reigns

 

Writ of Quo Warranto - Child Recovery Version

 

=====================

Fight Child Protective Services and get your child back. http://childrecovery.net

======================

 

For more information: Contact Us   

 

http://childrecovery.net Website is here to help you fight Child Protective Services and get your child back.


Copyright All Rights Reserved