Post 27: Imposing the Rule of Law on Our Inverted Federal Government
No good explanation exits for our appointed officials impersonating federal officers, per federal statutes (5 U.S. Code § 3331 and 5 U.S. Code § 3332). Assert the law or assume servitude.
Authors Pre-Script: My apologies for the lack of posts since December. Time off with family has recharged the batteries and I will be posting more regularly.
Onto the post!
Quo Warranto
Quo warranto is Latin for "by what warrant” (or authority). A writ of quo warranto is a common law remedy which is used to challenge a person's right to hold a public or corporate office. A state may also use a quo warranto action to revoke a corporation's charter. When bringing a petition for writ of quo warranto, individual members of the public have standing as citizens and taxpayers.
In one case from Alabama, the court noted that the writ of quo warranto is “utilized to test whether person may lawfully hold office and the purpose of writ of quo warranto is to ascertain whether office holder is constitutionally and legally authorized to perform any act in, or exercise any functions of, office to which he or she lays claim”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/quo_warranto
Why This is Important
On April 2023, Lisa McGee submitted a Writ of Quo Warranto, with Kenneth W. Ferguson, Esq. and Todd S. Callender, Esq. as Attorneys for Petitioner. In that writ, Lisa McGee provided exhibits (which are mind blowing exchanges) of her efforts to verify the affidavits of the Oaths of Office of the officials in cabinet positions. Named are the following officials (“Appointees”):
1. Director of Center of Disease Control and Prevention and of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Rochelle Walensky (“Walensky”)
2. U.S. Secretary of Treasury, Janet Yellen (“Yellen”),
3. U.S. Secretary of Energy, Jennifer Granholm (“Granholm”),
4. Food and Drug Administration, Principal Deputy Commissioner, Janet Woodcock (“Woodcock”),
5. U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Xavier Becerra, (“Becerra”)
6. Transportation Secretary, Pete Buttigieg (“Buttigieg”),
7. Secretary of State, Antony Blinken (“Blinken”)
8. Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas (“Mayorkas”)
9. Secretary of Education, Dr. Miguel A. Cardona (“Cardona”)
10. Secretary of Commerce, Gina M. Raimondo (“Raimondo”)
11. Department of Justice, Attorney General Merrick Garland (“Garland”)
12. Commissioner of Food and Drug Administration, Robert M. Califf M.D. (“Califf”)
13. Secretary of Labor, Marty Walsh (“Walsh”);
14. Deputy Secretary of Labor, Julie Su (“Su”);
15. Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin III (“Austin”)
16. Vice President, Kamala Harris (“Harris”)
In her freedom of information requests, Lisa McGee identified that none of the public officials (listed above) had valid affidavits. This is no small thing and has very large implications.
(starts at 9:40 time point – please watch, it will be worth your time)
At the center of her writ of Quo Warranto is the requirement under 5 U.S. Code § 3332 “that those persons provide the US Attorney and this Court with the compulsory affidavit within ten (10) days.”
As per her filing:
8. The issue before the US Attorney is straightforward: Petitioner has sought the required affidavits prescribed in 5 U.S. Code § 3332 from all appointees referenced via the Freedom of Information Act requests (“FOIA”); and not one of the aforesaid appointees have produced a compliant affidavit consistent with the applicable statutes. Either the affidavit(s) are nonexistent, wanting, defective or the appointee has failed or refuses to provide the mandated affidavit to hold their respective offices.
9. 5 U.S. Code § 3332 is nondiscretionary and mandatory; yet none of the aforementioned appointees have complied with or fulfilled their oath obligation to hold their respective offices or appointments. For the reasons provided, Petitioner respectfully requests the US Attorney seek the Court to issue a writ of quo warranto and enforce the relief sought in Part II for the individuals referenced, as the legitimacy of each to hold their respective positions or offices are demonstrably in question.
Have Not Timely Responded
1. Alejandro Mayorkas – Failed to respond.
2. Xavier Becerra – Failed to respond.
3. Dr. Miguel A. Cardona – Failed to respond.
4. Gina M. Raimondo – Failed to respond.
5. Marty Walsh and Julie Su – Failed to respond.
6. Kamala Harris – Failed to respond.
7. Antony Blinken – Two letters were received; the latest of which has sought more time*.
8. Janet Yellen – Responded with official letter stating that she does not have a Signed and Notarized Oath of Office.
9. Pete Buttigieg – Responded with official letter stating that he does not have a Signed and Notarized Oath of Office.
10. Jennifer Granholm – Exchange of communications with a third party contractor handling Granholm’s FOIA stating they are almost certain that she does not have a Signed and Notarized Oath of Office.
11. Robert M. Califf M.D. and Janet Woodcock – Contends they are exempted under 5 USC 552(b) and the foreseeable harm standard in 5 USC 552(a)(8)(i).
(*Petitioner submits that requesting so much additional time to find a simple, compulsory affidavit amounts to a failure to produce.)
Defective Affidavit
1. Rochelle P. Walensky – Received letter and affidavit, however, Walensky fails to specify which position she was appointed; and is not properly notarized or sworn.
2. Merrick Garland – An affidavit was produced; however, Garland fails to specify the date when he was appointed; and is not properly notarized or sworn.
3. Lloyd Austin III – An affidavit was produced; however, the document is not properly notarized or sworn.
This is federal statute. This is legally binding and mandatory. As per Lisa McGee’s petition:
“Simply put: none of the individuals referenced in this petition have satisfied their Constitutional obligations or have adhered to 5 U.S. Code § 3332 thereby nullifying, or at a minimum, calls into question the legitimacy of their appointments or positions. Since not one of the appointees referenced have produced a compliant, mandatory Oath of Office affidavit, it follows that the Petitioner has established a prima facie case for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto based upon the FOIA requests and the individuals’ responses to same. In turn, the burden now shifts to the respondent-appointees to prove Petitioner otherwise; and to produce the affidavits as required by law. See e.g., Ford v. Leithead-Todd, 139 Haw. 129, 384 P.3d 905 (Ct. App. 2016); People ex rel. Lacey v. Robles, 44 Cal. App. 5th 804, 258 Cal. Rptr. 3d 97 (2d Dist. 2020).”
The Reality On The Ground
Since hearing about this writ process in early 2023, I was curious to find out what was happening. I put on my big-boy PhD pants and sent off an email to Todd S. Callender, Esq. This was the exchange:
Me:
Mr. Ferguson and Mr. Callender,
I am writing to you to determine the status of the writ.
If this under attorney/client privilege, my apologies for over-stepping.
Just plain curious, as I cannot find anything regarding this case when I use search engines.
Very Respectfully,
Xavier A. Figueroa, Ph.D.
Strap in folks. It gets bumpy.
Todd S. Callender, Esq.:
Good afternoon Xavier.
The Writ went unanswered by the US Attorney and our next remedy is to file it in the Federal District Court of Washington DC – per the statute. We encountered two problems there: 1) a single judge in that jurisdiction has a valid oath; and 2) neither of us are licensed in the DC court so we need another DC lawyer to sponsor our admission to practice – we could not find anyone willing.
Worse, of all the lawyers I know and talked to in DC, they’ve all been disbarred except one. They were representing J6r’s and all got kicked out. What does that say about our judicial system – no habeas corpus, no speedy trial, no 5th Amendment rights, etc. It’s all a façade – the whole damn thing.
The sooner people come to grips with this, the sooner we take our planet back and restore our Republic.
Thanks for your interest Xavier. God speed
Todd
If that doesn’t blow your mind, nothing will.
What the findings of fact and the legal process are showing, are the following:
1. The people that are sitting in cabinet positions and appointed positions are not there legally. Every single order that has been issued by these people is null and void. No governor, federal officer or employee, member of the US Armed Services and Forces, state official or county official is obligated or required to obey these orders.
a. Additionally, a case could be made that following any and all of the orders issued by the officials (by other state or federal officers/employees) in illegal and a violation of their oath of office.
2. The District of Columbia is not a place that you can be assured of legal and lawful treatment, for any person.
What Can Be Done
The genius of our Constitutional Republic and the federation of states is that remedies remain available to us. Our Attorney Generals and Sheriffs are fall-back positions for asserting our legal and lawful rights. What we need to do, as a People, is to map out the state of our local governments.
Mapping requires that we test our elected officials on their status. Freedom of Information requests (FOIA) can be addressed to county and state governments for release of oaths of office (signed, sealed and witnessed). All 50 States and all ~3,100 counties in the United States, require these affidavits in order to be seated to the elected or appointed seats.
Send in a FOIA to receive an affidavit of an Oath of office for your legislator and Governor. Heck, send a FOIA for your county commissioner and School Superintendent. Hell, I double-dog dare you to send in a FOIA for your Sheriffs.
Armed with information, we can proceed to triage what can be salvaged and what can be counted on for asserting our Natural Rights. Through ignorance we have manacles placed on our writs and ankles – through knowledge and truth we can be set free.
Stand up or bend over.
Let me know how it goes for you and I will let you know how it goes for me.
Spread the word.
Meditating on "asserting our Natural Rights"....