Team Law

Home Page

small logo

Quo Warranto

Though the Latin phrase: “Quo Warranto” means: “By what authority”, it is also the title of one of the most ancient and important original styles of remedial court actions inherent to any sovereign; including (but not limited to) each of the people in the United States.  It is the ultimate means the people have to limit officials to acting within the confines of the authority lawfully provided them through their office.  Quo Warranto is generally executed through a writ or related court order.

Because all authority in government collectively comes from the individual sovereign people, any of the people, can always use a properly executed quo warranto action to remove any official from office; if said official violates the privileges of their official capacity by acting outside of the lawful bounds of their authority and/or fails to perform the required responsibilities of that office.  Respectively, the government cannot lawfully interfere with the right to quo warranto; accordingly, the inherent right is irrevocable, ongoing and cannot be lawfully obviated by any legislative act.

Thus, where all authority in government comes from the people, Quo Warranto remains a right retained by the people to ask, “By what authority”; and, the respective Writ of Quo Warranto is the remedial instrument used by the courts to remove any official from office when that official is, through quo warranto, found to have violated the privilege of that office by acting absent of or in contradiction to the authority of that office.

In the United States, the right, with its respective Writ, are reserved to the people through the 9th and 10th amendments.

Quo Warranto can be used to ask any of the following three questions regarding anyone holding any office:

  1. Did the officer acquire the office unlawfully?
  2. Did the officer fail to do anything the office required them to do?
  3. Did the officer do anything forbidden from them while in the office?

If the answer to any of those questions is, “Yes”, Quo Warranto applies; and, the court must issue the Writ of Quo Warranto; which removes the officer from the office.

Here is how a Quo Warranto action works to secure its remedy:

First, except in rare occasions, the action is always brought by the government; thus, when any official commits any act forbidden to his office, or fails to act as required by his office, any of the people can write a letter to the Attorney General (hereinafter, “AG”) [in some cases the District Attorney is appropriate] showing cause for the Quo Warranto action and requesting that the AG bring the action to secure a Writ of Quo Warranto against the officer.  Also, if the unlawful action in question personally aggrieved or injured a party that party can bring the action directly into the court by their own right as a personally aggrieved/injured party.

Second, the AG either brings the action requested or declines the request.

If the AG declines, either overtly or by tacit admission (by failing to act (bring the action in court) within a fortnight), the right to proceed with the action in court as an independent prosecutor for the AG’s office (with the AG’s full authority to prosecute the case) automatically passes to the party that made the request for action to the AG.

Third, the aggrieved party or the government [through the AG, an assistant AG or a special prosecutor for the AG’s office] files the action in court where the case must be given the top priority of the court (taking precedence over all other actions).

Forth, the Defendant (officer in question) is summoned to appear in court, usually within five days, where the Defendant must prove their authority to so act in the office in question.

Fifth, if the defendant fails to provide evidence at trial proving lawful authority for the action in question (i.e.: the answer to the questions above are, “No”), Quo Warranto applies and the judge has no choice but to issue the Writ of Quo Warranto, which ousts the defendant from office.  This is an important point; though the judge reviews the facts to determine whether the answer to any of the three questions was, ’Yes’, if “yes”, the judge has no choice; but, to apply the remedy by issuing the Writ that removes the officer from the office.

The court has no jurisdiction to determine either what the remedy will be or whether the remedy should be applied; they can only determine the answer to the questions, and if “yes” is the answer to any of the questions, execute the remedy; to fail to do so would make the judge subject to a Quo Warranto action.  You may notice that the right to Habeas Corpus is a lesser subset of the right to Quo Warranto.

As of Monday, December 24, 2012, Phase 1 of a “Call to Action” began; when such letter was delivered to the AG and such an action was brought against Barrack Obama as President Elect contesting that he does not qualify for the office of President because he is not “a natural born Citizen”.  Respectively, Phase II began with a letter writing campaign wherein all of Congress was notified of that action; however, when Congress seated Obama in spite of the fact that Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” Phase III—“Operation Clean Sweep” began.  For more information, and to learn how you can help, click this link: “Call to Action”.

top )


All information on this site is provided for educational purposes only, with all rights reserved. 
Use it at your own risk.  Team Law never provides legal, financial or any other form of advice.
All materials on or available through this site are under Copyright © 1996-2013, and may not be reproduced,
except as noted, without the written consent of Team Law’s Trustee.

Copyright About Us | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | © 2003 Team Law, © updated 2014         HostGator link