Brooks Agnew – What occurred in November 2020 was not voter fraud. It was election fraud on a scale never seen before in the US. Oh, don’t get me wrong. It’s been around since just after the Civil War. Whiskey, money, sex, and even threats of violence have been used by the Global Syndicate to get their hands on ballots.
Now we have an organized effort I call Ballot-R-Us. Thanks to more than $1 billion in cash donated by Mark Zuckerberg, George Soros, Michael Bloomberg and other deep state bankers, there was enough money to pay tens of thousands of mules in a dozen States to stuff illegal ballots into the system through strategically placed drop boxes.
It was coordinated, funded, and managed by the Syndicate’s officers to overthrow the US government. It succeeded. You know it. I know it. And they know we know it. What can be done about it? Vote in 2022? Please. Who has the authority to correct this crime, now that the proof is solid enough?
On October 22, 2012, Lance Armstrong is formally stripped of the seven Tour de France titles he won from 1999 to 2005 and banned for life from competitive cycling after being charged with systematically using illicit performance-enhancing drugs and blood transfusions as well as demanding that some of his Tour teammates dope in order to help him win races. It was a dramatic fall from grace for the onetime global cycling icon, who inspired millions of people after surviving cancer then going on to become one of the most dominant riders in the history of the grueling French race, which attracts the planet’s top cyclists.
But wait? He won, didn’t he? Yes, but he cheated. So they stripped him of his reward and shamed him into oblivion. So, who has the authority to strip Virtual Joe of his stolen trophy?
Quo Warranto
A legal proceeding during which an individual’s right to hold an office or governmental privilege is challenged.
In old English practice, the writ of quo warranto — an order issued by authority of the king— is one of the most ancient and important writs. It has not, however, been used for centuries, since the procedure and effect of the judgment were so impractical.
A writ of quo warranto is not a petition, but a notice of demand, issued by a demandant, to a respondent claiming some delegated power, and filed with a court of competent jurisdiction, to hold a hearing within 3 to 20 days, depending on the distance of the respondent to the court, to present proof of his authority to execute his claimed powers. If the court finds the proof insufficient, or if the court fails to hold the hearing, the respondent must cease to exercise the power. If the power is to hold an office, he must vacate the office.
The writ is unlike a petition or motion to show cause, because the burden of proof is on the respondent, not on the demandant.
By itself, the writ does not seek the support of the court to order the respondent to cease the exercise or vacate the office. That would be an accompanying writ of prohibito or a writ of mandamus. All such writs contemplate enforcement by the people as militia, although that could include the sheriff or constable as commander of militia. The right involved is that of the respondent to present his evidence.
These writs are called prerogative writs because they are supposed to be docketed ahead of all other cases except other prerogative writs. The demandant represents the sovereign, the people, and anyone may appear in that capacity, even without a personal stake in the decision.
A writ of habeas corpus may be regarded as a subset of quo warranto, for cases where the claimed power is to hold a prisoner, but with the addition of a requirement to produce the prisoner in court, not just appear to present evidence of authority.
The prerogative writ of quo warranto has been suppressed at the federal level in the United States, and deprecated at the state level, but 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.
Here are a few writings on the subject. Revival of the writs must be combined with reviving standing for private prosecution of public rights, subverted by the “cases and controversies” doctrine and the decision in Frothingham v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923), which is discussed in an article by Steve Winter, The Metaphor of Standing and the Problem of Self-Governance.
Although some of these writings are copyrighted, we are assured that all the chapters of all the ones still copyrighted have been attached to pleadings in various cases, and thus made part of the public record, thereby putting them into the public domain.
A critical key to achieving federal constitutional compliance is to resurrect quo warranto and other common law writs. This involves reasserting and strengthening the original All-Writs Act and repealing or declaring unconstitutional legislation, such as the Tax Anti-Injunction Act, and those Rules of Judicial Procedure, that have restricted the jurisdiction of federal courts to accept these writs and grant a fair hearing (“oyer”) and a decision on the merits (“terminer”) on such demands.
In some quo warranto proceedings, the issue is whether the defendant is entitled to hold the office he claims, or to exercise the authority he presumes to have from the government. In addition, proceedings have challenged the right to the position of county commissioner, treasurer, school board member, district attorney, judge, or tax commissioner. In certain jurisdictions, quo warranto is a proper proceeding to challenge individuals who are acting as officers or directors of business corporations.
A prosecuting attorney ordinarily commences quo warranto proceedings; however, a statute may authorize a private person to do so without the consent of the prosecutor. Unless otherwise provided by statute, a court permits the filing of an information in the nature of quo warranto after an exercise of sound discretion, since quo warranto is an extraordinary exercise of power and is not to be invoked lightly. Quo warranto is not a right available merely because the appropriate legal documents are filed. Valid reason must be indicated to justify governmental interference with the individual holding the challenged office, privilege, or license.
A quo warranto action may not be filed without the approval of the Attorney General (except in those cases where a public agency is authorized to file for itself).
The remedy of quo warranto is vested in the People, and not in any private individual or group, because the question of who has the right to hold a public office is a matter of public concern, not a private dispute. The requirement of obtaining approval also serves the important purpose of protecting public officers from frivolous challenges.
In order to obtain the Attorney General’s approval, a private person or a local agency must file an application pursuant to the rules and regulations issued by the Attorney General.
An application must include a verified complaint; a verified statement of facts; a memorandum of points and authorities; and a notice to the proposed defendant giving him or her at least 15 days to show cause to the Attorney General why the application should not be granted. The application must be properly served on the proposed defendant, and filed within five days of service with the Attorney General.
The proposed defendant is given 15 to 20 days to respond, depending upon where service is made. The relator may then file a reply within 10 days. The Attorney General may prescribe a shorter period of time in special cases or upon a showing of good cause. These response times may also be extended by stipulations filed with the Attorney General, or upon a showing of good cause.
After all of the papers are filed, the Attorney General’s Office evaluates the facts and the law in order to determine whether to grant leave to sue. Because this approval process is an administrative function, not a judicial one, there is no opportunity for formal discovery proceedings between the parties at this stage. From time to time, the Attorney General may ask one party or another for additional information in order to make a full evaluation of the application and responses.
After sufficient time to evaluate the matter, the Attorney General will render a decision either to grant leave to sue, or not to grant leave to sue. The decision whether or not to grant leave to sue involves an exercise of discretion, and will rarely if ever be disturbed by a court.
Now that we have the video and GPS proof that the presidency and many Congressional and Senatorial offices were obtained through an organized and purposeful fraud, this should be filed tomorrow morning at 8:00 AM. It must be done before it results in nuclear war. Real nuclear war. Take us back to October of 2020. Right now.
SF Source Brooks Agnew May 2022