Patriots Heart Network Media #phnm

"...what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” “A Republic, if you can keep it

Rose Adwell
  • Female
  • Garland, TX
  • United States
Share on Facebook
  • Blog Posts (1)
  • Events
  • Groups
  • Photos
  • Photo Albums
  • Videos

Rose Adwell's Friends

  • Ghost Recon
  • S. Aujero
  • Scarlett Anderson
  • Lori Arbuckle
  • mona l. miller
  • Softail
  • Ken Lowder
  • JD Carpanzano
  • Dale Stensland
  • Freedom is NOT Free
  • Taymor
  • crashaxe
  • Carol
  • Paul "Danny" Davidson

Gifts Received


Rose Adwell has not received any gifts yet

Give a Gift


Rose Adwell's Page

Letter Sent to Jeffrey Taylor and Eric Holder

Honorable Jeffrey Taylor, I urge you to settle this issue by making a quo warranto case before the court of the District of Columbia, which is the jursidiction body for the Case of eligibility to determine "Natural Born Citizenship"

Mr. Holder I request that you recuse yourself from this case.

No good will come to this country if this is not settled once and for all and congress allowed to decide the outcome. Many more case will follow, and we may see citizen rise up against citizen and surely divide this country more than it already is.

Federal statute (Chapter 35§ 16-3501) for quo warranto was tailor made by the legislature to challenge any person occupying any public office of the United States under questionable title thereto.
• The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion or on the relation of a third person.

• Two individuals have authority to bring quo warranto action: Attorney General Eric Holder, and US Attorney for the District of Columbia, Mr. Jeffrey Taylor.

• Only one of these officials need bring the action in quo warranto.

• The federal quo warranto statute provides the only Constitutional means by which a sitting President may be removed by the Judicial branch.

• Congress has provided for the removal of a sitting President found to be ineligible by enacting the federal quo warranto statute.

• Nowhere in the Constitution does it give the Judicial Branch the power to remove a sitting President. The Constitution has provided congress with the authority to remove the president from office in cases other than impeachment.

o Constitution Article 2, Section 1, Clause 6. “In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge...”. Note the word “or”.

o Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17. “Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District”. [DC]

o Congress is authorized to exercise removal power by the 25th Amendment - and such power must be derived directly from Article 2 Section 1 Clause 6.

• SCOTUS is not a trier of fact and so quo warranto MUST be brought before the District Court for the District of Columbia EXACTLY as the statute requires.

• Quo warranto action is proper to settle title to the office of President for the good of the nation.

• Even if both officials are convinced Obama is eligible, it’s still proper for them to institute a quo warranto proceeding because the evidence emerging now is that, by leaving the controversy as is, a floodgate of litigation will ensue.

• The best possible candidates who should request the US Attorney and/or the Attorney General to bring an action in quo warranto on their own motion are Retired Military officers who understand the absolute need for the President’s title to office not to be encumbered by doubt.


1. The US attorney and/or the US Attorney General institute the case on their own motion - which is the best way this could happen. No leave of the court need be requested. There will be a hearing and a trial of facts.

2. If no authorized Government attorneys will bring the action on their own motion,then any citizen may join a law suit as “third persons” and such law suit, by way of verified petition, shall be brought to the US Attorney and/or the Attorney General to ask their consent to use the name of the United States. If the Government gives consent, then you must request permission from the court to bring the suit as well. And if the Court says yes, you will have a hearing on the merits.

3. If the Government will not give consent, then “interested persons” may request leave of the court to institute the action in quo warranto. But standing will be - according to SCOTUS in Newman - restricted to anybody who was ousted from the office of POTUS (and nobody is going to meet that requirement) or, in the alternative there might by cases under the civil service laws which provide standing.

• CONCLUSION: The District of Columbia Code is the only means by which a federal quo warranto action can be instituted and its application is strictly limited to public offices of the United States or local DC offices within the ten square miles of the District of Columbia. No public office, i.e. POTUS, is exempt by the statute.

Rose Adwell, Citizen
Garland, Texas

Rose Adwell's Blog

Conservative Liberal Divorce Agreement

Posted on April 19, 2009 at 12:00pm 0 Comments


Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives,

socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the

whole of this latest election process has made me realize

that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for

many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly,

this relationship has run its course. Our two… Continue

Comment Wall (1 comment)

You need to be a member of Patriots Heart Network Media #phnm to add comments!

Join Patriots Heart Network Media #phnm

At 10:27pm on March 26, 2009, Rose Adwell said…
If B. Hussein Obama is an American Citizen, why isn't he sponsoring his Aunt Zutuni?



© 2021   Created by Chalice.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service