Big Picture-Have Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) Leaders Defrauded Own Members? Prima Facie Case of Racketeering-Market Manipulating Allegations Based on MHI Members Published Statements
Google-Industry Issues-Trends-Behaviors-THE Witness for Contemporary MHVille Woes – Artificial Intelligence Praise for ‘Manufactured Housing Expertise’ – Experience of L. A. ‘Tony’ Kovach and Manufactured Home Pro News
August 2023 Production Data – Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) Leaders Should Embrace Responsibility for Continuing Manufactured Home Production Decline – Consolidators Fueled Crisis?! 
Lowey Dannenberg Probe Equity LifeStyle (ELS), Hometown America, Lakeshore Communities, Sun Communities, RHP Properties, YES! Communities, Inspire Communities, Kingsley Mgt, Cal-Am Properties
‘If We Keep Doing What We’ve Been Doing We Will Keep Getting What We Got!” – MHIdea-Post-Production Trade Association(s) Status – MHI, MHARR, NAMHCO, Other Examples Considered – Full Transcript plus Analysis
The Trump Arrest – Why it Means ‘Business as Usual is Dead or Dying’ and ‘The Party is Over’ – Malcom X, AI, Orwellian Two Minutes of Hate, and Silver Linings
America and Manufactured Housing are at a Crossroads – Greenwald: ‘It’s Not Left Vs Right Anymore, It’s Anti-Establishment Versus Pro-Establishment’
Outraged MHEC Member – ‘Crucify Gooch!’ – MHARR Says – ‘No One at MHI Should not be “Commending” Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac’ and ‘Bad Faith Excuse’ – Upton Sinclair Rules in Manufactured Housing?
‘Texas Manufactured Housing Expansion Continues, More Growth on the Horizon’ Per TMHA-Texas Real Estate Research Center (TRERC) – But ‘Sentiments’ Misleading per MHARR Data? Facts and Analysis
Historic Faux Pas! New Series Announced Explores American Exceptionalism Through Properly Sourced Research into Affordable Manufactured Housing History – Previewing Fleetwood Homes Dennis Hill Sagas
previous arrow
next arrow

Leo Donofrio – “Writ of Quo Warranto” – Legal Solution to ‘Election Fraud,’ POTUS Trump vs. Biden – Path to Stop Millions of Jobs Vanishing? Oligarchs Power Grab?


The Writ of Quo Warranto is getting growing attention. Among the reasons? Advocates and colorful attorney claim that “The Writ of Quo Warranto” may be a legal path for pushback to the mounting woes since former VP Joe Biden took up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. In the wake of dozens of “executive orders” (EO) that have been signed by what author and pundit Mark Steyn has labeled “President Alleged Joe Biden*” by the “Chaos President,” pro-Biden voices argue that some of those EOs will lead to job creation. Even if so, among those EOs Mr. Biden signed, some have already resulted in thousands of existing job layoffs. There are those, including the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that say that other EOs may lead to millions of jobs lost to Biden Regime EOs.

  • Despite pledges not to raise taxes on those making under $400,000 a year, two pending Biden Regime appointees admit that they expect to see taxes raised on lower and middle class Americans too. That will be ‘necessary’ to pay for the Biden Regime’s ‘climate change’ agenda, is their explanation. But didn’t the Biden-Harris ticket pledge not to stop fracking and other job creators that lead to low energy costs?
  • Facebook Hires Biden Transition, Obama Admin Official as VP of ‘Civil Rights’” – so reports the Epoch Times. That is just the latest of a series of “transition” and other pending staff or officials who have direct ties to those people and powerful corporations that put Biden into office.
  • There are those who are pushing for President Donald J. Trump to “run” again in 2024 in response. But what if President Trump could retake office in a matter of weeks or months, instead of years?

Is there any possible short term legal fix for these mounting travails?

JD Rucker at the NOQ (News Opinions Quotes) Report says “There are two major reasons President Trump should file a writ of quo warranto. One big reason it to attempt to remove Joe Biden and Kamala Harris from office. Perhaps that’s why Google, Facebook, Twitter, Spotify, and others are attempting to suppress information about it.”

The plan for President Donald J. Trump employing the use of a “Writ of Quo Warranto is being advocated by colorful and controversial attorney, gambler, and chess player, Leo Donofrio. Donofrio has used creative legal thoughts in the past in attempts to disallow the candidacies of both Senators Barack Obama (IL-D) and the late John McCain (AZ-R) from running for office in 2008, on the basis that they were not “natural born citizens” (which is also the name of Donofrio’s website) under a strict reading of the Constitution of the United States.

Several attorneys asked by MHProNews about this concept, including those who represent President Donald J. Trump, declined to answer on the record questions about this proposed plan. Those disclaimers noted, the argument Donofrio has made on 1.27.2021 and 1.23.2021 are as follows. The photo of Donofrio was added by MHProNews.



Posted on January 27, 2021

[UPDATE: This will be my final post. Last time this blog went dark for eight years. I don’t expect to be back. I have published everything I had to say.]

This will be a short post (for me). Because it’s a simple question. Simple logic determines the answer. Congress has enacted a federal statute designed specifically to test a federal office holder’s right to office. The federal quo warranto statute is located in the Code of Law for the District of Columbia at Chapter 35. § 16-3501 states:

“A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military.”

The United States Supreme Court has held that this statute applies to any office of the United States. In 2011, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed the statute applies specifically to the Office of President of the United States.

Quo warranto is the exact legal process in our national history used to correct election fraud, error, or lawlessness. For example, in a case from 2003, New York’s highest court held that when a voting machine jammed, causing just 37 votes to be challenged, a writ of quo warranto was the proper procedure, stating:

“Challenges to the outcome of a general election based upon alleged voting machine malfunctions necessarily fall within the purview of quo warranto.”

Will Congress impeach themselves for that body having previously enacted a statute to contest election results? § 16-3545 states that Biden/Harris will be ousted from the Office of President if the evidence goes against them:

“Where a defendant in a quo warranto proceeding is found by the jury to have usurped, intruded into, or unlawfully held or exercised an office or franchise, the verdict shall be that he is guilty of the act or acts in question, and judgment shall be rendered that he be ousted and excluded therefrom and that the relator recover his costs.”

Isn’t any talk of ousting Biden from office now considered an impeachable offense by Congress? Are they going to impeach and remove themselves for allowing this statute to exist? In New York, the Court of Appeals (which is their highest tribunal) must also be impeached and removed then. Insanity.

The problem in America right now isn’t folks asking questions about the 2020 federal election. The problem is that the nation needs a better understanding of law. Had the nation been informed that our system of jurisprudence has always provided a legal means to investigate election irregularities after a person is sworn in, perhaps the riot at the Capitol would never have happened.



Censorship of facts and law can do nothing but destroy America. I honestly believe big tech is trying to do just that. The blood is on the hands of the censors, not the people asking questions. There are no stupid questions. Only stupid replies. And when questions are so obvious, stupid replies stand out.

Therefore, the censors will stop the questions rather than give stupid answers. When folks can’t ask questions, violence may unfortunately happen. I condemn all violence. Those who invaded the Capitol should be prosecuted. But the censors bear great responsibility along with the criminals who broke the law. I believe in the law. So should you. But if you censor the law, if you censor quo warranto, then you create conditions for lawlessness to flourish.

Frustrated hopeless individuals will do desperate things. The law provides hope. And even if you lose in court, at least you were not suppressed from bringing your case. Regarding the 2020 election, the law provides a statute, a venue, and a procedure to bring the receipts of election fraud, or even just plain error. That law is a writ of quo warranto.

By censoring the law, both Congress and big tech are playing a very dangerous game. Perhaps that’s why the nation’s Capitol is on lockdown? Censoring legal speech is dangerous. I don’t believe big tech is trying to stop violence by doing it. These are brilliant people. They know exactly what they are doing by censoring legal speech protected by the 1st Amendment.

Big tech is attacking the 1st Amendment, and by doing so they expect violence. Unfortunately, some folks fell for the trap, and now they must be prosecuted. And as long as people stay on those platforms, they are giving power to the violent intentions of big tech. You hold the power in your clicks, your wallets, and your choices.



And as for this impeachment now, just read the title to this post again. We are no longer a nation governed by law, if the conduct codified by a Congressional statute can also be the very basis of an impeachment.

Donald J. Trump – while President – questioned the legality of Biden’s election. Congress has enacted a statute for this very behavior. How can Congress impeach Trump for the very conduct they condoned by enacting a law to facilitate? How can partaking in that legal behavior be a high crime or misdemeanor? It can’t. It isn’t. And this impeachment was designed to scare Trump and the nation from examining the one legal procedure which could oust Biden from the Office of President.

Quo warranto is the law. Know the law. Give the right law in the right venue a chance.”



A writ of quo warranto is used in court to challenge a person’s right to hold a public or corporate office. This phrase is Latin for “what authority?” – so said Natural News in a report entitled – “The most important legal pathway that would allow Trump to reclaim the Presidency.” Author Lance D Johnson cited the following sources.

Sources include:


What follows is the more detailed post by Donofrio. Both the post above and below are essentially the entire contents posted by Donofrio on his site linked here.


Quotes are precisely that, including deep dives like this report. 


Posted on January 23, 2021 by (Donofrio) “Natural Born Citizen.”

Donald J. Trump, please pay close attention to the following legal strategy. You can’t sit back on defense for the Senate’s pending attack on America. This so called impeachment trial fiasco is aimed at stopping the American people from holding the line concerning election fraud, error and blatant lawlessness in the 2020 election. If you are still willing to COUNTERPUNCH, rather than meekly playing defense, then you MUST bring the receipts to institute an action in quo warranto to oust Joe Biden and Kamala Harris from office right now.


We have all heard this type of no comment interview parry before, “We cannot interfere with pending federal court litigation.” You need pending litigation in the D.C. District Court, President Trump, and you need it before the Senate trial begins. How can the Senate try you, when pending litigation has yet to be decided or dismissed by a federal district court?

If your behavior on January 6th in telling people to march peacefully to support the Representatives and Senators contesting the election is a high crime or misdemeanor, then the D.C. District Court must dismiss a pending quo warranto suit, the D.C.. Court of Appeals must affirm such dismissal, and the United States Supreme Court must also confirm dismissal prior to the Senate trial. If you have instituted quo warranto, and the Court has not dismissed it, then the Senate trial is premature. This is why you must use the quo warranto statute tactically now.

If the federal Judiciary seeks to retain any semblance of normalcy in the face of such a massive prima facie case showing evidence of fraud, error and lawlessness supported by hundreds of sworn affidavits, the favorable Wisconsin Supreme Court decision, video evidence, and voting machine irregularities, it will be required to allow a jury trial under the statute. These are issues of fact. And issues of fact get a trial in the version of America we all remember.

The law specifically designed for this by Congress – the same tribunal attempting to convict you – is the federal quo warranto statute. How can they convict you for insurrection, if their entire case is built around punishing you for contesting the election, when they themselves have enacted a federal statute giving all federal election contests for fraud, error and lawlessness a venue in the D.C. District Court?

How can the Senate seriously convict you for availing yourself of their own laws?

It’s a good question, right? How can your behavior be a high crime or misdemeanor, if Congress has enacted a statute to specifically accommodate such behavior? It’s an absurd impeachment for the very reason that they have impeached you for behavior they themselves, as Congress assembled, enacted legislation to support and accommodate.

Therefore, in order to take advantage of the argument I am making, you must institute an action for quo warranto immediately. Then you can make this rational argument. But until you avail yourself of their own law to contest a bogus election, then you can’t make this argument effectively. Your failure to institute quo warranto will leave history with the relevant question of why you didn’t.

Cloak yourself in their law. If the very act of alleging fraud, error and lawlessness is what they are impeaching you for, then why did Congress enact the quo warranto statute? Has there ever been a quo warranto action with such a plethora of irregularities, and hundreds of witnesses swearing under oath to election atrocities?

What the hell did Congress intend when they enacted the federal quo warranto statute, if not that it should apply to a moment like this?

This is a rational important question that America needs to be focused on. But only by requesting the DOJ to bring quo warranto and filing a verified complaint can you make the proper use of both the question and the law.


Build it and they will come.”

Just change the words to, bring it and they will come. Quo warranto that is. Bring it and just like in the Texas case, other states will join you. The State Legislatures in Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin can intervene in the quo warranto as interested parties. In fact, they can bring their own actions in quo warranto. Other states will enter briefs in support as amici curiae, just as they did in the Texas case.

Let’s all go back to near midnight on December 7th, 2020. The State of Texas filed a massive original jurisdiction action at SCOTUS laying out the facts of complete and utter lawlessness having overtaken the electoral process in four states. On December 9th, you intervened, and on that same day, the State of Missouri and sixteen other states filed an amici curiae brief together. Read Point 3 of that brief – filed by seventeen States:

“The Bill of Complaint Alleges that the Defendant States Unconstitutionally Abolished Critical Safeguards Against Fraud in Voting by Mail”

So here we had Texas, supported by seventeen States of the Union, going to the United States Supreme Court alleging that the Defendant States created the conditions for fraud to flourish by abandoning laws enacted by their Legislatures to combat unlawful election activity. And now Congress wants to remove your ability to ever hold office for joining that suit.

How can it be a high crime or misdemeanor if eighteen States of the Union supported it? This is a damned witch hunt. Just like Russia. Just like Ukraine. Our legal norms are being eroded by this witch hunt and you need to COUNTERPUNCH rather than play defense. Quo warranto is the offensive tactic called for.

Texas and those seventeen States will join you, by directly intervening in quo warranto, bringing their own quo warranto, or at the very least entering briefs on your behalf. And all of this prior election litigation will be entered into the verified complaint for quo warranto. The Texas case was decided on standing, not the merits. The proper venue for standing is the D.C. District Court. So go there, and they will come.


This is a good spot to alert your legal team, should they actually be considering quo warranto, about the passive way the Attorney General and U.S. Attorney have deflected quo warranto actions in the past. § 16-3503 of the statute states:

“If the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of the United States, on the relation of the interested person…”

The term “interested person” pertains to those parties who have an interest in the office being challenged by quo warranto which is a more particular interest than just members of the public at large. The statute gives any “third person” the right to relate facts concerning an illegal election to the AG and/or US Attorney, but if the DOJ officials refuse to act, ordinary third persons can’t take it any further.

However, if those third persons are also interested persons, they can go around the DOJ officials and file a certified petition with the D.C. District Court requesting leave to issue the writ bringing Biden/Harris into court to defend. If the Court finds the petition is sufficient in law, then the writ will issue, and there will be a jury trial if either party requests a jury.

It’s very important to take notice of the language in 16-3503, “sufficient in law”. This means that when the D.C. District Court exercises it’s discretion, it does not do so by judging the actual facts certified in the petition. Instead, the statute requires that the petition only be analyzed by the Court as to the law. If the law provides for an action in quo warranto, based on the allegations of fact in the petition, then the petition is sufficient in law, and the action proceeds to the fact-finding stage. §16-3544 states:

“Issues of fact shall be tried by a jury if either party requests it. Otherwise they shall be determined by the court.”

This illustrates my point, in that the court decides whether to allow the action, not based on their own view of the allegations, as that will be left to the jury, or to the court later, after the writ is issued, should neither party request a jury. When you initially request leave of the court to file the action, after a refusal of the DOJ officials, the court’s decision whether to allow the action to go forward is not based on an examination of the ultimate veracity of your allegations, but whether the petition is sufficient in law.

In other words, if the fraud, error, or lawlessness described in your petition were proved true, the petition is sufficient in law if you are an interested person asking for the specific relief offered by the statute. The analysis here is similar to a motion for summary judgment in a personal injury case.

Whenever you bring a law suit for personal injury, the other side will consider a motion for summary judgment, and the court can only dismiss the case if, after reading all of the plaintiff’s allegations of fact as being true, no basis in law exists for the suit.

So, if you fell in a grocery store, and it’s not clear whether the fall was due to your own clumsiness, or negligence of the store, the court will not dismiss the case on summary judgment, because in order to grant such dismissal, the court must assume negligence on the part of the store, but find that the law provides no relief for such negligence.

If the store was on government property, and you failed to file a notice of claim within 30 days, as required by law, then your case can be dismissed on summary judgment, even if the court assumes your allegations of negligence are correct. Your complaint is insufficient in law, because you failed to file the requisite notice of claim.

I make this point to stress that while the D.C. District Court has discretion to determine whether the writ can be issued to bring Biden/Harris into court, that discretion, by the very text of the statute, is limited to sufficiency in law, not fact. And the determination whether the petition is sufficient in law is subject to review in the D.C. Court of Appeals and at SCOTUS based on long established legal norms.

I know those norms have been habitually violated in persecuting the Trump administration by activist jurists, but with every norm that is blatantly violated in trying to “get Trump”, the very rot in the system that governs all of us becomes more exposed to us as a nation.

And perhaps that is God’s design in full view. President Trump is not a perfect man, but he has stood up for the American People against the rotten federal deep state apparatus. And in doing so, Donald Trump has singlehandedly allowed the poisonous snake to bite him, again and again.

Trump is literally a deep state snake handler sucking all of the poisonous venom out of this corrupt federal old boy globalist cabal to defend the American People from it. And their persecution of Trump is not about him…at all. It’s about punishing us for getting in the way of their cartel. Full stop.


DOJ officials are going to hamper any quo warranto action’s potential, whether by Trump or State Legislatures, by not responding at all. They have tried this before and it has worked before. In Sibley v. Obama, 866 F.Supp.2d 17, 20 (2012), the D.C. District Court held as follows:

“Furthermore, as a matter of statute, plaintiff is not entitled to institute a quo warranto proceeding himself. Under Chapter 16, § 3503 of the District of Columbia Code, an ‘interested person’ may institute such a proceeding only if the Attorney General and the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia refuse to institute one on his request. Plaintiff submitted a request to Holder and Machen for them to begin a quo warranto action in November 2011, but he has not received an answer from them. Plaintiff has cited no law to support his assertion that a lack of response in this context should be considered a refusal. Since the refusal condition of D.C.Code § 16-3503 has not been met, plaintiff’s quo warranto petition is not ripe.”

That opinion was issued in June 2012, seven months after the plaintiff had contacted the DOJ in November of 2011. The DOJ did not respond at all to the request of plaintiff to institute quo warranto against President Obama. In not responding at all, neither to deny the request or grant it, the court held that, under the statute, an interested person’s right to petition the court directly was not ripe until the DOJ actually refuses.

This creates an absurdity in the law, in that if this ridiculous analysis is correct, the DOJ can stop all interested parties simply by never responding at all. Of course we have precedents to overrule absurdity. Under the absurdity doctrine, a court must construe the statute by applying the plain meaning of the text used unless it would lead to absurd or nonsensical results that the legislature could not possibly have ever intended.

In this case, clearly, the statute mentions three categories of potential plaintiffs; third persons; interested persons (a subset of third persons); and persons claiming true title to the office in question (a subset of interested persons). The statute means that third persons who are not interested parties may never bring the action without DOJ consent.

But the statute also makes clear, at § 16-3523, that when the DOJ refuses, “any attorney” can bring the action in the name of the United States on the relation of an “interested person”, if the court finds the petition “sufficient in law”. It would be a flagrant violation of the absurdity doctrine should the DOJ be able to stop all interested parties from having their day in court by not responding at all.

Furthermore, the statute’s section regarding such refusal has an official title:

“§ 16–3523. Refusal of United States attorney or Attorney General of the District of Columbia to act; procedures.”

When the federal quo warranto statute was originally enacted in 1901, this title was different, reading:

“§1540 If Attorney-General and District Attorney Refuse.”

The statute was updated in later years, substituting the U.S. Attorney for the D.C. District Attorney, because the U.S. Attorney is more proper to challenge the lawful title of national offices such as President, as opposed to local officials. But the title of this section of code was also updated to add the words “to act”, and “procedure”, rather than just refuse.

This is important, because the statute now regards “refusal to act” in the title, rather than the previous simple refusal. And the title of § 16-3523 also mentions the “procedure” following such lack of action.

The plaintiff in Sibley v. Obama should have pointed this out to the Court, because both the title of the section, and the words thereunder, indicate that a refusal to act triggers the right of an interested party to petition the Court directly. If the statute had required a written or verbal refusal, the Court’s holding would be less absurd, but the statute only mentions “refusal to act” in the title, and refusal to “institute a quo warranto proceeding” in the text. Therefore, the Court obviously erred in denying that the case was ripe. It is lack of action by the DOJ that makes it ripe. Seven months of no action is certainly a refusal to act or institute.


Trump can make very good use of this absurd precedent in the D.C. District Court by immediately requesting that the Attorney General, and/or the U.S. Attorney, institute an action in quo warranto to test the lawful title of Biden/Harris to their current offices.

Under the statute, Trump must do this before he can petition the court directly. But if the DOJ officials simply do nothing, attempting to stop him from ever petitioning the Court directly, Trump can rely on Sibley v. Obama in his motion to dismiss the impeachment, because the quo warranto request will still be pending before the DOJ.

If the DOJ officials have not refused to institute quo warranto, then – according to the D.C. District Court’s precedent – the DOJ officials are still considering it. And if Biden’s own DOJ will not refuse to bring an action in quo warranto against him, then how can Trump be impeached for questioning the legality of the election?

This is why Trump must officially request that Biden’s DOJ institute quo warranto against Biden immediately. It creates a catch 22 for them. If they do officially refuse Trump’s request, this makes his case ripe to petition the D.C. District Court directly. But if Biden’s DOJ pulls the same tactic as was done to the plaintiff in Sibley v. Obama, then Trump can rely on the precedent stating that the DOJ is still considering an action against Biden to oust him from the Office of President.

And if Biden’s own DOJ won’t stand up for him by officially refusing to institute a quo warranto to oust him from the Office of President, then how can the Senate convict Trump for insurrection resulting from his questioning the legality of the election? It’s all a ridiculous absurdity.

Let the poison flow out from the wound. Institute a quo warranto request now. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain, possibly the Office of President of the United States of America.”



Finally for now, was this previous post on the Natural Born Citizen website on 1.19.2021.


Quotes are precisely that, including deep dives like this report. 


See my previous reports for case law and analysis of the federal quo warranto statute. The bottom line is that SCOTUS has held that an election of any United States official can be challenged based on fraud or error by a writ of quo warranto. And the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that the proper venue to challenge the election of a sitting President is the D.C. District Court. We have a statute. We have a venue. Bring the receipts, President Trump.

If you don’t bring the receipts by quo warranto, then you will have quit. It’s all in or all out. There’s no other options left. This must be done. You have to give the proper law in the proper venue a chance. If you quit now, it will be broadcast as an admission that there was no fraud, error, or lawlessness by election officials.

As soon as Biden is sworn in, you can file the complaint. The gaslighting of America will only end by counter-punching with a verified complaint showing all of the evidence. Then comes a jury trial.

Furthermore, because of the widespread persecution of politicians who supported an investigation of the election, such as Georgia State Senators Brandon Beach and Burt Jones, alternative standing as interested persons under the quo warranto statute has been created for them to bring quo warranto actions too.

Beach and Jones were both stripped of their committee chairs. Therefore, they now have standing to petition the D.C. District Court to try the case before a jury, because that is the only way they can now prove their innocence and justification.

Simply put, the anti-MAGA conspirators have overplayed their hand in persecuting stop the steal politicians and patriotic citizens. In doing so, they caused very real injuries that need adjudication. These parties now have an interest in quo warranto which is unique and particular to them as opposed to the general public at large. Such particular injuries create unique standing.

Nobody right now is talking about quo warranto other than at this blog. That will change soon. We are a nation of laws. And we have an established means of testing elections. Those means, laws, cases, etc. have existed from the very start of our nation.

Challenging elections for fraud or error is nothing new or shocking in American Jurisprudence. So why the hysteria now? Because they know we have the receipts. And they know quo warranto is the legal procedure designed by Congress to bring them. Congress enacted the quo warranto statute. It’s their baby. There are literally hundreds of quo warranto cases on election fraud or error, if not thousands, in our national history.

In a recent New York case, a quo warranto action was deemed proper to challenge an election when the voting machine jammed causing just 37 votes to be questioned. Compare that to Coffee County in Georgia, where the local officials refused to verify the Presidential election this year because they could not get a voting machine to give consistent results.

No fraud was even suggested in the New York case, and you don’t even need to prove fraud when simple error can be shown. And there were other voting machine discrepancies in other counties as well. Add to all of this the missing postal service truck filled with ballots; the poll watcher complaints; the election statutes that were violated; late ballots counted for weeks after the election in violation of federal statute 3 U.S.C. § 1. There exists a plethora of election irregularities far beyond the amount of evidence needed to survive a motion for summary judgment.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court actually gave Trump a huge win when it held that election officials provided an illegal definition of indefinitely confined status which resulted in approximately 200,000 illegal votes being cast where the margin of victory was only 20,000 votes. That alone is sufficient to challenge the results in Wisconsin.

The Pennsylvania Legislature asked Mike Pence – on January 5th – for an extension to possibly decertify their electors after they discovered 202,377 more votes may have been counted than were actually cast. Election officials in Pennsylvania certified the results without accounting for the discrepancy. This particular issue alone is enough for Sean Parnell to bring a quo warranto regarding his lead vanishing in the middle of the night.

None of these issues were debunked. They were denied. There’s a difference. And in our system of law, when sworn affidavits are brought, the plaintiff gets their day in court where a jury decides whether allegations have been debunked. Issues of triable fact have been raised by witnesses who have subjected themselves to perjury. They deserve their day in court too. Let the jury decide. That’s how we do it in the USA.

Put Congress at the top of the conspiracy theory pyramid for enacting a federal statute to challenge the validity of federal elections. Under their quo warranto statute anyone who ran for federal office that has the receipts must now bring them to the D.C. District Court where a jury trial on the merits awaits.

In the weeks ahead, I will be publishing more research on strategies and analysis for those who either had an election stolen from them, or who have been persecuted for trying to stop the steal.

All of the cases brought before the election were not quo warranto actions, and therefore such cases faced difficult procedural hurdles. All were also somewhat premature in that quo warranto actions may be instituted only after the contested office is taken over.

I can assure you that Biden and Pelosi and the whole anti-MAGA universe is focused on misdirecting your attention from quo warranto. So far they have done a good job of manipulating attention spans. We need to steer the ship back on course. Defending their bogus attacks is the wrong tactic. The COUNTERPUNCH is quo warranto. We will see you in court.

What you are witnessing now in D.C. is an attempt to criminalize use of the law, research, investigations and discussion. War has been declared on the MAGA movement. Our weapon is the law. Don’t give up on it yet. It may still save us.”



As noted, MHProNews is not at this time in a position to deflect from or confirm the legal arguments. Based upon the unwillingness of courts to take up dozens of court cases, one might wonder if a court would allow this argument, even if it is hypothetically valid.

MHProNews asked Trump attorneys, declined comment.

A few industry attorneys asked have thus far declined to weigh in, even off the record. One has not yet replied.

The argument could be made that President Trump, who now appears to be poised to be acquitted by the Senate based upon the recent procedural vote Senator Rand Paul (KY-R) forced (45 Republicans voted in support, only 5 opposed), may have everything to gain by trying this.

Among third party media reports on this is the Clarion’s thumbnail analysis was to call it a “Hail Mary.” But the Clarion noted on 1.22.2021  – the day after Biden’s installation – that “If the 45th President of the United States is serious about addressing the 2020 election fraud that deprived him of another four years of service to the republic of the United States, then his legal team should begin to pursue a new legal strategy using a writ of quo warranto.”

A search on Bing for any comments from Trump attorneys as of 5:17 PM ET on 1.27.2021 resulted in no results.

Time will tell if the Trump legal team will deploy this concept. MHProNews plans to monitor this and other possible stratagems, as well as the “DOA” “impeachment.”

Stay tuned.


Subscribe Now Emailed headline News
UPDATE on 1.3.2021. To sign up for our industry leading x2 weekly emailed headline news updates, click here
We recommend that news tips NOT use company, nonprofit or organizational emails or cell phones. To report a news tip, click the image above or send an email to – To help us spot your message in our volume of email, please put the words NEWS TIP or COMMENTS in the subject line.

Again, to learn more on election related topics, see the links above and below. Until next time, that’s a wrap on this installment of manufactured housing “Industry News, Tips, and Views Pros Can Use” © where “We Provide, You Decide.” © ## (Affordable housing, manufactured homes, reports, fact-checks, analysis, and commentary. Third-party images or content are provided under fair use guidelines for media.) (See Related Reports, further below. Text/image boxes often are hot-linked to other reports that can be access by clicking on them.)

All on Capitol Hill were welcoming and interested with the discussion of manufactured housing related issues on our 12.3.2019 meetings. But Texas Congressman Al Green’s office was tremendous in their hospitality. Our son’s hand is on a package that included the Constitution of the United States and other goodies. MHProNews has worked with people and politicos across the left-right divide.

By L.A. “Tony” Kovach – for

Tony earned a journalism scholarship and earned numerous awards in history and in manufactured housing. For example, he earned the prestigious Lottinville Award in history from the University of Oklahoma, where he studied history and business management. He’s a managing member and co-founder of LifeStyle Factory Homes, LLC, the parent company to MHProNews, and This article reflects the LLC’s and/or the writer’s position, and may or may not reflect the views of sponsors or supporters.

Connect on LinkedIn:

Recent and Related Reports:

The text/image boxes below are linked to other reports, which can be accessed by clicking on them.