Any and all records and data concerning the Bond/s not otherwise exempt by 5 U.S.C.

§ 552
(a)(6)(C),(b)(7), 5 U.S.C. § 552a(j)(2),(k)(2) or law Public Citizens v. Dept. of Justice (1989) 491
U.S. 440, 105 L. Ed 2d 377, 109 Ct. 2552; Dept. of Justice v. Reporters Comm. (1989) 489 U.S.
749, 103 L. Ed 2d 774, 019 S. Ct. 1448; Detroit Free Press v. Dept. of Justice, 73 F. 3d 93
(1998); F.B.I. v. Abramson, 465 U.S. 615 72 L. Ed 2d 376, 102 S. Ct. 2054 (1982) including
exemption~ 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(3).
Your Department and/or Agency is advised that the Bonding and/or Bond/s info, data or reports
in total are no longer accord exempt status unless under specific exemptions noted, and only with
reference to specific citation of authority, Nemetz v. dept. of Treasury, 446 F. Supp. 102 (1987);
Akins v. Federal Election Com’n. 101 F.3d 731 (1996); Gummoc v. Gore 180 F. 3d 282 (1999);
Solar Sources Inc. v. U.S., 142 F.3d 1033 (1998).
I have previously requested that the following documents be provided to me: 5 U.S. Code § 3331
- Oath of office affidavit, and Public Hazard Bonding information for MARK B. BUSBY, and
ARACELI MARTÍNEZ-OLGUÍN.
Mark B. Busby, Araceli Martínez-Olguín, Alex G Tse, Stephen Ybarra, and Alexis Soloranzo
have FAILED and REFUSED to produce said requested public documents.
The Public Officers failed to provide such information, and therefore as officers of the public
trust, whom hold an office of public trust and honor, have breached their contractual fiduciary
obligations, this amounts to willful intent, a failure to act while having a duty to act, as it is
common knowledge and presumably part of the policy between the insurance company and these
agents, that they are required to produce this information, and failure to do so could result in
termination of the policy.
The liability insurance policy and the insurance company are held liable for the conduct of its
agent.
Mark B. Busby, Araceli Martínez-Olguín, Alex G Tse, Stephen Ybarra, and Alexis Soloranzo are
MANDATED via this REQUEST to produce an affidavit as required by 5 U.S. Code § 3332, I
DEMAND that those persons provide the US Attorney and this Court with their Oath of Office
and Public Hazard Bonding information and the compulsory affidavit for each employee within
ten (10) days.
(This is a verified plain statement of fact)
Maxims:
1. All men and women know that the foundation of law and commerce exists in the telling of the
truth, and nothing but the truth.
2. Truth, as a valid statement of reality, is sovereign in commerce.
3. An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce.
4. An unrebutted affidavit is acted upon as the judgment in commerce.

Page 2 of 5
5. Guaranteed- All men shall have a remedy by the due course of law. If a remedy does not exist,
or if the remedy has been subverted, then one may create a remedy for themselves – and endow
it with credibility by expressing it in their affidavit.
6. Ignorance of the law might be an excuse, but it is not a valid reason for the commission of a
crime when the law is easily and readily available to anyone making a reasonable effort to study
the law.
7. All corporate government is based upon Commercial Affidavits, Commercial Contracts,
Commercial Liens and Commercial Distresses. Hence, governments cannot exercise the power
to expunge commercial processes.
8. The Legitimate Political Power of a corporate entity is absolutely dependent upon its
possession of commercial Bonds against Public Hazard.
9. No Bond means no responsibility, means no power of Official signature, means no real
corporate political power and means no privilege to operate statutes as the corporate vehicle.
10. The Corporate Legal Power is secondary to Commercial Guarantors. Case law is not a
responsible substitute for a Bond.
11. Municipal corporations, which include cities, counties, states and national governments, have
no commercial reality without bonding of the entity, its vehicle (statutes), and its effects (the
execution of its rulings).
12. In commerce, it is a felony for the Officer/Public Office to not receive and report a Claim to
its Bonding Company – and it is a felony for the agent of a Bonding Company to not pay the
Claim.
13. If a bonding Company does not get a malfeasant public official prosecuted for criminal
malpractice within (60) days, then it must pay the full face value of a defaulted Lien process at
(90) days.
14. Except for a Jury, it is also a fatal offence for any person, even a Judge, to impair or to
expunge, without a Counter-Affidavit, any Affidavit or any commercial process based upon an
Affidavit.
15. Judicial non-jury commercial judgments and orders originate from a limited liability entity
called a municipal corporation – hence must be reinforced by a Commercial Affidavit and a
Commercial Liability Bond.
16. A foreclosure by a summary judgment (non-jury) without a commercial bond is a violation of
commercial law.
17. Governments cannot make unbounded rulings or statutes which control commerce, free-
enterprise citizens, or sole proprietorships without suspending commerce by a general
declaration of martial law.
18. It is tax fraud to use Courts to settle a dispute/ controversy which could be settled peacefully,
outside of or without the Court.
Page 3 of 5
19. An official (officer of the court, policeman, etc.) must
demonstrate that he/she is individually bonded in order to use a summary process.
20. An official who impairs, debauches, voids or abridges an obligation of contract, or the effect
of a commercial lien without proper cause, becomes a lien debtor – and his/her property becomes
forfeited as the pledge to secure the lien. Pound breach (breach of impoundment) and rescue is a
felony.
21. It is against the law for a Judge to summarily remove, dismiss, dissolve or diminish a
Commercial Lien. Only the Lien Claimant or a Jury can dissolve a Commercial Lien.
22. Notice to agent is notice to principal; notice to principal is notice to agent.
23. PUBLIC HAZARD BONDING OF CORPORATE AGENT: All officials are required by
Federal, State and Municipal Law to provide the name, address and telephone number of their
public hazard and malpractice bonding company, the policy number of the bond and if required,
a copy of the policy describing the bonding coverage of their specific job performance. Failure to
provide this information constitutes corporate and limited liability insurance fraud (15 USC) and
is prim-a-facie evidence and grounds to impose a lien upon the official, personally, to secure
their public oath and service of office.
24. This International Commercial Obligation Lien is, in part, supported & prefaced on UCC-
9/102 (Agricultural Liens); UCC 9/607-610 (Secured Party’s Right to take possession after
default), with ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
REQUEST PROOF OF OATH OF OFFICE PUBLIC HAZARD AND MALPRACTICE
BONDING COVERAGE, THE POLICY NUMBER OF THE BOND AND IF REQUIRED,
A COPY OF THE POLICY DESCRIBING THE BONDING COVERAGE OF THEIR
SPECIFIC JOB PERFORMANCE OF & FOR EMPLOYEES:
• Jesus Gilberto Bernal
• Maynor Galvez
• David T. Birstow
• Kenly Kiya Kato
• Noe Ponce
• Sheri Nicole Pym
[[email protected] - [email protected] -
[email protected] - [email protected] -
[email protected] - [email protected]]
I agree to pay any reasonable costs or fees applicable to this request, above and/or beyond the
specified allotment of costs or fees applicable at no charge pursuant to the Uniform Practices
Code, the OMB Uniform FOIA Fee Schedule & Guidelines § 6(b) Fed. Reg. 10017, in
compliance with 31 U.S.C. § 9701, or if I am considered indigent, I ask your department and/or
Agency waive all charges pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a (i)(3) et seq. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §
552(a)(6)(A)(i), it is noted that your Department and/or Agency has ten (10) working days

Page 4 of 5
 Case Number: 2023-___
________________________________________________________________

THE DISTRICT OF COLOMBIA

In re: LISA MCGEE

Petitioner
________________________________________________________________

On Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto to the U.S. Attorney in the

District of Columbia Regarding: Director of Center of Disease Control
and of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Rochelle Walensky; U.S.
Secretary of Treasury, Janet Yellen; U.S. Secretary of Energy, Jennifer
Granholm; ;
U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Xavier Becerra; U.S.
Secretary of Transportation, Pete Buttigieg; Secretary of State, Antony
Blinken; Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro
Mayorkas; Secretary of Education, Dr. Miguel A. Cardona; Secretary of
Commerce, Gina M. Raimondo; Attorney General, Merrick Garland; and
Commissioner of Food and Drug Administration, Robert Califf M.D.;
Secretary of Labor, Marty Walsh; Deputy Secretary of Labor Julie Su,
Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin III; and Vice President Kamala
Harris
________________________________________________________________

PETITION FOR WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO

Submitted by Lisa McGee
________________________________________________________________

Ferguson Law, P.A. Disabled Rights Advocates PLLC

1 East Broward Blvd. Ste #700 600 17th St. Suite 2800
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Denver, CO 80202
T: (954) 256 5646 T: (303) 228 7065 Ext 7068
E: [email protected] E: [email protected]

/s/ Kenneth W. Ferguson /s/ Todd S. Callender

Kenneth W. Ferguson, Esq. Todd S. Callender, Esq.

Attorneys for Petitioner

 I.

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

The US Attorney has jurisdiction over this petition pursuant to 28

U.S. Code § 1651 and D.C. Codes §16 3501 and §16 3503 as it seeks a

writ of quo warranto from the Federal District Court for the District of

Washington D.C., regarding individuals elected or appointed to an office

of honor or profit in the civil or uniformed services. All conditions

precedent are satisfied, waived, or otherwise deemed unnecessary to

instigate this action.

-2-
 II.

RELIEF SOUGHT

1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1651 and D.C. Codes §16 3501 and §16

3503, Petitioner, G , respectfully petitions the US

Attorney for a writ of quo warranto regarding the legitimacy of authority

of the following persons: Director of Center of Disease Control and

Prevention and of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Rochelle

Walensky , U.S. Secretary of Treasury, Janet Yellen

, U.S. Secretary of Energy, Jennifer Granholm ,

Food and Drug Administration, Principal Deputy Commissioner, Janet

Woodcock , U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services,

Xavier Becerra ), Transportation Secretary, Pete Buttigieg

, Secretary of State, Antony Blinken ( ; Secretary

of the Department of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas

r , Secretary of Education, Dr. Miguel A. Cardona

, Secretary of Commerce, Gina M. Raimondo ,

Department of Justice, Attorney General Merrick Garland ,

Commissioner of Food and Drug Administration, Robert M. Califf M.D.,

( ; Secretary of Labor, Marty Walsh ; Deputy Secretary

-3-
of Labor, Julie Su ; Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin III (

and Vice President, Kamala Harris (collectively .

2. For those individuals who have failed or refused to produce an

affidavit as required by 5 U.S. Code § 3332, demand that those persons

provide the US Attorney and this Court with the compulsory affidavit

within ten (10) days.

3. For those individuals who do not produce the 5 U.S. Code § 3332

affidavit within ten (10) days as described above; as well as, those who

have admitted they do not possess the requisite affidavit and those who

have produced defective affidavits:

a. Immediately terminate their appointments or positions;

b. Render all official acts, bills, laws, regulations, or any

official actions whatsoever, including the appointment of

any subordinates void ab initio and;

c. Replace and restore all proper, former office holders until

competent replacements can be lawfully appointed.

-4-
 III.

ISSUES PRESENTED
4. 5 U.S. Code § 3331 - Oath of office, states:

An individual, except the President, elected or

appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil
service or uniformed services, shall take the following
oath
support and defend the Constitution of the United
States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that
I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that
I take this obligation freely, without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well
and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on

5. Concordantly, 5 U.S. Code § 3332 - Officer affidavit; no

consideration paid for appointment states:

An officer, within 30 days after the effective date of

his appointment, shall file with the oath of office
required by section 3331 of this title an affidavit
that neither he nor anyone acting in his behalf has
given, transferred, promised, or paid any
consideration for or in the expectation or hope of
receiving assistance in securing the appointment.

6. In order for any Affidavit, including an Affidavit in support of a

person s Oath of Office, it must be sworn to which include specific

provisions requiring allegiance to the Nation and office they hold in

-5-
support of the Nation which contains, inter alia, the following language

from the form Appointment Affidavit, which states in relevant part:

A. OATH OF OFFICE
I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all
enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation
or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties
of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
B. AFFIDAVIT AS TO STRIKING AGAINST THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT
I am not participating in any strike against the Government of the United
States or any agency thereof, and I will not so participate while an employee
of the Government of the United States or any agency thereof . . .1

7. In order to be effective as a sworn declaration, it must either be

sworn before a notary public or sworn under penalty of perjury per 18

U.S. Code § 1746, which requires:

Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation,
order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or
permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn
declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing
of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office,
or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary
public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced,
established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or
statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true
under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form:
(1) If executed without the United States: I declare (or certify, verify, or
state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date).

1
See: Standard Form 61, Revised August 2002; U.S. Office of Personnel Management; The
Guide to Processing Personnel Actions

-6-
 (2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or
commonwealths: I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of
perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date).

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

; 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.

-7-
 IV.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Re: Rochelle Walensky (Centers for Disease Control & Toxicity)

10. On February 2, 2023, Petitioner submitted a FOIA requesting a

signed copy of the Director of the Centers for Disease Control , Rochelle

P. Walensky, Oath of Office. Petitioner received a response which

included an incomplete copy of See Exhibit A

for a composite of all communication exchanges along with the defective

affidavit Oath of Office.

Re: Janet Yellen (Secretary of Treasury)

11. On February 1, 2023, Petitioner submitted a FOIA requesting a

February 2, 2023, Petitioner received a letter stating a search is not

expected to yield the records requested because Yellen did not sign an

Oath of Office (emphasis added). To date, the mandatory 5 U.S. Code §

3332 affidavit has not been produced. See Exhibit B for all

communications exchanges.

-8-
 Re: Secretary Jennifer Granholm (Dept. of Energy)

12. In February 2023, Petitioner submitted a FOIA requesting a signed

affidavit.

After several email exchanges, Petitioner was directed to a third-party

vendor to handle her request. A ,

oral Oath of Office; however, to date, the requisite 5 U.S. Code § 3332

affidavit has never been produced. See Exhibit C for all communication

exchanges.

Re: Xavier Becerra (Health and Human Services)

13. On February 2, 2023, Petitioner submitted a FOIA requesting a

Oath of Office. To date, Petitioner has yet to receive a signed copy of

mandatory 5 U.S. Code § 3332 Oath of Office affidavit. See

Exhibit D for all communication exchanges.

Re: Secretary Pete Buttigieg (Dept. of Transportation)

14. On February 21, 2023, Petitioner submitted a FOIA requesting a

Office. On March 15, 2021, Petitioner received a letter from the Dept. of

Transportation which unequivocally stated that Buttigieg does not have

-9-
a signed Oath of Office affidavit. In lieu of providing the requisite 5 U.S.

Code § 3332 affidavit, a YouTube link was provided presumably to

demonstrate his public, oral Oath of Office which is insufficient. To date,

Petitioner has yet to receive a signed copy of 5 U.S. Code §

3332 Oath of Office. See Exhibit E for all communication exchanges.

Re: Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas (Dept. of Homeland Security)

15. On February 2, 2023, Petitioner submitted a FOIA requesting a

Oath of Office. On March 7, 2023, Petitioner received a letter stating that

there were delays in response to her request. To date, Petitioner has yet

to recei 5 U.S. Code § 3332 Oath of Office

affidavit. See Exhibit F for all communication exchanges.

Re: Secretary Miguel Dept. of Education)

16. On February 2, 2023, Petitioner submitted a FOIA requesting a

Office. After a labyrinth of emails instructing Petitioner to go to various

portals with different logins; the her FOIA stated

that her request is closed. In short, Petitioner did not receive any

- 10 -
ultimately closed her request. To date, Petitioner has yet to receive a

signed copy of 5 U.S. Code § 3332 Oath of Office affidavit. See

Exhibit G for all communication exchanges and PDF document relating

to the faulty, portal system referenced herein.

Re: Secretary Antony Blinken (Secretary of State)

17. On December 30, 2022, Petitioner submitted a FOIA requesting a

After

no response, Petitioner subsequently followed up with another written

request and to date, Petitioner has yet to receive a signed copy of

5 U.S. Code § 3332 Oath of Office. See Exhibit H for all

communication exchanges.

Re: Secretary Gina Raimondo (Secretary of Commerce)

18. On February 2, 2023, Petitioner submitted a FOIA requesting a

Later that day, Petitioner received an email confirming her submission.

There has been no follow up from their office; and Petitioner has yet to

receive a signed copy of 5 U.S. Code § 3332 .

See Exhibit I for all communication exchanges.

- 11 -
 Re: Commissioner Robert M. Califf, M.D. and Deputy
Commissioner Janet Woodcock (Food and Drug Administration)

19. On February 3, 2023, Petitioner submitted a FOIA requesting a

signed copy of both the Commissioners of Food and Drug Administration

(FDA) Robert M Califf, MD and FDA Principal Deputy Commissioner ,

Janet Woodcock Oaths of Office. Petitioner received two separate letters

describing in providing copies of the requisite

Oaths of Office. To date, Petitioner has not received the mandatory

affidavits as required by 5 U.S. Code § 3332 from either Robert Califf or

Janet Woodcock. See Exhibit J for all communication exchanges.

Re: Secretary Marty Walsh and Acting

Deputy Labor Secretary Julie Su (Secretary of Labor)

20. On March 21, 2023, Petitioner submitted a FOIA requesting a

signed copy of the former Secretary of Labor , Marty Walsh (during the

time he served) and acting Deputy Labor Secretary Julie Su, Oaths of

Office. Days later, Petitioner received an email from the Dept. of Labor

stating they would need more time due to backlog requests. To date,

Petitioner has not received the mandatory affidavits as required by 5 U.S.

Code § 3332 from either Marty Walsh or Julie Su. See Exhibit K for all

communication exchanges

- 12 -
 Re:

21. On March 17, 2023, Petitioner submitted a FOIA requesting a

March 20, 2023, Petitioner received a letter which provided a link to

; however, the affidavit provided was incomplete. To date,

a compliant 5 U.S. Code § 3332 affidavit from Garland has yet to be

produced. See Exhibit L for all communications and affidavit referenced.

Re: Secretary Lloyd Austin (Dept. of Defense)

22. On July 25, 2022, Petitioner submitted a FOIA request seeking a

July 27, 2022, Petitioner received a response from the OSD/JS FOIA

office stating, "Although we have already begun processing your request,

we will not be able to respond within the FOIA's 20-day statutory time

period as there are unusual circumstances which impact our ability to

quickly process your request." The 20-day statutory time period has

transcended into several months; and the consistent pattern of response

has been that Oath of Office cannot be not located. Finally, on

March 27, 2023, Petitioner received a final response which included a

- 13 -
See Exhibit M for all communication exchanges; as well as, the deficient

copy of Oath of Office.

Re: Kamala Harris (Vice President)

23. In early March, Petitioner submitted a FOIA requesting a signed

copy of and has never received a

response from her office. To date, Vice President Kamala Harris has not

produced the mandatory affidavits as required by 5 U.S. Code § 3332.

Summations

24. In summary of the foregoing and for ease of reference per below,

Petitioner sought the production of the compulsory affidavits that

evidence each Officers allegiance to the Constitution and commitment

that all official acts conducted by them could potentially subject them to

Treason for failure of adherence.2 The FOIA responses (or lack thereof)

are listed below categorized by their noncompliance or defects:

2
- If in a limited government
the public functionaries exceed the limits which the constitution prescribes to their powers,
every such act is an act of usurpation in the government, and, as such, treason against the
sovereignty of the people.

- 14 -
 Have Not Timely Responded

25. Alejandro Mayorkas Failed to respond.

26. Xavier Becerra Failed to respond.

27. Dr. Miguel A. Cardona Failed to respond.

28. Gina M. Raimondo Failed to respond.

29. Marty Walsh and Julie Su Failed to respond

30. Kamala Harris Failed to respond.

31. Antony Blinken Two letters were received; the latest of which has

sought more time3.

32. Janet Yellen Responded with official letter stating that she does

not have a Signed and Notarized Oath of Office.

33. Pete Buttigieg Responded with official letter stating that he does

not have a Signed and Notarized Oath of Office.

34. Jennifer Granholm Exchange of communications with a third-

party contractor handling FOIA stating they are almost

certain that she does not have a Signed and Notarized Oath of Office.

3Petitioner submits that requesting so much additional time to find a simple, compulsory
affidavit amounts to a failure to produce.

- 15 -
 35. 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).

Defective Affidavit

36. Rochelle P. Walensky Received letter and affidavit, however,

Walensky fails to specify which position she was appointed; and is not

properly notarized or sworn.

37. Merrick Garland An affidavit was produced; however, Garland

fails to specify the date when he was appointed; and is not properly

notarized or sworn.

38. Lloyd Austin III An affidavit was produced; however, the

document is not properly notarized or sworn.

- 16 -
 V.

REASONS THE WRIT SHOULD ISSUE

A petition for quo warranto is an appropriate method of determining

whether a person is eligible to the office or position to which the

individual was appointed or elected. Newman v. U.S. of Am. ex rel.

Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537, 544 46 (1915). The purpose of bringing a writ of

quo warranto is to correct an improper appointment or election; and

ultimately to achieve the ouster of the person who is illegally occupying

a public office. Ames v. State of Kansas, 111 U.S. 449, 4 S. Ct. 437, 28 L.

Ed. 482 (1884). Stated differently, it is used to question the authority of

an individual asserting a right and title to a public office or appointment;

and intended to prevent or challenge the exercise of those powers that

are not conferred by law. Sibley v. Obama, 866 F. Supp. 2d 17 (D.D.C.

2012), aff'd, 2012 WL 6603088 (D.C. Cir. 2012); Sierra Club v. Castle &

Cooke Homes Hawaii, Inc., 132 Haw. 184, 320 P.3d 849 (2013).

The United States Constitution is clear that:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in

Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or
hold any office, civil or military, under the United States,
or under any State, who, having previously taken an
oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the
United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or

- 17 -
 as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support
the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged
in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid
or comfort to the enemies thereof.4

U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 3. This necessarily implies that oaths must be

taken as required by 5 U.S. Code § 3331:

An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to

an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed
services, shall take the following oath solemnly
swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
foreign and domestic

and 5 U.S. Code § 3332:

An officer, within 30 days after the effective date of his

appointment, shall file with the oath of office required by
section 3331 of this title an affidavit that neither he nor
anyone acting in his behalf has given, transferred,
promised, or paid any consideration for or in the
expectation or hope of receiving assistance in securing the
appointment.

U.S. Codes § 3331 and § 3332 are unambiguous: An individual,

except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit

4
By longstanding tradition and standard, on or about noon of the day the president-elect
takes office, they recite the following oath, in accordance with Article II, Section I of the
U.S. Constitution:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the
United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution of the United States."

- 18 -
in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath

[and] An officer, within 30 days after the effective date of his

appointment, shall file with the oath of office required by section 3331 of

this title an affidavit... Precedence clearly shows that the use of the word

shall in a statute creates a mandatory duty. See e.g., Appalachian

Voices v. McCarthy, 989 F. Supp. 2d 30, 54 (D.D.C. 2013); See also

Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v. United States, 579 U.S. 162, 171 72, 136 S.

Ct. 1969, 1977, 195 L. Ed. 2d 334 (2016) ( Unlike the word may which

implies discretion, the word shall usually connotes a requirement.

Compare Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523

U.S. 26, 35, 118 S.Ct. 956, 140 L.Ed.2d 62 (1998) (recognizing that shall

is mandatory and normally creates an obligation impervious to judicial

discretion.

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

- 19 -
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).

CONCLUSION
Indeed, while writs are extraordinary remedies, this petition has

demonstrated that there are uncontroverted, substantial pertinent facts

that show the Petitioner is entitled to the requested relief; and a

peremptory writ of quo warranto ought to be sought and issued along

with the relief requested in Part II.

Respectfully Submitted,

Ferguson Law, P.A. Disabled Rights Advocates PLLC

1 East Broward Blvd. Ste #700 600 17th St. Suite 2800
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Denver, CO 80202
T: (954) 256 5646 T: (303) 228 7065 Ext 7068
E: [email protected] E: [email protected]

/s/ Kenneth W. Ferguson /s/ Todd S. Callender

Kenneth W. Ferguson, Esq. Todd S. Callender, Esq.
Florida Bar No.: 98950 Colorado Bar No.: 25981

Attorney for Petitioner Attorney for Petitioner

- 20 -
 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

The foregoing filing complies with the relevant type-volume

limitation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because the filing has

been prepared using a proportionally-spaced typeface and includes 3727

words and is less than 30 pages.

DATED: April 12, 2023

Ferguson Law, P.A. Disabled Rights Advocates PLLC

1 East Broward Blvd. Ste #700 600 17th St. Suite 2800
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Denver, CO 80202
T: (954) 256 5646 T: (303) 228 7065 Ext 7068
E: [email protected] E: [email protected]

/s/ Kenneth W. Ferguson /s/ Todd S. Callender

Kenneth W. Ferguson, Esq. Todd S. Callender, Esq.
Florida Bar No.: 98950 Colorado Bar No.: 25981

- 21 -