The Quo Warranto solution (1 Viewer)

Joined
Jul 19, 2001
Messages
26,847
Reaction score
71,533
Location
Earth
Offline
https://thinkprogress.org/how-trump...ion-even-if-congress-doesnt-care-45677e6b85f7

Shugerman’s approach stems from one important legal concept: Incorporation is a privilege afforded by the state, but to maintain corporate status, one must conduct business legally.
State attorneys general have the power to bring actions against corporations, something known as a “Quo Warranto” proceeding, to determine whether the corporations are a conduit for illegal activity. This is known as a corporation acting “ultra vires” or beyond its legal authority. In this case, the proceeding would determine whether Trump’s corporate entities are being used as a conduit for illegal emoluments to Trump.
Importantly, the case would involve a public official (a state attorney general) suing a private entity (the Trump Organization). This means standing would be on much firmer ground.
Interesting end around. I wonder how this could play out.
 

superchuck500

guarding the potatoes
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Diamond VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
58,568
Reaction score
90,143
Location
Mt. Pleasant, SC
Offline
Certainly corporate registration can be revoked by a state upon the determination that the corporation is not conducting legal business. As the article suggests, I suspect it is quite rare - the preferred action is to enforce the law that makes the activity illegal (and letting the corporate status resolve itself).

But here, the allegation is not that the business being conducted itself is illegal or fraudulent (unlike in the Trump University case where the allegations were indeed that the business itself was a fraud). I'm not really sure what the allegation would be - as it is not any Trump-owned corporation that is in violation of the emoluments clause, but rather it is Trump himself . . . and only because he occupies the position of the president of the United States.

Supposing that a state attorney general would seek to dissolve a corporation because one of its principals is the president and ostensibly in violation of a component of the federal Constitution strikes me as an unrealistic reach with substantial risk of adverse impact both legal and political. Besides, revocation of corporate status doesn't really achieve anything apart from generating a bunch of attorneys fees and new filing fees - the businesses would just re-organize in a friendly state. And if, for instance, there was substantial harm incurred in the meantime causes of action (or other injunctive relief) could be pursued by the other principals or shareholders of those organizations that aren't also the president.
 
OP
Joined
Jul 19, 2001
Messages
26,847
Reaction score
71,533
Location
Earth
Offline
Thanks Chuck, I was hoping to hear from some of our legal folks. I was also hoping maybe they'd found a way to at least force some kind of investigation of the president given the super long shot that congress will act. Seems this may be a longer shot.
 

FBU4you

Very Banned
Joined
Jan 17, 2017
Messages
44
Reaction score
78
Offline
Certainly corporate registration can be revoked by a state upon the determination that the corporation is not conducting legal business. As the article suggests, I suspect it is quite rare - the preferred action is to enforce the law that makes the activity illegal (and letting the corporate status resolve itself).

But here, the allegation is not that the business being conducted itself is illegal or fraudulent (unlike in the Trump University case where the allegations were indeed that the business itself was a fraud). I'm not really sure what the allegation would be - as it is not any Trump-owned corporation that is in violation of the emoluments clause, but rather it is Trump himself . . . and only because he occupies the position of the president of the United States.

Supposing that a state attorney general would seek to dissolve a corporation because one of its principals is the president and ostensibly in violation of a component of the federal Constitution strikes me as an unrealistic reach with substantial risk of adverse impact both legal and political. Besides, revocation of corporate status doesn't really achieve anything apart from generating a bunch of attorneys fees and new filing fees - the businesses would just re-organize in a friendly state. And if, for instance, there was substantial harm incurred in the meantime causes of action (or other injunctive relief) could be pursued by the other principals or shareholders of those organizations that aren't also the president.
I am assuming you are a lawyer but I must say that was an outstanding post. Smart, easy to read and to the point. Sorry if this sounds like *** kissing but I really enjoyed the post.
 

mt15

Subscribing Member
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
13,344
Reaction score
18,196
Offline
Yeah, chuck is on permanent SR retainer. :9:

Seriously, he does a great job with explaining Law to us poor laymen.
 

Saint_Ward

Don't be a Jerk.
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
47,470
Reaction score
41,521
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Online
Reasonable lawyers who can explain stuff clearly should be judges.

Just saying Chuck...
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

 

New Orleans Saints Twitter Feed

 

Headlines

Top Bottom