Chrysler Dealers – Appeal Update

naturalborncitizen ^ | May 28, 2010 | Leo C. Donofrio

[Seizethecarp]

Old Chrysler recently filed their response brief to our appeal.

We then filed a reply brief and that will speak for itself until the Southern District of New York issues a ruling.

Leo C. Donofrio

Pidgeon & Donofrio GP

From reply:

Judge Gonzalez is an officer of the court who issued a positive averment in Footnote 21 of the June 19, 2009 Rejection Opinion. The Footnote 21 averment initially exhibited a reckless disregard for the truth. Judge Gonzalez changed the unambiguous testimony of Fiat executive Alfredo Altavilla. This change in testimony provided the only fact upon which the Court could hold that the rejection of the dealership agreements by Old Chrysler met the business judgment test. The failure of Judge Gonzalez to correct himself in the published Opinion on Reconsideration elevates the fraud from reckless to intentional.

Appellee's Counsel have made a preposterous contention alleging that fraud on the court is only available as a remedy if the fraud was perpetrated by a party and not a judge.

The fact that it made no "material difference" to New Chrysler whether restructuring took place before or after the sale closed was specifically testified to by Alfredo Altavilla on May 27, 2009. It was this most crucial piece of testimony that was fraudulently tampered with by Judge Gonzalez in Footnote 21 of the Rejection Opinion. Tampering with witness testimony should be recognized for what it is, fraud on the court, especially where that testimony concerns the single most important fact of the case.

[Seizethecarp]

Donofrio has said that once this appeal is eventually resolved all the way up to SCOTUS, he intends to press for a quo warranto against Obama with the full support of his clients who are dismissed Chrysler dealers.

My non-lawyer understanding is that Donofrio will claim standing for his clients based on an injury to them that could not have occurred "but for" (legal term of art) Obama's unconstitutional usurpation of the presidency. The burden would be on Obama, not the Chrysler dealers, to prove his eligibility both as to birth on US soil and natural born citizen status with the "best evidence" and testimony available under the Federal Rules of Evidence.

"Best evidence" does not include a 2007 HI COLB Factcheck summary printout, but would include original 1961 HI vital records and all amendments.

Donofrio will doubtless press for clarification of the constitutional meaning of NBC in any quo warranto action.

[Seizethecarp]

NBC related Donfrio update ping...

[HonestConservative]

If correct, I love it.

[Seizethecarp]

ping

[Frantzie]

Leo is really bright and relentless. Steve Pidgeon is also in there fighting. In a normal world - this should be a slam dunk. Chrysler dealers were harmed by Obama Admins actions, Obama’s father makes him non-NBC. Maybe SCOTUS has the guts to take this up.

My question is does the quo warranto only go through DC district court of appeal and can go no higher. i.e. it cannot go to SCOTUS. I am not sure.

Mario Apuzzo’s case will have a major hearing in early June and he early on covered all the bases - he filed before hussein was in office, he sued Congress, Cheney, Pelosi and those in charge of checking. Other cases have been thrown out as judges say - well you sued the wrong person. Apuzzo’s case may have legs because the judges cannot claim that.

[Danae]

You are correct in so far as I understand it. This case must continue first. This is a really well researched and very well done reply. The Gov. is going to have a hard time getting this dismissed.

RIGHT ON LEO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bmwcyle]

The will be fully reported on NBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN. /sarcasm

[Seizethecarp]

“My question is does the quo warranto only go through DC district court of appeal and can go no higher. i.e. it cannot go to SCOTUS. I am not sure.”

Judge Carter and Judge Robertson confirmed that the DC District Court (the "DCDC" not the DC Appeals Court is only place that a quo warranto can be brought initially under the statute.

I am almost certain (non-lawyer certain) that any decision by the DCDC would be subject to review by the DC Appeals Court and then SCOTUS. There is clear precedent for this pathway in prior non-presidential quo warranto cases under the statute.

[Diver Dave]

Great Job, Leo! Stay the course!

[Red Steel]

Great news and good game plan.

[Frantzie]

Thanks. I was not sure if there was a path beyond the DC DC court to DC Appeals then SCOTUS.

[nascarnation]

The irony in this deal is that if Baraq had not jumped in to save his UAW buddies, those dealers wouldn’t have any new Chryslers to sell. I’m sure Chrysler would have been liquidated in bankruptcy court. Jeep probably would have survived under the aegis of some foreign owner.

[shield]

Nice.......

[FreeAtlanta]

This whole Birth Certificate thing with Obama, the courts, and other politicians willfully disregarding the law and the millions of Americans need to know if the constitution is being upheld, is depressing. It is disheartening and makes me feel that our government will now do anything and will not uphold the law.

Eric Holder is in contemptuous disregard of anything that might possibly get his boss in trouble. Mysterious Social Security Numbers, Systek being offered bribes to quit, the Birth Certificate issue, connections to Tony Resko, etc. etc. etc.

I thought we would leave a better nation to our children, but now doubt shadows us and a creepy creeping totalitarianism is eating our nations fabric.

The worse job in the country must now be the Secret Service. Can we get Mike Rowe to do an episode from the Whitehouse?

[bmwcyle]

The major problem is two Jeep owner like me will not buy another.

[DCmarcher-976453]

I love it when a plan comes together!

[SatinDoll]

“My question is does the quo warranto only go through DC district court of appeal and can go no higher. i.e. it cannot go to SCOTUS. I am not sure.”

I believe, from what Leo has written in the past year or so, that it could go all the way to SCOTUS; it depends on how Obama responds. If he refuses to comply with the District Court’s orders to provide documents, then it goes straight to SCOTUS.

[danamco]

Maybe SCOTUS has the guts to take this up.

---

Not according to Clarence Thomas:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7qEH-tKoXA