Posted on 12/09/2009 1:42:33 PM PST by RobinMasters
Two lawyers have joined forces to assemble a case challenging in U.S. bankruptcy court the federal government's use of Troubled Asset Relief Program funds to bail out Chrysler and in doing so may have created a scenario that finally will bring to a head the issue of Barack Obama's eligibility to be president.
The attorneys are Leo Donofrio, who has launched cases directly challenging Obama's eligibility, and Stephen Pidgeon, who also has worked on the issue.
Their new case questions the authority by which the federal government and administration officials intervened in the auto industry, specifically allocating some $8 billion-plus to Chrysler, which later was forgiven.
Pidgeon told WND the clients in the case are former Chrysler dealers who lost their businesses as part of the "restructuring" of the automobile company. They have been damaged with the loss of their businesses, and the case alleges the Obama administration, through its use of TARP money, influenced Chrysler's outcome.
Donofrio told WND the core issue is the disbursement of TARP funds to the auto maker that were intended to help banks and financial institutions. The previous Treasury secretary had indicated such expenditures were not appropriate, and, in fact, a congressional effort to authorize the expenditures failed, he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Ping.
P I N G !
I would love nothing better than to see this lowlife bastard removed from office.
If people keeping slinging manure, maybe some with stick, besides any questioning of OdumbO gets under his thin skin.
I don't get it. How?
Amen!
He’s a usurper, I have no doubt.
Guilty is as Guilty does, and he’s acting as guilty as they come.
This is good news. Hopefully the dealers and their employees plus others will provide any support that Leo and Steve need.
The fact that these dealers had their businesses taken from them and their livelihoods destroyed does not mean they have standing to seek redress from the courts. They must show that they were harmed in order for their case to proceed. The courts recognize that the wise, just and noble Lord Obama does not harm anyone by his actions and this will be the basis on which the lawsuit is dismissed.
“If the president cannot document his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, his presidential task force had no authority to act at all, the case contends.”
Federal Usurpation used to be a serious offense...but, I think this will hit the same rejection the military cases hit trying to question his authority to deploy...just an opinion...but these things aren’t going away...enough of them might force his hand...good luck guys...I know that my industrial supply business isn’t going to make it much longer with this bstrd in the WH...all those jobs that are gone were my customers...and they are NOT coming back by building three dirt roads...
The last thing I would want see happen is him kicked out and some idiotic “sympathetic” feelings result. I am hoping for a good 2010.
You may be right about that, but think about what alternatives these Chrysler dealers have left if the case is dismissed.These guys have money.
Obama is about to get the Chrysler Dealer Shaft one way or the other.
Ask me whether I’m lovin’ it.
O will declare martial law if they don’t think that ACORN rigged elections can’t secure victory.
Ping to article regarding Donofrio’s new lawsuit on behalf of some Chrysler auto dealers.
You are correct, but the Country will be pulled down also. If he is shown to be a usurper, EVERY order, directive, law, proclamation, etc. will be null and void. It won't be exactly like he never sat in the office, but as close as we can get.
I'm no lawyer, but I guess this time they're trying to find defendents who have standing by actually being harmed by Obama.
When the issue was his general election being disqualified, the courts were not granting standing because people were being "theoretically" harmed. With the military officers refusing orders, again the "harm" was not tangible.
However, these dealers lost their businesses and are (I presume) arguing that Obama selectively targeted some (Republican) dealers for closure, and left the Democrat-supporting dealers intact. That's some serious harm.
The question will be whether the courts will allow an ineligibility argument to what is a financial harm accusation, possibly because the remedy doesn't fit the accusation, that is, removing Obama doesn't return the dealerships back to the defendants.
-PJ
Actually, my biggest fear is that if he becomes enough of an anchor, the libs will have him killed. Worse yet, they will probably rig things to make it look like some of my fellow right wing gun nuts had something to do with it.
They can then achieve a triple triumph: sympathy, attack on the right, and attack on guns.
...
As part of the demand for information about the authority used, Donofrio confirmed, there will be questions about Obama’s eligibility to be president. Donofrio contends that since by Obama’s own admission his father never was a U.S. citizen, Obama was born a dual citizen. The framers of the Constitution, he argues, did not consider a dual citizen to be a “natural born citizen” as required for the presidency.
The burden, then, would shift to Obama and his administration officials to document their constitutional authority for their decisions and their handling of taxpayer money.
If the president cannot document his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, his presidential task force had no authority to act at all, the case contends.
Pidgeon told WND the plaintiffs in the case are the former Chrysler dealers, and their interests will be paramount.
The goal is “to get them restored,” he said, and “put them back where they were before their contracts were rejected.”
“Our clients are not in this action as ‘birthers,’” he said, citing a term used for people who question Obama’s constitutional eligibility. “Our clients are here to seek redress for wrongs.”
But the case may open doors that have been closed in other disputes over Obama’s eligibility. Most previous cases, at one point or another, have been dismissed because the plaintiffs do not have “standing” ? they have not suffered direct injury for which they have a reasonable expectation of seeking redress.
In the case of the dealers, they have suffered financial loss because of circumstances that developed with the government’s intervention in the auto industry.
According to columnist Devvy Kidd, the case is “complicated.”
She explained 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.”
That means quo warranto applies not just to eligibility but to the “exercise” of authority through public office, she said.
She noted the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals already has described as “interesting and unresolved” some of the questions raised in a related case that did not involve the dealers. In that case, once again, the appellants did not have “standing.”
“The Chrysler dealers have the requisite injury ? loss of their franchises ? to meet the standing requirements,” she wrote.
The formal paperwork in the filings is expected to be submitted to the courts within days on a motion to reconsider the bankruptcy court’s decisions and the quo warranto pertaining to the authority of Obama and his appointees.
“I don’t get it. How?”
Magic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.