Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Closed Chrysler dealers to drive Obama's eligibility
WorldNetDaily ^ | December 08, 2009 | Bob Unruh

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: automakers; bailouts; birthcertificate; birthers; blackkk; certifigate; chrysler; corruption; impeachnow; kenyanbornmuzzie; leodonofrio; tarp
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last

1 posted on 12/09/2009 1:42:34 PM PST by RobinMasters
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ExTexasRedhead; justiceseeker93; traderrob6; OL Hickory; socialismisinsidious; trlambsr; Altera; ...

Ping.


2 posted on 12/09/2009 1:42:48 PM PST by RobinMasters
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

P I N G !


3 posted on 12/09/2009 1:44:34 PM PST by danamco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

I would love nothing better than to see this lowlife bastard removed from office.


4 posted on 12/09/2009 1:45:34 PM PST by el_texicano (Liberals, Socialist, DemocRATS, all touchy, feely, mind numbed robots, useless idiots all!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

If people keeping slinging manure, maybe some with stick, besides any questioning of OdumbO gets under his thin skin.


5 posted on 12/09/2009 1:47:11 PM PST by razorback-bert (We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters
...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.

I don't get it. How?

6 posted on 12/09/2009 1:47:38 PM PST by library user
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: el_texicano

Amen!

He’s a usurper, I have no doubt.

Guilty is as Guilty does, and he’s acting as guilty as they come.


7 posted on 12/09/2009 1:48:58 PM PST by TheConservativeParty (Take back the GOP-RNC. Apply RINO-B-GONE as needed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

This is good news. Hopefully the dealers and their employees plus others will provide any support that Leo and Steve need.


8 posted on 12/09/2009 1:50:21 PM PST by Frantzie (Judge David Carter - democrat & dishonorable Marine like John Murtha.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

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.


9 posted on 12/09/2009 1:52:59 PM PST by 17th Miss Regt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: library user

“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...


10 posted on 12/09/2009 1:53:53 PM PST by jessduntno (Stop The Federal Usurpation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: library user
From the article...If the president cannot document his eligibility to occupy the Oval Office, his presidential task force had no authority to act at all (in the Chrysler bailout), the case contends.
11 posted on 12/09/2009 1:54:42 PM PST by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: el_texicano
A few months ago I would have agreed, but now I'm not so sure. If his poll numbers keep dropping, he could be a valuable anchor.

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.

12 posted on 12/09/2009 2:01:21 PM PST by I cannot think of a name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 17th Miss Regt

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.


13 posted on 12/09/2009 2:04:55 PM PST by Candor7 ((The effective weapons Against Fascism are ridicule, derisionut to get ths , and truth (.Member NRA))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: I cannot think of a name

O will declare martial law if they don’t think that ACORN rigged elections can’t secure victory.


14 posted on 12/09/2009 2:07:36 PM PST by mcshot (Our White Hut is not made up of the best and brightest, but they are practiced criminals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: mlo; Non-Sequitur; parsifal; Pilsner; Drew68; curiosity; Sibre Fan; El Sordo; MilspecRob; ...

Ping to article regarding Donofrio’s new lawsuit on behalf of some Chrysler auto dealers.


15 posted on 12/09/2009 2:08:50 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (Integrity, Honesty, Character, & Loyalty still matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I cannot think of a name
If his poll numbers keep dropping, he could be a valuable anchor.

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.

16 posted on 12/09/2009 2:11:34 PM PST by The Sons of Liberty (Pork Eating CRUSADER - FUBO! Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: library user; jessduntno
They have been damaged with the loss of their businesses

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

17 posted on 12/09/2009 2:15:32 PM PST by Political Junkie Too ("Comprehensive" reform bills only end up as incomprehensible messes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: The Sons of Liberty
Fair enough - but we need control of congress.

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.

18 posted on 12/09/2009 2:21:19 PM PST by I cannot think of a name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

...

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.


19 posted on 12/09/2009 2:22:52 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (Integrity, Honesty, Character, & Loyalty still matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: library user

“I don’t get it. How?”

Magic.


20 posted on 12/09/2009 2:26:15 PM PST by El Sordo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters
Wooooooooooooooooooo Hoooooooooooooooooooooo! Y E S!!!
21 posted on 12/09/2009 2:26:35 PM PST by HighlyOpinionated (Abortion-Euthanasia kills the very people for whom Social Justice is needed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangerdoc

ping


22 posted on 12/09/2009 2:29:13 PM PST by dangerdoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

The auto dealers aren’t seeking Obama’s removal from office as a remedy. The quo warranto asks the question “by what authority” does Obama hold his executive office.


23 posted on 12/09/2009 2:31:55 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (Integrity, Honesty, Character, & Loyalty still matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie

But why should this case be different than the military case. Better attorneys???


24 posted on 12/09/2009 2:32:40 PM PST by mel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
But why would the court take up that question if the answer is that he has no authority? If the court finds that Obama has no authority because he is ineligible, do they just let it rest there or is Obama forced to step down?

That question inevitably leads to Obama's removal if he is not eligible. Would this court really want to go there by allowing that line of questioning?

-PJ

25 posted on 12/09/2009 2:36:46 PM PST by Political Junkie Too ("Comprehensive" reform bills only end up as incomprehensible messes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

No matter what court this may go to or how friendly the judge, it will end the same way, with an offer the judge cannot refuse. The last one with Judge Carter was too obvious. He went along with the legal process until one day he was induced to hire a Hussein vetted clerk and babbled a bit then threw the case out. Chicago has come to DC and will not leave.


26 posted on 12/09/2009 2:38:27 PM PST by arthurus ("If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, don't shoot an abortionist." -Ann C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mel

These defendants may have standing because they can demonstrate a unique injury caused directly by the actions of Obama and his administration.

The military plaintiffs were not able to demonstrate any injury, let alone a unique injury. The injury they claimed was theoretical not concrete and particularized.


27 posted on 12/09/2009 2:38:51 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (Integrity, Honesty, Character, & Loyalty still matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: mel
I would guess that is is easier to prove direct causation. In the military, you take orders from the Commander and Chief, regardless who holds the office.

As a business owner, it is not reasonable to expect the president to put you out of business by fiat.

28 posted on 12/09/2009 2:53:00 PM PST by dangerdoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

Quo warranto is the authority granted by the U.S. Congress to the D.C. District Court to examine the eligibility of an executive branch office holder and remove him/her if found ineligible.

If the petitioner can prove to the D.C. District Court that sufficient evidence exists to raise a legitimate question about Obama’s eligibility, then the court can require Obama to answer the question by the authority of the U.S. Congress. If the court finds that Obama does not hold his office by legal means, they can order him to step down or have him removed on the authority of Congress.


29 posted on 12/09/2009 2:54:21 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (Integrity, Honesty, Character, & Loyalty still matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
So doesn't this bring us back to your original comment?

The auto dealers aren’t seeking Obama’s removal from office as a remedy. The quo warranto asks the question “by what authority” does Obama hold his executive office.

If they aren't seeking Obama's removal, what are they trying to gain by asking the question, if the answer to that question ultimately leads to Obama's removal?

-PJ

30 posted on 12/09/2009 2:58:04 PM PST by Political Junkie Too ("Comprehensive" reform bills only end up as incomprehensible messes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

Whatever it takes.


31 posted on 12/09/2009 3:02:23 PM PST by jersey117
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
But why would the court take up that question if the answer is that he has no authority?

I didn't answer your question, did I? The answer is that the court will not take up the question if the petitioner doesn't have extraordinary evidence to suggest that Obama is not an NBC. It will have to be a solid arugment. They may decide to punt to the SCOTUS for a ruling on the definition of NBC by determining that a question of first impression exists.

32 posted on 12/09/2009 3:02:34 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (Integrity, Honesty, Character, & Loyalty still matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

They seek to determine whether or not the actions of Obama’s Auto Task Force were constitutional. If their actions were unconstitutional, the auto dealers can get their dealership licenses restored and recover financial damages. Obama’s removal from office would be a consequence of the quo warranto rather than a direct remedy for damages.


33 posted on 12/09/2009 3:11:58 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (Integrity, Honesty, Character, & Loyalty still matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: dangerdoc

Thanks


34 posted on 12/09/2009 3:13:32 PM PST by mel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

I can only hope.


35 posted on 12/09/2009 3:13:51 PM PST by PhiloBedo (I won't be happy until Jet-A is less than $2.00 a gallon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangerdoc

Thanks


36 posted on 12/09/2009 3:13:55 PM PST by mel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

Sheesh. If he’s got nothing to hide, just show the birth certificate.


37 posted on 12/09/2009 3:14:38 PM PST by ViLaLuz (2 Chronicles 7:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
Thanks. I was about to ask you that same point when I realized that I should go and read the entire article ;-).

The rest of the article pretty much spelled out what you said.

But the conclusion is that this time around, the plaintiffs have standing because they can show real harm?

-PJ

38 posted on 12/09/2009 3:15:32 PM PST by Political Junkie Too ("Comprehensive" reform bills only end up as incomprehensible messes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: dangerdoc
As a business owner, it is not reasonable to expect the president to put you out of business by fiat.

These former business owners may want to find more competent attorneys, attorneys who will argue the point of whether or not Obama had the authority as President to essentially put them out of business. They might have an actual fight here. Hiring a couple of birther "citizen attorneys" to argue that Obama has no authority because he's ineligible by virtue of his Kenyan father is guaranteed to get these petitioners laughed out of court. Guaranteed.

39 posted on 12/09/2009 3:16:15 PM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ViLaLuz
Sheesh. If he’s got nothing to hide, just show the birth certificate.

Leo Donofrio maintains Obama was born in Hawaii. He's arguing that Obama is ineligible because he was a dual citizen at birth and not a natural born citizen by virtue of his Kenyan father.

40 posted on 12/09/2009 3:19:33 PM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
Quit harshing the mellow.
41 posted on 12/09/2009 3:22:28 PM PST by El Sordo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
These former business owners may want to find more competent attorneys, attorneys who will argue the point of whether or not Obama had the authority as President to essentially put them out of business.

As I understand their petition to the bankruptcy court, that's exactly what Donofrio and Pidgeon are arguing. The quo warranto action in D.C. is separate although related. (I could be wrong though.)

42 posted on 12/09/2009 3:25:22 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (Integrity, Honesty, Character, & Loyalty still matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

ping for later


43 posted on 12/09/2009 3:34:44 PM PST by wintertime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

Impeach Obama! Biden for President!
Nancy Pelosi for Vice President!!!!

Whooooo Hooooooo!


44 posted on 12/09/2009 3:56:05 PM PST by Chewbacca (My gun has killed less people than Vice Pres Biden's motorcade.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: library user

Obama broke the law when he invalidated the contracts.


45 posted on 12/09/2009 4:40:11 PM PST by charlie72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Candor7

I’m loving it, too. Every time any suit is filed he worries. With the money the dealers have, he might ought to keep looking over his shoulder as long as he is breathing where ever he is. It might be a right-wing gun nut, who saves this republic, but who knows?


46 posted on 12/09/2009 4:47:07 PM PST by charlie72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RobinMasters

Is there a listing of the closed dealer ships and the owner’s political donations and or affiliations?


47 posted on 12/09/2009 4:57:59 PM PST by Chickensoup (We have the government we deserve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: charlie72

Yeah Charlie. Whatever works. He gotta go.

It would be great for the country to see a resignation.

But Obama is hooked up to the left big time, and his conduct on Afghanistan shows how they drive the presidency. We need to get rid of the whole damn bunch of them.

McCarthy used hearings. We need something similar but faster.These treasonous b_stards are basically un-American, bent on the destruction of the America that the majority of Americans love.The ship of state has been hijacked.

Whatever works to toss them overboard, I am all for it.


48 posted on 12/09/2009 5:07:30 PM PST by Candor7 ((The effective weapons Against Fascism are ridicule, derisionut to get ths , and truth (.Member NRA))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Thanks


49 posted on 12/09/2009 5:18:56 PM PST by mel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: mcshot

“O will declare martial law if they don’t think that ACORN rigged elections can’t secure victory.”

Do you have any idea how that would be received here in Texas? Not going to happen here.

Open defiance at the State level would be the outcome to such a declaration.


50 posted on 12/09/2009 5:25:05 PM PST by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson