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

Skip to comments.

Chrysler dealers, Donofrio, Pidgeon denied in bankruptcy court
Scribd ^ | 05 Feb 10 | Judge Arthur J. Gonzalez

Posted on 02/06/2010 11:17:54 AM PST by Drew68

Order at the link.

Judge Gonzalez's 25 page opinion here.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; chrysler; donofrio; leodonofrio
Shoulda hired real attorneys. Oh well...
1 posted on 02/06/2010 11:17:55 AM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Drew68

Should have converted ... to Dem/Lib. Then fight an underground covert war against the regime.


2 posted on 02/06/2010 11:19:38 AM PST by K-oneTexas (I'm not a judge and there ain't enough of me to be a jury. (Zell Miller, A National Party No More))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

I was reading the keywords and found birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; chrysler; leodonofrio. How does Chrysler connect to the keywords?


3 posted on 02/06/2010 11:43:08 AM PST by egannacht (Inalienable rights granted by...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: egannacht
How does Chrysler connect to the keywords?

Because the strategy Donofrio and Pidgeon were trying to employ was one that said Obama didn't have the authority to shut down these Chrysler dealers because he isn't eligible to serve as President.

It was a birther case from the beginning,

4 posted on 02/06/2010 11:54:44 AM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

I’d ask who Donofrio is but then that would stop me from wondering why someone representing Chrysler dealerships legally would be off on a tangent. I’ll quit while I’m ahead and my head doesn’t lapse into a headache.

That was the legal representation for dealerships? Uh oh, headache time.


5 posted on 02/06/2010 12:12:37 PM PST by egannacht (Inalienable rights granted by...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

Nah. Eligibility wasn’t a basis for the filings in this case. That was going to be the quo warranto.


6 posted on 02/06/2010 12:25:50 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (Integrity, Honesty, Character, & Loyalty still matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
Nah. Eligibility wasn’t a basis for the filings in this case. That was going to be the quo warranto.

The ultimate goal, as we all know, was to have standing for an eligibility case.

7 posted on 02/06/2010 12:36:42 PM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LucyT
Ping...

Donofrio’s Motion to Reconsider the Bankruptcy ruling was denied. Donofrio will appeal and/or file quo warranto having exhausted (pre-appeal) that remedy for the Chrysler dealers.

I would think (not a lawyer, but I play one in FR) that this denial by the bankruptcy judge would strengthen the standing of the Chrysler dealers to request, with Donofrio acting as prosecutor, a grant of Writ of Quo Warranto by the DC Court.

8 posted on 02/06/2010 12:55:29 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

No it wasn’t the ultimate goal of this particular case. This case charged “unintentional fraud by the Court.” The ultimate goal was to restore the franchises to the plaintiffs or obtain a settlement. Here’s a link to an overview with additional links to the filings.

http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/12/26/donofrio-pidgeon-file-motion-for-reconsideration-in-chrysler-case/

The quo warranto to challenge eligibility was separate and apart from this petition for a re-hearing and didn’t depend upon the outcome of this case to establish standing. Had they wanted to, these plaintiffs could have asked for the quo warranto to be filed at any time. They already have a basis to establish standing.


9 posted on 02/06/2010 12:58:09 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (Integrity, Honesty, Character, & Loyalty still matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
I would think (not a lawyer, but I play one in FR) that this denial by the bankruptcy judge would strengthen the standing of the Chrysler dealers to request, with Donofrio acting as prosecutor, a grant of Writ of Quo Warranto by the DC Court.

So this ruling is actually a "victory" for Donofrio? I should've guessed...

10 posted on 02/06/2010 1:00:22 PM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

You are so wrong. The objective was to get the Chrysler Dealers compensation. They didn’t need Quo Warranto to do thattill this silly ruling.


11 posted on 02/06/2010 1:01:02 PM PST by plenipotentiary (Obama was a BRITISH SUBJECT at birth, passed to him via Pops, can't be NBC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

The Judge didn’t deny he was wrong, he said the claim was out of time. He is a laughing stock, and his ruling will no doubt be appealed. The idea that a company the size of Chrysler can be wound up as a result of a mistake by the Judge, and there be no comeback will make US law a joke.

Further, the Judge has made Quo Warranto more likely.


12 posted on 02/06/2010 1:04:00 PM PST by plenipotentiary (Obama was a BRITISH SUBJECT at birth, passed to him via Pops, can't be NBC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

Ping. Chrysler dealers’ petition for a re-hearing is denied. (Donofrio and Pidgeon)


13 posted on 02/06/2010 1:10:06 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (Integrity, Honesty, Character, & Loyalty still matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

Ah I love “standing”.....It prevents application of the Constitution.. “Standing” is the perfect miscarriage of justice.


14 posted on 02/06/2010 1:21:59 PM PST by Goreknowshowtocheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Confusion reigns it seems.....

This case is in the Southern District of NY Bankruptcy court. The Quo Warranto case was filed in Dec. in the Washington DC court the only court authorized to persue Quo Warranto.


15 posted on 02/06/2010 1:45:43 PM PST by deport (24 DAYS UNTIL THE TEXAS PRIMARY....... MARCH 2, 2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
No it wasn’t the ultimate goal of this particular case.

Yes, it does appear Donofrio and Pidgeon tip-toed around the eligibility issue in this case but wasn't the whole point of representing the Chrysler dealers was to find a mechanism to challenge Obama's eligibility?

I thought that's what all the uncorking of champagne back in December was about?

16 posted on 02/06/2010 1:56:22 PM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

Yes, essentially that’s why everyone is excited about this case. The plaintiffs would have standing for quo warranto. But you’re correct that there can be no doubt that Donofrio’s ultimate personal goal is to obtain a SCOTUS ruling on Obama’s eligibility.


17 posted on 02/06/2010 2:07:28 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (Integrity, Honesty, Character, & Loyalty still matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: deport

I don’t think Donofrio ever filed quo warranto, did he?


18 posted on 02/06/2010 2:09:44 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (Integrity, Honesty, Character, & Loyalty still matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Not sure but thought he had done so back in Dec. but then I’m not sure. However looking back on google I find nothing but talk of maybe them going to file in the mid Dec. timeframe. It appears they never did or I don’t see anything that so states they did. So apparently they’ve never actually filed in the DC court.


19 posted on 02/06/2010 2:22:54 PM PST by deport (24 DAYS UNTIL THE TEXAS PRIMARY....... MARCH 2, 2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Drew68; LucyT
"So this ruling is actually a "victory" for Donofrio? I should've guessed..."

I didn't say "victory".

One of the two separate quo warranto claims Donofrio plans to make requires that a plaintiff show injury in fact directly attributable to a federal officer (Obama).

If the plaintiff hasn't exhausted all remedies for the injury, then a claim of injury in fact is weakened or can be rebutted.

The denial of this long-shot motion to reconsider locks in the injury to the Chrysler dealers caused by Obama's agent, the Car Czar.

By signaling that a request for writ of quo warranto would be coming soon, Chrysler dealers may have been trying to leverage a settlement offer in the bankruptcy case from Obama's team to keep quo warranto from happening.

I suspect that unlike Donofrio, the Chrysler dealers would have preferred a monetary settlement without quo warranto to one that was negotiated only after a messy, risky quo warranto filing.

That didn't happen, so now the path may be clear for Donofrio's quo warranto in DC as the next leverage point to gain a monetary settlement for his clients.

The leverage is that Obama may want to settle rather than have even more independent voters become knowledgeable about Obama's refusal to release his original HI vital records and the implication that he is hiding potential ineligibility.

20 posted on 02/06/2010 3:33:44 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp; Fred Nerks; null and void; stockpirate; george76; PhilDragoo; Candor7; rxsid; ...
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

By signaling that a request for writ of quo warranto would be coming soon, Chrysler dealers may have been trying to leverage a settlement offer in the bankruptcy case from Obama's team to keep quo warranto from happening.

I suspect that unlike Donofrio, the Chrysler dealers would have preferred a monetary settlement without quo warranto to one that was negotiated only after a messy, risky quo warranto filing.

That didn't happen, so now the path may be clear for Donofrio's quo warranto in DC as the next leverage point to gain a monetary settlement for his clients.

The leverage is that Obama may want to settle rather than have even more independent voters become knowledgeable about Obama's refusal to release his original HI vital records and the implication that he is hiding potential ineligibility.

. . . . #8 and #20.

[Thanks, SeizetheCarp.

21 posted on 02/06/2010 3:43:40 PM PST by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
The denial of this long-shot motion to reconsider locks in the injury to the Chrysler dealers caused by Obama's agent, the Car Czar.

I see this now. I was mistaken about the nature of this specific case, confusing it with an eligibility case, which this one technically wasn't.

22 posted on 02/06/2010 3:47:24 PM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan; mlo; Non-Sequitur; parsifal; Pilsner; Drew68; curiosity; Sibre Fan; El Sordo; ...
Donofrio is a pretty good lawyer. Gonzalez is a pretty bad judge.

Get ready for the next round.

23 posted on 02/06/2010 5:41:31 PM PST by Kenny Bunk (Go-Go Donofrio. get us that Writ of Quo Warranto!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

Agreed.


24 posted on 02/06/2010 5:44:18 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (Integrity, Honesty, Character, & Loyalty still matter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: plenipotentiary

Seems like more than one judge is passing the buck.


25 posted on 02/06/2010 7:13:36 PM PST by tutstar (Baptist Ping list - freepmail me to get on or off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
I would think (not a lawyer, but I play one in FR) that this denial by the bankruptcy judge would strengthen the standing of the Chrysler dealers to request, with Donofrio acting as prosecutor, a grant of Writ of Quo Warranto by the DC Court.

Why?

26 posted on 02/07/2010 5:55:06 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

Birthers apparently never lose.


27 posted on 02/07/2010 11:28:42 AM PST by MrRobertPlant2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp
I would think (not a lawyer, but I play one in FR) that this denial by the bankruptcy judge would strengthen the standing of the Chrysler dealers to request, with Donofrio acting as prosecutor, a grant of Writ of Quo Warranto by the DC Court.

To have standing, you must (at a minimum) have suffered injury as a result of the defendant's illegal acts. This ruling holds that the bankrutcy court order was valid--hence not illegal-- so the plaintiffs have no standing to challenge it in a new case.

28 posted on 02/08/2010 4:23:40 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
“To have standing, you must (at a minimum) have suffered injury as a result of the defendant's illegal acts. This ruling holds that the bankruptcy court order was valid—hence not illegal— so the plaintiffs have no standing to challenge it in a new case.”

The judge did not deny the Chrysler dealer's accusation that he misinterpreted the testimony of a key witness that may have led him to screw the Chrysler dealers in his ruling. The judge only said that the time limit for any motion to correct his ruling had passed and was not entitled to the “fraud on the court” exception.

My point is that if the judge had partially reversed himself to correct his mistake in the footnote, the damages to the Chrysler dealers would have been mitigated to some extent by redistributing the bankrupt's assets to give the Chrysler dealers a share.

If the Chrysler dealer's “injury in fact” had been reduced by the bankruptcy judge on reconsideration, then in a subsequent quo warranto, the claimed “injury in fact” attributed to Obama would have been reduced. That was my point.

Now there is no mitigation of the injury in fact that resulted from the bankruptcy directed by Obama and his Car Czar agent.

Donofrio and the Chrysler dealer's motion for reconsideration was civil and didn't claim illegal acts by Obama. It only claimed that the judge made an error.

But the quo warranto will claim illegal acts and will have a higher level of “injury in fact” after the failure of the motion to reconsider which will strengthen standing in quo warranto, in my amateur estimation.

29 posted on 02/08/2010 5:06:07 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

Either there is an injury or fact or there is not. Reducing the injury or increasing it has no impact on standing. Whether it is $1 or $1 million, standing is standing.

I’m also glad to see that Donofrio has now adapted the Orly Taitz strategy of calling judges traitors when they rule against him.


30 posted on 02/09/2010 5:45:27 AM PST by MrRobertPlant2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: MrRobertPlant2009
"Either there is an injury or fact or there is not. Reducing the injury or increasing it has no impact on standing. Whether it is $1 or $1 million, standing is standing."

An injury must be "material" (significant) and any remedy available to the court must be proportional to the injury.

In this case over $1 billion of Chrysler dealer franchise value was vaporized by Obama's agent Czars and approved by the judge based on a false restatement of the testimony of a key witness. Loss of $1 billion will carry far more weight in any future court hearing, including quo warranto, than a loss of $1, in my expectation.

Yes, the Chrysler dealers failed to appeal the judge's mistake within the time limit preventing a reconsideration by the judge and possible redistribution of the assets of the bankrupt estate more favorable to the dealers.

However "but for" (a term of legal art) the illegal acts of Obama's agents (illegal due to alleged usurpation by Obama) the judge would never have been in the position make this error and the Chrysler dealers franchise assets could arguably still be protected by the state franchise laws.

Had the Chrysler dealers persuaded Judge Gonzales to reconsider his ruling and redistribute the bankrupt estate, the size of the injury damages to the dealers would have been reduced and the materiality of the damages reduced. The cost-benefit calculation as to whether to proceed with quo warranto would have shifted against quo warranto, had Judge Gonzales reopened the bankruptcy.

31 posted on 02/11/2010 8:32:21 AM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

That “but for” argument doesn’t fly. Because it would allow standing for anyone. “But for” Expedia, I would not have bought that flight and would not have been on it when it crashed.


32 posted on 02/11/2010 10:35:20 AM PST by MrRobertPlant2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: MrRobertPlant2009
"That “but for” argument doesn’t fly. Because it would allow standing for anyone."

No, the "but for" argument can apply only to a party who commits an act in a chain of causation linking that act to an injury to the plaintiff. It does not apply not to "anyone".

If Donofrio is granted the right to quo warranto against Obama, I expect him to allege that Obama's usurpation of a federal office to which he was not entitled is the first tortious act in a chain of acts (including appointment of Car Czar) leading to injury of the Chrysler dealers (extinction of their franchise rights).

Under the "but for test" Obama can be liable and subject to a quo warranto challenge regardless of failure by the Chrysler dealers to only partially mitigate their injury with a timely appeal of a still onerous and injurious pre-sale-to-Fiat franchise negotiation as opposed to post-sale-to-fiat franchise negotiation.

See:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/But+for+test

"An act from which an injury results as a natural, direct, uninterrupted consequence and without which the injury would not have occurred.

"Proximate cause is the primary cause of an injury. It is not necessarily the closest cause in time or space nor the first event that sets in motion a sequence of events leading to an injury. Proximate cause produces particular, foreseeable consequences without the intervention of any independent or unforeseeable cause. It is also known as legal cause.

"To help determine the proximate cause of an injury in Negligence or other tort cases, courts have devised the "but for" or "sine qua non" rule, which considers whether the injury would not have occurred but for the defendant's negligent act. A finding that an injury would not have occurred but for a defendant's act establishes that the particular act or omission is the proximate cause of the harm, but it does not necessarily establish liability since a variety of other factors can come into play in tort actions."

33 posted on 02/11/2010 11:51:31 AM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Seizethecarp

How is this chain of events unique to the Chrysler case? Anyone affected by any law signed by any president would then have standing. The entire military would certainly have standing - and as birther case after birther case has proven, they do not.

And the quo warranto statute is clearly designed to limit standing as much as possible.

And it still doesn’t explain why Donofrio went through the farce of these filings.


34 posted on 02/11/2010 12:55:15 PM PST by MrRobertPlant2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MrRobertPlant2009
“How is this chain of events unique to the Chrysler case? Anyone affected by any law signed by any president would then have standing.”

The Chrysler dealers have have the highest possible standing to file quo warranto against Obama, relative to other citizen plaintiffs, given that by the direct actions of his Car Czar agents $1 billion of their personal wealth was extinguished.

35 posted on 02/11/2010 1:54:41 PM PST by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

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