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.
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.