Whoa Nellie !!! Look Out Ahead !!!

This was in “comments” on “The Post & Email” today, following this article:


http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/12/07/donofrio-confirms-chrysler-dealers-lawsuit/comment-page-1/#comment-3649

The full article will be below.

===========================================================

House leaders craft new bill for rejected dealers
Measure would allow dealers to present any relevant information in arbitration

Neil Roland
Automotive News | December 7, 2009 – 1:39 pm EST

WASHINGTON — House leaders crafted a bill over the weekend that would provide third-party arbitration for rejected General Motors Co. and Chrysler Group dealerships using criteria more favorable to dealers than those proposed by the automakers last week.

This is a site that requires a paid subscription, which is why only a bit of the article is displayed here, the link:

http://www.autonews.com/

Ed: Listen, this comes IMMEDIATELY following the announcement that Leo D. and Stephen P. are representing the Auto Dealers and that the things going Quo Warranto!  Suddenly they are so concerned about these ousted  Dealers that they work on the weekend?


Donofrio confirms Chrysler-Dealers’ lawsuit

WITH ATTORNEY STEVEN PIDGEON, FILES QUO WARRANTO ACTION IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

by John Charlton

chrysler-logo(Dec. 7, 2009) — The Post & Email can confirm this afternoon, that Attorneys Leo Donofrio and Steven Pidgeon are representing a group of Chrysler Automotive dealers in seeking legal redress to their loss of their franchises following the direct and unconstitutional involvement of Barack Hussein Obama in the Chrysler reorganization.

It is speculated that the action will involve a writ of quo warranto, where by Obama will be legally forced to prove that he legitimately holds office as President of the United States in accord with the requirements of Article II, section 1, paragraph 5 of the United States Constitution.

That paragraph reads,

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The Supreme Court of the United States has on several occasions confirmed that the phrase “natural born citizen” indicates a U.S. citizen, who was born in the U.S.A. of two U.S. citizen parents.  Obama, on account of having a father who was a British subject at the time of his own birth, was not, is not, and can never be a natural born citizen.  He is thus unqualified to hold the office of president.

Regarding the pending action in the courts of the District of Columbia, Donofrio says that the goal of Steve Pidgeon and himself is to see the owners of the dealerships, whom they represent, “reinstated to their businesses.”

The District of Columbia is unique in the nation, for having a section of its legal code devoted to the writ of quo warranto, when employed against federal office-holders who exercise their office within the District.

Attorney Donofrio is famous for his advocacy of the use of the quo warranto provisions of the D.C. Code and holds that the D.C. courts are the only proper venue for such actions against federal officers.

AND, Here is some more on this fascinating topic, over on the RightSideOfLife:

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/12/06/source-donofrio-pidgeon-and-quo-warranto-in-dc/

UPDATE 12/14/09…..Sorry about the delay in adding this!

The Right Side Of Life on 12/09:    The full article can be read at the link below.

http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/12/09/donofrio-pidgeon-on-quo-warranto-eligibility-illegal-use-of-funds-exercise-of-authority/

Donofrio, Pidgeon on Quo Warranto; IPPT v. Chrysler at SCOTUS on TARP

Submitted by Phil on Wed, Dec 9, 2009511 Comments

Donofrio, Pidgeon on Quo Warranto; <i>IPPT v. Chrysler</i> at SCOTUS on TARP

Wednesday, December 9, 2009 update:

The Post & Email reported yesterday that the Supreme Court has scheduled a Conference this Friday for Indiana Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler (docket):

The action, whereby the U.S. Treasury, without authorization by Congress, used TARP funding to force Chrysler LLC into a debtor-client relationship, and then in using that to practically control the corporation in bankruptcy pleadings has raised several constitutional and legal issues on the action.

An amicus curiae brief was filed with this case in October, including the involvement of a number of advocacy groups and at least one leading constitutional scholar:

  • Washington Legal Foundation
  • Allied Educational Foundation
  • Cato Institute
  • George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law Dr. Todd J. Zwycki

Previously, a request before the Court for a stay of the bankruptcy action was denied in July.

Basically, any action taken on this case could be a harbinger for how any further Chrysler bankruptcy proceedings or quo warranto actions could be interpreted by the Court in this matter.

The question is raised: Did the Treasury Department act unconstitutionally in the manner in which it dispositioned certain federal monies?

Tuesday, December 8, 2009 update:

Attorneys Leo Donofrio and Stephen Pidgeon recently spoke with Bob Unruh at WorldNetDaily.com (h/t @KatyinIndy):

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.


Advertisements

~ by ladysforest on December 8, 2009.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: