US Army Retired
Rookie
- Banned
- #1
This is my first post so I only left off the http in the links. I have to post 15 times until the board will accept my links.
So here I go. This case ( Docket numbers 6192 and 6193) was filed on December 25th and it hasn't even been reported by the MSM except for Fox News. It will be hard for Obama to escape a Quo-Warranto filed in DC by the Chrysler Dealers who are seeking damages for their lost businesses. The Dealers will question Obama and his Administrations 'authority' to shut them down. This will be a big case against the President.
Quo- Warranto definition,
Quo warranto (Medieval Latin for "by what warrant?") is a prerogative writ requiring the person to whom it is directed to show what authority he has for exercising some right or power (or "franchise") he claims to hold.
Quo warranto today
In the United States today, quo warranto usually arises in a civil case as a plaintiff's claim (and thus a "cause of action" instead of a writ) that some governmental or corporate official was not validly elected to that office or is wrongfully exercising powers beyond (or ultra vires) those authorized by statute or by the corporation's charter.
Go to this link:
wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=118403
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 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.
So, along with a bankruptcy-court challenge, a "quo warranto" case is being filed in Washington, D.C., demanding to know by what authority administration officials set up the financial arrangements with Chrysler and handed out taxpayer money.
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.
More in link above:
Here is one of the dealers who has filed suit:
youtube.com/watch?v=-DopIqKOm4s&feature=player_embedded[/url]
youtube.com/watch?v=adSQa7pPzso&feature=related[/url]
So here I go. This case ( Docket numbers 6192 and 6193) was filed on December 25th and it hasn't even been reported by the MSM except for Fox News. It will be hard for Obama to escape a Quo-Warranto filed in DC by the Chrysler Dealers who are seeking damages for their lost businesses. The Dealers will question Obama and his Administrations 'authority' to shut them down. This will be a big case against the President.
Quo- Warranto definition,
Quo warranto (Medieval Latin for "by what warrant?") is a prerogative writ requiring the person to whom it is directed to show what authority he has for exercising some right or power (or "franchise") he claims to hold.
Quo warranto today
In the United States today, quo warranto usually arises in a civil case as a plaintiff's claim (and thus a "cause of action" instead of a writ) that some governmental or corporate official was not validly elected to that office or is wrongfully exercising powers beyond (or ultra vires) those authorized by statute or by the corporation's charter.
Go to this link:
wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=118403
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 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.
So, along with a bankruptcy-court challenge, a "quo warranto" case is being filed in Washington, D.C., demanding to know by what authority administration officials set up the financial arrangements with Chrysler and handed out taxpayer money.
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.
More in link above:
Here is one of the dealers who has filed suit:
youtube.com/watch?v=-DopIqKOm4s&feature=player_embedded[/url]
youtube.com/watch?v=adSQa7pPzso&feature=related[/url]
Last edited:
