Exclusive: Donofrio, Pidgeon to Collaborate on Quo Warranto, Chrysler Bankruptcy Appeal
Sunday, December 6, 2009 9:30pm et update:
An associate of Mr. Pidgeon has taken a number of questions from me regarding the logistics, process and expectations of both the bankruptcy appeal and the quo warranto petition. I expect to have then posted as another update and/or posting after I’ve received and reviewed them.
Stay tuned…
Sunday, December 6, 2009 update:
In what has become the first exclusive for The Right Side of Life blog, I have been able to confirm specific details of the excellent work that Dianna Cotter of the Portland Civil Rights Examiner began.
My communications with attorney Leo Donofrio can now reveal that he, attorney Stephen Pidgeon, and lead Plaintiff James Anderer will be collaborating on the cases for multiple dealers for a Chrysler Bankruptcy appeal as well as quo warranto:
The story is true. The lead plaintiff James Anderer announced it on Fox Business News on Friday night. He also spoke to the Wall Street Journal on Friday and gave them a legal memo we prepared.
Mr. Anderer originally contacted me after somebody asked him to read my blog. I then took a long look at the entire Chrysler Bankruptcy and found strong grounds to appeal. We found problems with the Bankruptcy Court’s handling of the Rejection Motion that had not been previously pointed out to the dealers.
Based upon Mr. Anderer’s lengthy discussions with other dealers and various attorneys, everyone was very impressed with the concepts raised, not just quo warranto but the actual Bankruptcy Court Rejection Order and Opinion as well. I then suggested we bring in an experienced litigator to partner with me on this. Steve Pidgeon was the best candidate for the job. So the three of us put this together. I prepared legal memos. Steve checked them and added his thoughts and then we brought our case to the dealers through Mr. Anderer.
And so we’ve been retained going forward from here. It is not a pro bono case.
We anticipate having papers filed next week for the bankruptcy action and quo warranto to follow the week after.
Steve and I have formed a law office as a result.
Ms. Cotter also followed up with me — she is apparently an avid reader of my site (shameless plug; many thanks to her!) — concerning some overall details of the story. She communicated with me that there could be upwards of 50 to 100 dealers involved, depending on how many wish to take part in the suit. She also mentioned that the bankruptcy case will be filed in the Southern District of New York and the quo warranto will be filed in DC.
I want to once again thank a concerned citizen who originally brought this story to my attention as well as Ms. Cotter and Mr. Donofrio who, to date, have provided the additional details.
Original story begins below the dashed line.
Developing…
Cross-posted at FreeRepublic.com.
—-
Dianna Cotter of the Portland Civil Rights Examiner wrote a posting today having to do with how Chrysler and GM dealers lost their franchises practically overnight through what they saw as an unlawful federal government intrusion into the automotive industry (where some creditors alleged to have been threatened by the White House over the deal).
With this as a backdrop, Ms. Cotter quotes “an anonymous source” as saying that attorneys Leo Donofrio and Stephen Pidgeon, of Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz and Broe v. Reed, respectively, have teamed up with certain dealers in DC District Court:
Neil Cavuto welcomed former Chrysler dealer James Anderer to his show on Fox Business News Daily to talk about a case that has been filed by a group of dealers who lost their businesses in the Washington D.C. District Court. Lead Plaintiff Anderer mentioned a team of legal experts while describing the case to Cavuto, and an anonymous source has named Leo Donofrio and Steve Pidgeon as having been retained by a group of Chrysler dealers who lost their franchise in the Chrysler bankruptcy sale. They have been retained to bring two actions:
1. A motion to reconsider the Court’s approval of the dealer rejections.
2. A quo warranto in the D.C. District Court pertaining to Obama and his administration.This case may initially slide under the MSM radar; however, it may be the single most serious case to be brought against The Obama Administration and the President himself to date.
I shall be following up with Messrs. Donofrio and Pidgeon to confirm if they’re able to shed further insight on this story, as we are essentially dealing with an unconfirmed report at this time.
Further, Mr. Donofrio has recently reported, in part, the following on his site:
After the electoral college certified Obama, I predicted every eligibility law suit pending against him would fail on procedural grounds unless brought via the DC District Court under the the DC quo warranto statute.
That prediction is batting 1000.
Mr. Donofrio had previously shed some light on his opinion regarding the quo warranto writ: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- The background:
- The questions:
-Phil
Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)
TRSoL News (semi-automatically-generated headlines every day): News.TheRightSideOfLife.com
brygenon says:
December 11, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Say Dennis, if you choose to reply, I think your documentation of that 2004 exchange between Obama and Keyes would be particularly interesting, as no one else has been able to find any. You said it is documented, so let’s see it.
I say; When you find a Clip or Transcript of the 2004 Debate #2 (TWO) you may find the exchange of comments mentioned, however, it appears that the Clips and Transcripts of THAT Debate have been ’scrubbed’ completely…..convenient…
As to Black’s Law Dict., Published in 1991, would you kindly reconcile that definition with SCOTUS Orbita Dicta statements and the Repeal of the 1790 Naturalization Law concerning NBC’s born abroad by the 1795 Act…?
According to ALL SCOTUS Orbita Dicta on the subject an NBC is a person born of TWO Citizen Parents, of that there is NO DOUBT, of ALL OTHERS DOUBTS remain……..
That, Sir, is the Case and Controversy, the challenge is Jurisdiction & Standing in the face of Separation of Powers by a finding distinguishing Citizenship Questions from Political Questions…
But find us the 2nd 2004 Illinois Senatorial Debate Transcript and will move on from there…….
Dennis says:
Is that supposed to be a response to something I wrote?
If you’re that determined to stay clueless, don’t expect my tone toward you to change.
The Supreme Court is not in the business of spoon-feeding you definitions.
You say it is documented, so document it. Some eligibility-deniers recently started reporting it, but none found any record of it from 2004. Keyes’ attorney, Orly Taitz, reported asking him about it, and Keyes did not recall such an exchange.
How can he be bitter about something he doesn’t recall ever happening?
If you choose to remain ignorant, that’s nobody’s fault but your own.
Fortunately you can just look it up:
“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition
Say Dennis, if you choose to reply, I think your documentation of that 2004 exchange between Obama and Keyes would be particularly interesting, as no one else has been able to find any. You said it is documented, so let’s see it.
MGB,
“What’s this wonderful open forum that you want to point me to?”
Here is the link. Lots of practicing lawyers at PJ and other professionals. I am the token agribusiness but I am also a health care professional. These lawyers at PJ have predicted these birther lawsuits 100%. They have been kind enough to share their legal expertise regarding these lawsuits with other PJ members who are not in the legal profession.
http://www.politijab.com/phpBB3/index.php
This was the first thread I came across on the front page:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2404706/posts
Hey, a thread about Michelle Obama I’m sure we won’t find hateful and racist commentary here:
This person then posted a picture of Bigfoot.
Again, all of this was posted today. I suspect any thread I find that mentions any minority will have commentary like this throughout. How many threads would I have to show you to convince you that I’m not cherry-picking, but showing example after example of an extremely disturbing trend and tendancy for freepers to display blatant racism and hatefulness without any retribution from moderators, who will nonetheless “zot” me if I make a single post pointing out that the warrantless wiretap program was unconstitutional.
FreeRepublic is a right wing racist hate site, and I stand by that.
I got “zotted” after one post I made a couple of years ago that was critical of the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretap program.
http://vdare.com/misc/gheen_050211_shot.htm
They’ve even purged conservatives they view as not conservative enough.
Again, FreeRepublic is a racist hate site. I found over a dozen blatantly racist and hateful comments in four different threads that were all posted this week; moderators have done nothing about any of them. But let’s see what else I can find by “cherry picking” for two minutes?
Again, at what point does it stop being cherry picking, and start being a site that is filled with racists and hatemongers, tolerated by the site admins?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2359069/posts
Note that this was posted two months ago – apparently nobody hit that abuse button, or nobody cared that this guy was posting racist crap.
But you know, that was a relatively small thread. Maybe if the thread has hundreds of posts the moderators will take notice:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2403483/posts?q=1&;page=251
HOW MANY MORE DO I HAVE TO POST BEFORE IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT FREEREPUBLIC IS FILLED WITH RACISTS?!
Note that this post also contains some blatantly race-bating imagery.
To be fair, there was somebody offended by that:
But this voice of reason is shouted down:
All of this was within the past 24 hours.
btw, bystander, I doubt that you have wit, courage, or ability. So there with your snide insults. What the heck is the problem with most of you Obama supporters? Can you EVER get off your high horse,with your arrogance, smugness, elitism, and general all around jerkness? What is your problem with people who simply don’t agree with you? Is there ANY point that you will EVER cede? Is there ANY statement that I can make with which you WILL NOT disagree? Some of you even tell me that I don’t know what my own opinion is. Sheesh. Grow up, all of you. Please.
bystander: Where’s the proof of your allegations? Free Republic accepts comments from all sides. I have seen no indication otherwise. I doubt you have the courage to pit your “wits” there. What’s this wonderful open forum that you want to point me to?
Phil said, “Nice cherry-picking there. If I got my news exclusively from you, you’d make everyone think all of us who fall on the right/libertarian-side of things were a bunch of racist bigots.”
That’s the goal. Alinsky style.
MGB
FreeRepublic is most definitely not an open forum. To say so is laughable. It is closed to everyone that does not support a far right agenda – even Republicans supporting Guilini and Romney are regularly banned – or weren’t you paying attention during the last election? Any new poster that questions the status quo will be banned within a day. On the other hand I can point you to a genuinely open forum that discusses the eligibilty issue, but I doubt you have the courage or ability to pit your wits there.
I’ve seen this a few times and it really puzzles me. First of all, I’ve reviewed the transcripts of all the Obama-Keyes debates and never seen that exchange or anything close to it. Secondly, Keyes is actually suing Obama on this and he has never repeated or made that allegation about Obama saying that.
You need to back this up with some documented evidence, if indeed you still believe this is something that actually happened.
Attn.: brygenon says: December 7, 2009 at 5:33 am
Dennis said: “SCOTUS never ruled on merit of any of the eligibility cases before them.“
This is a fact not conjuncture. You deny that fact – it is your right. I only wish that you could be less condescending.
You quoted Schneller. I don’t have the time to verify what you said, so let’s take it that it is true that SCOTUS said it was frivolous. Frivolous or not, no ruling was rendered on merit.
At most of the eligibility cases SCOTUS did not state a reason why they decided not to hear the case on merit. This includes a request which had nothing to do with Mr. Obama, which simply asked SCOTUS to define the constitutional term “natural born citizen”.
Four votes are necessary to hear on merit. So far no eligibility law suit or request achieved the four votes.
RE: You said: “Thus if you refuse to take a clue from anything less than an explicit Supreme Court ruling on Obama’s eligibility…..”
All rulings of SCOTUS are explicit. Anything else is conjuncture. “Taking clue” from refusal of hearing a case on merit is pure speculation, regardless of the stated or unstated reason for not hearing the case on merit. We simply do not know how they would have ruled. So you are engaging in that in pure speculation. Which is of course your constitutional right.
RE: You said: “Alan Keyes’ bitterness is understandable. Barack Obama first clobbered Alan Keyes in the 2004 senate race in Illinois.”
I agree with that, but being bitter does not mean that Ambassador Allen Keyes is wrong. In 2004 during a campaign debate (between Keyes and Obama) the following documented verbal exchange took place:
“MR. OBAMA, FOR THE RECORD AND IN RESPONSE TO MR. ALAN KEYES’ STATEMENT THAT OBAMA WAS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, STATED IN QUICK RETORT, “SO WHAT? I AM RUNNING FOR ILLINOIS SENATOR, NOT THE PRESIDENCY”.
So in 2004 he admitted that he is not nbc. In 2008 he said that he is. If you were his opponent would you have the right to be bitter as well ? – and you would be right.
Look, we don’t know if he is nbc or not. Maybe he is, maybe not. It is the duty of SCOTUS (and the lower courts) to answer the question. Or at least define nbc. The judges took oaths to uphold and protect the constitution.
Will you agree that this is a constitutionally extremely important question of enormous national significance?
The taxpayers pay these judges high salaries and expect them to do their duties and honor their oaths – especially for such extremely important question. They refusal to do so, as Ambassador Alen Keyes says is “dereliction of duty”.
Once the nbc is defined it is up to congress to act or not to act. The courts can not remove a sitting president. On the other hand, Congress can not and should not define nbc. (Separation of powers.) So SCOTUS’ refusal to define nbc, is again, nothing less that dereliction of duty”.
MGB amd Sise,
“where to find people with good skills without paying what the job is really worth”
Do either of you have employees?
We pay above current minimum wage and provide several perks–housing, utilities, vehicle and fuel which is easily another $600-700/mo. We pay overtime or comp. time depending.
So, how much do you think a farm/ranch worker should make? What do you think that job is worth?
BTW, we train them ourselves and they stay. Our farm/ranch hand has been with us about 18 years now and is considered “family.” We’ve tried to work “city boys” but they don’t want to get their hands dirty, tear up expensive equipment and generally don’t show up after the first week; many times after the first day.
We don’t “cowboy” our livestock as a feedsack is worth 10 cowboys. However, when we do require cowboys, we hire “day workers.”
Pete says:
December 9, 2009 at 1:01 pm
* Second, the Contract decisions were NOT in the best interests of the Manufactures, since they closed the more profitable ‘republican held’ dealerships and kept the less profitable democratic dealerships in the same geographic area.*
That myth was debunked Pete! Chrysler announced in Feb 2008, long before Obama was President that they planned to reduce the number of dealerships in close proximity to each other.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/chrysler.asp
Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com, a well-respected analyzer of statistics, looked at the actual data and found: Car Dealers are Republicans! When he looked at the political donations by people who identified themselves as car dealers he found that 88% of the political donations went to, wait for it, Republicans! Even Fox News said they don’t find support for the claims.
>>>Blacklion says:
Pete, good point but legally problematic…The plaintiffs would have to show that the decision was forced by the Executive Branch for starters. That would be tough because the law is specific that Chrysler and GM because they were in bankruptcy are allowed to cancel the contracts. Not only would Leo have to prove that the Executive branch made the decision, but that the decision was not in the best interests of Chrysler and GM. That will be tough for them to prove.<<<
Blacklion,
I disagree. They only have to prove that the Executive Branch made the decision, or INFLUENCED IT. The Influenced it is grossly obvious, so it is a done deal. Second, the Contract decisions were NOT in the best interests of the Manufactures, since they closed the more profitable 'republican held' dealerships and kept the less profitable democratic dealerships in the same geographic area.
Your right, it won't survive a motion to dismiss…..NOT BECAUSE THE CASE ISN'T VALID, nor because harm wasn't done, nor because the harm done wasn't politically motivated. No it won't survive the MTD because the court system and government are CORRUPT, and to many wealthy elites are afraid of spending time in Kansas.
The fundemental difference between you and I is I believe that the means doesn't justify the end, and people who are popular and powerful shouldn't be above the law. Then again, I agree that my priciples are antiquated.
If you got your news exclusively from me, I’d make everyone realize how hateful and racist FreeRepublic is. Several of my very best friends are Republicans, and there are several aspects of conservatism and the GOP that I agree with.
However, FreeRepublic is a bastion of hatred and racism. If you think that my last post was just some particular cherry-picking, let’s take a look at some other threads, shall we?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2403064/posts
All those were in the first 25 posts of that thread. At what point does it stop becoming cherry picking and start becoming straight racism? How come the moderators never do anything in response to blatant racism like this?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2402094/posts
Again, this took five minutes to find. these are all different posters. Every one of these posts happened this week. No moderator is doing anything about it. FreeRepublic is a racist hate site.
qwertyman,
Nice cherry-picking there. If I got my news exclusively from you, you’d make everyone think all of us who fall on the right/libertarian-side of things were a bunch of racist bigots.
-Phil
All of this is what I could find in three minutes on that site:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2403473/posts
Post #9 praises Governor George Wallace for his opposition to school desegregation.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2403483/posts?q=1&;page=151
I wouldn’t make such a big statement solely because of just one thread full of racists:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2400918/posts
I could find 5 threads with crap like that in ten minutes. It’s not just tolerated, it’s encouraged by JimRob himself.
FreeRepublic is a racist hate site.
Sue says:
December 9, 2009 at 10:56 am
* Regardless of the “skill” involved in a job, you can still only pay what the market will bear. If you do pay more than what the job is worth, you will go broke. Along with that hourly wage, we provide housing, all utilities, and a vehicle/fuel.*
Like I said, it’s a pickle. I think small farms are a national treasure and small farmers are (mostly) the best stewards of the land. It’s a vocation, not just a living. The unfortunate thing is, farmers have faced the labor cost problem since time immemorial – where to find people with good skills without paying what the job is really worth – I think this is why farmers of the past had such big families, they created and trained their own labor force. I meant no disrespect, I sincerely meant it is a dilemma for farmers to make it beyond just subsistence.
qwertyman: Free Republic is a forum. It’s open, like Wikipedia. There are viewpoints from all sides. You can’t paint the entire site with such a broad brush.
siseduermapierda says:
December 9, 2009 at 9:05 am
sise: Thanks so much for saving me the trouble of pointing those points out to Sue and other readers.
Sise,
“It’s a bit of a pickle, isn’t it? You need people with certain skills, not just anyone has them, and yet you budget your labor cost as unskilled labor. Why do you expect to pay people with artistic knowledge and very specific skills sub-minimum wage? Or is it that you hire illegals with the skills and pay them sub-minimum wage because you take advantage of the fact that they are illegal? They want to stay under the radar so they are willing to take a job that doesn’t compensate them properly for their skills. Have you built this taking advantage of people into your labor estimates for so long you’ve lost perspective of the real value of the specific skills required for the job?”
We do not hire illegal immigrants–never have. Regardless of the “skill” involved in a job, you can still only pay what the market will bear. If you do pay more than what the job is worth, you will go broke. Along with that hourly wage, we provide housing, all utilities, and a vehicle/fuel.
American auto workers are a prime example.
As I said, I don’t think this site is a hate site. FreeRepublic is absolutely a racist hate site. Everything you say about echo chambers and negative feelings is epitomized by that site.
Black Lion,
I would have hoped this went without saying, but I think it’s worthy to make my response explicit on this issue.
If all opposition commenters thought as negatively as I was responding, above, I would not allow dissenting viewpoints on my site. That would be a site way out of control and not worth visiting by anyone.
On the contrary, those who have principled disagreements far outweigh those who are simply stirring the proverbial pot and, as a fellow pot-stirrer, I welcome that kind of dissent.
For those who don’t appreciate my stance, the only thing I can say is: perhaps you should learn to take some constructive criticism in your own life. Nobody learns anything by being in a rhetorical echo chamber.
Allowing others to voice their opinions — even if those opinions are wrong, in your view — without there being serious consequences is a quintessentially American trait. It takes a strong dose of suspension of disbelief to be able to tolerate some discussions; I can do this, some can’t.
-Phil
Phil says:
December 8, 2009 at 5:37 pm
What a coincidence! There have been many opposition commenters that have claimed, over the past year, that my site “is a racist hate site, filled nothing but racist and hateful commentary from the extreme right.”
Or, maybe was that the “postings” and not the “commentary?” There have been so many accusations about my site that I simply do not keep track any more.
In fact, I think I recently remember seeing commentary where some in the opposition state that I lie in my postings.
-Phil
___________________________________________________________________
Phil, I just want to point out that not all “opposition posters” feel that way. I personally don’t feel that you fit into any of those categories nor does your site. Unfortunately there are some out there in the anti-Obama movement that do have such beliefs and values. And sometimes they make it seem like everyone attached to that movement feel the same way. But like I have said on numerous occasions I respect your blog and the time it takes to run it. I also respect that as Americans we all have different opinions. So if we differ that is OK. As long as it doesn’t denigrate into hate filled rhetoric it is a great opportunity to debate and discuss the issue. Just my 2 cents….
Sue says:
December 9, 2009 at 4:40 am
*Contrary to what some believe, there is an art to farming and ranching and very specific skills required.*
It’s a bit of a pickle, isn’t it? You need people with certain skills, not just anyone has them, and yet you budget your labor cost as unskilled labor. Why do you expect to pay people with artistic knowledge and very specific skills sub-minimum wage? Or is it that you hire illegals with the skills and pay them sub-minimum wage because you take advantage of the fact that they are illegal? They want to stay under the radar so they are willing to take a job that doesn’t compensate them properly for their skills. Have you built this taking advantage of people into your labor estimates for so long you’ve lost perspective of the real value of the specific skills required for the job?
qwertyman,
“You may be right on that point. Maybe more American citizens would be willing to work as farmhands in sub-minimum wage conditions.”
I wonder if MGB is in agribusiness? We are and I can assure you that the above is not factual. If they do take the job, they don’t stay long. The work is hard, hours are long in the rain, sleet, snow and unbearable heat in the summertime. Livestock do not observe Christmas and other holidays and want to be fed. Livestock cannot tell time as they give birth after 5 PM and on weekends.
When we have hired individuals who aren’t familiar with the farming/ranching industry, generally, they cost us more in the long run as they tear up expensive machinery and injure themselves.
Contrary to what some believe, there is an art to farming and ranching and very specific skills required.
Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (U.S. 01/02/1856)
[1] UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
[418] …The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…