Former Chrysler dealers fight back
using the Quo Warranto

By: Devvy
December 7, 2009

Two attorneys who have been prominent in the court battles regarding whether Obama is Constitutionally eligibile to be President have joined forces. Leo Donofrio and Stephen Pidgeon represent a group of former Chrysler dealers.  These dealers lost their businesses as result of the federal government's intervention and partial take over of Chrysler.

This is a complicated legal undertaking and as I have said in other columns, another learning experience for those of us who are not attorneys and have no legal training. In an effort to make sure I have my facts straight, Leo was gracious enough to spend some time with me this morning on the phone. He would like to make it very clear that this new legal undertaking is on behalf of clients (former Chrysler dealer James Anderer and others) who have retained him and Stephen to act on their behalf and in the best interests first and foremost. If that means settling the case in their best interests of their clients, that is their obligation.

As reported by Dianna Cotter in her December 5, 2009, piece, I specifically asked Leo about the two proposed 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.

Those of us following all these cases have learned the core traditional use of the Quo Warranto is for removing a usurper from office. But Leo has pointed out other traditional uses for the writ of quo warranto as codified in the DC Code:

§ 16-3501. Persons against whom issued; civil action

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. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action. 

Leo points out that the statute not only applies to eligibility, but also to the unlawful "exercise" of authority via public office.  At the common law, quo warranto was not only used to challenge usurpation of office but also to challenge illegal government actions and the current quo warranto statute was written as a catch all in this regard. So Leo and Steve will bring two counts under 3501, eligibility and illegal use of Government funds. The second count refers to the use of TARP funds to facilitate the Chrysler Bankruptcy sale.

The 2d Circuit Court of Appeals dealt with this issue as raised by creditors of Chrysler in an appeal of the Sale transaction to which the dealers were not a party. In that decision, the Court of Appeals stated that the issue raised "interesting and unresolved issues", but the appellants did not have standing based upon their limited injuries. The Chrylser dealers have the requisite injury - loss of their franchises - to meet the standing requirements. They will raise the issue in the quo warranto petition before the DC District Court. 

You may recall that former Treasury Secretary Paulson refused to use TARP funds to bail out the auto industry indicating that to do so was not proper under the statute. A Congressional bill to allow TARP funds to be used for that purpose failed in the Senate, but the Obama administration went forward with it anyway. 

Donofrio and Pidgeon also plan a third quo warranto count based upon 16-3521(2) of the quo warranto statute which states:

A quo warranto may be issued from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in the name of the District of Columbia against...

(2) one or more persons who act as a corporation within the District of Columbia without being duly authorized, or exercise within the District of Columbia corporate rights, privileges, or franchises not granted them by law in force in the District of Columbia. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.

In other words, the actions taken by the government were an illegal exercise of corporate authority. The government has acted as a political agent (acting as board of directors) against corporations using taxpayer money to restructure the auto industry under their vision.

As to the time frame for filing of these lawsuits, Leo indicated it would be soon. He isn't trying to be vague, but rather it is important sometimes for lawyers in these types of high profile, complicated cases to keep things 'close to the vest' until the actual date of filing. Additionally, situations can be fluid and attorneys have to adjust their strategy to deal with changes as the situations develop.
Obama was and always will be constitutionally ineligible to serve as president of these united States of America because he was not a natural born citizen at birth. However, one step at a time as we see how this effort develops.

Related links:

Senators seek answers on auto dealer closures
"The Obama administration is not directly involved with the negotiations, and would disagree with any congressional action to overturn what it called “exceptionally complicated” decisions on dealership terminations."

The General Motors National Dealer Council (”NDC”) strongly opposes
“Automobile Dealer Economic Rights Restoration Act of 2009” (“H. R. 2743”)

Thomas: H.R. 2743

Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; 2 million copies sold. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country. She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy isn't left, right or in the middle; she is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party.

Visit Devvy's web site at: https://devvy.com. You can also sign up for her free email alerts.



Copyright © 2009 Devvy Kidd
All rights reserved.