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, who has launched cases directly challenging Obama's eligibility, 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.
WND previously has reported on many cases brought over the issue of Obama's eligibility, including one
at the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that alleges Congress failed
in its constitutional duties by refusing to investigate the eligibility
of Obama to be president.
The case is being handled by attorney Mario Apuzzo for lead
plaintiff Charles F. Kerchner Jr. and others against Obama, the U.S.,
Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives and former Vice
President Dick Cheney along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The case focuses on the alleged failure of Congress to follow
the Constitution. That document, the lawsuit states, "provides that
Congress must fully qualify the candidate 'elected' by the Electoral
College Electors."
The case asserts "when Obama was born his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same."
The Constitution also provides, the lawsuit says, "If the
president-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the vice president
elect shall act as president until a president shall have qualified."
The Obama eligibility cases have cited Article 2, Section 1 of
the Constitution, which states, "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."
Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in
Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's
American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.
Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his
father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at
the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases
contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from
qualifying as natural born.
Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his
attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood and question on
what passport did he travel to Pakistan three decades ago.
Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to
release documents that could provide answers and the appointment – at a
cost confirmed to be at least $1.7 million – of myriad lawyers to
defend against all requests for his documentation. While his supporters
cite an online version of a "Certification
of Live Birth" from Hawaii as his birth verification, critics point out
such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.
The ultimate questions remain unaddressed to date: Is Obama a
natural born citizen, and, if so, why hasn't documentation been
provided? And, of course, if he is not, what does it mean to the 2008
election or the U.S. Constitution if it is revealed that there has been
a violation?
WND also has reported on another case that was dismissed by U.S. District Judge David Carter in California. It also now is heading to the appeals level.
Among documentation not yet available
for Obama is his kindergarten records, Punahou school records,
Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia
thesis, Harvard Law School
records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the
University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years
as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association
records, any baptism records and his adoption records.
The campaign followed a petition that has collected more than 480,000 signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.
The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely
touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was
born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily
obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth
certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth
hospital and attending physician
– is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to
date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.
Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine
whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president
as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought
to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.
If you are a member of the media and would like to interview Joseph Farah about this campaign, e-mail WND.
 |
Related offers:
Get the most comprehensive special report ever produced on the Obama eligibility issue.
The courts will wimp out and i predict they (the courts) will simply come up with yet another novel reason to dismiss leo’s suit.
That’s why we’ve got to get the vital records from the hawaii doh. When the truth is discovered, climategate style, they’ll turn on the usurper and we’ll finally be able to get something done.