I’ve hesitated writing about this story because I don’t have any reliable sources (discounting the Post & Email Blog, or WorldNetDaily) to know how much is true and how much is posturing.
Nonetheless, it appears that Obama denialist attorneys Leo C. Donofrio and Stephen Pidgeon have joined forces to represent some Chrysler dealers that lost their franchises as the result of the Chrysler bankruptcy. The dealers may have a difficult time proving that they suffered harm as the result of government action (since they would have lost their dealerships in a bankruptcy whether or not the government had intervened), but it’s a start.
They will file in the DC Federal District Court asking: by what right does President Obama hold the office, that heads the government, that administered the TARP, that bailed out Chrysler, that disenfranchised the dealers, that lived in the house that Jack built? This is what is called a quo warranto (Latin for “frivolous”) lawsuit.
Putting the silliness aside for a moment …
Leo Donofrio has claimed for some time that the only way to remove President Obama from office (short of the constitutional mechanism of impeachment) is a quo warranto action in DC. (Orly Taitz tried quo warranto, but not in DC, the only place where it can be filed.) The scant news coverage names no plaintiffs and no actual lawsuit appears to have been filed yet as of today, December 10, 2009.
We’ll just have to wait to see if the Supreme Court hands Leo his hat again.
[OK, tell me the truth. Did I overdo the hyperlinks?]




The Betrayal blog attacks Dr. C (Updated)
by Dr. Conspiracy on 20. Sep, 2009 in Dr. C. Comments
Dr. Conspiracy
Readers here may recall an article I published countering Leo Donofrio’s attack against FactCheck.org: Donofrio misfires. Donofrio had made the same mistake Mario Apuzzo made when he attempted to make Barack Obama into a current British Citizen through ignoring the repeal of portions of the British Nationality Act of 1948. One can see on the surface that the analysis is flawed because the conclusion is obviously something that the various British legislation did not intend. This is an application of the general principle: British legislators know their laws better than we do.
Nonetheless, I did make some mistakes in my analysis, pointed out by commenters here, and I hastily corrected my article, and did so several times, sometimes marked with [update] tags to indicate new material, and sometimes not.
Nobamas do not understand the concept of correcting mistakes, considering it somehow shameful (and this explains why they ignore contrary evidence and continue to push long-discredited speculation). Well, my corrections have come to the attention of the Betrayal blog who said:
There is a difference between “data” and “conclusions” (but I guess “false data” sounds worse.) I replied at The Betrayal, and we’ll see if it passes moderation:
[Update!] (more…)