“REORGANIZATION” OF AUTO COMPANY CLASSIC CASE OF MARXIST PHILOSOPHY OF REDISTRIBUTION-OF-WEALTH
by John Charlton
(Dec. 8, 2009) — On Friday of this week, the Supreme Court of the United States has scheduled a hearing conference for the petition made by the Indiana Police Pension Trust against the theft of their nearly $6.5 billion dollar investment in the Chrysler Corporation, which was perpetrated by the Obama regime earlier this summer.
The action, whereby the U.S. Treasury, without authorization by Congress, used TARP funding to force Chrysler LLC into a debtor-client relationship, and then in using that to practically control the corporation in bankruptcy pleadings has raised several constitutional and legal issues on the action.
The case’s official name is “Indiana Police Pension Trust et al. vs. Chrysler LLC et al.” The official docket of the Case at the Supreme Court shows the progress of the case before the Supreme Court.
It should be noted that a Conference Hearing is merely a preliminary, albeit necessary, step in the process of obtaining a hearing on the merits of the case. A previous petition for a stay of the sale of Chrysler LLC was denied by the full court in July. This Friday the Court will consider whether to issue a Writ of Certiori, whereby it would notify the United States’ Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, of its intention to review the case.
In October, a brief of Amicus curiae was submitted by a group of leading constitutional scholars and advocacy groups, on behalf of the Plaintiffs in this case: the Washington Legal Foundation, the Allied Educational Foundation, the Cato Institute and the legal scholar, Dr. Todd J Zwycki. Dr. Zwycki’s participation indicates the high level of interest in the legal world in the issues raised by the case, as can be seen from the brief biography the Amicus curiae brief contains, regarding his credentials:
Todd J. Zywicki is George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law at George Mason University School of Law, where he also serves as Senior Scholar of the Mercatus Center. He regularly teaches in the areas of bankruptcy law, consumer credit, and corporate lending. Editor of the Supreme Court Economic Review, Professor Zywicki is the author of more than 70 articles in leading law reviews and peerreviewed economic journals, including “Is Forum- Shopping Corrupting America’s Bankruptcy Courts?,” 94 GEORGETOWN L.J. 1141 (2006); “Institutions, Incentives, and Consumer Bankruptcy Reform,” 62 WASHINGTON & LEE L. REV. 1071 (2005); and “An Economic Analysis of the Consumer Bankruptcy Crisis,” 99 NORTHWESTERN L. REV. 1071 (2005).
The Amicus curiae brief is an excellent summary of the history and merits of the case. You can download a copy through this link (PDF 1.2 MB).
To steal the investment of the Indiana Policemen’s Pension Trust and give it to union workers, is a classic example of Marxist ideology in practice. Karl Marx taught that the redistribution of wealth was the only way to redress injustice between the rich and poor. By systematically destroying the financial investments and security of groups which Obama might consider threats to his power, and transferring that wealth to his political supporters, Obama and his regime is without doubt rebuilding the political power map of the nation to ensure his continued residency in the White House.
Such action is a dire indication that there will no longer be free and open elections in the country, a fact confirmed by the recent, massive election fraud in the New York 23rd Congressional District special election.
By such actions the Obama regime has marked itself out as the greatest threat to the American republic in the history of our nation.
This case and the Amicus curiae brief in its support, are, however, in the opinion of The Post & Email, fatally flawed; since once one concedes that a constitutionally ineligible person can lawfully exercise the authority of the supreme executive officer, one has in fact already conceded that the Constitution is no longer the Supreme Law of the land, and that the Supreme Court of the United States is no longer bound to defend the rights of the Plaintiffs in accord with that Law, or according to any written law, for that fact.