cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

- Current Events (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=12)

- - White House threatening non-TARP (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25964)

White House threatening non-TARP

Chrysler lenders? And media ignoring it?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blu...-non-tarp-lend

Does anyone (besides Cali) not believe it, especially considering Obama's rhetoric? I thought the attorney questioned made a great point here:

Quote:

Beckmann: You made a comment to me before we went on the air about the significance of this case as it relates to the Constitution. I'd like you to explain that to my audience.

Lauria: Well, look, there are kind of two aspects to that. The first is the right to property and the right to contract are kind of sacronsanct in this country. I think everybody understands that when you make a deal it's supposed to be honored, and if it's not honored you're supposed to be able to get protection in court. And what is happening here, through the force of the United States government, and that's what's disturbing about this -- I mean, private parties have contract disputes all the time -- but for the United States Government to step in, the Executive Office of the United States Government, who under the Constitution is charged with enforcing the laws to step in and try to in effect break the laws, I think we should all be concerned about that. That is a constitutional issue.

OK, number one. Number two, realize that our Constitution is premised on the notion that there is a balance between the three branches of government: the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary.

And what's going to be happening, in fact I'm going to have to go here, because I'm heading down to the bankruptcy court to start taking on this battle, which is of epic proportions. But what is going on here is you've got the executive branch coming into the judicial branch. And I think it is really important for the Constitution of the United States that people understand that the judicial branch can stand independent and interpret and apply the laws as it's required to do under the Constitution in the face of intense pressure from the Executive branch to do otherwise.

Agree 100%

Who gives a shit about contracts anyway? Obama has the mentality of a banana republic dictator. Does he know he wasn't elected king for life like his buddy Chavez?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Venkman (Post 304618)

Who gives a shit about contracts anyway? Obama has the mentality of a banana republic dictator. Does he know he wasn't elected king for life like his buddy Chavez?

He seems to believe he was voted king for life.

Obama needs to eliminate the checks and balances in order to push his socialist politics on the country. Bullying the courts into doing things his way is a good start. And replacing Souter with some far left extremist won't hurt his agenda as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute (Post 304619)

Let's hope this bankruptcy judge has some balls. Cause he'll need 'em.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Venkman (Post 304620)

Let's hope this bankruptcy judge has some balls. Cause he'll need 'em.

Agreed.

Can someone be held in contempt in bankruptcy court? That would be hilarious.

Yeah, I don't get how Obama can say that bankruptcy will only be 30 days, when as part of the executive branch, he no longer has any say. At least theoretically.

Cali needs to respond to this, especially considering his background.

To me, the TARP is more of an oligarchy issue than an Obama issue. The initiator of the coercion was Bush's secretary Henry Paulson, not Obama.

TARP is despicable. Progressive experts have decried it all over as a transfer of wealth from taxpayers to the holders of those assets.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug (Post 304626)

There isn't much at all to say here without further information. It sounds like in the attorney's opinion, her clients (who aren't really identified) believe they have first lien position on assets of Chrysler, and may not actually get paid out in accordance with their first lien position. That is almost useless information without further facts.

Whether or not they have a lien, and whether or not it really is in first position, is almost always debatable. What type of assets do they have a lien on? Intangibles? Equipment? Something else? All assets? Was their lien perfected? Did someone else have a statutory lien which bumps their lien? Does someone else have possession (which typically trumps other types of liens, depending on the class of asset)?

Did the document creating the lien (if there is one) provide for an exception in certain circumstances? Did it permit all loan documents (assuming there are any) to be amended under certain conditions?

There are so many relevant questions and issues involved here that the article and her comments are virtually useless without more information.

It also isn't clear what is happening with the assets either, nor is it clear what the result would be for her clients in a different type of bankruptcy (which may be necessary if all the parties can't agree on certain resolutions).

Unless Venkman or Il Pad know the answers to the questions above, I am going to say they don't have a clue what they are talking about here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 304628)

Unless Venkman or Il Pad know the answers to the questions above, I am going to say they don't have a clue what they are talking about here.

You're lost in the weeds...we see the big picture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Venkman (Post 304665)

You're lost in the weeds...we see the big picture.

In other words- you have no idea. About what I figured.