Fox's Napolitano falsely claimed "[t]here was no testimony whatsoever in court" in GM bankruptcy
SUMMARY: Andrew Napolitano falsely claimed that in the GM bankruptcy proceedings, "[t]here was no testimony whatsoever in court." In fact, the judge overseeing the case stated that there was in-court testimony.
On the July 7 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck, guest host and former New Jersey Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano falsely claimed that in the General Motors bankruptcy proceedings, "[t]here was no testimony whatsoever in court." In fact, the bankruptcy judge overseeing the GM bankruptcy stated that there was in-court testimony as part of the proceedings.
From the bankruptcy court's "decision on debtors' motion for approval of (1) sale of assets to Vehicle Acquisition Holdings LLC; (2) assumption and assignment of related executory contracts; and (3) entry into UAW retiree settlement agreement":
After an evidentiary hearing,5 the Court makes the following Findings of Fact.
[...]
5In accordance with the Court's Case Management Order #1, direct testimony was presented by affidavit and cross-examination and subsequent questioning proceeded live. After cross-examination, the Court found all witnesses credible, and takes their testimony as true.
The bankruptcy court's opinion also specifically cited testimony by GM CEO Fritz Henderson at the hearing:
The Court accepts as accurate and truthful the testimony by GM CEO Fritz Henderson at the hearing:
Q. Now, if the U.S. Treasury does not fund on July 10th and the sale order is not entered by that date, what options are there for GM at that point?
A. Well, if they don't continue, we would liquidate.12
[...]
12 Audio Recording of Testimony of June 30, 2009.
From the July 7 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
NAPOLITANO: After just about a month, a judge has approved the sale of General Motors' strongest assets to a newly formed company, a major step toward leaving Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
Here's how it breaks down: The U.S. government, you, the taxpayer, will own about 61 percent of General Motors. The unions will own 17.5 percent. The Canadian government will own 11.7 percent, and the old General Motors will own the remaining 10 percent. The company will be made up of Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick, and GMC, and a minority stake in General Motors Europe. But aren't there serious problems in handling such a giant bankruptcy in such a short time?
Here is Tom Woods, the author of Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Only Make Things Worse. He joins me by phone. And Steve Jakubowski, an attorney with the Coleman law firm, he is appealing -- thank God someone is -- the General Motors ruling.
Tom, to you first. The General Motors bankruptcy is one of the largest in American history. It took four weeks. There was no testimony whatsoever in court, and yet the taxpayer is on the hook for $50 billion, without a vote by the Congress, but because the president and a single federal judge have said so.
What is going on here?
WOODS: Well, this is one piece in a huge puzzle that involves a whole lot of things the government has been doing that are unprecedented and have been done essentially without any meaningful debate.
It is a small point. The larger point being that Obama and his leftist government "never let a crisis go to waste" by clearly ignoring the Constitution and taking control of a private business.
"direct testimony was presented by affidavit and cross-examination and subsequent questioning proceeded live. After cross-examination, the Court found all witnesses credible, and takes their testimony as true."
You can feel free to ignore my repeating of it as you did the first time, but I underlined your homework words to look up.
I see your point but it is still unclear to me. It looks to me like the court is referring back to the evidentiary hearing when it says "subseqent questioning proceeded live". That could mean that cross examination took place after the affidavits were presented during the evidentiary hearing. If the court had heard direct testimony during the actual bankruptcy proceedings, why would the footnote mention the court takes the affidavits and cross examination as a "finding of fact"?
I'm no lawyer, maybe that is legalese for saying they simply accept the testimony. Maybe you are a lawyer and know the answer? If not, perhaps one of the other attorneys who sometimes follow these threads could give us their take? Does anyone know of a link that has either the evidentiary or bankruptcy testimony transcripts?
Nowhere I found, except for that one sentence reply by Henderson, is there a record of the actual testimony during the bankruptcy court proceedings. Even so, to me, it is still not clear when Henderson made his comments.
Again, it is a small point. However I think MMFA did a pretty poor job in making it's claim.
Lawyers?
The larger question to me is where in the Constitution does it say the government can buy into businesses? I think we've crossed over into fascism.
"The Court cannot lengthen this decision further by specifically addressing any more of the approximately 850 objections that were raised on this motion. The Court has canvassed them and satisfied itself that no material objections other than those it has specifically addressed were raised and have merit. To the extent those objections were not expressly addressed in this decision, they are overruled."
Gotta love that liberal justice.
Gotta love those wingnut non sequitur subject-changings.
I think you'll agree that 850 objections to the bankruptcy plan is not insignificant. Is that a common practice of bankruptcy proceedings? Do you think it was fair to those who objected to the Obama plan? It looks to me like the courts ran roughshod over the rights of those stockholders who objected. To simply dismiss all of them out of hand looks like they just swept those objections under the rug don't you think?
I was taking issue with the characterization of such an overruling as "liberal."
A number of these objections were from people who claim to be personally injured by defective GM products. Giving GM immunity from such liability is not my idea of a "liberal" decision. In fact, absolving corporations of any responsibility for the products they sell or the damage they do to people or the environment is something that I attribute to conservatism.
Here's a useful definition:
troll: One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll
If you are part of the company that is in bankruptcy, you don't want a lot of objections that are only going to slow down the process and possibly force you into liquidation.
If you are one of the debt holders, who feel that liquidation is the best course for them, then you probably won't like the judge overruling them carte blanche.
So, let's see, conservative business owner who is trying to save his company through chapter 11 bankruptcy, versus conservative investor who is trying to force liquidation, in order to maximize his gains.
Who would be the liberal in this case?
That is rather obvious.
Also, I did notice that you didn't answer my question. Which was specifically: conservative business owner trying to not be forced into liquidation or conservative investor who would rather see the business forced into liquidation. Which one is the liberal?
BTW your definition of "liberal" would include several Republican presidents, senators, congressmen, etc who decided that it was OK for the to bypass the law, Constitutional limits, etc.
No, a judge can make a bad decision and it not be a liberal decision. I think there even has been a time or two when a liberal judge has made a good decision. :-)
Your supposedly unanswered question is based on a false premise that one or the other litigants, even though you said were both conservative, has to be liberal. I don't accept that premise.
My editorial comment about "liberal justice" is simply in reference to this decision.
The point I was trying to make is that it is all based on your point of view as to whether his decision was right or wrong, liberal or conservative.
BTW Since the constitution pretty much spells out what the government can NOT do, and I do not remember anything in there about government bailouts, etc. Whether or not the government's actions are legal are going to be left up to the courts, and you are pretty much gauranteed that some of this will end up in court.
Yes, facts, the law, reality, data, science, education, health, freedom, etc.....all liberal concepts. Thanks.