Archive for March, 2010

Re: Chrysler Dealers and Quo Warranto

Posted in Uncategorized on March 11, 2010 by naturalborncitizen

Just a quick update on the Quo Warranto aspect of our representing the Chrysler dealers.  Both Steve Pidgeon and I agree that our clients should exhaust all possible remedies pertaining to the Chrysler bankruptcy before seeking Ex Relator status in the DC District Court.  Filing a petition now in the DC District Court would be premature as we’ve recently filed a Notice of Appeal with the Southern District of New York.   But we do represent 82 former Chrysler dealers – led by James Anderer – who support a future quo warranto action.

Furthermore, it’s important to note that the bankruptcy action does not allege the Government sought dealer rejections.  Our case relies on the record of the entire bankruptcy proceeding which unequivocally exhibits that – while dealer restructuring was a future goal of New Chrysler – all key witnesses, including Old Chrysler’s CEO and Fiat executive Alfredo Altavilla, testified that neither the US Government nor Fiat ever requested dealer restructuring as a condition precedent to the deal closing.  The record is crystal clear on that issue.  Judge Gonzalez changed Alfredo’s answer in his Rejection Opinion by an act of judicial ventriloquism.

Therefore, the record exhibits that the Government was not directly involved in the decision to reject the Chrysler dealers.  Whereas, the quo warranto will be based on a “but for” argument pertaining to unconstitutional use of TARP funds.  But for the improper use of TARP funds, the Government would not have gifted Chrysler to Fiat and our clients would not have had their businesses ripped from them.

It’s an important legal distinction between the underlying bankruptcy case and the pending quo warranto.

Leo C. Donofrio, Esq. for the Law Office of Pidgeon & Donofrio GP

Old Chrysler’s Attorneys Have Withdrawn Their Improper Birther Footnote From The Reply Memo.

Posted in Uncategorized on March 3, 2010 by naturalborncitizen

In a previous post, I took issue with Old Chrysler’s attorneys despicably playing the birther card in their Response to our Motion To Reconsider the Court’s June 9, 2009 Rejection Order and June 19, 2009 Rejection Opinion.   In our official Reply to their Response, I petitioned the Court to have that Footnote struck from the record.  Judge Gonzalez treated (Footnote 14, pg. 24) our request as a “Deemed Motion To Strike” and gave Old Chrysler’s attorneys time to answer that Motion.

On Feb. 11, 2010 Old Chrysler’s attorneys (Jones Day) officially withdrew Footnote 13 from their Response memo, stating:

Response and Notice of Withdrawal of Footnote 13

6. Although the Debtors disagree with the Movants’ claims in their Deemed Motion to Strike (particularly since the Debtors contend that the Movants placed at issue the timing of their filing and any motivations and explanations related to such timing), the Debtors hereby withdraw footnote 13 from the Objection to resolve this matter and avoid the need for further litigation of this matter.

Having severely embarrassed themselves by extending their smear campaign against our clients to an official Court document, this retreat appears to be damage control as they must be aware that Steve and I are preparing a Rule 11 Sanctions Motion against them for making obviously fraudulent statements regarding the testimony of two key witnesses in their Response to our Motion.

A poker reference is again necessary.  Old Chrysler’s birther footnote was nothing more than a distraction bluff aimed at disguising the weakness of their hand.   The record of the case clearly shows that Old Chrysler was the only party directly responsible for ripping the livelihood from our clients.  We didn’t go after the Government or raise the eligibility issue in our papers.  Our Motion was specifically directed against Chrysler activity.  Old Chrysler’s attorneys sought to raise the birther issue as a distraction from the law.  Had the law actually supported their position, they would not have sought to distract a soul.

Lucky their position has such an ally as Judge Gonzalez who – by failing to correct his own fraudulent statement in Footnote 21 of the June 19, 2009 Rejection Opinion – has now elevated his transgression to intentional fraud.

Personally, I have never seen a more obvious fraud perpetrated by a Judge.  Where the witness clearly answered, “No”, the Judge has changed the answer to “Yes”.  If this behavior is not repudiated by an appellate court down the road (and we will be going all the way to SCOTUS), then you can kiss any hope of a just America goodbye.  This is the test case to see how far they can push small businesses into submission.  The gauntlet is here.  If Judge Gonzalez can change testimony at will, so can any other judge.  And so they will if this is allowed to go unpunished.

Leo C. Donofrio, Esq. for the Law Office of Pidgeon & Donofrio GP

Public Docket For Chrysler Bankruptcy Has Been Sabotaged To Conceal The Fraudulent Dealer Rejection Opinion by Judge Gonzalez.

Posted in Uncategorized on March 3, 2010 by naturalborncitizen

[UPDATE #2 - March 4, 2010 8:43 AM.  John Charlton of the Post & Email pointed out yesterday that the " controversial Rejection Opinion is listed as "not for publication" at the SDNY Bankruptcy site.]

[UPDATE:  10:33 AM - Phil from The Right Side of Life blog - via email - has informed me that the missing Opinion can be found in a public section of the Bankruptcy Court's site.  But Phil has also confirmed that the Opinion is still mysteriously missing from the public docket for the Chrysler case.  This is the docket we've been linking to throughout the Motion to Reconsider as it's the main clearinghouse for all Chrysler bankruptcy information.

We will inform you if the situation changes.]

Last night, Steve Pidgeon and I prepared and filed our “Designation of Contents” for the Appellate record (Docket No. 6523) to be certified to the District Court along with a Motion to Join (Docket No. 6524)  six more former Chrysler dealers (bringing the total to 82 clients).

While preparing the designation, neither of us had the docket number on hand for the June 19, 2009 Dealer Rejection Opinion.  This is the Opinion issued by Judge Gonzalez wherein he perpetrates a fraud on the Court by inserting testimony into the record – by way of  judicial ventriloquism – which does not exist in the record.

Not having the docket number, I went to the public docket for the Chrysler case which is reached by the URL – http://www.kccllc.net/default.asp?R=CD.  The docket and all important documents for the Chrysler bankruptcy and sale are hosted by  Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC.

When you click through to the host site, you also need to locate the “Old Car Co” tab by using the “View All” drop down box.  Then click on “M-O” which will bring you to the following header, “09-50002 | Old Carco LLC (f/k/a Chrysler LLC) (Creditors’ Committee)“.  Click that, accept the terms, and you will gain access to all of the public documents.  The docket is reached by hitting the “Court Documents” button on the left side of the page.  This brings you to a search engine for the docket which contains over 6500 documents.

The docket number for the fraudulent June 19, 2009 Rejection Opinion by Judge Gonzalez is “4145”.  But if you plug that number into the search engine, it now returns a blank entry (see image above).

Furthermore, if you reach the page containing all of the entries for June 19, 2009, you will see that the docket skips from 4144 to 4146, mysteriously ignoring the enigmatic 4145.

Somebody has seen to it that the public no longer has direct access to the fraudulent opinion written by Judge Gonzalez.  This is a very recent development which appears to have happened right around February 1, 2010 – the date Judge Gonzalez was awarded the position of Chief Justice – just four days before he issued his denial of our Motion to Reconsider (docket no. 6341).  At that time, I noticed the public docket was not available at all for a few days.  Now, upon its return, the most important document pertaining to the rejected Chrysler Dealers’ rights has been mysteriously sabotaged out of the docket.

Haven’t our clients been subjected to enough sabotage already?

All our clients ever did was successfully operate their businesses thereby making profits for Chrysler and employing thousands in their communities.  Now they’ve had their livelihood ripped from them and were forced to lay off loyal staff and friends.  In fighting back, they face a fraudulent Judge and now a fraudulent docket.

This is not a political issue.  Every American citizen should be outraged at what has happened to our clients.  Your small business could be the next victim.

If you are an attorney registered with the Electronic Filing System via the official web site for the Southern District of New York Bankruptcy Court, you can still retrieve document number 4145 there.  But the general public cannot gain access thereto.  One must register as an attorney of record before a password is provided.  Here is a screenshot of the proper listing for docket number 4145 at the Court’s site:

http://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/4145-small.jpg?w=450

Compare that image to the public docket entry for 4145 pictured at the top of this post.  The public docket entry makes no mention of the June 19, 2009 Rejection Opinion by Judge Gonzalez and there is no link to anything.  It’s a blank entry.  Good luck tracking that opinion down if you’re not an insider.  I don’t care what side of the blogosphere you reside on – left or right – this is pure censorship designed to specifically keep bloggers in the dark.

Taking a term from poker, this docket sabotage is a clear “tell“:

“A tell in poker is a subtle but detectable change in a player’s behavior or demeanor that gives clues to that player’s assessment of his hand. A player gains an advantage if he observes and understands the meaning of another player’s tell…”

This tells me that our hand going forward on appeal is strong and the villains are trying to hide its strength from bloggers, the public and the press.  The Rejection Opinion is a public document and has been available through the public docket from June 19, 2009 until very recently.

Welcome to the new Amerika, kids.  If the truth hurts, just hide it from view.  If the witness doesn’t say what you want him to say, just change the record to make it appear as if he said what you needed him to say to make the case fit your pre-determined opinion.  How the hell would Judge Gonzalez explain his patented “judicial ventriloquism” to his students at NYU School of Law?

by Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.