Old Chrysler’s Attorneys Have Withdrawn Their Improper Birther Footnote From The Reply Memo.

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


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: