Shoddy Reporting Concerning Closed Chrysler Dealers:What the TARP Inspector General Report Does NOT Say.

The TARP Inspector General’s office, SIGTARP, recently released a report entitled, “Factors Effecting The Decision of General Motors and Chrysler To Reduce Their Dealership Networks“.  This report set off a firestorm of shoddy reporting, which, if left unchecked, will confuse those familiar with the Chrysler Dealers’ pending litigation on appeal in federal district court.  This blog posting has been designed to educate the public as to the truth of the SIGTARP Report.

My assertion of shoddy reporting is levelled specifically at The New York Times, the AP, and unfortunately also at Michelle Malkin who has been a staunch supporter of the dealers throughout.  Regardless, her recent discussion of the SIGTARP report is fundamentally flawed and damaging to the case we have brought in our federal appeal to the Southern District of New York (where a Court ordered oral argument is scheduled for July 28, 2010, a fact the media doesn’t seem remotely interested in mentioning).

Malkin specifically urged her readers to read the entire SIGTARP Report, but it appears she failed to read the full report herself since she erroneously reported:

“The independent review of how and why the Obama administration forced Chrysler and General Motors to oversee mass closures of car dealerships across the country reveals grisly incompetence, fatal bureaucratic hubris and Big Labor cronyism.”

Nowhere in the SIGTARP Report does it say that the Government “forced” (as Malkin put it) Chrysler to reduce its dealership network. As to GM, yes the Government did specifically urge dealership reductions, but as to Chrysler the Government did not.  The SIGTARP Report is very clear on this point.

The GM Bankruptcy was a vastly different beast than the Chrysler Bankruptcy.  And the SIGTARP Report stresses this point in multiple citations throughout the 45 page document.  It is repeated multiple times that the Government did not insist upon dealer reductions for Chrysler.  For example, on pg. 5, the SIGTARP Report discusses the pre-bankruptcy viability plans offered by both GM and Chrysler, stating:

“In contrast to GM’s plan, the Chrysler restructuring plan did not contain any specific details about planned dealership closures, such as how many dealerships would close, or what factors would be considered in deciding which dealerships to retain.  However, the plan referred to Project Genesis, an ongoing Chrysler effort to reduce the number of Chrysler dealerships…”

The “contrast” between GM and Chrysler was entirely skipped over by Malkin and the rest of the media reports.  Chrysler was already reducing its dealership network years before the auto industry crisis hit, years before TARP even existed.

On pg. 7 of the SIGTARP Report, it lists five key factors the Government told GM to focus upon when submitting their updated viability plans.  Accelerated dealership restructuring was listed as one of the five factors stressed by the Government for GM to accomplish if it expected future financial assistance.  However, in contrast to GM, the five factors the Government stressed for Chrysler’s viability – listed on pgs. 7-8 of the SIGTARP Report – do not include dealership reduction at all.

In fact, on pg. 13 of the SIGTARP Report, it is unequivocally stated that in contrast to GM’s situation, the Government’s analysis of Chrysler’s viability did not address dealership reductions:

“GM was given 60 days to submit a ‘more aggressive plan’ overall, including planning for their dealership terminations, and was provided an additional $ 6 billion of TARP funds…Treasury also listed five challenges for Chrysler in a separate viability determination…The Viability Determination for Chrysler did not address dealership terminations.” (Emphasis added.)

The SIGTARP Report acknowledges that the concepts behind dealership restructuring were openly discussed by GM, Chrysler and the Government.  It’s no secret that the Obama administration’s Auto Team were in favor of restructuring GM’s dealership networks and so they insisted upon it.  As to Chrysler, the SIGTARP Report only mentions that the Obama Auto Team encouraged a continuation of the pre-existing dealership restructuring Chrysler had begun years before.

There’s a huge difference between suggesting/encouraging a course of action and forcing a course of action.  As to GM, the Government forced dealership reductions.  As to Chrysler, the Government did not force or insist upon dealership reductions.  The SIGTARP Report is very clear about this issue.  If one reads the entire 45 page report, one understands this important distinction.

But let’s not lay the blame entirely on Malkin, who has certainly proved to be an ally of the Chrysler and GM auto dealers.  The New York Times and AP also printed stories pertaining to the closing of the auto dealers which highlighted the SIGTARP Report.  Unfortunately, these reports have also created a false impression.

The AP was misleading in the following statement, “The Treasury Department failed to consider the economic fallout when it told General Motors and Chrysler to quickly shutter many dealerships as part of government-led bankruptcies, a federal watchdog found.”   Again, the SIGTARP Report makes it clear that Chrysler was never ordered to “shutter many dealerships”.

Nick Bunkley of the New York Times published the following on July 18th: “President Obama’s auto task force pressed General Motors and Chrysler to close scores of dealerships”.  Bunkley also failed to mention the important contrast between GM and Chrysler laid out in the SIGTARP Report.

WHY THE CONTRAST IS SO IMPORTANT TO FORMER CHRYSLER DEALERS

Nothing in the SIGTARP Report nor in the underlying record of the bankruptcy case supports Old Chrysler’s decision to cut the dealership network once bankruptcy was filed.  Old Chrysler had no sound business purpose in doing so.  The bankruptcy court records are very clear and the SIGTARP Report includes nothing to counter the underlying record of the case.  SIGTARP actually confirms our position.

The Bankruptcy Court records, including thousands of pages of hearing transcripts, clearly establish that Old Chrysler made the decision to cut the dealers on their own with no insistence or pressure by the Government or Fiat.  Old Chrysler’s CEO and Chairman, Robert Nardelli,  testified on May 28, 2009 as follows (at pgs. 389-390):

Q. And approximately fifteen days later, on May 14th, Chrysler filed a motion to reject approximately 800 dealers, is that correct?

A. That’s correct.

Q. So prior to — the deal originally with Fiat would have been Chrysler bringing in 3,200 dealers into the alliance; however, now Chrysler is giving only 2,400 dealers to the Fiat alliance; is that correct?

A. That’s correct.

Q. Who asked for that change?

A. Well, as we looked at filing bankruptcy, and knowing that being over-dealered has been an issue for Chrysler for some time, and it has been a process that was there prior to me in trying to get dealer consolidation, not only in Chrysler but in the industry, it presented an opportunity to accelerate the plan.

Q. Did the UAW ask for this dealer reduction?

A. No.

Q. Did the American government ask for this dealer reduction?

A. No.

CEO/Chairman Nardelli clearly stated that the Government did not ask for Chrysler dealer reductions.  Furthermore, every piece of testimony in the case confirmed this to be true.   For example, review key Fiat executive Alfredo Altavilla’s May 27, 2009 testimony on this point:

Q. To your knowledge, in any of your discussions with the United States Treasury, has the United States Treasury requested or demanded any reduction in the dealer network?

A. U.S. Treasury has never demanded such a restructuring, at least in presence of Fiat.

Q. Are you aware of any request by any government agency, including the Auto Task Force, that has demanded a reduction in Chrysler’s dealer network?

A. We have never been part of a discussion in which the Treasury has requested the restructuring.

Peter Grady was the Chrysler executive in charge of dealer restructuring, who testified as follows (May 28, 2009 transcript at 517):

Q. At whose request was this done?

A. At whose request what was done?

Q. The rejection? The idea to reject all these dealers?

A. Well, it’s after consultation with our attorneys. And we had an opportunity to restructure the network.

Q. Was this brought up in connection with any meetings — I believe you testified that you attended some meetings with the Treasury Department?

A. I was on some conference calls and one meeting with the U.S. Treasury — the auto task force.

Q. Now, did they insist that this process be carried out?

A. What they insisted was that we restructure our business in total back in December or February when we originally put forth our viability plan.

Q. Well, my question goes to the more specific point of whether or not the task force instructed Chrysler in your presence to reduce the number of dealers —

A. No.

All of the sudden concern with dealer closings in the press has the appearance of providing a counter-point to the issues we have raised in our appeal to the Southern District of New York.  These media reports appear to provide a basis by which Old Chrysler would have been under pressure by the Government to cut the dealership network, a position which, as we have demonstrated in our filings (by testimony as quoted above) is not supported by the record.

The rejected Chrysler Dealers’ current appeal relies upon the fact that Old Chrysler was not under forced pressure by the Government as lender, or Fiat as purchaser, to cut the dealership network.  Without forced pressure, Old Chrysler’s decision to cut 789 dealers does not stand up to scrutiny and should not have been approved by the Bankruptcy Court.  These erroneous media reports are having the effect of revising history and confusing the issues.

The SIGTARP Report does say that decisions of the auto task force led to thousands of job cuts, and that is what we have said all along as well.  But this goes back to the use of TARP funds by the Government to enter the private sector as pseudo venture capitalists.  That decision was the general decision that ultimately caused the auto industry to be restructured, but the specific decision to cut the dealership network – according to key Chrysler executives Grady and Nardelli, was Chrysler’s decision alone.

And if that were not the case, Mr. Nardelli and Mr. Grady might be subject to perjury charges.  But that won’t happen because the record and the SIGTARP Report are clear and consistent; the Government did not order Chrysler dealerships to be shut down.  Only the media is confused.

Michelle Malkin finished her piece with a quote from the SIGTARP Report which highlights a response by Ron Bloom, the key bankruptcy expert employed by the Obama Administration’s Auto Team to oversee the auto industry restructuring:

“…[W]hen asked explicitly whether the Auto Team could have left the dealerships out of the restructurings, Mr. Bloom, the current head of the Auto Team, confirmed that the Auto team ‘could have left any one component (of the restructuring plan) alone,’ but that doing so would have been inconsistent with the President’s mandate for ‘shared sacrifice.’ ”

The term “shared sacrifice” with regard to Chrysler had nothing to do with dealer reductions.  Instead, that term concerned expectations by the Government and Old Chrysler that the Chrysler Dealers would – in order to help Chrysler avoid bankruptcy – take on additional inventory in buying more cars and parts than they normally purchased.

The testimony offered by Chrysler CEO/Chairman Nardelli in the Bankruptcy Court hearings (pgs. 195-196) established that the dealers rose to that challenge of shared sacrifice by taking on extra inventory in the hope of saving Chrysler from bankruptcy.  Nardelli testified that right up until the evening before bankruptcy was filed, April 29, 2009, “the dealers certainly responded in kind“.

Meanwhile, unbeknownst to these dealers who were valiantly buying up extra inventory, Old Chrysler was concurrently contemplating kicking them to the curb with no obligation to buy back the extra inventory which the rejected dealers – post rejection – were forbidden from selling to the public.

That’s the dirty little secret of the so-called “shared sacrifice” mentioned by Herr Bloom.

Frankly, I don’t appreciate the timing of these shoddy news pieces concerning the SIGTARP Report.  But if any media outlets are truly interested in the cause of justice here, they ought to mention that 82 rejected Chrysler dealers will have their day in court on this very issue before the Honorable Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein – who ordered oral argument sua sponte – on July 28, 2010 at 12:30 PM in the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, N.Y.

I also encourage the media to read the entire SIGTARP Report and to provide an accurate assessment of the issues discussed in this post.

by Leo Donofrio, Esq. for the law firm of Pidgeon & Donofrio GP

The Court Has Ordered Oral Argument For July 28th In The Chrysler Dealers’ Appeal.

Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein has ordered oral argument in the Southern District of New York for July 28, 2010 at 12:30 PM.

Upon filing the appeal, Steve Pidgeon and I made a decision not to request oral argument and rather to rely on the briefs.   We felt that if, after reading the briefs, the Court had serious questions, then the Court would call us in for oral argument and we are pleased this has happened since our clients will now have their day in court.

Please understand that nothing concerning the eventual outcome should be read into the Court’s order for oral argument.  We are simply pleased that we will now have a chance to explain our position to the Judge and to answer his questions to the best of our ability.

Many times the attorneys will request oral argument, but it’s always more relevant if the Court initiates the process.  This usually means the Court has specific questions in mind.

Old Chrysler’s attorneys – Jones Day – also did not request oral argument, but we do note that just after the briefs were filed,  they added four pro hac vice attorneys to the case including the lead trial counsel from the underlying bankruptcy.

It appears Jones Day may have expanded their roster here with an expectation that the Court might call for an evidentiary hearing with witnesses involved which can happen when fraud on the court has been alleged as we have done on behalf of our clients here.  But the July 28th oral argument is not such a hearing.  There will be no witnesses and the Court will mainly focus on points of law and facts already in the record of the case.  No new facts will emerge unless there is a future hearing.

I believe the oral argument will be open to the public, but contact the Court for details.

Leo Donofrio for the law firm of Pidgeon & Donofrio GP.

Chrysler Dealers – Appeal Update.

Old Chrysler recently filed their response brief to our appeal.

We then filed a reply brief and that will speak for itself until the Southern District of New York issues a ruling.

Leo C. Donofrio

Pidgeon & Donofrio GP

Educating The Really Really Confused About “Nbc-gate”…

It looks like Nbc-Gate is hitting top volume.  I’ve witnessed some very desperate blogging propaganda trying to stop the bleeding as the nation finally wakes up to the fact that President Obama was a British citizen at the time of his birth.   Having been born with dual nationality, he was born with a recognized allegiance to a foreign nation.  I have explained previously in great detail why this disqualifies him from being President.

That report was closely followed by a historical discovery of Sharon Rondeau at the Post & Email which highlighted the legal opinion of lifelong Democrat  Breckenridge Long – an attorney and graduate of Washington University Law School who later served as Secretary of State as well as U.S. ambassador to Italy under FDR – who, in an article written for the Chicago Legal News, argued that a “native born citizen” of the US who is also born to a British father is not a “natural born citizen” by  stating – in 1916 – about Presidential candidate Charles Evans Hughes:

“It is not disputed that Mr. Hughes is not a citizen of the United States, but if he had the right to elect, he must have had something to choose between. He was native born because he was born in this country, and he is now a native born citizen because he is now a citizen of this country; but, had he been a “natural born” citizen, he would not have had the right to choose between this country and England; he would have had nothing to choose between; he would have owed his sole allegiance to the government of the United States, and there would have been no possible question, whether he found himself in the United States or in any other country in the world, that he would be called upon to show allegiance to any Government but that of the United States.”

There you have a lifelong Democrat politician – who served at a high level of Government service – making the argument that President Obama would not be eligible to the office of President despite his place of birth.  Is the former Democrat Secretary of State now to be retroactively attacked as a wing nut birther?

The historical dam is breaking as more and more evidence surfaces proving Obama is not eligible.  A reader of this blog who has asked to remain anonymous recently provided further historical proof that Obama is not eligible to be president. The New Englander And Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845) states:

The expression ‘citizen of the United States occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President.  In the latter, the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.

That is serious on point historical research.  At the time of his birth, Obama owed allegiance to Great Britain.  That is not disputed, it is admitted by the President himself.  And this admission is the true problem Obama faces should this issue ever make its way to the Supreme Court.  Obama owed allegiance to great Britain when he was born.

In a previous article, I highlighted the opinion of Alexander Porter Morse, taken from the Albany Law Review article entitled, “NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT”:

“If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, “no person, except a native-born citizen”; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth. It may be observed in passing that the current phrase “native-born citizen” is well understood; but it is pleonasm and should be discarded; and the correct designation, “native citizen” should be substituted in all constitutional and statutory enactments, in judicial decisions and in legal discussions where accuracy and precise language are  essential  to intelligent discussion.”

It’s a rather clear testimony to the fact that simply being “native born” does not mean that one is “natural born” but “accuracy and intelligent discussion” are not the goals of propaganda.  A fraudulent blogger who shall remain nameless attempted to justify Obama’s eligibility with the following lie:

“Some people have confused Alexander Morse’s paper on child born (abroad) to two US citizens being natural born citizens as a necessary requirement. Of course, anyone familiar with Alexander Morse realizes that he never held such a position…”

It appears the liar has selectively failed to read the quote above as well as Mr. Morse’s letter to the Albany Law Journal of December 18th, 1884, which states:

It seems to the undersigned, aside from judicial sanction, that the children of aliens born in the United States are, to use the language of Judge Cooley in another connection, ” subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only in a much qualified sense; ” until they take some steps submitting themselves to the jurisdiction…

This letter was written in 1884 – before Wong Kim Ark was decided.  His article quoted above, was written in 1904 – after Wong Kim Ark.   The historical evidence proves that Morse held the same point of view before and after Wong Kim Ark.  The article and the letter both indicate clearly that Morse would not have agreed Obama was eligible.

History, what a concept.

Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.

Pidgeon & Donofrio GP

Chrysler Appeal Assigned In Southern District Of New York.

The Chrysler appeal by the rejected dealers has been assigned to the Honorable Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein in the District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Steve Pidgeon has been admitted pro hac vice in the Southern District.  My application will be filed next week.   Because our original pro hac vice applications arrived before the case was issued a docket number, they were returned by the Clerk’s office.  But we have yet to receive the package which included my certificate of good standing issued by the NJ Board of Bar Examiners.  Therefore, another one must be ordered.  Regardless, Steve has now been admitted, our appellate brief has been filed and the record is complete.

Both Steve and I will appear when oral argument is scheduled.

You may read the full appellate brief here.  We are waiting on the response by Old Chrysler.

Leo C. Donofrio, Esq.

Pidgeon & Donofrio GP

Important New Twist In Natural Born Citizen History At Post & Email

[UPDATE: Nbc-gate widens with a follow up by The Post & Email, titled Lifelong Democrat Breckinridge Long: “Natural Born Citizen” means born on the soil to a father who is a citizen]

Sharon Rondeau at The Post & Email highlights a very important historical analysis of the natural born citizen clause with regard to former Presidential candidate Charles Evans Hughes:

During his presidential campaign, Hughes’s eligibility for the presidency was questioned because his father remained a British citizen. Breckenridge Long, an attorney and graduate of Washington University Law School who later served as Secretary of State as well as U.S. ambassador to Italy under FDR, examined the issue in an article entitled “Is Mr. Charles Evans Hughes a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ within the Meaning of the Constitution?”  Published in the “Chicago Legal News,” Vol. 146, p. 220 in 1916, the article begins:

Whether Mr. Hughes is, or is not, a “natural born” citizen within the meaning of the Constitution, so as to make him eligible, or ineligible, to assume the office of President, presents an interesting inquiry.

He was born in this country and is beyond question “native born.”  But is there not a distinction “native born” and “natural born”?  At the time he was born his father and mother were subjects of England.  His father had not then been naturalized.

Long goes on to make the case that Hughes was not a natural born citizen.

Furthermore, the Long article fails to mention former President Chester Arthur.  Had Long knew Chester Arthur had also been born to a British subject father, then Long would have been forced to discuss that fact.  But he didn’t.  The general public didn’t know Chester Arthur’s father was a British subject when Chester was born until December 2008 when that fact was first published right here.

And so, NBC-gate widens on a daily basis.

World Net Daily Exclusive: “Why Obama is ineligible – regardless of his birthplace”.

Today, World Net Daily published my commentary, entitled “Why Obama is ineligible – regardless of his birthplace”.  WND has been stepping up their coverage of Obama’s dual nationality at birth issue, and I’ve been more and more impressed with that coverage so I offered to write an essay summarizing the relevant Supreme Court decisions and law review articles.  They took me up on the offer and published it verbatim.  You may read the article at the link provided above.

In the WND article, I also direct readers to a brilliantly comprehensive etymological deconstruction of the term “natural born Citizen,”  “What Is A Natural Born Citizen Of The United States?” by John Greschak.  Please read that as well.  You might start with the summary before taking on the entire analysis.  I was very impressed by the author’s effort.

I must also thank Linda from Constitutionally Speaking for discovering the Alexander Porter Morse essay entitled, “NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT” (Albany Law Journal Vol. 66 (1904-1905)):

~~~~~~

On a side note, the Chrysler appeal is moving along in the Southern District of New York.  I will continue to update this blog as developments occur.

Leo Donofrio, Esq.

Re: Chrysler Dealers and Quo Warranto

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.

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.

[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:

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.