Friday, April 23, 2010
Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely said, "I think many in the military – and many out of the military – question the natural-birth status of Barack Obama"
Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely said, "I think many in the military – and many out of the military – question the natural-birth status of Barack Obama. … I'm not convinced that he is [a natural-born citizen]."
(Maj Gen Valley is correct. Many millions question the natural born birth status of obama. Millions of US citizens are also not convinced obama is a natural born citizen. There is also a growing number of military people who are on the verge of also following in the footsteps of Lt. Col. Terry Lakin. The dam is about to bust and obama must produce evidence he is a natural born US citizen. I know obama is not a natural born citizen because he was born to one parent who was a Kenyan citizen when obama was born. Because of this obama was a dual citizen at birth and is not a natural born citizen. A natural born citizen is a US citizen who at birth had parents who were both US citizens. The US Constitution requires only the president to be a natural born citizen. Obama is a FRAUD and imposter.) Story Reports
Obama admits he was a dual citizen at birth
A retired Army general and national security policy expert says Lt. Col. Terry Lakin has "a valid point" and should use his "right to discovery" to force the Obama administration to produce proof of his natural-born citizenship status.
Vallely, CEO of Stand Up America U.S., graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and was commissioned in the Army in 1961, serving 32 years.
He said he inspected his own long-form birth certificate, and it contains a doctor's name, date and location of birth.
"But he's never been able to produce that," he said of Obama. "His unwillingness to do it also concerns me. I think Lt. Col. Lakin has a valid point. … He refuses to produce a birth certificate that states the witnessing of the birth, the date and who is the doctor. We don't know why he won't come out with that."
the Army has filed two charges against Lakin, citing alleged violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice Articles 87 and 92.
Lakin publicly asked the president to document his eligibility and expressed a willingness to deploy with the 32nd Cavalry Regiment to Afghanistan, without response from the White House.
The filing of charges may, however, be part of the still-unrevealed strategy Lakin and his legal counselors are pursuing.
Asked whether Lakin will have a "right of discovery" during a court-martial – meaning Lakin's legal team could compel the administration to produce proof of eligibility during the course of the government's prosecution – Vallely replied, "Absolutely. Sure, he has a right to discovery. There's no doubt about that. Producing a birth certificate that has all the details on it, it seems to me, is very important."
Vallely added, "You can call witnesses. I would call the state government of Hawaii. I would require [proof of] which hospital he was born in. I'd want verification from the doctor or the nurse or whomever witnessed it that, in fact, it did happen in Hawaii. That has not been done to date. These are questions that have not been answered, and that's what concerns many people."
Vallely said America hasn't seen military officers stepping forward in droves to challenge Obama's eligibility because they know doing so might endanger their careers.
"The officer corps does not want to put itself in any kind of jeopardy because of their position and because of the fact that they don't want to go the political route," he said. "I don't think you're going to get your senior officers or senior political appointees to put themselves on the spot because they're probably afraid that they'll lose their position or promotion, so they'll take no position on it. But if somebody in the lower ranks stands up, they're going to take them on and court-martial them, or attempt to court-martial them. That's the situation."
Vallely expressed deep concern about what he believes is a national drift away from basic constitutional principles.
"That disturbs me more than anything, and that's why we've got to stand up, because we're getting in more trouble," he said. "It's like we're watching Washington burn as Nero watched Rome. What are we doing about it?"
He added, "Only the people can solve this problem. That's why the people must stand up and do what's right for America because we can't go this deviant route anymore. If not, we're lost as a country."
Besides Obama's actual birth documentation, the still-concealed documentation for him includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.
The "certification of live birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.
Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a "natural born citizen," no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama's claim to a Hawaiian birth.
Obama admits he was a british citizen at birth
“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Arizona House votes to check candidates' citizenship.
PHOENIX (AP) - The Arizona House on Monday voted for a provision that would require President Barack Obama to show his birth certificate if he hopes to be on the state's ballot when he runs for re-election.
The House voted 31-22 to add the provision to a separate bill. The measure still faces a formal vote.
It would require U.S. presidential candidates who want to appear on the ballot in Arizona to submit documents proving they meet the constitutional requirements to be president.
Tancredo urges Tea Partiers to send Obama back to Kenya
By Eric Zimmermann - 04/19/10 02:11 PM ET
Former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) urged Tea Partiers this weekend to help "send [Obama] back" to Kenya.
Speaking at a rally in Greenville, S.C., on Saturday, Tancredo cited remarks Michelle Obama made earlier this month in which she called Kenya was the president's "home country."
"If his wife says Kenya is his homeland, why don't we just send him back?" Tancredo said, according to the Greenville News.
I agree. Obama should go back to his "home country" as his wife says. Kenya claims him as a son of their soil. (Story Reports)
Kenyan Officals Affirm obama son of this soil
Kenyan officials affirm: Obama ’son of this soil’
The evidence that the present president was indeed born outside of the US keeps mounting, which liberals have and will refuse to believe no matter what happens heretofore (they say the exact same thing about Obama foes demanding proof) but as long as the evidence continues to be amassed by the work of others , like WorldNetDaily’s Joesph Farah who’s gambling his entire career and future credibility on proving the claims are truth, I’ll continue to evaluate it and post it if I deem it worthy. Smile
And frankly the Kenyan Government are no birther’s, who last time I checked don’t bow in deference to the American Tea Party movement and have some actual skin in the game as well, their reputations and credibility amongst their own people. People by the way who unequivocally happen to believe Obama to be ” a native son of their Kenyan Soil”. I didn’t say that quote, they did, and have been now for a couple years now, just like us.
So what’s their motive other wanting to cash in on the fact that the US president was born on their soil along with pride?
They’re as adamant as any birther’s out here on the subject! Which frankly in my opinion shows us all “true liberal racism” on their parts around the world, since they summarily dismiss the Kenyan officials’ claims just as they do “birther’s” who they (liberals) refer to as racists for this belief. So one can extrapolate from that assumption that anyone agreeing with said “birther’s” would be racist themselves. They are the ones if anyone who would and should know the truth, and I happen to believe along with tens of millions, not thousands, that this is the truth.
So here now is the third account from a Kenyan official claiming Obama’s birth, and that does not include Obama’s Kenyan Grandmother ,who adamantly claims and has since the election, that she actually witnessed little Barry’s birth with her own Kenyan born eyes
On the floor of the Kenyan National Assembly the day after Barack Obama was elected U.S. president, members of the African country's parliament celebrated “a Kenyan ruling the USA,” calling Obama “a son of the soil of this country.”
As WND reported, Kenyan MP James Orengo asked the nation's parliament only last month, “How could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the president of America?”
Nominated MP Millie Odhiambo requested of the chair, “The president-elect, Mr. Obama, is a son of the soil of this country. Every other country in this continent is celebrating the Obama win. It is only proper and fitting that the country which he originates from should show the same excitement, pomp and color. I, therefore, seek leave of the House that we adjourn to discuss the issue.”
Eventually, the chair was compelled to issue an official statement of congratulations in the effort to move the session forward. Deputy Speaker Maalim Farah delivered the statement, in which he echoed Odhiambo's “son of the soil” language:
“Honorable members, as you may be aware, the people of the United States of America have just had a historic election where the son of this soil, Barrack Hussein Obama, has been elected the 44th president of the United States of America and the first African-American president in the history of that country,” said Farah, “please join me in registering and sending this House's congratulations to the President-elect Obama for overcoming great odds to emerge victorious.”
Obama is the son of kenyan soil and he has not denied kenyan officials.
Obama is son of kenyan soil
Monday, April 19, 2010
More Expansions Of Federal Power That Is Totalitarian.
Recognize the face? Yes they do look much alike. Both wanted to destroy the private sector so the "state" could take complete control. Hitler stripped the firearms from the people before declaring himself dictator. Obama wants to strip firearms from Americans. He knows he can never "rule" nor can any dictator when the people have firearms to prevent total takeover by a totalitarian regime.
The House financial regulation bill provides for no judicial review and does not require any objective evidence of imminent failure to trigger the takeover provisions.
Essentially, this bill permits the government to launch an unfriendly takeover of any financial institution it wishes without risk or other counter-measures possible.
This is socialism desguised as a fix for a straw man problem the federal government created.
The carter administration and clinton administration made the manufactured financial crisis expand while doing nothing to control or regulate the growing financial disaster. It was encouraged and expanded.
The private sector took advantage of the governments lack of regulation and expanded the financial disaster.
The government required banks to make bad loans to people who could not afford to get the loans. The banks resold the bad loans as derivatives and other "financial" instruments.
Fanniemae and freddiemac expanded and acted like a speculation clearing house.
The US government created the manufactured crisis. The US government now wants to fix the strawman manufactured financial crisis.
This is Totalitarian control of the private sector.
Obama is a communist that will destroy the US economy by killing off large sectors at a time through government takeovers.
Obama is a traitor and a FRAUD. As long as Americans "cling to their guns" obama and others like him must stay at arms length.
"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun," Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser.
Now that obama is "president" he will bring a gun to the fight.
Remember obama wants your firearms and will bring a gun to take your firearms away if he thinks he can get away with it.
Obama considers Americans as people who cling to their guns and will defend themselves with a knife. This is what he said.
I say cling to your knife and guns and remember to bring your guns to the fight. Obama has warned you he will bring a gun to the fight. He was talking about the general election. If obama wanted to bring a gun to defeat republicans in the general election don't you think he would bring a gun to defeat any other oppostion as president? Obama is not bluffing. Americans are not bluffing. Obama is a coward and a strawman. He can be defeated just as hitler was.
Published on TheHill.com on April 13, 2010
If the financial regulation bill that passed the House last year becomes law, President Obama and his Treasury Secretary will acquire the right to take over any financial institution they wish to, provided that, in their sole opinion, it is both “too big to fail” and on the brink of insolvency. The House bill provides for no judicial review and does not require any objective evidence of imminent failure to trigger the takeover provisions.
Once the government takes over such a company, it will acquire the right to replace the entire board of directors, fire the management of the company, wipe out stockholder equity and even sell off divisions of the company.
Essentially, this bill permits the government to launch an unfriendly takeover of any financial institution it wishes without risk and with no poison pill or other counter-measures possible.
This legislation, essentially, confers on the federal government police powers that, under our system, are the exclusive preserve of state and local government. The blank check the bill gives the feds to take over any financial institution is really more of an exercise of eminent domain than it is an extension of traditional federal regulatory power.
This grant of power to the executive branch is unprecedented and potentially totalitarian. Consider:
• Will Obama, or any future president, target companies that are particularly vocal in their opposition to his policies or generous in funding his political opponents? Will the fact that Obama would have this power force companies, investors, CEOs and managers to self-censor their opinions and political involvement because they fear the wrath of a vengeful president?
• Will this grant of authority force companies to hesitate before they grow and expand? Will it function the same way the antitrust powers of the Justice Department do in making companies re-examine mergers and acquisitions with a view toward what Justice will think of their resulting market share? In antitrust situations, where a specific action brings companies under scrutiny — like a merger — such concern is not unreasonable. But when the simple act of making money, showing a profit and expanding in size puts a company in federal crosshairs, does this not have the potential to attenuate the capitalist focus on growth?
• In an environment where the feds are looking over the shoulder of every financial institution to see if they should take it over and shut it down, will this not force financial companies to follow the most risk-averse lending policies possible? Doesn’t this mean that it only makes sense to buy government paper, since consumer loans, mortgages and business lending could be considered risky and lead to a federal takeover? Isn’t this policy precisely the opposite of what we need to catalyze economic growth?
• In a political world where contributions from financial institutions are sought and widely given, doesn’t this power give the president and his party unlimited fundraising ability, simply by baring its teeth and showing the power it has to take anybody over and fire anybody? Given the fact that Goldman-Sachs was the second-largest donor to Obama’s campaign, giving $954,795, doesn’t this new power raise the specter that the federal government could take over financial institutions so as to make the competition lighter for its donors? Already, there is considerable evidence (cited in our new book, 2010: Take Back America — A Battle Plan) that Goldman profited handsomely from the decision of its former CEO — Bush’s Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson — to allow Lehman Brothers to fail. Now that the Treasury secretary will have the takeover power, might it not be used as irresponsibly and with as many bad consequences as Paulson used his power in the Lehman crisis?
While the focus on the regulatory bill has been on the consumer protection provisions, which I tend to support, there has been far less scrutiny on these horrific expansions of federal power.
Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez could only dream of this power.http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2010/04/14/obamas-terrible-powers/
Sunday, April 18, 2010
(Clinton is concerned about me and my opposition to the obama regime. If you refer to a government or system of running a country as a regime, you are critical of it because you think it is not democratic and uses unacceptable methods. Clinton is mixing American opposition to obama with the Oklahoma City bombing. Bill clinton is worried "anti-government" rhetoric, which is free speech, will lead to violence just because Americans are opposing what obama and the democrates are doing. This is like a "political race card " being played. The "race card" is any and all oppostion to obama. I'm concerned about bill clinton using the state run media to create the "straw man" of violence because of anti-government rhetoric. I and worried that his anti-American rhetoric will lead to a government excuse for violence! ) Story Reports
Government defined terrorists, Clinton said, “can communicate with each other much faster and much better than they did before. The main thing that bothered us since the time of Oklahoma City was that already, there was enough use of the Internet that if you knew how to find a Web site — and not everybody even had a computer back then, but if you knew how to find it, you could learn, for example, how to make a bomb” like the one used to bring down the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, killing 168 people.
Beyond the obvious propaganda designed to link the Tea Party movement to domestic terrorism — a sign that the government is indeed desperate to discredit growing opposition — Bill Clinton’s remarks reveal just how alarmed the establishment is over the opposition’s use of the internet as an organizational and educational tool. Traditional corporate media propaganda avenues are now avoided by growing numbers of Americans who no longer trust the government and the lies it disseminates via the corporate media.
Clinton also appeared on ABC where he repeated his assertion that opposition to the government is domestic terrorism (he has yet to use that specific term, however). Once again, he brought up the specter of Oklahoma City. “And we shouldn’t demonize the government or its public employees or its elected officials. We can disagree with them,” Clinton told Jack Tapper. “We ought to remember after Oklahoma City, we learned something about the difference in disagreement and demonization.”He launched the effort to blur the lines between legitimate anti-government opposition and the documented false flag attack in Oklahoma on Friday during a speech at the Center for American Progress Action Fund in California.
Monday is the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing and the premeditated government massacre that slaughtered 76 people in Waco, more than 20 of them children. Clinton was president at the time and is directly responsible along with his attorney general Janet Reno for the massacre in Texas two years before the Oklahoma City bombing.
“I’m glad they’re fighting over health care and everything else. Let them have at it. But I think that all you have to do is read the paper every day to see how many people there are who are deeply, deeply troubled,” he said. “What we learned from Oklahoma City is not that we should gag each other or that we should reduce our passion for the positions we hold — but that the words we use really do matter, because there’s this vast echo chamber, and they go across space and they fall on the serious and the delirious alike. They fall on the connected and the unhinged alike.”
It certainly looks like the government is preparing another false flag attack to demonize the patriot movement and the real Tea Party movement (the Republican hijacked Tea Party is not a threat and will follow orders this November and vote for establishment candidates).
It is no mistake Bill Clinton’s demonization campaign is timed to coincide with the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing. Is it a prelude to yet another false flag attack to be blamed by the government and its Mockingbird corporate media on those of us opposed to an authoritarian federal government?
A government orchestrated terror event somewhere within the United States exploited as an excuse to crack down on the opposition is the government’s only viable option at this point.
Millions of Americans are now awake and mobilized in opposition to the government. Increased and growing activism now threatens the establishment. The Tea Party movement is only the most obvious manifestation of an effort to take back control of the government from the elite and their corporate minions.
Faced with such historically significant opposition, the establishment has two options – capitulate or attack the movement indirectly through false flag terrorism. Attacking the movement directly would create even more support for the opposition and further legitimize their argument that the federal government is tyrannical.
The Chrysler appeal by the rejected dealers has been assigned to the Honorable Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein in the District Court
Leo Donofrio and Steve Pidgeon will appear when oral argument is scheduled.
Leo Donofrio has posted the full appellate brief here. Case No. CV 2493 Rejected Dealers Brief On Appeal, United States District Court Southern District Of New York
I have read this brief and it is obvious judge Gonzales has committed fraud on the court. It is also obvious that the debtor's counsel has committed fraud on the court. I urge you to read this brief also and become aware of the "judicial ventriloquism".
Obama is also a ventriloquist, and excels at "political ventriloquism" . Obama makes up a "straw man" and then makes it look as if his voice is coming from another person, the "straw man". The straw man obama has subverted the US Constitution by not being a natural born citizen as the Constitution requires for the presidency of the US. Obama is a ventriloquist who speaks through the staw man he has created, which is himself.
Obama the straw man:
“Some say I acted unfairly by forcing auto company bondholders to accept equity stakes of just 9% while granting 20% to the unions whose overly generous wage and benefits programs helped drive the companies to bankruptcy,” said Obama. “But I think the American people will understand the choice I made was the only one consitent with our values, considering the alternative was making auto company stakeholders eat syringes.”
In a largely one-sided exchange of ideas, the straw man reiterated his usual arguments, saying “We should just to do nothing,” “We can address these issues with half-steps and piecemeal measures,” and “While our opponent chooses unity and hope, we support road rage and peach phobias."
(Just think about how STUPID a quote this is.) Story Reports
Obama took the offensive to thunderous applause, stating “I reject the philosophy that says every problem can be solved if only the government flooded houses with molasses.”
(This is another straw man quote that supposes people want their houses "flooded with molasses.") Story Reports
Finally, the president offered an emphatic retort to end the debate. “No longer,” he said, “will we accept the notion that hate and fear can fulfill all our nation’s energy needs.”
The straw man obama speaks through himself and tells us "hate and fear" are what some people think will fulfill all our nations energy needs." Remember the straw man in the wizard of oz? He feared fire more than anything. Obama's straw man fears that he will become known as the man behind the straw man and be exposed as the total FRAUD he is. (Story Reports)
From Jun 9,2009, when the court issued its rejection Order, the rejected dealers had exactly 10 days to file a notice of appeal.
Judge Gonzalez failed to issue his Rejection Opinion until June 19,2009, exactly 10 days after the Rejection Order was issued.
Therefore, the original time to appeal had basically expired before any grounds for appeal could be properly identified in the Rejection Opinion.
Leo Donofrio calls it "judicial ventriloquism".
Footnote 21 contains two false statements. A false assertion was made in footnote 21. There was only one question and one answer.
Reviewing Footnote 21 again:
REJECTED DEALERS’ BRIEF ON APPEAL 7
"Altavilla also responded affirmatively to a question regarding whether a dealership network needed to be restructured for the Fiat Transaction to close, stating that a “restructuring needs to occur.”
The first false statement is that Altavilla “responded affirmatively” to a question regarding whether the dealership network needed to be restructured for the sale to close. Altavilla’s answer was actually a negative response in that it made no “material difference” to Fiat when dealer restructuring took place. There is no possible way Altavilla’s response could be taken as an affirmative answer to the question presented. That's a linguistic impossibility.
Second, the answer as parsed by Judge Gonzalez – “restructuring needs to occur” - is not time sensitive. The parsed response doesn't indicate whether “restructuring needs to occur” before or after the sale closes. The answer as parsed is nonresponsive and certainly misleading. And there is no justification for the Court having spliced an unintended response into the record. An affirmative answer would have been, “Restructuring needs to occur for the sale to close”. That would have been an affirmative response. But “restructure needs to occur” on its own is actually non-responsive since it doesn't say whether restructuring had to occur before the sale closed.
Meanwhile, the very next sentence - "Whether it occurs before or after the closing of the deal is not a material difference” explains perfectly that the witness did give a time sensitive answer - not in the affirmative - but in the negative. The plain meaning of Altavilla’s complete response is that restructuring did not need to occur for the sale to close. There is no lawful justification for allowing the fraudulent Footnote 21 to stand. Tellingly, Judge Gonzalez didn't even try to defend the merits of Footnote 21 in his Opinion on Reconsideration.
Movants initially claimed that Judge Gonzalez’s misstatement in Footnote 21 was so egregious as to exhibit a reckless disregard for the truth, regardless of intent.
Movants relied upon Workman v. Bell, 245 F.3d 849 (6th Cir. 2001) in support of the “reckless disregard for the truth” standard:
“The elements of a 'fraud upon the court' are numerous. Fraud on the court is conduct: 1) on the part of an officer of the court; 2) that is directed to the judicial machinery itself; 3) that is intentionally false, willfully blind to the truth, or is in reckless disregard for the truth; 4) that is a positive averment or a concealment when one is under a duty to disclose; 5) that deceives the court.”
Workman v. Bell at 852.
The situation was further compounded and confused by Footnote 18 in the same June 19, 2009 Rejection Opinion which discussed the very same question and answer cited by Gonzalez in Footnote 21. Where Footnote 18 correctly states Altavilla's testimony, Footnote 21 is utterly false thereby making the two footnotes schizophrenic:
Footnote 18 “Altavilla testified that it did not make a material difference whether the restructuring of the dealership network occurred before or after the closing of the Fiat Transaction...”
Footnote 21 “...Altavilla also responded affirmatively to a question regarding whether a dealership network needed to be restructured for the Fiat Transaction to close, stating that a "restructuring needs to occur."
Anyone not familiar with the May 29th Hearing Transcript would be left with the impression that Footnotes 18 and 21 refer to separate questions and answers, when in reality, all of this stems from the same question and answer. Had the Court been confronted with two separate answers by the same witness, Judge Gonzalez might have weighed both answers and chosen between them the answer he gave more weight to. But that was not the case. There was only one question and one answer. Therefore, Footnotes 18 and 21 stand in stark indefensible contrast to each other since Footnote 18 is true and Footnote 21 is false. As such, by the creation of the false assertion in Footnote 21, the Court has changed the testimony of this key witness.
A Judge certainly does not have the power to change testimony of a witness and then rely upon the changed testimony in his Order and Opinion. Judge Gonzalez’s refusal to acknowledge the error when it was so clearly laid out for him in Movants’ Memo, and to thereafter stand by it, elevates Judge Gonzalez’s conduct from reckless to intentional.
Judge Gonzalez changed the meaning of Altavilla's testimony and then relied upon his own revision to support the Rejection Order. The court has therefore been defrauded and it is entirely irrelevant that the time for direct appeal has expired.
Additionally, Judge Gonzalez does not disclose that his distortion of Altavilla’s testimony is the fraud on the court that ultimately influenced his Rejection Order.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever in the record of the case indicating that Fiat, or any other faction of New Chrysler (including the US Government, the Canadian Government or the United Auto Workers) ever requested that the Movants' contracts be rejected by the Debtor. Old Chrysler Chairman and CEO Robert Nardelli was very candid about this (see May 28, 2009 Hearing Transcript at 390):
Q. Did the UAW ask for this dealer reduction?
Q. Did the American government ask for this dealer reduction?
Q. Did the Canadian government ask for this dealer reduction?
Q. Did Fiat ask for this dealer reduction?
A. No, I don't recall -- again, that -- I don't know if that was an item that was expressly indicated in the agreement or not.
Objection Memo at par. 44, pgs. 25-26):
"Further, the Dealer Rejection Opinion disproves the Movants' argument on the merits. The Court’s statements therein [emphasis added] show that the Court did not conceal, mischaracterize or alter Mr. Altavilla's testimony and was fully aware of his statement that Fiat did not perceive a material difference in whether the dealership rejections occurred before or after the closing of the Fiat Transactions, as long as the network restructuring did, in fact, occur as part of the sale transaction."
This statement is fraudulent. Debtor's Counsel has mysteriously supplemented the record by alleging that Mr. Altavilla's testimony states dealer restructuring needed to occur “as part of the sale transaction”. But nowhere does Altavilla say anything of the sort. This new assertion is also an intentional fraud upon this Court. Debtor's Counsel makes this claim before the court, when no such testimony exists anywhere in the record. It's a blatant lie.
In support of this lie, Debtor's Counsel states, "See Dealer Rejection Opinion at 195-97 (containing several references to Altavilla's testimony)." But when you visit the Rejection Opinion at 195-197 (referring to In re Old Carco, LLC, 406 B.R. 180 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009), there is no such quote from Altavilla. Had Altavilla actually made such a statement, Debtor’s Counsel would surely cite to a page in the hearing transcript where such testimony could be found. But there is no such testimony. Debtor instead relies upon the Court’s Opinion - the very thing being challenged in the first place. This exhibits the judicial machinery breaking down into chaos as the Court's Opinion should not serve as the citation to the witness's testimony. If the witness made the statement alleged by Debtor's Counsel, then Counsel is required to cite to the transcript and quote the witness therefrom. But that would be impossible since no such testimony exists.
Counsel’s fabrication is repeated again (on pg. 26 at par. 45 of Debtor’s Objection Brief) by their insertion of words into Mr. Altavilla’s mouth which he did not utter on the record:
“Mr. Altavilla’s snippet of testimony on which Movants rely merely addressed the issue of timing — i.e., did the contract designations have to take place before or after closing. Mr. Altavilla testified that either was fine, as long as the restructuring was accomplished as part of the sale transaction.”
Altavilla said no such thing. There is absolutely no support for this false assertion. It's another intentional fraud upon the Court since Debtor’s Counsel knows very well there is no testimony by Mr. Altavilla which states that dealer restructuring had to be “accomplished as part of the sale transaction.”
Debtor's Counsel doesn't quote to any such testimony because no such testimony exists. This behavior is the very definition of fraud on the court.
Bankruptcy courts, as courts of equity, cannot tolerate the changing of witness testimony by a judge or a litigant.