Re: Chrysler Dealers and Quo Warranto

Chrysler dealers and quo warranto

Leo Donofrio quotes:

“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.”

“Where the witness clearly answered, “No”, the Judge has changed the answer to “Yes”.”

It will be interesting to see if the appellate court oveturns the ventriloquism of judge gonzo.

It is very obvious the former chrysler dealers should have not been burned. Dealer restructuring as a condition precedent to the deal closing was never needed nor requested.

“The record of the case clearly shows that Old Chrysler was the only party directly responsible for ripping the livelihood from our clients.”

Unconstitutional use of TARP funds by the government is also obvious.

“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.”

“The entire case against the rejected Chrysler dealers revolved on one simple answer given by Fiat Executive, Alfredo Altavilla, when he was cross-examined by Dealer Counsel during the hearing to decide the fate of Chrysler. Every other witness testified that neither the US Government nor Fiat requested that Old Chrysler reject the 789 Dealer franchise contracts.”

“Without a request by the lender (the US Government) or the purchaser (Fiat), there was no sound business judgment in Old Chrysler killing off 789 franchises.”

“The American people paid the ENTIRE 20 plus billion dollar purchase costs just to hand it over to Fiat for free.”

“Zippo nada zilch was paid by Fiat who were therefore in no position to demand 40,000 American jobs be lost and 789 dealerships be gutted. Fiat didn’t make that insane demand and the testimony above clearly shows this to be true.”

(Obama paid fiat 20 plus billion dollars to buy chrysler. Obama through his czar required 40,000 American jobs be lost and 789 dealerships be gutted. Judge gonzo is covering for obama. Obama is a communist who is destroying the US economy on purpose. This is a prime example. Obama kills 40,000 jobs, borrowers 20 billion and gives it away to fiat.)

Now thats what I call “spreading the wealth around”!

I hope Leo and Steve will soon file a quo warranto to expose the fraud obama. Story Reports

Obama Records
.........................................................................................
Leo Donofrio

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