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

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.

Leo Donofrio and Steve Pidgeon will appear when oral argument is scheduled.

http://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/rejected-dealers-brief-on-appeal-pdf.pdf

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?
A. No.
Q. Did the American government ask for this dealer reduction?
A. No.
Q. Did the Canadian government ask for this dealer reduction?
A. No.
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.

http://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/rejected-dealers-brief-on-appeal-pdf.pdf

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/chrysler-appeal-assigned-in-southern-district-of-new-york/