RULING, DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, ATTEMPTS TO STRAIN GNATS AND SWALLOW CAMELS
by John Charlton
(Feb. 9, 2009) — Last Friday, Arthur J. Gonzalez, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Federal Court, Southern District of New York, issued his judgment denying the Motion for Reconsideration filed by attorneys Leo Donofrio and Stephen Pidgeon in the case RE: in Chrysler LLC et al., on behalf of 76 former Chrysler dealerships whose owners lost their livelihoods when the Bankruptcy Court in New York canceled their dealership contracts with Chrysler as part of the forced sale to FIAT.
Just days before the ruling, on Feb. 1, 2010, Judge Gonzalez received a promotion from Obama to the position of Chief Justice of the Bankruptcy court in his district, according to the official website of the same: raising questions of whether there has been a quid pro quo exchange in return for upholding his own fraud, in support of Obama’s political agenda to destroy Chrysler and reorganize it to the advantage of the labor unions.
The Post & Email previously covered this case on Jan 24, 2010 when it featured a summary of Donofrio & Pidgeon’s defense of their Motion against the ludicrous circumlocutions of the counsels for Old Car Corp., represented by attorneys Corinne Ball, Veerle Roovers, David G. Heiman, and Jeffrey B. Ellman, of the law firm Jones Day.
In his Opinion denying the Motion, Judge Gonzalez defended his erroneous interpretation of FIAT Executive Altavilla, with a host of interpretations on the proper procedures of a timely filing and an outright denial of his misinterpretation. His ruling aslo contained a gross misrepresentation of what was alleged in the Motion for Consideration. You can read the entire Opinion of the Court through this link.
The case involves the disputed bankruptcy proceedings of Chrysler automotive corporation, known formally as Chrysler LLC. The many cases regarding the dissolution and sale of Chrysler are being heard before the Honorable Arthur J. Gonzalez. Following the sale of Chrysler LLC to Fiat, the new corporation took the name “Chrysler Group LLC,” and the former is now known as “Old Carco LLC,” or “Old Chrysler.” The docket of the entire case can be viewed here.
The dealers are seeking to recover monetary compensation for the loss of their franchises and contractual rights with Chrysler. The central argument of the dealerships is that the FIAT executive, Mr. Alfredo Altavilla, never said that the nullification of their contracts was required for the forced sale; whereas Judge Gonzalez, in his decision, quoted Altavilla as saying such.
Gonzalez’s order makes it very clear that he believes he has the right to mischaracterize witness testimony to give a financial advantage to one party in a suit, and that such unethical conduct is not “fraud on the court.”
The judge evidently is incapable of understanding that he has an ethical duty to receive testimony as is, and not interpret it in a contrary sense or light — as an attorney in a legal dispute might, when filing his own papers. In fact, this vice of the Judge is evident in the current ruling, where he says:
Further, the Movants had ample time to identify the points that they raise upon issuance of the Opinion. While the Movants argue that the Court overlooked certain facts and case law, they then cite to the Court’s reference to the same facts and cases in the Court’s Opinion. In other words, for the basis of what they allege the Court overlooked, the Movants cite to the Opinion itself. In substance, the Movants’ argument is simply that they disagree with the Court’s application of the relevant facts and case law to the matter at issue. Thus, the Reconsideration Motion is untimely because the asserted basis upon which the motion was filed was available to the Movants upon issuance of the Rejection Order and the Opinion (p. 20 of the PDF file).
No, your honor, the substance of the Movants’ argument is that you made a judgment alleging the existence of testimony that was never given. In other words, there was no relevant fact in evidence to support your ruling!
Attorney Donofrio issued the following statement, criticizing Gonzalez’s ruling:
In our original Motion memorandum we gave Judge Gonzalez the benefit of the doubt and refrained from calling this fraud intentional – opting instead to allege only that the Court’s judicial ventriloquism exhibited a reckless disregard for the truth. But on Friday, Feb. 5, 2010, Judge Gonzalez denied our Motion by issuing a 25-page Opinion (docket no. 6341 – public docket appears down today) which condoned intentional fraud on the part of Chrysler’s attorneys – Jones Day – who repeated multiple falsehoods in their Response Brief which we thoroughly dismantled in our Reply.
Furthermore, in not correcting the error of Footnote 21, Judge Gonzalez is now also guilty of intentional fraud as well. He’s chosen to defend Footnote 21 and in doing so he is simply lying to the American People which is obvious to any impartial observer of the facts. Footnote 21 is simply a lie by a partial Judge. It’s fraud, plain and simple.
The Law Office of Pidgeon & Donofrio (site will soon be updated to include Leo Donofrio’s info) will be appealing to the Southern District of New York and we will be making multiple complaints to the New York Bar asking for sanctions against Jones Day and Judge Gonzalez.
Our lead client, James Anderer, has been on Fox Business News about 40 times now and we are hoping to increase public awareness through the media of this fraud. The Chrysler story is only now truly being understood for the fraud against the American way that it is. Please stand with us, as this battle is sure to intensify. The disease we are fighting is at the core of the intended destruction of this nation’s natural sovereignty.
Understand that this battle is as important a fight as this nation will ever see. It will define whether we are going to allow the judicial branch to openly lie to our faces. If no court will overturn Gonzalez here, it’s the end of truth, justice and the American way forever. This judicial fraud will become the template for a new tomorrow where your children will have no protection of law.