Thursday, February 11, 2010


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. This is because when a contract is rejected in bankruptcy, Section 365(g) of the Bankruptcy Code kicks in and gives those rejected dealers an unsecured creditor claim against the estate. In this case, it was undisputed that the claim would potentially reach one billion dollars.

Old Chrysler had a fiduciary duty to its other creditors not to burden the estate with this mammoth claim. However, had a key party sought rejection of those franchise agreements as a condition precedent to the deal closing then the Court might have been justified to approve the rejections. But no party ever testified that the dealer restructuring was a necessary condition precedent to the sale closing.

The New Chrysler management were free to trim the dealership network once they took over. After they owned the company, they could deal with the dealers as they liked and as would have been governed by State franchise laws which protected the dealers. And all of the evidence shows that Fiat was happy to take on the entire dealership network in the sale. The decision to kill off 789 dealerships was entirely the brain collapse of Old Chrysler’s management. Therefore, the issue to be decided by the Court was whether this decision was made in sound business judgment.

The entire dealer rejection issue then turned on whether the rejections were a condition precedent to the sale closing. If it was not a material issue to Fiat, and if Fiat’s executive testified that they were happy to trim the dealership network after the sale closed, then Old Chrysler should not have been allowed to reject the dealer contracts. The Bankruptcy Court – under Section 365(a) of the Bankruptcy Code – must approve the rejections for them to become effective.

Here is the exact testimony by Alfredo Altavilla of Fiat which the case turned on:

Q. If this transaction closes without an absolute requirement of a particular number of dealers that are being terminated, would Chrysler still go through with this deal — I mean, rather, would Fiat still go through with this deal?
A. The answer is that a restructure needs to occur. Whether it occurs before or after the closing of the deal is not a material difference.
(See May 27, 2009 Hearing Transcript at 352.)

It’s a very straightforward answer. Altavilla clearly testified that whether the dealer restructuring took place after the sale closed made no material difference to Fiat. Clearly, this man and his foreign company were not going to walk away from a deal where 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.

But Judge Gonzalez decided he was going to usher in a new era of judicial ventriloquism by taking on a new role for his soiled robe. Gonzalez understood that the testimony needed for him to approve the rejection of 789 dealers (and loss of some 40,000 jobs) was nowhere to be found in the record of the case. So Judge Gonzalez – through the use of creative footnoting – made up his own testimony and stuffed it into the mouth of Altavilla alla Edger Bergen and his dummy Charlie McCarthy. Seriously folks – the metaphor is so very appropriate.

Please compare and contrast Alatvilla’s testimony with Judge Gonzalez at Footnote 21 of the Gonzalez Rejection Opinion:

Q. If this transaction closes without an absolute requirement of a particular number of dealers that are being terminated, would Chrysler still go through with this deal — I mean, rather, would Fiat still go through with this deal?
A. The answer is that a restructure needs to occur. Whether it occurs before or after the closing of the deal is not a material difference.

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.”

Altavilla never responded to any such question in the affirmative. Never, damn it. This is a fraud on the Court, on the nation and on truth. Any grammar school child can easily grasp that the witness clearly indicated restructuring was not a material difference to Fiat. And if it was not a material difference to Fiat, 789 dealers and 40,000 jobs could have been saved while your Government gifted this American auto institution to a foreign national conglomerate with your own taxes. That’s it in a nutshell, people.

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.

Leo Donofrio and Steve Pidgeon represent 76 former Chrysler dealers.
by Leo Donofrio on his Blog: on 05 February 10



He is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.

This is a fact REGARDLESS of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).

He is not eligible
because he was not born of
as required by the Constitution.

Barack Hussein Obama Jr. is not eligible to be President of the United States because – according to public admissions made by him – his “birth status was governed” by the United Kingdom. Obama further admits he was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at birth.
Since Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was, if born in the state of Hawaii, a dual citizen, who – according to his own State Department – owed allegiance to the Queen of England and United Kingdom at the time of his birth – he cannot therefore be a “natural born” citizen of the US according to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.
His father, who did not live in the United States for more than a couple of years, was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of Barack’s birth and afterwards, AND further, as Barack himself admitted on his website during the 2008 campaign, Barack was therefore born SUBJECT TO THE GOVERNANCE OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Here is a direct quote from Obama's "Fight the Smears/Fact Check" 2008 website:

‘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…’ “

The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources. BUT if you are really convinced of the value of the COLB (certificate of live birth) that Obama posted on his website, see this:

Also, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all through his mother if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.

Check it out:
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:

His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can be
corrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,
which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid.


“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”

- Leo Rugiens

No comments:

Post a Comment