Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
6Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Response to Debtors Objection

Response to Debtors Objection

Ratings: (0)|Views: 173 |Likes:
Published by Trueace
Document filed on January 22, 2010, as Motion to have the presiding bankruptcy Judge, Arthur J. Gonzalez, reconsider his June 9th decision to reject the "old" Chrysler dealerships claim for remedy. The document illustrates clear argument to the effect of pointing out outright misrepresentation by Defendant's counsel, and so serves to fully inform the public of such blatant misrepresentation, first by Defendant counsel of testimony made under cross-examination by Fiat Executive, Alfredo Altavilla, and then by the Judge himself in the June 19th, 2009 rejection, reflecting his collusion with fraud when he instituted his fraudulent interpretation of Altavilla's testimony within Footnote 21 of that June 19th rejection document, which is also posted in this Scribd account.

The point on which all this misrepresentation turned: whether Fiat had ever requested or intended that a restructuring of Chrysler, to effect the disenfranchising of the Chrysler dealerships, occur as a condition of company transfer to Fiat. Since no testimony ever indicated such, the Judge inserted into Footnote 21 his own assertion that such testimony had been given "in the affirmative," by completely ignoring one clear unambiguous sentence in Altavilla's testimony that followed the statement, "The answer is that a restructure needs to occur." The clear sentence following that statement and which Judge Gonzalez blatantly ignored is: "Whether it occurs before or after the closing of the deal is not a material difference."

On February 5th, 2010, Judge Gonzalez issued a 25-paged "Opinion" in response to the January 22nd, 2010 Motion to Reconsider, maintaining his stance. That document I hope to upload to this Scribd account soon.
Document filed on January 22, 2010, as Motion to have the presiding bankruptcy Judge, Arthur J. Gonzalez, reconsider his June 9th decision to reject the "old" Chrysler dealerships claim for remedy. The document illustrates clear argument to the effect of pointing out outright misrepresentation by Defendant's counsel, and so serves to fully inform the public of such blatant misrepresentation, first by Defendant counsel of testimony made under cross-examination by Fiat Executive, Alfredo Altavilla, and then by the Judge himself in the June 19th, 2009 rejection, reflecting his collusion with fraud when he instituted his fraudulent interpretation of Altavilla's testimony within Footnote 21 of that June 19th rejection document, which is also posted in this Scribd account.

The point on which all this misrepresentation turned: whether Fiat had ever requested or intended that a restructuring of Chrysler, to effect the disenfranchising of the Chrysler dealerships, occur as a condition of company transfer to Fiat. Since no testimony ever indicated such, the Judge inserted into Footnote 21 his own assertion that such testimony had been given "in the affirmative," by completely ignoring one clear unambiguous sentence in Altavilla's testimony that followed the statement, "The answer is that a restructure needs to occur." The clear sentence following that statement and which Judge Gonzalez blatantly ignored is: "Whether it occurs before or after the closing of the deal is not a material difference."

On February 5th, 2010, Judge Gonzalez issued a 25-paged "Opinion" in response to the January 22nd, 2010 Motion to Reconsider, maintaining his stance. That document I hope to upload to this Scribd account soon.

More info:

Published by: Trueace on Feb 09, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/26/2010

pdf

text

original

 
 RESPONSE TO DEBTOR'S OBJECTION TO MOVANTS' MOTION TO RECONSIDER THECOURT'S JUNE 9, 2009 REJECTION ORDER AND JUNE 10 REJECTION OPINION - 1
P
IDGEON
&
 
D
ONOFRIO
GP
3002 Colby Avenue, Suite 306Everett, Washington 98201(425)605-4774
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------- xIn re : Chapter 11Chrysler LLC, et al., : Case No. 09.50002 (AJG)Debtors. ::--------------------------------------------------------------- x
RESPONSE TO DEBTOR'S OBJECTIONTO MOVANTS' MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE COURT'S JUNE 9, 2009REJECTION ORDER AND JUNE 10 REJECTION OPINION
OVERVIEW 
Our original memorandum in support of the Motion to Reconsider argued that thisCourt's Rejection Opinion contained a statement alleged to have been made by key witness -Fiat Executive, Alfredo Altavilla - which was not contained anywhere in the record. We arguedthat allowing the record to remain as it was would perpetrate a fraud upon the Court. However,we never alleged that the fraud upon the Court was intentional. Instead, we argued that leavingthe fraudulent statement in the record would exhibit a reckless disregard for the truth and werespectfully requested appropriate relief from the Rejection Order on that basis. Movantsunderstand there are thousands of pages of documents, testimony and depositions which havebeen entered into the record. An inadvertent mistake was made and the Court published a factwhich does not exist in the record. Unfortunately, the severity of that falsehood upon our clients'
 
 RESPONSE TO DEBTOR'S OBJECTION TO MOVANTS' MOTION TO RECONSIDER THECOURT'S JUNE 9, 2009 REJECTION ORDER AND JUNE 10 REJECTION OPINION - 2
P
IDGEON
&
 
D
ONOFRIO
GP
3002 Colby Avenue, Suite 306Everett, Washington 98201(425)605-4774
cause was so damaging that it was necessary for us to demonstrate how it disturbed the judicialmachinery's normal function of being an impartial arbiter of the truth. Regardless, we do notallege it was intentional.Unfortunately, Debtor's Counsel has now taken that false statement published by theCourt and run with it in their memorandum supporting the Objection. Instead of quoting to theactual record of the case, Debtor's Counsel has taken the extraordinary step of quoting to thedisputed version of testimony published by this Court in its Rejection Opinion. By this we meanto say that Debtor's Counsel is basing their Objection, not upon the witnesses
actual testimony,but upon statements which do not appear in the record.Whereas this Court's unintentional fraudulent publication was done unintentionally,Debtor's memorandum contains multiple instances of 
intentional
fraud upon this Court. Itappears that Debtor's Counsel has assumed this Court will never admit to the error and so they'vechosen to cite to this Court's Rejection Opinion instead of citing to the actual record of the case.Moreover, as we will demonstrate below, when Debtor's Counsel does actually cite to the recordfor supplementary support of the fictional statement, the citation itself is fictional and non-existent.These instances should be stricken from the record. Debtor's counselors - instead of basing their arguments upon the actual record of the case - have taken the radical step of 
 supplementing
the record on their own, and not under oath, by
 
testifying for key witnesses andmaking reference to statements which do not exist anywhere in the record. They should not beallowed to take such liberty with the judicial machinery by placing fictional statements in the
 
 RESPONSE TO DEBTOR'S OBJECTION TO MOVANTS' MOTION TO RECONSIDER THECOURT'S JUNE 9, 2009 REJECTION ORDER AND JUNE 10 REJECTION OPINION - 3
P
IDGEON
&
 
D
ONOFRIO
GP
3002 Colby Avenue, Suite 306Everett, Washington 98201(425)605-4774
record which self serve their cause in this egregious manner. There are rules to proceedingbefore this Court which require litigants to base their arguments upon the record, not Counsel'sfictional interpretation thereof. We respectfully request that all alleged testimony discussed byDebtor's Counsel which is not supported by actual citations to the record be stricken by thisCourt.Our response to Debtor's Objection - as well as our memorandum in support of ourMotion to Reconsider - are entirely grounded in the record and all statements attributed towitnesses are accomplished by the use of quotation marks and citations, a practice to whichDebtor's Counsel should also be required to adhere. Debtor's Counsel has liberally substituted itsown view of testimony for the actual testimony entered into the record. So we respectfully urgethis Court to require Debtor's Counsel to supplement their Objection memorandum- everywherethey attribute quotes to Mr. Altavilla and other key witnesses - with quotation marks andaccurate citations to the record.Finally, before we begin our legal argument in response to Debtor's Objection, we drawthe Court's attention to Page 8, Footnote 13 of Debtor's Objection memorandum. In thatFootnote, Debtor's Counsel improperly attempts to psychoanalyze the motivations of our clientsin bringing the Motion to Reconsider by making reference to news reports which discuss non-related Constitutional causes which have absolutely nothing to do with the Motion before theCourt. Footnote 13 is entirely improper as it improperly attacks Movants' Counselors by makingreference to controversial lawsuits with which Counsel have been involved concerning theeligibility of President Obama. Such distractions serve no purpose before this Court other than

Activity (6)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
prince_shoaib89 liked this
shakibdalvi liked this
shakibdalvi liked this
Kapil Israni liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->