THE RAPE OF DISABLED VETERAN BILLY KIDWELL BY GENERAL MOTORS AND THEIR SLEAZY ATTORNEYS

History of Engine Defect and Fraud

General Motors knew it had designed, and produced, tens of thousands of defective engines with a piston slap problem.

Instead of recalling the engines, and repairing them, at a great cost, General Motors, more concerned about profit then honest dealing, engaged in fraudulent advertising, specifically claiming that their vehicles were great, and dependable, to knowingly deceive the public, and to unload all those junk engines, and vehicles, on the public.

General Motors knew the piston slap problem caused pre-mature wear and could even cause engine failure.

At first when thousands of customers started complaining about the problems with the engines, and filing hundreds of lawsuits, General Motors started quietly returning the victims money, and quietly settling the lawsuits.

Meanwhile, General Motors started designing a new piston but didn’t complete the replacement piston project, because of the cost.

Instead General Motors found it more cost effective to swindle Florida Consumers, and set a “policy” of continuing to deceive consumers with advertising fraudulently claiming their vehicles were great, and dependable, while knowing the vehicles were defective, and not dependable. A “Lies to sell” policy.

To keep from having to buy the junk vehicles back General Motors also set a new “Policy” of violating Chapter 681 in Florida, when consumers complained, and using slick, corrupt, attorneys, such as the law firm of Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, to defraud Florida Consumers.

A new “policy” of using fraud in the Courts, and other shyster “tactics”, to prevail against the victims, and to obtain Judgments by Fraud.

Fraud by Mr. Goodwrench

In addition, general Motors advertised that it has a “Mr. Goodwrench” mechanic at it’s dealerships that is honest with consumers, when in reality it is documented that General Motors had instructed it’s “Mr. Goodwrench” to purposefully lie to consumers, and fraudulently claim that the engine piston slap, or engine knock problem,  and other vehicle defects, were “normal”.

As a direct result of that fraudulent advertising the Pro Se Litigant was deceived into believing that General Motors Vehicles has good engines, which are dependable, and he was tricked into purchasing a Chevy S-10 with the engine slap problem.

When the Pro Se Litigant kept complaining about the engine knock, and related engine problems, “Mr. Goodwrench” at kept lying to the Pro Se Litigant, and kept telling him the engine knock was “normal”, and that General Motors Engines produce more horsepower by knocking.

Petitioner’s Truck a Lemon

The Pro Se Petitioner found that not only was the engine defective, with a piston slap problem, but that General Motors had stopped making Chevy S-10 trucks, and being one of the last S-10’s off the assembly line, the Petitioner’s S-10 had numerous problems where it would not conform to its intended use.

Petitioner kept going to General Motors for repairs for everything from an engine knock, to the transmission whining and leaking fluid, to doors that leaked when it rained, and lots of other problems.

For a year and a half the petitioner went to the General Motors Dealership, giving them dozens, and dozens, of chances to repair all the defects in the lemon Chevy S-10. They were unable to do so.

The petitioner even took the defective S-10 to the Arcadia General Motors Dealership about 35 miles from his home, and to the Venice General Motors Dealership some 20 miles from his home, attempting to get his lemon S-10 truck repaired. Both of those dealerships failed to get the lemon S-10 to conform to its intended use.

The Pro Se Petitioner sent a complaint letter to the Chevy Dealership and the manager of the General Motors Dealership in set up a meeting.

 The manager of the General Motors Dealership told the Petitioner that his S-10 was clearly a lemon, that they couldn’t make it conform to its intended use, and that there was no sense in their even trying to repair the vehicle any more.

The manager stated that if they had a new S-10 they would give one to the petitioner but that General Motors had stopped making Chevy S-10’s. The manager promised to help the petitioner get his money back from General Motors with the lemon law process.

The Chevy S-10 was so defective it actually endangered the life of the petitioner, and his wife, and minor child, numerous times.

For example, when driving on I-75 at the posted speed limit when hitting the brakes the dangerous, defective S-10 truck would sharply swerve into other lanes of traffic, endangering the lives of everyone in the vehicle, and the lives of other in vehicles close to the extremely dangerous, and defective S-10.

While attempting to change a flat tire the parking brake, and transmission park feature, both failed and the extremely dangerous S-10 actually rolled backwards over the petitioner endangering his life.

The lemon S-10 was not only defective within the meaning of the Florida Lemon Law, but dangerous, and life threatening, to both the passengers, and others, and not fit to be on the road.

Chapter 681 known as “The Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act”

To protect consumers in situations, such as this, the Florida Legislature passed Chapter 681, cited as the Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act, and known as the Florida Lemon Law.

Chapter 681 is a strange animal in that it provides several remedies for consumers.

The first is a Manufacturer Procedure where the manufacturer sets up a complaint process, the Manufacturer pays for the whole complaint process, and the manufacturer asks the state to approve, or certify its private manufacturer procedure. [Emphasis added].

This Manufacturer Procedure is not impartial, nor public, and as such lacks minimum Due Process, and cannot be considered either a judicial procedure or a quasi-judicial hearing. [Emphasis added].

It is what it is, which is an informal Manufacturer Process where an attempt is made to resolve the Lemon Law Complaints without going further.

It is much like going to a corporate complaint office and stating one’s case to a corporate employee. In fact it is almost exactly the same.

Being a private Manufacturer Procedure, administered by General Motors, and paid for by General Motors, this “procedure” violates the “Fairness Doctrine”, and since it is not a judicial process, or a quasi-judicial hearing, or even close, there is no case law, or authority, anywhere, authorizing an immunity privilege of any kind for this Private Corporate Procedure, as described by 681.108. [Emphasis added].

In fact, Florida Statutes 681.111 and 681.112 specifically make it clear that there is no litigation privilege for violations of Chapter 681 by a manufacturer, and that a manufacturer is liable for violations of Chapter 681.

The second process is a Florida State New Car Arbitration Board which is a quasi-judicial process, and as such, it may be argued that the litigation privilege would apply to it.

The Pro Se Petitioner had given the manufacturer far in excess of three attempts to repair his truck and make it conform and the manufacturer had failed to do so.

The intent of the Florida Legislature was that in cases like this the consumer victim would have a choice of either receiving his money back, or getting a replacement vehicle.

However, the illegal conduct of a greedy manufacturer, General Motors, violating Chapter 681, and corrupt attorneys assisting in the swindle, along with Judge Anderson’s Court, which was wrongly “influenced” by General Motors, and failed to abide by well-settled law, has resulted in a complete farce, and mockery, being made of the Florida Motor Vehicle Warranty Enforcement Act.

Blatant Violations of Chapter 681 by General Motors

At any rate, the Pro Se Petitioner started the Manufacturer Process in Chapter 681 by sending a certified letter to General Motors. Pursuant to 681.104(1)(a) which required that the manufacturer respond within 10 days. General Motors had until August 6, 2004 to respond.

August came and went. Eight months came and went, violating the 10 day time limits set by 681.104(1)(a), and General Motors did not respond.

The Pro Se Petitioner sent a letter to General Motors threatening to sue, and at last, after over eight months, the petitioner received a phone call from a Carolyn Westberg at General Motors.

Carolyn Westberg admitted General Motors had violated the 10 day time limits set by 681.104(1)(a), and stated that she was sorry that General Motors had not responded for over eight months. Carolyn Westberg stated that the reason General Motors violated the 10 day time limits was because General Motors had “misplaced” the petitioner’s file for eight months. She said General Motors would get a response off right away.

Settlement Replacement Truck Offer By General Motors

After hanging up the petitioner got another phone call, right away, from a woman at General Motors who asked if the petitioner would accept another Chevy Truck to replace his lemon truck. She refused to give her name but said she was with customer relations at General Motors.

The petitioner explained that he had just spent a year and a half constantly arguing with General Motors as he tried to get General Motors to fix the many problems on his defective Chevy S-10 and that because of the extremely poor service, and dishonest advertising of General Motors, that the petitioner had lost all faith in General Motors Products, and never wanted to own a General Motors Product again.

About half an hour after hanging up the same woman called again and asked the petitioner if he would accept a bigger truck from General Motors with a new warranty.

Petitioner again stated that he never wanted to own a General Motors Truck again that they had endangered his life, and the lives of his family with their extremely defective trucks and petitioner had lost all faith in General Motors Products and considered them junk. Petitioner merely wanted his money back.

The woman stated “There is no way General Motors is going to refund your money” and she hung up.

More Blatant Violations of Chapter 681 and Perjury

Since both General Motors, and their dealership, admitted the truck was a lemon, and General Motors had not responded within the ten day time limits set by 681.104(1)(a) the petitioner was entitled to a refund of his money, and reasonable expenses caused by the defective Chevy S-10.

Petitioner filed for the Chapter 681 Manufacturer Procedure which in this case was a private BBB phone meeting, paid for by General Motors.

At the start of this telephone meeting an oath was given to the Petitioner, and to the General Motors Employee, Stephen Nichols, explaining that any false statements would constitute perjury.

The facts were stated, as to the Petitioner’s Truck, and its many defectives, and everyone concurred that the truck is a lemon, within the meaning of the Florida Lemon Law.

Everyone agreed that petitioner’s Chevy S-10 was a lemon and that there had been at least three attempts to make the truck conform, and that General Motors had failed in its duty to make the truck conform to its intended use.

The only legal point needed, to force General Motors to be required by Chapter 681 to return the petitioner’s money, and pay damages, was to establish that the manufacturer had not responded within the ten day time limits of 681.104(1)(a).

Since the petitioner had proof that he had sent a Certified Letter to General Motors, that General Motors was required by statute to answer by August 6, 2004, and  Carolyn Westberg at General Motors admitted that General Motors had not responded for over eight months, the petitioner would have no problem prevailing, if everyone was honest.

However, General Motors, and its representative, Stephen Nichols, had no intention of being honest.

General Motors, and its employee, Stephen Nichols, wanted to prevail at any cost, and they were willing to commit perjury, and falsify documents, to do so.

Stephen Nichols, knowing that he had taken an oath not to commit perjury, willingly, and knowingly, committed perjury by testifying, under oath, that General Motors tried to contact the petitioner on August 6, 2004 and that the petitioner’s telephone was disconnected.

Stephen Nichols knew when he made those statements, under oath, that they were not true. In fact, Stephen Nichols knew that the dealership had called the Petitioner on August 6, 2004 and that the Petitioner’s telephone worked.

Stephen Nichols went on to testify, under oath, that a hurricane had hit the Port Charlotte Area on August 6, 2004 and probably caused the petitioner’s phone to be disconnected.

Stephen Nichols knew when he made those statements, under oath, that no hurricane had hit the Port Charlotte Area on August 6, 2004, and that those statements were not true.

Stephen Nichols also testified that General Motors sent the petitioner a letter by U.S. Mail that should have arrived around August 6, 2004 and that apparently the U.S. Mail was down too because of a hurricane on August 6, 2004.

Stephen Nichols knew when he made those statements, under oath, that the U.S.Mail did not stop running on August 6, 2004 in the Port Charlotte Area on August 6, 2004, that there had been no hurricane on the 6^th, and that those statements were not true.

If Stephen Nichols had been honest about General Motors not responding to the ten day statutory deadline, for over eight months, the Petitioner would have been entitled to return of his money spent on the truck, and related damages.

Petitioner appalled at the perjury by General Motors stated on the record that Stephen Nichols was committing perjury.

The petitioner testified that he has never had his telephone disconnected, in his life, and that telephone records would prove this.

Petitioner testified that there was no hurricane in the Port Charlotte Area on August 6, 2004 and that it could be proved by newspaper records, and every person that lives in Charlotte County, including government officials, and the police.

The petitioner testified that the U.S. Mail ran on August 6, 2004 and that it could be confirmed by the United States Postal Service.

That the testimony of General Motors Employee, Stephen Nichols, was all perjury, intended to violate chapter 681, and render the Florida Lemon Law Process frivolous.

In addition, the petitioner sent his telephone bill to the BBB person conducting the “Manufacturer Procedure” proving that his telephone was never, ever, disconnected in the 30 years he has had a telephone, and also proving that on August 6, 2004, when General Motors testified his phone was disconnected, that the petitioner had made many long distance calls to family, and received several calls from Palm Chevy, the General Motors Dealership, and their attorney.

Petitioner also sent the BBB person a letter from the phone company stating that the petitioner’s phone had never been disconnected, and Affidavits, sworn to under oath, and notarized by a large number of witnesses, who all stated they called the petitioner on August 6, 2004 and that his phone worked perfect.

Petitioner sent the BBB person a copy of the weather from the August 6, 2004 proving the weather was extremely nice on August 6, 2004 and that there was no hurricane until August 13, 2004, well past the ten day time limits for General Motors to respond.

Petitioner sent the BBB person a statement from his U.S. Post office stating that the U.S. Mail did run on August 6, 2004 and that the petitioner received no letter from General Motors on that date.

Despite the fact that all the evidence proved that Stephen Nichols had purposefully committed perjury for General Motors at the Manufacturer Complaint Process, as part of a scheme to make a farce of Chapter 681, the BBB employee, paid by General Motors, sided with General Motors.

It should be noted that there is no evidence, circumstantial, or otherwise, anywhere, to support the fraudulent testimony of Stephen Nichols that a hurricane hit Port Charlotte on the 6^th of August 2004 and Official Government Records prove his testimony was an act of clear, intended, perjury.

Yet because the BBB employee, and whole BBB process, is paid for by General Motors they sided with the General Motors Employee committing perjury.

Petitioner submitted Official Telephone Company Records, a statement from the U.S. Postal Service, a large number of notarized Affidavits from witnesses, and a host of other evidence, and yet no testimony from the petitioner, and no evidence submitted by the petitioner, no matter how strong, was given any weight whatsoever.

All because the BBB person administrating the Private Corporate Procedure was bought, and paid for, by General Motors. People know who sign their pay checks.

Simply put, not only was the “Manufacturer Process” paid for by General Motors, but the process was frivolous, and the decision was bought, and paid for, by General Motors.

The fact that no testimony, or evidence, submitted by the petitioner was given any weight, whatsoever proves the process was “tainted”, and pre-decided.

The petitioner told the BBB person that the process was dishonest for not giving any weight to evidence submitted by the petitioner, and he told the BBB person he needed a copy of the tape recording of the BBB process so that he could appeal to the Florida New Car Arbitration Board.

The BBB, knowing that the petitioner needed a copy of the record of the BBB process to appeal to the Florida New Car Arbitration Board, refused to provide a copy of the phone Manufacturer Complaint Process to the petitioner for.

It took the petitioner over two months to obtain that copy of the Manufacturer Process from the BBB. That was well past the time limits for the petitioner to appeal to the New Car Arbitration Board.

The petitioner kept calling the BBB explaining that he needed a copy of the tape recording of the BBB phone process and the BBB kept saying that their tape recorder was broke. A cassette tape recorder can be bought at most Wal-Marts for less then $15.

The petitioner offered to buy the BBB a new tape recorder so he could get a copy of the BBB process so he could appeal to the New Car Arbitration Board but the BBB said they couldn’t accept one, that the petitioner just had to wait.

The petitioner offered to send $100 so the BBB could buy 5 or 6 tape recorders and the BBB still stated that they would not accept it, while continuing to refuse to send the petitioner a copy of the BBB Manufacturer Complaint Process, where General Motors Employee, Stephen Nichols, had kept committing perjury.

Finally, after over two months the BBB sent a copy of the tape recorded Manufacturer Process to the petitioner. The same day the petitioner received the copy of the BBB manufacturer process the petitioner called the Florida New Car Arbitration Board and was told that it was too late to appeal to them.

Chapter 681 Protection

     The Florida Legislature intended for Chapter 681 to provide relief to consumer victims, like the petitioner.

Knowing such a process could be prone to abuses by a manufacturer, since the manufacturer has bought, and paid for the whole process, the Florida Legislature passed a couple of statutory safeguards. Statutes 681.111 and 681.112.

Statute 681.111 specifically states that any violation of Chapter 681 by a manufacturer entitles the consumer to sue for an Unfair or Deceptive Trade Practice, as defined by part II of Chapter 501.

Statute 681.112(1) specifically states a consumer may file an action to recover damages caused by a violation of Chapter 681.

Corrupt Attorneys and Corrupt Court

          With no other recourse to protect the petitioner, consumer, who had been robbed by General Motors, and a corrupt process, the petitioner filed a Pro Se Complaint in the 20^th Judicial Circuit against General Motors, and Steven Nichols, the General Motors Employee that committed perjury.

          The petitioner sought relief pursuant to the statutory safeguard protections of 681.111, and 681.112, which the Florida Legislature specifically intended to be used in a case such as this, where a manufacturer blatantly violates Chapter 681.

     Having the same lack of respect for the Court System, that it has demonstrated for Chapter 681, General Motors sought to hire the most dishonest, sleazy, law firm it could find.

A law firm without morals that has no respect for the Florida Court System, or the Cannons of Ethics for Attorneys, that would be willing to present a Bad Faith Defense, and to commit any act, no matter how dishonest, or wrong, to prevail.

General Motors found the perfect law firm in Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, a law firm so dishonest that even the Florida Supreme Court has asked the Florida Bar Association to investigate it for violating the Cannons of Ethics for Attorneys.

The law firm of Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell viewed the evidence and knew that their client had committed several crimes and that a victim was being harmed.

That their client had conspired to violate, and had violated, both the Constitutional, and Statutory, Rights of the petitioner. That their client had also committed perjury to deny the petitioner “meaningful” access to the Chapter 681 process. And that the petitioner-victim was legally entitled to a return of the money General Motors had swindled him out of.

Instead of abiding by the Florida Cannons of Ethics for Attorneys, Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, decided to conduct a Bad Faith Defense, and to use legal trickery, lies, fraud, and the misquoting of case law to cover up the crimes by their client.

Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell became Accessories After The Fact, by knowing that at least one felony has been committed by Stephen Nichols, a General Motors Employee, and by comforting, and aiding, the felon, for a profit.

Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, knowing that the victim is a Pro Se Litigant without legal training, came up with a scheme to avoid the merits, and to use dishonest “tactics”, such as filing a response full of mere legal technicalities, lies about the facts, and misquoted, and/or inappropriate, case law to deceive the Court as to the actual facts, and actual legal issues.

Simply put, the dishonest law firm of Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell knew the Pro Se Petitioner was legally entitled to relief, pursuant to Chapter 681, and decided to deny the victim the relief he is entitled to solely because the victim does not have an attorney. To misuse the system to rob the victim.

As part of this scheme, General Motors Attorneys complained because the litigant has used the legal system in the past, pro se, which is to be expected since the litigant is a Veterans Rights Activist.

However, General Motors argued that because the Pro Se Litigant has used the system in the past that the Pro Se Litigant, without any legal training, must be held to the same strict standards as trained attorneys.

The General Motors Attorneys turned the instant case into a contest, a game of skill, with the case depending on mere legal technicalities, while knowing that the Pro Se Litigant, without legal training, does not have the chance of a snowball in hell to win a legal game of skill with such slick, dishonest, attorneys.

General Motor’s Attorneys have constantly lied about the facts to Judge Anderson’s Court, lied about Case Law, and deceived Judge Anderson’s Court into holding the Pro Se Litigant to the same strict standards as a trained attorney.

However, it didn’t stop there. Next General Motor’s Attorneys quoted case law that had nothing, whatsoever, to do with the instant case and tricked Judge Anderson into ruling that Florida Statutes 681.111, and 681.112, are not valid.

In addition, the General Motors Attorneys got Judge Anderson to make Florida Legal History by getting Judge Anderson to rule that the Florida Litigation Privilege applies to private conduct, by private corporations, that has nothing to do with a judicial process, or a quasi-judicial hearing.

According to Judge Anderson’s Ruling no matter what a private corporation does illegal in Florida it is protected by a litigation privilege.

Judge Anderson overturned all the consumer laws in Florida and ruled that a private corporation, and its employees, may commit perjury, or use any illegal tactics to avoid obeying the law, and that consumer victims have no recourse without an attorney.

Judge Anderson ruled that a litigation privilege applies to all wrongful, and illegal, conduct by corporations, even when there is no litigation, no hearing, no judicial process, and no quasi-judicial process.

Judge Anderson ruled that big corporations are immune from the same laws all the rest of us must follow.

There is no authority, anywhere, to authorize such a “broad”, and frivolous, reading of the litigation privilege in direct violation of 681.111, and 681.112.

Thanks to corrupt attorneys, and what appears to be a “less then honest” court, clearly in the pocket of big corporations, this case isn’t about the merits, or justice.

It is just a game of skill between a Pro Se Victim and some of the slickest attorneys on earth, who lack morals, and are fully willing to cheat to win. And a judge that rubberstamps the wrongful conduct of those corrupt attorneys.

The Pro Se Petitioner has caught, and documented, the law firm of Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell lying about the material facts, lying about well settled law, and misquoting case law numerous times and has filed motion after motion with the Court seeking a Show Cause Order against Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell for Obstructing Justice, and making a farce of the proceedings.

To date it would appear that not one of the many motions filed by the Pro Se Litigant has been ruled on, or for that matter even read by the Court.

     Pro Bono Publico the Pro Se Petitioner has asked this Court, with this motion, to reconsider its decision to overturn 681.111, 681.112, and both the Florida, and United States Constitutions, and to start providing “meaningful” access to the Courts for Pro Se Litigants, and enforcing the intent of the Florida Legislature, and the very clear wording of 681.111, and 681.112.

To make a manufacturer that violates Chapter 681 liable for his conduct as 681.111, and 681.112, demand.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

          The Florida Legislature enacted Chapter 681 to protect consumers. And since part of Chapter 681 consists of a manufacturer procedure which depends on the manufacturer being honest, and not violating Chapter 681, the Florida Legislature, in its wisdom, enacted 681.111, and 681.112, which created a Cause of Action for any violation of Chapter 681 by a manufacturer.

          To grant a litigation privilege to a manufacturer who violates the manufacturer procedure in Chapter 681 not only is frivolous, and not authorized by any authority, or any case law anywhere, but it directly violates 681.111, and 681.112, as well as the very intent of Chapter 681, and the Florida Legislature.