As described in the Dealership History, on April 12, 2005, Zone Manager Susan Keenehan and Regional Sales Manager Maurice Williams visited me at my dealership.  It was Mr. Williams’ first visit to my dealership, and quite apparently another attempt by yet another GM employee to get me to sell.  On April 13, the day after the visit, the secret GM e-mail sequence described in the Dealership History outlined a devious scheme to induce my exit. 

After piecing together the evidence I was to receive and assemble after the fact, it is my strong opinion that, as a result of the fact that I continued to show no interest in selling my business during the April 12 meeting, GM determined that it would need to step up the pressure in order to succeed in convincing me to sell.  There are solid indi­cations that GM personnel created the vicious warranty audit scheme as one element of its multi-faceted attack.  The narration that follows is lengthy and detailed, but in my opinion leads to only one possible conclusion; GM performed the audit for the sole purpose of inflic­ting financial and emotional damage to my dealership and me.  It is important to note that GM has full dis­cretion over the type of data it creates to justify its selection of what dealers will receive warranty audits.

Implementation of the warranty audit scheme 

It is quite apparent that the disruptive warranty audit performed on Signer Buick-Cadillac was systematically orchestrated by several GM employees to be used as a harassment tool to help induce my agreement to sell out.  But GM’s elaborate scheme fell far short of perfection, as the sloppy execution left multiple clues to the malicious nature of the plan.  As with all state­ments I make herein, they are my opinion only, but are based on over­whelming evidence I produce herein.

The first visible element of the apparent audit scheme came three weeks after the April 12 meeting, a May 4, 2005, warranty administration pre-audit letter signed by Area Service Manager Brian Vieau.  The letter cited issues primarily centered on the coding of the claims, which was done by our outside administrator since 1999, Stuart Wright.  Mr. Wright has done warranty administration for dozens of GM dealerships over a period of approx­imately 30 years, and at the time of the audit was doing warranty administration at three other GM dealerships where he encountered no scrutiny of the nature to which my dealership was being subjected.  As Mr. Vieau verbally told me that the issues were mostly due to Mr. Wright’s admini­stration, which had gone unchallenged at other dealerships, it would confirm that we were being singled out.  It is also noteworthy that Mr. Vieau had been baffled by a series of Dealer Self-Reviews (computer generated self-audits) GM had sent us, in part because our warranty expenditures were in line with the Zone’s other Cadillac dealer, Hubacher Cadillac in Sacramento.

Among the statements in Mr. Vieau’s May 4 letter were the following:

  1. “I feel that the lack of a service manager at your dealership is at the root cause of most of the issues found during the review.”
  2. “If your dealership enters Observation Period 4, this will result in a full audit led by a field warranty administrator.”
  3. “Currently, I am planning a follow-up contact for July 15, 2005.”

Regarding the above statements: 1. My subsequent appointment of a service manager was later ignored.  2. The statement about Observation Period 4 resulting in a full audit was false.  3. The July 15 contact never occurred, as a full warranty audit was in process at the time.  I believe somebody instructed Mr. Vieau to make the false implication of an automatic audit.  I have known Mr. Vieau since about 1991, and can attest to the fact that he is of the highest ethical character and would not knowingly make a false statement unless forced to do so by subordination issues.

 Ms. Keenehan called me on June 1, 2005, to set an appointment for the afternoon of June 3, which was subsequently rescheduled to June 6.  At that meeting, she offered a “learn­ing audit”, which she explained to be a one-week review of warranty claims that would not result in a charge­back.  I told her I thought we had a pretty good handle on things, and would gain little by the audit.  She replied that Brian Vieau agreed with my assess­ment.  I asked if I accepted the “learning audit” if it would help avoid a regular audit.  She replied that it might delay it.  I declined the learning audit, stating that we would probably have an audit anyway, which would be consistent with the pattern I had endured for years.  Ms. Keenehan also told me we needed a Service Manager, as was stated in Mr. Vieau’s May 4 letter. 

Circumstances had forced me to terminate my Service Manager in March 2004.  Aside from that termination, we had a very cohesive and stable service and parts team, including a Dispatcher who essentially ran the shop since 1991.  Based on these factors, combined with our falling service business primarily due to the ongoing decline in Buick sales, in April 2004 I decided to save the expense and give the management respon­si­bilities to our Dispatcher, who accepted them but declined the title.  In mid-June 2005, the Dispatcher informed me that she would be retiring and moving out of state the first of July.  At that time in mid-June, I appointed one of our Service Consultants to be Service Manager.  He accepted the position, and also assumed dispatching duties.  Although there was no change in structure, this designation of the title of Service Manager had the additional benefit of satisfying GM’s stated concerns about the lack of somebody with that title.

On June 30, 2005, at about 3:00 PM Ms. Keenehan appeared in the showroom, uncharac­teristically without appointment, and handed me a letter dated that day informing me that GM would perform a two-week warranty audit beginning July 11.  She told me that we had just entered warranty Cycle 4 (“Observation Period 4” as noted in May 4 letter).  My response was a simple, “I expected it.”  I was busy with customers at the time and con­tinued with my effort to sell a car.  The July 11 audit start nullified Mr. Vieau’s statement in his May 4 letter about his July 15 follow-up contact. 

Ms. Keenehan’s June 30, 2005, warranty audit notice letter contained an intimidating and lengthy list of Regional and Zone GM employees receiving copies, and a conspicuous absence of GM home office personnel.  Included on the list were Western Region General Manager Mike Jackson, Western Region Service Manager Neil Stirling, and Regional Sales Manager Maurice Williams, who had met with me on April 12.  Mr. Williams’ inclusion is curious, as the audit was unrelated to his area of respons­ibility in sales, but was instead within the scope of the service functions.  It would thus seem that the inclusion of Mr. Williams was due to his involvement in the exit-inducement con­spiracy. 

It is important to note that the audit was initiated despite the fact that I appointed a Service Manager in mid-June, which was known by Mr. Vieau, whose May 4 letter listed that issue as a “root cause” of warranty issues.  On June 6 Ms. Keenehan reiterated the point.  It thus appears that Ms. Keenehan did not let my satisfying of that concern get in the way of the plan, thus further confirming its malicious intent.

On July 11, the audit team of GM Warranty Field Specialists Linda Knight and Millie Warren arrived at our dealership with Ms. Keenehan.  The team requested a tour of the dealership, after which I asked Mr. Keenehan to my office.  I informed her that I wanted rumors coming out of Fremont Pontiac-GMC that the dealership would be getting Cadil­lac to stop.  These rumors included the dealership’s Service Manager directly telling my Parts Manager of 24 years that his dealership would get the brand.  Ms. Keenehan re­plied that “everyone wants Cadillac” and dodged the issue.  (At the time, I was unaware of the April 13 exit inducement scheme e-mail sequence and GM’s Fremont Auto Mall plan.)

During the two weeks of audit, the audit team requested that my Service Manager Joe Thomas, outside Warranty Administrator Stuart Wright, and I meet with them (and Ms. Keenehan in a couple of instances) so they could review their findings.  As the majority of the issues were due to Mr. Wright’s coding of claims based on GM policy, much of the discussion was aimed at Mr. Wright.  Mr. Wright and Ms. Knight had known each other for years, as Mr. Wright had attended her warranty administration seminars.  The discus­sions became quite heated as Ms. Knight chastised Mr. Wright for seemingly acceptable practices he had used at his many GM dealerships for years, but had never been chal­lenged.  This further reinforced the malicious nature of the audit.

In one discussion, Ms. Knight presented me with documents she claimed justified the audit.  One was a chart of what GM calls “Observation Cycles,” and another one was about “Differential Points.”  The Cycle chart indicated that we had entered Cycle 4 in June 2005, the Cycle that Mr. Vieau’s May 4 letter stated would result in a full audit.  The next day I contacted Warranty Dollars & Sense, a publication and consulting firm for warranty administration.  I spoke to Rob Campbell, and asked him about the Cycle system, and how many GM dealers were in Cycle 4 at any one time.  He responded that based on the number of dealer calls he normally gets, which he felt was a small sample, “probably 100 per Region” (there are 5 Regions in the country).  I subsequently asked Ms. Knight how many were in Cycle 4, to which she replied almost none.  As our Cycle chart showed that we had been in Cycle 4 for the months of December 2003 and January 2004, and then had come out of it, it appeared to be a common occurrence and thus putting more credibility in Mr. Campbell’s statement than Ms. Knight’s.  The fact that we were not audited in 2003-2004 also proves that the May 4 letter statement of a sure audit is false, which is reinforced by Mr. Campbell’s statement.

As I had told Ms. Keenehan on both June 6 and June 30 that I expected an audit based on GM patterns with me, it appears that Ms. Knight presented the Cycle and Differential Point charts to attempt to make me believe the audit was justified.  At a later date, I discovered that the Cycle chart GM provided me had apparently been altered to falsely support GM’s audit decision.  This appalling issue will be discussed below under “evidence of Cycle chart alteration.”

On Friday, July 22, the last day of the two-week audit, Ms. Knight provided me with a summary of Ms. Warren’s and her findings, and a large amount that would be debited back for paid claims that would be disallowed.  Astoundingly, some of the claims were ones that Mr. Vieau had previously approved.  Ms. Knight also requested that I write an action plan and send it to her within a few weeks.  Of note is the fact that we had retained as required, and were able to furnish to the Auditors, every warranty claim part they requested.  Also, we furnished all customer files that were requested, and all repair orders but one that could not be found.  It is unlikely that most dealers’ parts retention and repair order records are as clean.

Brian Vieau had attended the July 22 final meeting, and some other sessions during the two-week audit.  Immediately following final meeting, Mr. Vieau visited me in my office.  He sat across the desk from me slumped over in his chair, appearing like a whipped dog.  He told me, “I guess I’m supposed to be more of a policeman.”  It was apparent that the Auditors and/or Ms. Keenehan had chastised him as well, seemingly to try to make him also believe the audit was justified, as they attempted to do with me.  It should be noted that Mr. Vieau had been a GM service representative for about 20 years prior to this event.  It was obvious that in all those years, like Stuart Wright in his 30 years of warranty administration, he had never experienced an audit like this one.  I would assume that nobody informed Mr. Vieau of the sinister nature of the audit plot, as it seems that it would be dangerous for GM to reveal this to a person with ongoing direct contact with a dealership, especially somebody as ethical as Mr. Vieau.

On Monday, July 25, the business day after the audit concluded and leaving me no opportunity for appeal, GM debited my GM open account $20,303 for claims it had paid.  It should be noted that despite the intense scrutiny, this amounts to less than 4% of the claims in the time period available for audit.  It is probable that there were items that we could have legitimately claimed during that period, but did not. 

Also on July 25 I received a letter from Peter Lord, Executive Director, GM Service Oper­ations.  The letter stated that if GM’s Dealer Self-Review Process continued to indicate areas of concern, “The outcome of these unresolved concerns is the placement of your dealership in a select group of dealers for possible “in-store” review by the GM Regional Warranty Staff.”  The “group” term in this apparently mass-produced form letter is con­sis­tent with Rob Campbell’s estimate of 100 dealers per Region in Cycle 4, and the “possible” term means even the in-store review is not assured by the Regional Warranty staff of two.  I learned that an “in-store” review is another name for the one-week “learning audit” discussed earlier.  Astonishingly, this letter, dated July 9 and envelope postmarked July 20, was mailed while a full audit was being performed.  (It is possible the letter arrived at the dealership on Saturday, July 23).

As this letter came from GM’s warranty home office, it proves that it did not authorize the audit on my dealership and was thus locally generated.  Consequently, the letter re­moved all doubt from my belief that it was malicious.  The Letter from Mr. Lord showed that copies had been sent to the Regional Warranty Administrator (Linda Knight), Field Zone Manager (Susan Keenehan), and the Area Service Manager (Brian Vieau), all of whom most likely received their copies the same day I did.  From that day forward Mr. Vieau ended his longstanding practice of visiting my office on each of his dealership contacts.  It was apparent that when GM realized that I now had proof that the audit was malicious, it instructed the Area Service Manager to end communication with me.

In the weeks that followed, when Mr. Vieau would visit our dealership, he began parking in the back lot and coming in the back door, as opposed to his past practice of parking on the side visible from my office.  He would talk to our Service Manager Joe Thomas only briefly with limited discussion, and exchanging any paperwork necessary.  He repeatedly asked Mr. Thomas to remind me about the action plan letter. 

As Mr. Vieau uncharacteristically avoided me after the Lord letter arrived, in September I asked Mr. Thomas to let me know the next time Mr. Vieau came to the dealership.  On September 29 or 30, 2005, Mr. Thomas told me that Mr. Vieau was in the shop.  I then went back there and asked Mr. Vieau to come to my office, where I told him that Mr. Thomas had relayed his messages about the action plan.  I asked him to whom I should send copies of the letter, to which he responded that I should send copies to Susan Keenehan and him.  I then held up the July 9 Lord letter and asked if I should send a copy to Mr. Lord, to which Mr. Vieau immediately replied that I should not.  While GM had most likely assumed I had received the letter as intended, this was the first time that GM knew for sure.  Mr. Vieau immediately changed the subject saying, “I saw your salesmen at the Lucerne Ride and Drive.  They seemed to really like the car.”  He then couldn’t leave my office fast enough. 

Shortly after meeting with Mr. Vieau, I received a letter dated September 30 from Western Region Service Manager Neil Stirling requesting that I write an Action Plan.  Based on the eerily coincidental timing, it was quite apparent that Mr. Vieau reported, most likely to Susan Keenehan, of my possession of the Lord letter.  It seems that the revival of the two-month old Action Plan request by a higher-level service manager was the chosen response.  As the entire audit process was bogus, I did not respond to the letter, and I was not going to waste my time writing an Action Plan.  I never heard another word from anybody at GM about the Action Plan.

Shortly after receiving the letter, I wished to confirm that the term “in-store” review used in the Lord letter and the term “learning audit” used by Ms. Keenehan are the same thing.  Sadly, as I had been conditioned not to trust what GM personnel told me, I asked a Dealer Council representative to inquire of Mr. Stirling on my behalf without revealing my identity.  Mr. Stirling’s response confirmed that the two terms are interchangeable, and neither would involve a chargeback to the dealer. 

Mr. Stirling’s response also stated that that GM would monitor the progress after the in-store review for the numbers to fall in line to a fixed status, and that, “We really want the dealer to fix the concerns before this action [a full audit] needs to take place.”  As Mr. Lord’s letters were both written during the Cycle 4 period, it is clear that if an in-store review took place later in Cycle 4 that a reasonable number of months would be moni­tored after that to allow the Cycle 4 to go to fixed, or “F”, status.  In our case, we were never given a chance, as Ms. Keenehan issued the audit notice only 24 days after her visit to me that same month, not even allowing one monthly report to be generated.

At a Western Region meeting on May 11, 2006, I happened to notice Mr. Stirling’s nametag.  Having never met him before, I introduced myself.  I told him that I hadn’t responded to his September 2005 letter because of the malicious nature of the audit.  He responded, “It wasn’t one of our prouder moments.”  I appreciated his honest statement.  I should add that all indications are that it was Ms. Keenehan who authorized the war­ranty audit based on her motive to induce my exit, and Mr. Stirling was brought into the ordeal due to his position in the Region, seemingly reluctantly based on his remorse­ful statement to me.

In mid-June, 2006, Mr. Vieau handed Service Manager Joe Thomas a Dealer Self-Review (DSR) packet dated June 9, 2006.  This was Mr. Vieau’s last visit to the dealership before a new Zone team would be assigned to it on July 1, 2006.  This personal delivery by Mr. Vieau was unusual, as DSR’s are normally mailed from GM warranty headquarters in Michigan.  A DSR is a list of paid warranty claims that are expected to be reviewed by dealership management, then returned to GM with an amount of money, if any, to be charged back to the dealer­ship for any item that had been incor­rectly claimed.  Mr. Thomas spent several days reviewing the extensive list of tens of thousands of dollars of claims and found only $729.58 to have charged back, but also found more than that amount in items that could have been claimed, but had not been.  GM policy prevents the dealership from re-applying for the missed amounts. 

As Mr. Vieau provided no return envelope as normally come with home office DSR’s, on July 7, 2006, Mr. Thomas mailed it to GM’s warranty headquarters in Michigan.  It was returned to the dealership by GM after having been opened and resealed, and notations on the envelope indicating no knowledge of the documents.  On July 18 Mr. Thomas sent the DSR again in a new envelope, which led to it again being opened, resealed, and returned.  He then called GM Warranty home office and inquired about it.  GM warranty representative Donna Moore checked GM’s records, and then informed Mr. Thomas that GM had no record of the DSR, and that they showed the dealership with no warranty problems and she was surprised that we had received it.  She went on to say that the local Zone has the authority to issue a DSR.  Mr. Thomas took no further action with the DSR and never heard another word from anyone at GM.  There is no doubt in my mind that the DSR was a parting shot from Ms. Keenehan’s Zone team that had been unsuccessful in inducing my exit.  The sequence of DSR and related documents can be viewed here.  The addresses on the envelopes were blacked out by GM and returned to us that way.  Taking all elements into account, there is no doubt in my mind that this DSR was a final haras­sing parting shot from Susan Keenehan on the final month that my dealership was assigned to her zone team.

My dealership was assigned to a new zone team on July 1, 2006, with Jim Hill as our new Area Service Manager, also known as Area Vehicle Manager.  During one of Mr. Hill’s visits, I explained the warranty audit ordeal to him.  Regarding the chargeback debited to our open account on July 25, 2005, the next business day after the audit conclusion, he reacted with shock that it had happened so quickly and with no opportunity for appeal.

Cycle chart and Peter Lord letter observations

The Cycle chart that GM presented me during the July 2005 audit shows our history since April 2001, and continued into the warranty audit period in 2005.  View the Cycle chart and letters, then keep the document open for reference for the next few paragraphs.  The system apparently identifies trends in dealer warranty admin­istration and expense, moving the dealer through a 4-cycle process, with each cycle lasting a maximum of 4 months before either moving to the next cycle or going to “Fixed”, or “F” status.  “Fixed” status apparently means that, based on whatever secret formula GM has developed to make that determination, the dealership has corrected whatever negative trends GM had previously detected.  It should be noted that the cycle history chart GM provided to my dealership during the warranty audit had never been provided to me before.

A review of the chart reveals two significant observations that will be discussed in further detail in what follows:

  1. Prior Cycle 4 and Peter Lord letter:  We were in Cycle 4 in December 2003 and January 2004, and then went to “F” status in February 2004.  We received a Peter Lord “possible in-store review” form letter in January, and we received no audit or threat of audit.  This proves the May 4, 2005, letter statement regarding Cycle 4 resulting in a full audit to be untrue.
  2. Evidence of Cycle chart alteration:  The 12-month period from March 2004 to February 2005 is listed twice, with the cycles beginning with June 2004 in the second listing all advanced by one month compared to the first listing.  This advance put June 2005 in Cycle 4, thus trig­gering an audit if the false statement in the May 4 letter were true.  When Susan Keenehan handed me the audit notice letter, she told me we had just entered Cycle 4.

Prior Cycle 4 and Peter Lord letter:

In 2002, my dealership spent 4 months each in cycles 1 and 2, and then went to “F” or “Fixed” status.  Then, beginning in December 2002, we spent 4 months each in cycles 1, 2, and 3, followed by 2 months in cycle 4.  I received a letter dated January 9, 2004 (page 2 of the Cycle chart and letters pdf file), apparently a mass-produced form, from GM Service Operations Executive Director Peter Lord notifying me that my dealership had been placed on a list of dealerships for possible “in-store” claims review.  In the month following that letter, we returned to “Fixed” status in February 2004.  We had no warranty audit or threat of one. 

On page 3 of the attached Cycle chart and letters pdf file is the letter I received immediately after the July 2005 audit concluded.  The 2004 letter and 2005 letters are virtually identical, and were each written near the beginning of Cycle 4.  So it would seem that that the letters are computer-generated form letters sent out in mass to dealers around the country.  In 2004 we went to “F” status in the third month, but it would appear that there would have been two more Cycle 4 months before any possible action would have been taken.  In 2005, we were in our first month of Cycle 4 in June 2005 when the audit was ordered, and even that month was really Cycle 3 but was apparently altered as described below.

Evidence of Cycle chart alteration

At a later date after the audit was concluded, I discovered a discrepancy in the months listed on the Cycle chart.  Three charts, two with my comments about the observations, can be viewed here.  February through June 2004 were all “F” status, followed by our return to 4 months each of cycle 1 and 2, ending in February 2005.  Following February 2005, the chart shows March 2004 rather than March 2005, with all succeeding 2004 months restated.  However, the restatement shows cycle 1 beginning one month earlier than the first statement, now beginning in June rather than July 2004.  Consequently, the Cycle numbers in all subsequent months were advanced by one month, ending with Cycle 4 in June 2005.  It seems that the Cycle chart was altered to cause a one-month earlier start of cycle 4 in June 2005, thus accelerating what the GM team would use as an (erroneous) excuse for auditing.  GM then used the altered chart to bluff me into thinking the audit was justified.

It is noteworthy that Ms. Keenehan called me on June 1, 2005, the first day we supposedly entered Cycle 4, to make an appointment to meet.  Furthermore, in a deposition in December 2008, my attorney showed Ms. Keenehan the Cycle chart in preparation of asking her questions about it.  She claimed she didn’t know what the chart was, despite her 11 years as a Zone Manager, her apparent authority to order warranty audits, and her emphasis on Cycle 4 as the triggering factor for the audit.  It is highly likely that she was well familiar with the chart and aware of the apparent alteration, but did not want to be questioned about it.

The actions by this conspiracy of GM employees are despicable, and leave no doubt in my mind of the malicious intent of the warranty audit to assist GM in its stated goal of inducing my exit.

Other considerations on GM’s selection of Signer Buick-Cadillac for audit

General Motors policies allow for the auditing of warranty claims for which it has made payment to a dealer.  While this is understandable, GM must use good business judgment on using its limited audit budget resources where they can produce the greatest return, and/or on the most flagrant violators.  My dealership was among the smallest volume dealerships in the Western Region, primarily due to its lack of Chevrolet or GMC truck lines that nearly all other GM dealers have.  Furthermore, I am certain that the warranty claim administration habits the auditors found at my dealership were among the cleanest of all its dealerships. 

During the July 11-22 audit, it was quite obvious that Ms. Knight targeted work done by our outside Warranty Administrator Stuart Wright, who had told me that he had not experienced this type of scrutiny before.  As an additional support of his statement, in 2009 former Salinas Buick-Pontiac-GMC dealer Don Rickard told me that, due to perceived high warranty claims, Linda Knight visited his dealership in 2006 or 2007 for a planned one week “learning audit”, also known as an “in-store” review.  Our outside administrator, Stuart Wright, also administered the warranty claims at that dealership.  After completing the first day of claims review, on the morning of the second day Ms. Knight told Mr. Rickard that she didn’t need to stay, as everything she had reviewed looked good, although she said a couple of the technicians’ descriptions of work performed could have been longer.

When we were audited, Ms. Knight and Millie Warren were the only two auditors in the 950-dealer Western Region.  Based on this, there can be an absolute maximum of about 25 two-week audits per year, and most likely fewer when “learning audits,” vacations, training, etc. are taken into account.  Realistically, no more than 20 audits might occur, or around 2% of the dealers.  It would seem that there would be enough fraudulent or questionable warranty activity in 2% of the dealers to keep the two auditors busy.  As a result of lacking Chevrolet or GMC truck volume, our new vehicle retail sales rank in the very smallest of GM dealers in the Region, with volume of around 2/100 of 1% of vehicles sold. 

Considering the illogical selection of our dealership for audit and our very clean audit results, GM’s audit selection could be likened to a driver doing 66 miles per hour in a 65 zone and surrounded by drivers doing 65 – 75 miles per hour, and getting picked out of the crowd for a citation.  GM’s dubious investment of its limited audit resources strongly indicates an ulterior motive.  It seems that in my case GM’s perceived return on invest­ment of several thousands of dollars involved in two weeks of the auditors’ time, airfare, and lodging, would be my exit as a dealer to clear the way for its Fremont Auto Mall plan.

What are the odds?

The concepts discussed in “What Are The Odds?” should be applied to the warranty audit.  The question is whether or not the various discrepancies and unusual occurrences were just coincidence in an audit that was justified on a fair basis compared to other dealers.  Or, on the other hand, if they were components of a master plan, which I believe was GM’s singling me out to intentionally inflict financial and emotional damage.  Following is a summary of the discrepancies and unusual occurrences discussed above:

1.      Intense scrutiny of the coding of professional Warranty Administrator Stuart Wright at my dealership, but not at his other GM dealerships.
2.      May 4 letter stating lack of service manager is root cause of issues, reinforced by Ms. Keenehan.  Subsequent appointment of dealership Service Manager is ignored.
3.      May 4 letter false statement that entry into Cycle 4 would result in a warranty audit
4.      May 4 letter stating July 15 follow-up visit.  Visit didn’t occur because full warranty audit was in progress at that time.
5.      Full audit instigated in first month of Cycle 4, apparently against normal GM practice.
6.      Peter Lord July 9 pre-in-store review form letter generated after full audit already scheduled, proving lack of home office authorization of audit.  June 30 warranty audit notice letter signed by Susan Keenehan indicates that it was she who initiated it.
7.      Warranty chargeback debit issued the business day after audit concluded leaving no opportunity for appeal.
8.      Cycle chart with alteration that accelerate cycles.
9.      Area Service Manager “supposed to act like a policeman”, an apparent first time told that in his long career.
10.  Regional Service Manager states that audit “was not one of our prouder moments.”
11.  No record of 2006 Dealer Self-Review with GM warranty home office.
12.  Ms. Keenehan’s claiming of no knowledge of Cycle chart, while it was cited as the very basis of the audit that she herself apparently ordered.

The low probability of each of these unusual occurrences on its own would suggest that the warranty audit was not generated in the course of normal GM practice.  Collectively, they remove all doubt in my mind that the audit was artificially generated with the deplor­able sole purpose of inflicting financial and emotional harm to Signer Buick-Cadillac and me.

The week after the warranty audit ended, I received notice from the IRS that it would audit my corporation.  It is described elsewhere in Expanded Details, “(2005) First IRS Audit.”