Ask The Best & Brightest: Should Dimitrios Biller Testify Before Congress?
Tomorrow the Senate will be taking its shot at the Toyota scandal, with hearings scheduled before the Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation. Giving testimony will be three Toyota executives including Yoshimi Inaba, NHTSA Administrator David Strickland and Clarence Ditlow of the Ralph Nader-founded Center for Auto Safety. Conspicuously absent from the list is Dimitrios Biller, the former Toyota lawyer who claims that Toyota hid documents related to vehicle design from discovery in several suits against the automaker. The House Oversight Committee has reviewed a number of Toyota communications courtesy of Biller, and a letter from chairman Ed Towns (D-NY) demands that Toyota answer Biller’s charges [Towns’ letter and Biller documents in PDF format here, courtesy of DetNews]. By invoking Biller’s charges, Towns has dragged yet another witness into the fray whose story raises more questions than it answers [one of Biller’s several suits against Toyota can be found here.] And yet, probably because of his complex backstory] there are no plans for Biller to testify under oath before congress. Should he, or does his testimony just cloud the picture even further?
More by Edward Niedermeyer
Comments
Join the conversation
I believe a plantiffs attorney in Texas dropped an attempt to reopen a case against Toyota when the Attorney looked at the Biller documents. According to the plantiffs attorney, Biller didn't have anything that helped their case. Also, didn't Biller sue the city of LA after working there 6 months? I think it was after he left Toyota. Sounds like he is just suing all his former employers.
Biller is clearly a wack job, but it still sounds like he has some good dirt on Toyota, and how much less reliable a witness than Clarence Ditlow could he possibly be?
Why would anyone ever hire an attorney named Biller?
Well, this guy is clearly mentally unstable, so he's not credible, even before reviewing his litigative history. Second, the example he provided here, about Toyota's response to head impact criteria, is indicative of this guy's ignorance of the product development process, across the industry. When HIC became the attribute du jour, mid-decade or so, after Ford's Exploder fiasco, they ALL jumped around, and began reviewing their past sins, and addressing them. Toyota wasn't alone in that regard, you may depend. Did they cover up or downplay their past sins? I suppose they did, as did the rest. You don't stack sheet metal on top of a truck frame and not expect it to flip over and injure people. So, we wound up addressing this across the industry, with TPMS for one, and roll stability control, structural enhancements and other means. I'm sure Toyota downplayed their past and moved forward with the present, just as they all did. Biller doesn't understand this process, and so it's hard to see what he'd provide that's beneficial. Let him go to court with his stuff, no need to waste any more time with an ignorant kook.