CHIEF JUDGE LIPPMAN FORCED TO RETURN $6M IN "PAY RAISES" IN LATEST FRAUD UPON NY TAXPAYERS

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
(Free-Press-Release.com) November 22, 2009 --

New York, NY. November 23rd, 2009: Senate GOP spokesman John McArdle condemned Judge Jonathan Lippman's, current Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals, decision to "double expense allowances" for judges as a way to circumvent the current judicial logjam on pending litigation for pay increases for judges across NY State, a tab estimated to be between $120-160M at a time when the state is in jeopardy of defaulting on a $3B budget deficit. Judge Lippman ordered $10,000 "Expense Allowances" for "essentials" like Robe Cleaning, Judicial License Plates, and Travel. McArdle has demanded that Judge Lippman return $6M to NYS.

McArdle indicated that GOPs intended to act responsibly and expected the Judiciary to do so as well. E.J. McMahon, director of Empire State for New York State Policy, asserted that Judge Lippman will have to "find $6 million in savings to offset the cost".

According to END President Kathryn Jordan, the issue of Judicial Compensation needs to be addressed once the Budget is stabilized, but does not fault the "dysfunctional legislature" but Governor Patterson who appointed Judge Lippman as the Chief Judge for all of New York Courts, and Judge Judith Kaye, his longtime instigator, as the Chair of the Judicial Nomination Commission. It is also the failure of the JCC to censor and discipline the “big fish”, or errant Supreme Court or Appellate judges. Forty complaints against appellate judges were dismissed in 2008 without investigation. Complaints of judicial misconduct rose 12% in 2008 to historically high levels, while virtually no judges in the Manhattan courts were disciplined.

Legally, there is a wide disparity between appellate courts on the issue of judicial pay.
The activist First Department, known for its penchant for “legislating from the bench”,

issued a decision in June 2009 in Larabee v. Governor (4761-4761A), which affirmed the right to “de-link” judicial pay raises from the Legislature, citing a “separation of powers” argument. The Third Department in Maron v. Silver (58 Ad 3rd, 102), found that the case “failed to allege a discriminatory attack on the judicial branch that has impaired the Judiciary’s independence and ability to function”. Judge Tom wrote that evidence of impairment of justice is not a prerequisite of a “separation of powers” argument. The cases are on appeal with NYCOA, the Court that Judge Lippman oversees, with expectation of a final decision in early 2010.

End Discrimination Now, a bi-partisan activist organization has a different take on the situation. “Linkage to the legislature salaries is obviously wrong”, Kathryn Jordan, END Founder and President stated, “However, the rest of the case is founded upon a series of false “facts” (like "ravages of inflation") and numerous legal fallacies that have never been addressed that are tantamount to fraud. Obviously the argument that the Judiciary would come to a screeching halt if NY Supreme Court judges were not paid equally to Federal Judges or $169,300 is ridiculous. Nor is it credible that a NY Supreme Court judge merits equity in pay to a Federal judge. (US Supreme Ct judges make $202K). But it was the outright frauds that were deployed to win the arguments and promote the case (featured on the NY Supreme Court homepage website) that are most troubling and should defeat the matter legally", Jordan asserted.

The First Department Opinion, ironically issued by two of the most political First Department jurists: Judge Luis Gonzales and Judge Peter Tom, is considered by experts to be another egregiously hypocritical act by this activist body. Judge Gonzales, along with Judges Lippman and Catterson, has been cited as one of the ring leaders in the fixing of the appeal of largest disability discrimination jury verdict in New York history, Jordan v. Bates Advertising 118785-99. The reversal of the verdict on this major precedent case on appeal effectively “rolled back 40 years of civil rights advances” after Plaintiff won a jury trial in 2005 before Supreme Ct Judge Rolando Acosta. Judge Acosta had originally upheld the jury verdict “on the law”, but upon nomination by disgraced “hookergate” former governor Elliot Spitzer, to the controversial First Department filling the vacancy left by Judge Lippman (as he advanced to NYCOA Chief), Acosta changed his final judgment to set up the case for reversal on appeal by attacking the disabled plaintiff as “contemptuous”. The Lippman-Gonzales-Catterson panel then reversed the jury verdict, claiming “fatal” errors in law and attacking the credibility of the Plaintiff by claiming she made “baseless allegations” against the intemperate trial judge (Acosta). To reverse and nullify the jury verdict they ignored the sworn admissions of guilt by the employer, and created “new evidence” essentially crafted based on various biases about the disabled with the specific goal of discrediting the testimony of the Plaintiff. Most egregiously, however, they used the frivolous appeal filed by WPP Group to both legislate a new legal standard for proving pretext in discrimination cases, that will make it much harder to prove discrimination in the workplace and easier for employers to discriminate, while cultivating favor with a large employer who would otherwise have been hit with a large liability (WPP posted a $3.3M bond). The legal “argument” that was propounded by WPP adopted the findings of an obscure New York case (Stephenson v. Hotel Employees)instead of the McDonnell Douglas Supreme Court tripartite standard, and essentially instituted a 1950's outmoded model for proving discrimination that favored employers. The Plaintiff then advanced the appeal to NYCOA where Judge Kaye ignored the opportunity to reconcile New York discrimination laws with those of other more advanced "modern courts" in states like Michigan, Connecticut, New Jersey and California. The finding that the case was “fixed” derives from the manipulation of facts and law, as well as the fact that the remedy for the alleged “defects” of the Jordan v. Bates case would have been remand for retrial not dismissal, a subtlety that the average layperson and apparently many judges would not recognize. Jordan, a retired Fortune 100 exec, "got it".

“It is amazing that Judge Tom makes note of the “separation of powers” argument” in his decision on the “Larabee” case, because under the basic tenet of separation of powers the Judiciary is not intended to be “legislating” new laws. Yet this is exactly what the First Department has been doing for decades and what they did in Jordan v. Bates.” Jordan observed.

Judge Tom also entered the “Hall of Hypocrits” along with the Lippman panel when he recently fixed all three malpractice cases related to the Jordan v. Bates case on appeal "technical" reasons. Given the fact that the First Department decision of December 27th,2007 placed blame squarely at the feet of the attorneys in the case for alleged negligent handling of evidence, and for misapplication of the law, the dismissal of the malpractice cases could only have been an extension of the cover up.

Jordan believes that Judge Lippman called in a favor to his old friend Judge Catterson, who was the "First Enabler" on the Jordan v. Bates appeal, and who, upon Jordan's demand for recusal, then noticed Judge Acosta, previously recused twice on the case, to oversee the cover up. “Neither of these jurists had any business being on this case given their conflict of interest with the case fixing of the Jordan v. Bates matter”, Plaintiff Jordan stated. “The amount of hubris here is off the charts. These jurists see themselves as above the law, and certainly above the very Rules they use to “sanction”, censor and silence their critics”.

The fact remains that a bona fide jury verdict was reversed and dismissed upon a frivolous appeal by Lippman’s First Department, and the related malpractice cases similarly “fixed”. The latter dismissal was based on Jordan’s alleged failure to file her brief on time, although the Record was not certified or signed off on by her adversary. Jordan is also disabled.

The epidemic of corruption in the Judiciary was recognized over the summer when Senator John Sampson held public hearings about the Judiciary. Time and again, deponents from all walks of life and economic status attested to corruption by judges and lawyers ranging from tampering with evidence, overt threats, coercion, abuse of discretion, case fixing, and manipulation of the Laws. Jordan herself testified.

E.N.D. End Discrimination Now, an activist organization, has called for impeachment hearings. People now realize that Judge Lippman is a ruthless, political jurist who has repeatedly proven his contempt for the Rules and the Law. In Governor Patterson’s rush to "lock up" his appointment, Lippman was not properly vetted and apparently was not even qualified for the job. He is neither a leader nor a scholar. If he is found guilty of “case fixing”, which is clearly outside the “discretion” of any judge, he could face charges of "treason" and fraud. Judge Kaye as his longtime accomplish was also a poor choice for the top Judicial Nomination job. The recent “robes budget” scandal was not “bad judgment”, as McArdle diplomatically cited, but a willful attempt to circumvent and deceive the Legislature. The Governor is the one who has exercised “bad judgment” and if he fails to take remedial action against the plague of judicial corruption, he will find himself "almost certainly out of a job”, END asserted.

“The Rules of Judicial Conduct require that any judge who becomes aware of misconduct by another jurist to report it. If any of these judges knew about these case fixing schemes, or the abuse of power by any jurist, and failed to take action in reporting the same to the JCC, they are just as guilty as the judges who propounded the original frauds” END asserted.

More information can be found online at http://enddiscriminationnow.com