COURT OF APPEALS DISPOSES OF "BATES" MALPRACTICE APPEALS AS LIPPMAN CONTINUES BEHIND SCENES OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE RUSE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
(Free-Press-Release.com) June 4, 2010 -- New York, NY, June 4th, 2010: In the latest chapter of the "Lippman Obstruction of Justice" scandal, the Court of Appeals
denied the disabled Appellant an enlargement of time to file her Appeal of Judge Marcy Friedman's dismissal of all four malpractice cases related to the "fixed" Jordan v. Bates case. The Appellant was denied an enlargement of time by

none other than Judge Rolando Acosta, First Department, who, along with Judge Catterson from the original Jordan v. Bates jury verdict fixing case, improperly appeared on the Appeal instead of recusing themselves sua sponte. Judge Acosta, who instigated the entire drama with his intemperate outburst on the Bates Case after the Plaintiff complained about his "Ex Parte" communications with discharged counsel Lebowitz and his threats to "act as a fact witness against you" and "be the judge assigned to the malpractice case", carried out his threats when he had colleague Judge Marcy Friedman dismiss all four malpractice cases applying the incorrect legal standard despite numerous triable issues of fact, and then had himself assigned three times to the appeal. Ironically, it was Chief Judge Lippman that laid blame at the feet the of attorneys, whom he accused of "improper handling of evidence" and "fatal" errors of law in his precedent setting December 27 2007 Decision to reverse the jury verdict that was upheld, even more ironically, by Judge Acosta himself.

The Appellant, Kathryn Jordan, had been denied her constitutional right to appeal, allegedly because she could not make the deadline imposed by the First Department. However, as she proved in her Briefs (and thousands of pages of record), not only did the First Department liberally granted extensions to other appellants for the "next term" who applied contemporaneously with Jordan, the County Clerk had failed to Certify the Record after 18 months. While the First Department took no notice of this prejudicial factor (all Appellate Records must be Certified) which precluded Appellant from filing her appellate brief timely, it held Jordan to the same standards for timeliness despite her disability and Pro Se status. "The Court of Appeals obviously does not feel obligated to provide a disabled person an accommodation", Jordan stated. "But it clearly feels that it is just for the County Clerk to consume 18 months of the appellate calendar". This would have been Jordan's second extension but her adversaries filed "thousands of pages of briefs, cases and records". Jordan also reminded the COA that even an experienced attorney would have difficulty meeting the aggressive deadlines when pitted against FOUR adversary law firms. Jordan argued that she was also hampered by the lack of an appellate record to "even begin the brief drafting process".

Neither the First Department nor the Court of Appeals took judicial notice of the fact that the trial court erred as a matter of law in defining malpractice law, and that substantial issues of fact existed at the time the Malpractice cases were filed. Ironcially the Lippman decision itself placed blame with the attorneys for failing to secure evidence regarding Jordan's non disabled replacement's compensation. (Kathryn Jordan v. Bates Advertising 118785-99). While Jordan proved in her appeal that this was "true" but not "fatal" to the case, it did support the malpractice claims, along with the various other disputed issues of fact alleged in the Complaints.
"What the Court of Appeals and First Department have done with these improper decisions is not only to perpetuate the obstruction of justice and the conspiracy that was formed in 2007 to secure the Acosta-Lippman-Gonzles trifectorate promotion scheme, but to prove the complete hypocrisy and inherent bias of the judicial and legal systems.

You have judges exculpating attorneys who failed to follow the Rules of Evidence and abused their position of influence with the Court in approaching an acting judge on a case regarding a financial pay-off "Ex Parte". They are being enabled because they aided these corrupt judges in the cover up. Thus, even though the Lippman Decision placed blame at the feet of the attorneys, they are exculpated by the very judge who threatened to do so when the Plaintiff reported his misconduct with the same attorney. This is the circularity of a corrupt judicial system. The enablers of the corruption are exempt from liability and sanction, and the reporter of the misconduct and corruption is libelled as "contemptuous" and crucified for ostensibly sending faxes to the Court after a gag order was in place to obstruct further reports of misconduct.
Jordan promises to file this case Certiorari, as it is clear that there the issue of Obstruction of Justice is taken seriously everywhere except where it is most damaging: in the Judiciary itself. "How can Voters believe leaders who refuse to stand up to corruption in the Judiciary and who incredibly assert that Judges are "immune" from prosecution?

If a judge goes out and commits murder is he or she immune from that crime? These judges abused their authority and they did so because there was a very lucrative opportunity in play. When a $3.3M judgment disappears after a bona fide jury verdict is entered as Final Judgment in the Plaintiff's favor (precluding the "disgruntled litigant" pretext), and three judges get promoted, and Senators get direct aid from the Judiciary in return for their silence, while two proven violator corporations (WPP and Verizon) are completely exculpated, then it is apparent that frauds have been committed. Given the fact that this fraud involved several judges, attorneys, and clerical staff, in multiple judicial venues (Supreme, First Department, COA) and occurred over several years with each outcome being altered to ensure no facts would be subject to review or inspection, then you have by definition a conspiracy, certainly with more than two "predicate acts". Moreover, while this was a precedent case (and hence worth many multiples to corporate america in future liability risks), that would affect the lives of hundreds of millions of people in protected classes across the country (all discrimination cases that set new standards of legal review have that import), the Court of Appeals should indisputably subjected the case to review. This was the first time an executive disabled woman had come before the Court in a discrimination matter and it was an "important issue of law", as was the related Malpractice cases where the issue of what malpractice law is in this state has never been addressed.
Judge Carmen Cirpatrick signed off on the denial of the Malpractice case appeal. Given the fact that she was the "heir apparent" that was pre-empted by Judge Lippman for the Chief Judge spot, it is highly likely that the Chief Judge, needing a female jurist to offset the claims of gender bias by the original five male First Department panel, and the obvious misogyny of Judge Acosta, called in another favor. This is what our judicial system has degenerated into: a totally corrupt system of organized crime, cronyism and favors.

Unfortunately, as long as there is no effective regulatory body (the JCC carefully and illegally avoids investigations of high level judges), and until the Senate Judiciary Committee appoints a strong decisive leader who has prosecutor skills and whom will stand up against judicial corruption, the corrupt Judicial System will continue to flourish under a double standard, self feeding on its own dysfunction and rewarding the law and rule breakers, especially the corrupt attorneys that profit from the dysfunction, and while holding the victims of discrimination to standards that the judges themselves have been unable to meet. The ultimate consequence of this failure to effect the primary purpose of the judiciary, the enforcement of laws and the punishment of violators, will undoubtedly be more brazen acts of discrimination and degrading the value of persons in protected classes, while sowing the seeds for the ultimate dissolution of the Court system as an effective conflict resolution mechanism.

END has cautioned jurists who believe this is the "fast track" to the oval office. "Judges are NOT immune from prosecution for willful violations of Rules and Law. That is a myth. And we are committed to seeing the Defendants, and anyone who aids them in future obstructions, to being held accountable for their illegal acts. We know where the lines are between judicial discretion and judicial indiscretion, and we are holding the line", END founder Jordan stated "If the Chief Judge believes he is subject to a LOWER standard than the one he holds litigants to, he is in denial. Judges are held to a higher standard, both in terms of their conduct and their abidance with the Laws".

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

attorney malpractice     Chief Judge Lippman     Obstruction of Justice