FED JUDGE BATTS ISSUES EX PARTE "INJUNCTION" IN OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CASE IN DESPERATE BID TO BLOCK ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
(Free-Press-Release.com) August 13, 2010 --

August 13, 2010, New York NY 10021: Judge Deborah Batts, the Southern District federal judge assigned to hear the Obstruction of Justice against Chief Judge Lippman, Judge Shira Scheindlin, Judge Rolando Acosta and 27 other defendants, issued a new “Order” on July 29th “granting” an “injunction” against Plaintiff Kathryn Jordan even though the case is already on appeal, having been closed by Batts herself on May 7th, 2010, two weeks prior to Jordan’s statutory time for responding to the 5000 pgs of MTD pleadings. Batts attempted to justify the “Ex Parte” maneuver by issuing the Injunction Order on the pretext that the Court “can entertain and deny the Rule 60 (b) motion” and that “then and only then is the necessary remand by the Court of Appeals to be sought”. There’s just one big problem with that assertion: Judge Batts already ruled on the Rule 60(b) motion denying it via Jordan’s Order to Show Cause on June 11th, 2010. Thus the “Order” issued on July 28th, the same day Jordan filed her Appeal to the Second Circuit, (obviously with “Ex Parte” intel leaks), based upon a “right” she knew she had already exhausted. The high profile case is pending before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

In a case where most prudent jurists would have exercised extra care to abide by the Rules, Judge Batts flaunted her abuse of power. First, the scheming jurist issued her first Order of May 7th, 2010, dismissing the entire nine counts of RICO, Obstruction of Justice, Conspiracy to Defraud et al “with prejudice” two weeks prior to Jordan’s statutory time frame to respond to her adversary’s MTD pleadings. Although the Statute provided Jordan 21 days to respond, Judge Batts determined that she could rule “sua sponte”. This discretion afforded to judges largely as a result of the ambiguous Bell Atlantic v. Twombly “fact pleading” case, was not intended as a shield to prevent due process rights under the constitution. Judges have been on a rampage “dismissing” meritorious “Pro Se” cases prior to discovery ever since. Then Judge Batts attempted to inveigle the Clerk of the Court in her scheme. On May 26th, while still allowing pleadings to be filed by Defendants including Paul Hastings, the Southern District jurist instructed the Ms. Krajick, the Clerk of the Court “not to docket Plaintiff’s pleadings as the case was closed on May 7th”. Batts continued to allow defense counsel to file pleadings and even relied upon their arguments demanding an “injunction” against Plaintiff in her July 28th Order. Jordan claims Batts also “forgot” to mail her Decisions. Finally, Judge Batts was not just content with issuing an injunction. Like her predecessor and role model Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman, Judge Batts adopted the “vexatious litigant” pretext. This “post appeal” Decision could actually hurt Batt’s arguments as there is no evidence of Jordan, who is disabled yet has won most of the cases that were not “fixed” prior to trial, is a “vexatious” litigant. Defense attorneys have long deployed this labeling of Pro Se litigants, and many judges have enthusiastically “adopted” these biases as they conform to the general bias against self represented individuals as a class. . However, the "Iwachiw" case cited by Judge Batts, which relates to a Pro Se litigant whose car was impounded after repeated traffic violations, is hardly on point. The case, "Iwachiw v. NYS Dept of Motor Vehicles” 396 F 3d 525 2nd Circuit 2005, defines “vexatious” as:
“judicial notice that several of the Appellant's prior appeals were dismissed by this Court for frivolousness, failure to comply with the rules or orders of this Court, or lack of appellate jurisdiction.” Iwachiw v. N.Y. City Dep't of Fin., No. 04-0770 (2d Cir. Nov. 2, 2004). 

Jordan was perplexed by the citing. “I’m obviously not a “vexatious litigant” , nor is my case a "traffic" case. I am a highly educated, accdisabled woman in two protected classes who was eye witness to the fixing of two discrimination cases, against by two repeat corporate violators. I financed my cases by selling my home and liquidating my retirement funds. Anytime I have gone before a trier of fact I have prevailed. I have testified before the NYS Senate Judiciary Committee: (link=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28afajRkDwY). What happened here is a metaphor for the dysfunction that is destroying our judicial system. Jordan argued in her Complaint (09 cv 10616 USDC SDNY) that “case fixing” is a widespread and accepted practice. It is an indisputable fact that 90-95% of discrimination cases are “settled” for token amounts, obviously under-cutting the statutory mandate of law enforcement and inciting rampant discrimination. (END reported discrimination rose 32% over the last two years alone based upon EEOC stats). Jordan also alleged that the two major defense law firms, Paul Hastings and Drinker Biddle, “cheated” during discovery by suppressing evidence and lying to the discovery judges who looked the other way when she filed MTC’s. According to Jordan, corporations finance discrimination cases by writing blank checks to corporate law firms, who are frequently given “carte blanche” to commit any acts necessary to “protect” the corporate violator from accountability for their own acts. The corporations then “write off” the expenses, using shareholder funds, with the IRS. Jordan financed her 15 year ordeal on the two disability discrimination cases, and related malpractice cases) with her own funds, liquidating her home and retirement accounts. “These are causes I am absolutely committed to. I testified before the NY Senate Judiciary Committee: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28afajRkDwY . This name calling is obviously a desperate diversion to call attention away from the scandal of “case fixing” and the illegal behavior of the Defendants involved “. Jordan claimed. Judge Batt’s actions in this context appear reckless and desperate. However, she probably realized that by denying Jordan’s due process rights and dismissing the case “sua sponte”, denying Jordan’s request for enlargement of time, manipulating the “record” and attempting to enlist the Clerk in this scheme, issuing “Ex Parte” “Orders” after the appeal was filed, and abusing judicial powers of “Injunction”, “sanction” and “Censorship”, she had crossed the line herself. “This is the New York Court System’s concept of “thought leadership under Chief Judge Lippman”, Jordan lamented.

Judge Batts’s selection of the “Iwachiw v. NYC Dept of Finance” motor vehicle dispute to justify the unwarranted attack on Jordan’s integrity was hardly “on point” or persuasive. It is reminiscent of another judicial act of bullying. Jordan was previously attacked as “contemptuous” by Judge Rolando Acosta, the judge who presided over Jordan’s jury verdict in her favor against WPP’s Bates Advertising in April 2005. after reporting secret “in chambers” Ex Parte” meetings between Acosta and her discharged attorney where a contingent $1.3M legal fee was discussed when Jordan was not present. Jordan was very concerned about “the appearance of impropriety” and call for Acosta’s recusal. He recused only after re-writing his Decision to “fix” the case for reversal on appeal. Under Judiciary Law, any judge intending to recuse is limited to “ministerial” duties.
“They (the judges) were jealous and intimidated by the fact that a disabled woman broke the sound barrier and attained a $250K position. They as much as admitted this in their demand for “private sector salaries”. Jordan claims. Jordan also believes her case was fixed to "hold the line" against damages for Minorities, where no material progress on either advancement or compensation.has been seen in last decade. "Judge Batts is a Harvard Law Grad. She has betrayed all those in protected classes".

Obviously Jordan’s Obstruction of Justice case is shaking a few trees. Many judges have used their judicial discretion to impose biases and “vett” their dockets of cases they don’t want to try with impunity for decades and the Appellate Courts, who inherit these abuses on appeal, look the other way. Judges are precluded from issuing rulings on a case if they have a bias, especially an undeclared one. Under Judiciary Law Canons I and II, judges are required to recuse if their actions or conduct present “the appearance of impropriety” or encouraging “undue influence” or if they acted out of “personal bias”. (See Liljeberg v. Health Care Systems. US v. Liteky, Stump v. Sparkman. United States Supreme Court). Judges who act to interfere in the right of due process or appeal are subject to severe sanctions and even removal from office. While Judges enjoy broad protections of “immunity” under the Constitution or Judiciary Law, they are not entitled to protection if they acted “Extra-judicially”, or outside the scope of their jurisdiction or authority. Jordan’s case will test the scope of what “extra judicial” means. Until now, judges would have to have been caught taking a bribe, having a relationship with one of the parties or their attorneys, or making a blatant statement of bias on the Record to be removed from office. Jordan is seeking a higher standard to be enforced, where any jurist who acts on an undeclared bias& fails to recuse, or worse "fixes" the outcome of a case, would be subject to impeachment proceedings.
Judicial corruption and obstruction of justice have become “hot topics” on the global scene as well. On July 20th the President of Taiwan ordered the formation of a new commission to “battle corruption and vote-buying” after three high court judges and a prosecutor were detained amid allegations that they took bribes to fix the outcome of a high profile case. “Every public servant must understand that ethical principles cannot be violated or trampled on. I will not stand for a minority of corrupt officials destroying the image of government”, President Ma Ying-yeou declared

Chief Judge Lippman     Discrimintation LAWSUIT     JUDGE DEBORAH BATTS     Judge Rolando Acosta     JUDGE SHIRA SCHEINDLIN     Obstruction of Justice     VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS     WPP Group WPPGY