186

Attorneys are given dispensations after Lippman Decision found "fatal errors" by lawyers. Cover up cited.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
(Free-Press-Release.com) November 18, 2009 -- November 19th, 2009, New York, N.Y.: In the latest development in the widening scandal of case fixing allegations against the First Department,and Judges Lippman, Catterson, Gonzales and Acosta, the Appellate Division dismissed three attorney malpractice cases related to the Jordan v. Bates case jury verdict reversal by "the Lippman Panel" in December 2007 in what is believed to be an attempt to close any "loose ends" in the massive cover up. In dismissing the three Malpractice cases prior to “brief filing” and a Certified Record, the First Department circumvented the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Ironically, the the First Department was expected to grant the appeal after it established the basis for the malpractice cases after criticizing the lawyers for negligent handling of evidence in its final Order. The appeal was necessitated after Supreme Court judge Marcy Friedman, also believed to be instrumental in the elaborate case fixing conspiracy, dismissed all three malpractice cases in 2008, prior to discovery, despite the fact that the appellate decision confirmed that there were clearly triable issues of fact that were mishandled and "fatal" to the case. The First Department Decision, clearly available to the trial court, asserted that Plaintiff had made “fatal” errors in law and fact on the case, placing the blame squarely on the discovery and trial attorneys, Gary Phelan of Outten & Golden and David Fish, and Laurence Lebowitz, respectively. The underlying "Jordan v. Bates" discrimination case which Plaintiff Kathryn Jordan litigated over 14 years, was won in a jury verdict in 2005. The responsible employer WPP GROUP had insisted on trying the case and had agreed to the "law of the case", and had lost all of the Post Trial motion practice. Consequently the WPP appeal was regarded by insiders as "frivolous". Nonetheless, when the Jordan v. Bates case came before the First Department on appeal by Drinker Biddle, Judges Lippman, Catterson, and Gonzales, issued a decision which reversed the jury verdict. As the employer had admitted on the record to knowing about the hazing of Jordan as "a cripple" and failing to take remedial action, and had attempted to justify the subsequent termination of Jordan as for "financial reasons", after going outside the agency to hire non disabled planners during the alleged financial crisis, the jury found Bates guilty of the wrongful discharge claim. (Other causes of action were also mismanaged and lost because of attorney negligence). However, Judge Lippman and the First Department saw an opportunity with the case to reverse the trend toward making employers accountable for discrimination, and effectively legislated new law "from the bench" that redefined the legal standard for proving pretext in discrimination cases to make it easier for Employers to justify these adverse employment actions.
The Lippman panel was also incensed that Plaintiff Jordan had accused the trial court of encouraging improper "Ex Parte" meetings, at least one of which involved direct threats made to her about the Court's desire to have Mr. Lebowitz awarded a $1,300,000 legal fee despite being fired for cause.
Given that the "Bates" case involved important issues of disputed federal and state laws where New York has been on a different track than more progressive states,
Jordan also filed an Appeal with NYCOA, which was also disregarded. The First Department heard the Bianca Jagger eviction case instead. Moreover, the First Department had deployed several unethical tactics to support their decision including manipulation and paraphrasing of evidence, and re-writing the laws on proving discrimination. While the legal arguments involved in the underlying matter are hotly disputed, the remedy of reversal is not. Experts agree that the appropriate remedy for an alleged misapplication of the law would be remand for retrial, not dismissal. Judge Lippman's Opinion clearly asserted a punitive intent, as the panel was clearly incensed by Jordan's allegations of misconduct by Judge Acosta, which were deemed baseless without any independent investigation. Most importantly it was clear that there were several "Deals" in play with the case. Incredibly all of the judges involved were promoted after the alleged case fixing: Judge Lippman became Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals, Judge Acosta (who was nominated by "hookergate" Elliot Spitzer) was promoted from the Supreme Court,
Judge Gonzales was promoted to Chief Judge of the First Department, and Judge Marcy Friedman was assigned to "Complex Litigation" in the Supreme Court.
When the Malpractice cases related to the Bates matter came before the First Department, Judge Catterson was assigned to hear the case. Plaintiff Jordan asked him to recuse himself given his obvious conflict with the Bates case. Then Judge Acosta appeared again, after having been recused at the trial level. Clearly, there was intense high level oversight. However, in their haste to once again fix a case, this time to suppress evidence of the prior case fixing, they circumvented numerous Rules of Appellate procedure and refused to accommodate Plaintiff's disability. This aggressive coercive style is typical of jurists like Judge Acosta and Judge Lippman (and Judge Schiendlin in the Southern Circuit). These jurists are motivated by power plays as opposed to justice and demonstrate contempt for the litigants that they serve. Their goal is to cultivate relationships with large employer violators and large defendant law firms that might help advance their political and career agendas. Attorneys play an important role in the new "case fixing" Supreme Court, as they can perform armslength circumventions of the Rules and Law. This is now judges work down dockets and vett caseloads. Nonetheless the consequence and the casualty is the complete trampling of the civil rights of litigants, and the tax payers that pay the salaries of Judiciary.
The issue of “case fixing” has become very high profile on the legal scene after the New York State Senate Judiciary Committee under Senate Majority Leader John Sampson conducted public hearings and heard countless citizens attest to corruption in the Courts ranging from evidence tampering to censorship and abuse of discretion to outright fixing of the outcome of cases. Judge Lippman's name was most frequently mentioned but there were reports of abuses of discretion, tampering with evidence, threats to witnesses, manipulation of the law, and even payoffs. The Judiciary Committee will be attacking this issue over the next several months as a critical priority for New York.

Respect the copyrights of the authors by republishing the entire press release as it is with no changes.