JRN CALLS FOR NYS LEGISLATURE TO PASS LAW MAKING “CASE FIXING” A FELONY IN WAKE OF FIRST DEPARTMENT-GONZALEZ SCANDAL. JRN: PROTECT “STATE INTEREST”.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
new york city, New York, United States of America (Free-Press-Release.com) March 27, 2011 --

1

JRN CALLS FOR NYS LEGISLATURE TO PASS LAW MAKING “CASE FIXING” A FELONY IN WAKE OF FIRST DEPARTMENT-GONZALEZ SCANDAL. JRN: PROTECT “STATE INTEREST”.

Welcome visit Our WebSite:

http://WWW.ENDDISCRIMINATIONNOW.COM

New York, N.Y. March 28, 2011: In an unexpected development in the Judicial Corruption crisis that has eroded Public Confidence in the Judiciary in New York State, the New York Post revealed today that Chief Justice Luis Gonzalez “lied on mortgage documents” and “received questionable tax breaks” with respect to his rent stabilized primary residence and investment home. More seriously, it was also revealed that Justice Gonzalez made numerous personal appointments to government positions for members of his immediate family and for Court workers families. Gonzales was quoted as describing the frauds and violations of Judiciary Law as “sounding really supersilly, super stupid”.
According to Judicial Reform Now founder Kathryn Jordan, the Chief Judge’s actions are not only part of a long pattern of abuse of judicial discretion but constitute serious violations of Judiciary Law. “Under Judiciary Canon 100.3(C) (2)
(3), a Judge must not appoint any member of the judge’s staff or that of the Court which the Judge is a member or a relative “within the fourth degree of relationship” to a Court position”, Jordan stated. A cursory check of Judiciary Law shows that Judge Gonzales may have committed some serious violations:

(3) A judge shall not make unnecessary appointments. A judge shall exercise the power of appointment impartially and on the basis of merit. A judge shall avoid nepotism and favoritism. A judge shall not approve compensation of appointees beyond the fair value of services rendered. A judge shall not appoint or vote for the appointment of any person as a member of the judge's staff or that of the court of which the judge is a member, or as an appointee in a judicial proceeding, who is a relative within the fourth degree of relationship of either the judge or the judge's spouse or the spouse of such a person. A judge shall refrain from recommending a relative within the fourth degree of relationship of either the judge or the judge's spouse or the spouse of such person for appointment or employment to another judge serving in the same court.
As revealed in the NY Post story, the Chief Justice of the First Department appointed his “Ex Wife” to a Clerk position and his secretary’s brother, he AA’s nephew, and his driver’s son to various Court positions, a practice deemed “nepotism”. “This is far more serious than nepotism. Judges take oaths of office when they assume office and are held to a far stricter standard of ethical conduct than any other branch of government. It is a blatant violation of Judiciary Law for a judge to appoint family members or staff to positions within his own Court.” Jordan said.

As for Judge Gonzalez “really stupid” choices with respect to his Mortgage on an investment property while living in Rent Controlled housing and receiving STAR tax breaks, His Honor could be facing Fraud and Criminal charges. It is very unlikely that any fact finder would find his choices “stupid” given that the Justice was a graduate of Columbia Law School and presided over Landlord and Tenant Court between 1987 and 1991.

Tip of Much Bigger Iceberg

Judge Gonzalez is no stranger to controversy. In December 2007, he and Chief Justice Jonathan Lippman (and Judges Sullivan, Catterson, and Friedman) “fixed” a Jury Verdict on a case where a large employer owned by WPP Group had filed a frivolous, collaterally estopped appeal. Judge Gonzales was one of three judges (Hon. Rolando Acosta, Hon. Jonathan Lippman) who was promoted as a direct consequence of reversing that jury verdict. More seriously, the “Lippman Panel” in deploying improper “credibility findings” based upon “evidence” from a sealed court file to circumvent the narrow “irrational” jury standard of review and revisiting a “JNOV” disposed of by Acosta, acted “Extra judicially”. Acosta, promoted four days after throwing his own case, “sanctioned” Jordan for her reports of misconduct and, along with Catterson, carried out his threat to derail the Malpractice appeal in 2009.

Jordan, who had branded the concept of “case fixing” after realizing the legal import of Court’s “Extra Judicial” acts in the December 27th 2007 Decision, filed a case of Obstruction of Justice, Civil RICO, Conversion et al in December 2009 against the First Department judges, including Judge Gonzales. She alleged that the “jealous judges” (who had sued the Legislature for “Private Sector raises”) used her case not only for personal career advancement by “converting” her jury verdict “bond” into a very large economic favor for EEO violator WPP Group, but to “roll back” forty years of Civil Rights advances. “At the time people thought this was legal hyperbole”, Jordan said, “But when Supreme Court Justice Scalia publicly asserted last month that Women are not entitled to equal protections under the Constitution, the Obstruction case began to be taken seriously”. The First Department is no stranger to legal activism.
However, this time there was a direct, economic connection between the “fixing” of the WPP case and the advancement of the Succession Plans. The Supreme Court made it very clear in Caperton v. A.T. Massey that violations of the “Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment” that involve a “direct pecuniary interest in the outcome” by a judge should be resolved via disqualification. As the Kennedy majority affirmed:

“Courts, in our system, elaborate principles of law in the course of resolving disputes. The power and the prerogative of a court to perform the function rest, in the end, upon the respect accorded to its judgments. The citizen’s respect for judgments depends in turn upon the issuing Court’s absolute probity. Judicial integrity is, in consequence, a state interest of the highest order” .

Jordan argued that if there had been no organized scheme to advance the careers and compensation of a group of conspiratorial justices that the “Extra Judicial” acts of doling out “exceptions” to FRAP and Appellate Law to grateful corporate violators was sufficient grounds for Disqualification, if not Impeachment. Bates-WPP deployed “blank check” shareholder funds to wage a 16 year “war of attrition” against Jordan after early depositions (1996) affirmed the merit of the discrimination claims. The Lippman Panel deployed Taxpayer funds to hear a frivolous appeal in order to protect the Succession Plan and to advance an activist, legislative agenda.

While the Bates-WPP “Lippman” drama was in Pre Trial mode in 2004, a similar disability-gender discrimination case against Verizon was coming up for trial. Unbeknownst to Jordan, Scheindlin had reached a secret deal with Jordan’s then attorney Gary Phelan of Outten & Golden and Verizon’s outside counsel Ken Gage early in the litigation to“settle”, not try, the case, valued at $31M, for the cost of her legal fees. Jordan had rejected Phelan’s demand for a $100K “retainer”, outside their Representation Agreement. Consequently, Jordan, ill and unrepresented at the time, was forced to execute, under threats of “litigation and sanctions”, an onerous Agreement that forced her to surrender her employment status, contested Erisa benefits, and her right to be made “whole”. As in the Lippman-WPP scheme, Scheindlin’s extra judicial invasion of her own case was covered up by a colleague. Judge George Daniel’s bizarre December 27th, 2007 Decision, issued the same DAY as Lippman decision, falsely asserted Jordan was represented by counsel and that there was no coercion. This was in sharp contrast to the Second Circuit’s foreboding November 2005 Opinion which characterized Jordan’s July 27th 2004 Rescission Letter as one that “could be interpreted as duress”. Less than one month after the Settlement was executed, Verizon breached all of the stipulated terms. The SDNY would again cut a “Deal” for repeat violator Verizon and cover up a colleague’s extra judicial conduct, and again do so to advance a judicial career. In June 2010, Hon. Judge Lynch, on his way to the Second Circuit, disposed of the Breach of Settlement case despite Verizon’s admission of breach.

In early 2009 Jordan became aware of the nomination hearings of Judge Jonathan Lippman for Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals. Jordan advanced her objections to Judiciary Chair Senator John Sampson as to why Judge Lippman was unsuitable for the State’s highest judicial office. After Judge Lippman “overcame” Senator Sampson’s objections to his candidacy during a District tour, the Chief Judge was appointed to office. At the Summer 2009 Public Hearings, it became apparent that what Jordan had observed as “Case Fixing” was pervasive throughout the New York State Court System. “Virtually every deponent who testified described Judges disregarding and circumventing Rules and Law to dispose of cases, and many of whom did so for economic or political reasons.”, Jordan stated. Judge Lippman’s name was repeatedly cited, along with Judge Scheindlin, when the subject of “case fixing” arose. In December 2009, after Sampson declined to hold impeachment hearings, Jordan filed an Obstruction of Justice Complaint in Federal Court. Within two weeks of Summary Judgment responses, Federal Judge Deborah Batts dismissed the case, pre-empting Jordan’s statutory response. Jordan then advanced the Complaint to the Second Circuit which ignored it for months, then directed the Clerk Catherine OHagan Wolfe to issue an “Order” denying jurisdiction. “The Clerk has no legal authority under FRAP to issue Orders. The Clerk “renders” Orders”, Jordan clarified.
While New York Courts struggle with corrupt and incompetent leadership, the confidence in the Judiciary is at an all time low and complaints against judge at an all time high.
“New York needs to protect it’s “State Interest” in a corruption free Judiciary. “Case Fixing” must be legally defined and criminalized and severe financial penalties affixed to Corporate violators”, JRN urged.

More information can be found online at http://WWW.ENDDISCRIMINATIONNOW.COM

case fixing     Chief Judge Lippman     first department     Judge Luis Gonzales     new york post     Obstruction of Justice     Verizon Communications NYC     WPP Group NYC