OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CASE GAINS GROUND AFTER NYCOA SUSTAINS FIRST DEPT JUDGE's THREAT TO FIX MALPRACTICE CASES

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
(Free-Press-Release.com) July 5, 2010 --

July 5th, 2010, New York, N.Y.: The Court of Appeals, side stepping the legal standard for attorney malpractice again, enabled the final phase of the cover up of First Department's fixing of the "Jordan v. Bates" discrimination case this past month when it denied Kathryn Jordan's appeal of the dismissal of related Malpractice cases. The Malpractice cases, which would have held the attorneys, who aided the fixing of two discrimination cases filed by Jordan,accountable for their actions had been dismissed prior to discovery by a NYSSC colleague of Judge Rolando Acosta, who had threatened to obstruct Jordan's pursuit of the same in 2006. The decision by Judge M. Friedman was not only inconsistent with NY Malpractice Law, it was inconsistent with the First Department's own finding of “fatal errors” by the attorneys (Lippman Panel December 27th 2007). The inconsistency however was part of what is now recognized as a multi jurisdiction scheme to "fix" two large discrimination cases for the employer defendants, WPP-Bates and Verizon, using the named attorneys (Gary Phelan of Outten & Golden, Laurence Lebowitz, and David Fish) as arms-length agents of the frauds. The Malpractice case dismissals were part of a five year intimidation campaign by the notoriously intemperate Judge Rolando Acosta, nicknamed “nuclear”,who had overseen the high profile" Kathryn Jordan v. Bates Advertising "case in the New York Supreme Court in April 2005 where Jordan had prevailed in a jury trial, “on the law”. Defendant WPP's attorneys at DBR refused to settle the case and insisted taking the case to trial where they lost, in an 11 day jury trial, and also lost the Post Trial Motions.Judge Acosta upheld the jury verdict publishing a lengthy opinion articulating how the discrimination victim had met the legal burden of proof “by a preponderance of evidence” in February 2006, and DENIED all post trial motions filed by WPP Group. The case was appeal proof. However, eight months later in his Final Judgment of November 2006, he set the case up for “fixing” by the First Department and re-cast Jordan as "contemptuous" after she repeatedly complained about his improper conduct with the attorney discharged from the case. It now appears that Acosta not only had an inordinate interest in the $1.3M contingent legal fee but had entered into a deal related the Bates case leading to his sudden promotion to the First Department four days after the Appellate Division "fixed" the case on appeal in December 27th 2007. Acosta's promotion was announced publicly on December 31st.

The first deal involved Laurence Lebowitz, Jordan’s discharged trial attorney,who improperly sought to influence the then NYSSC trial judge about a contingent $1.3M legal fee dispute in an Ex Parte meeting on April 3rd, 2006,when neither Jordan nor her adversary were present. Lebowitz, who cultivated a relationship with the acting judge, used this rapport to gain improper access to chambers after a hearing was adjourned on legal fees. Lebowitz was allowed to produce unauthenticated "evidence” to the Court and argue the merits of the contingent legal fee issue, a matter not under Acosta's authority.. After the “Ex Parte” meeting, Jordan was summoned by an irate Judge Acosta and warned that he “might act as a fact witness against you” and “be the judge assigned to any (Malpractice) case”. Jordan had actually acted to protect the Judge from Lebowitz' repeated attempts to improperly influence the Court. She was so distressed by Acosta's attack on her character that she submitted to a voluntary polygraph which was part of the appellate record on the case. Acosta's "contemptuous" attack on Jordan, which was never punished by any regulatory or appellate body, has had a cascading effect on Jordan's reputation. "It's copy cat justice. Too lazy to do their own due diligence judges now rely upon the mad ravings of a jurist lacking self control", Jordan despaired. The second deal apparently brokered by DBR, involved Acosta's setting the case up for reversal on appeal in his "Final Judgment" in exchange for his promotion to the First Department FOUR DAYS after throwing the case with the aid of Judge Lippman. Here the Obstruction of Justice case has gained some traction as not only was the appeal collaterally estopped, it now appears that the Final Judgment that Lippman relied upon was not legally valid. as Acosta filed it upon recusal. Something definitely happened between February 2006 and December 2006 behind the scenes that led to the reversal of the jury verdict. Acosta’s February 2006 Decision is extremely supportive of Jordan and the jury verdict. He also denied the post trial motions filed by WPP Group counsel DBR in that Decision. The Final Judgment in November 2006, effected after Acosta was asked to recuse by Jordan, includes a 7 page rage filled rant that clearly took aim Jordan's credibility and character. "Innocent people do not attack their accusers," Jordan asserted. Given the subsequent decision by the First Department (Chief Judge LIppman) on December 27th 20007 to reverse the jury verdict based upon a frivolous and collaterally estopped appeal filed by WPP Group after the illegal “Final Judgment” was issued, and Judge Acosta’s promotion four days later, it is apparent that the jurist used his authority extra judicially to dispose of the case prior to the announcement of his promotion. Jordan now believes that DBR set up a deal for WPP with Acosta whereby he would be promoted and the Bates verdict would be vacated. DBR had repeatedly cheated during discovery,& were furious over the loss. However, it is now believed that the scheme to fix the "Bates" case had a fatal flaw. The first fallacy obviously was the fact that under the narrow provisions of NY appellate law, the Lippman Panel (Gonzales, Sullivan, Friedman, Catterson) was not entitled to re-visit the JNOV that was denied by Acosta at the trial level. Acosta and Lippman were both mindful of this when Acosta essentially re-wrote the Decision as a "lay up" for Lippman to vacate the JNOV. However,using the judge's attack on the disabled litigant to destroy her credibility was legal error. Not only are appellate judges discouraged if not precluded from making credibility determinations, Acosta's accusations occurred nine months AFTER the jury trial ended and could not be construed as admissible "evidence" to disturb a jury verdict. It is clear from the First Dept Decision of December 27, 2007, however, that the Lippman Panel was not only influenced by the bias of the trial court, they incorporated the statements into their "credibility" determination. Further, contrary to Judiciary Law, they acted upon an obvious ingoing bias and manipulated the evidentiary record of "facts" to support that bias. Part of that new record included "blame the victim" findings, contrary to recognized discrimination law. However, like most ruses the Lippman Conspiracy made a fatal error. In relying upon the Amended Decision that Acosta frantically issued during his vetting, they failed to recognize that the latter decision was legally invalid as it was issued after Jordan had called for Acosta's recusal. Thus,, there simply was no basis to dispose of the verdict. It was clear from the First Department's decision that the motives for tampering with the jury verdict extended beyond the usual gamesmanship for masking judicial misconduct. The Chief Judge and First Dept used the "Jordan v. Bates" case to rewrite discrimination law to make it easier for employer violators to discriminate ("legitimate reason" v. "real reason").. However, even here they erred again. Once they changed the legal standard of review for the Bates case, they were required by law to remand the case for retrial on the allegedly correct legal standard. "This could not possibly have been "legal error", Jordan asserted. "This was a knowing willful scheme to circumvent Appellate Law to enable the advancement of the judges involved, to "legislate new discrimination law from the bench", and to extort improved judicial compensation". It is widely known that former Chief Judge Kaye and acting Chief Judge Lippman sued the Governor for pay raises for the judges who make between $135-165K a year and have lifetime benefits and job security. Judge Kaye had lobbied for parity with "the private sector". Jordan, who was an EVP ($250K base salary position) at the time of the discrimination believes that her argument for being made "whole" irritated the jealous judges. "Judge Acosta pushed for me to take a fraction of what my case was worth and I refused. He tried to convince me the jury "was not looking at you". This was a bright, perceptive jury. They knew exactly what was going on. Had Judge Acosta properly instructed them that once they found Bates guilty that they had no choice but to make me whole, instead of a split verdict. Further, if Mr. Lebowitz had spent more time preparing my damages case instead of his scheme to influence the judge on contingent legal fees, I would have had my full P&S and medical damages", Jordan retorted. Jordan has frequently been quoted as critical of the movement to suppress due process rights of litigants and the use of "sanctions" to suppress freedom of speech. Her organization End Discrimination Now has found that under Judge Lippman Pro Se cases have been "systematically dismissed" while Malpractice cases rarely if ever reviewed. Jordan believes that there is more than judicial elitism behind this. "Judges with unwieldy dockets often use lawyers to "case sit" and "vett" cases It's like having the fox guarding the hen house. But these tactics are emblematic of how the Chief Judge has reduced dockets by 25%. Wake up Albany. The fox wants your chickens".

Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman     Obstruction of Justice     WPP