TOP NY JUDGES SUED FOR "OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE" IN LANDMARK CASE AGAINST JUDICIARY

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
(Free-Press-Release.com) July 24, 2010 --

August 13th , New York, N.Y.: Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman and thirty other defendants including two corporations, Verizon Communications and WPP Group, 13 appellate and federal judges, five law firms, and the Judicial Conduct Commission itself in New York were served a lawsuit by Plaintiff Kathryn Jordan in Federal Court (09 cv 10616) alleging “obstruction of justice” and eight other acts of civil fraud. Jordan is President and Founder of End Discrimination Now and a former Fortune 100 executive. The Chief Judge has been charged with transforming the Judiciary from the enforcer of Federal and State laws into an “organized crime organization" and an "arcane, corrupt system of favors, partisanship and political ideology where justice is bought and sold everyday”. The complaint alleges that the Defendant judges illegally used their judicial power and discretion to “fix” cases and litigation outcomes, frequently circumventing the Rules of Evidence and the Rule of Law in the process. In return for these favors, the corporate defendants would be relieved of liability, even judgments, or have their cases positioned for early “settlements”, the latter of which were always a fraction of the corporate exposure. Both WPP Group and Verizon Corporation’s CEO’s are believed to have given the order to perpetuate the frauds and to force the disabled litigant who suffers from MS to endure 15 years of litigation in order to secure her constitutional rights. Ms. Jordan was a former executive at both companies. WPP Group refused to pay the $3.3M Bond after losing the jury case they demanded be tried, and Verizon deployed coercion to force a token “settlement” under fraudulent circumstances then reneged on the token terms.. Most seriously the Judicial Conduct Commission, the state’s regulatory body for the Judiciary, is believed to have enabled the cover ups and allowed crimes similar to the cases cited in the Complaint to go undetected, acting as an agent of the conspiracy and deploying tax payer funds to perpetuate the schemes.

JUDGES JONATHAN LIPPMAN, GONZALES, ACOSTA PROMOTED AFTER "CASE FIXIING" SCHEME

The Chief Judge is alleged to have personally “fixed” the outcome of the Jordan v. Bates case (118785-99-cv), an important “perceived disability” discrimination case to dispense a favor to Drinker Biddle’s client, WPP Group, which lost the jury trial and post trial verdicts in 2005 after refusing to settle the case during the preceding decade, despite hard evidence of liability in the form of sworn admissions of guilt by agency management. In return for this large favor (a $3.3M Bond had been posted), Judge Lippman was positioned as the front runner of the nomination process for Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals and the Courts of New York, ahead of colleagues more experienced and qualified. A faux "vetting" debate questioning Judge Lippman's “diversity” in the NY State Judiciary ensued, but he was approved for Chief Judge nonetheless, in what was believed to be another “favor for favor” deal negotiated behind the scenes. (Senator Sampson, Senate Judiciary Chair, has refused to answer questions about the matter after declaring his support for Judge Lippman). Judge Lippman is also charged with aiding and abetting a numerous other “errant” judges whom he knew to have violated the Rules of Judicial Conduct, including then Supreme Court Judge Rolando Acosta, who had attacked Jordan as “contemptuous” after she reported her discharged attorney’s “Ex Parte” meetings (Laurence Lebowitz) with the Court seeking to improperly influence the jurist on a large disputed contingent legal fee ($1.3M), a matter not before him. Knowing that Acosta had threatened the Plaintiff with retaliation, and that he has indisputably attacked her personally in the “Final Judgment, Judge Lippman, acting from a posture of bias by his own admission, aided the scheme to “dump” the case to avoid any messy “investigation” during the vetting process. After Chief Judge Lippman legitimized (instead of reported) Acosta’s conduct, he used this “evidence” to not only discredit the Plaintiff but to justify reversing the jury verdict upheld by the trial court based on an alleged “JNOV” (Judgment Nothwithstanding the Verdict). Ironically, the Acosta himself had already denied the JNOV, rendering any appellate review "collaterally estopped" and his "Final Judgment" was not legal as he recused. More seriously, the “evidence” of the allegations by Acosta against Jordan did not even exist at the time of the jury trial, so incorporation of this into the calculus of the Opinion to disturb the verdict was, by definition, fraud. Nonetheless, Judge Acosta was promptly “vetted” for his promotion to the First Department, the latter of which would not have occurred without the intercession of Chief Judge Lippman.

CHIEF JUDGE USES ACOSTA RUSE TO RE-WRITE DISCRIMIINATION LAWS,
ADVANCE HIS CAREER

With the distraction of Judge Acosta’s intemperate outburst diverting attention from the case itself, the Chief Judge set about “legislating from the bench” new laws on proving pretext in discrimination cases. The First Department panel, that included Judge Gonazales and Friedman along with Chief Judge Lippman, used the Kathryn Jordan v. Bates Advertising case “appeal” to re-write the laws on proving “pre-text in discrimination cases to make it easier for employers to evade liability. The consequence of the latter manipulation is believed to have set back civil rights advances for all persons in protected classes as much as thirty years as all discrimination cases are based on the same “tripartite” (McDonnell Douglas) standard of review. While the First Department is now scrambling to patch together defenses in the holes created by this fraud, the fact is that any employer could cite to this precedent case as a defense that would nullify ANY claim of discrimination. Judge Kaye, a Lippman crony, subsequently put her imprimatur on this act, de facto, by failing to hear the NYCOA appeal.

United States District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin is accused of “fixing” a second disability discrimination case involving the Plaintiff so that the case would be “settled” and not tried before a jury as Plaintiff demanded. Scheindlin herself illegally intervened in the settlement process, deployed improper threats of “litigation and sanctions” to scare the Plaintiff into accession, and refused to allow the litigant the right to counsel or legal review of the legalese riddle “Agreement”. Paul Hastings conspired with Outten & Golden to coerce Plaintiff into accepting the token settlement. This occurred after Outten & Golden attempted to extort $100,000 in legal fees in order to continue representation, and other coercive tactics to blackmail the Plaintiff, an offer that was rejected. The settlement was “approved” after Paul Hastings literally stole the Agreement from a remote location and arranged to have an impromptu “status conference” while Jordan was unrepresented.

Four related malpractice cases were disposed of prior to discovery by Supreme Court Judge Marcy Friedman, a former colleague of Judge Rolando Acosta, based on the wrong legal standard, and despite numerous triable issues of fact. Ironically, the First Department (Lippman) Decision clearly laid blame at the feet of the attorneys for “fatal” defects in handling of evidence and law. Yet the Malpractice cases were all disposed of as well both at the trial level and again on appeal by the First Department Appellate Division. Moreover, the malpractice case appellate records had not even been certified at the time the Appeal was rejected. The Malpractice matter was recently dismissed by the Court of Appeals. The instant Complaint for Obstruction of Justice alleges that these outcomes occurred as a result of manipulations of rules, evidence and witnesses, and that the appellate “review” served as a cover up of the frauds, instead of initiating an investigation as required by New York Judiciary Law.

JUDGE BATTS AIDS CRONIES IN DODGING FED CASE

The case filed by Jordan for Obstruction of Justice is a landmark litigation for “obstruction of justice” that alleges that the Defendants acted to knowingly and willfully circumvent the Rules and Laws of New York to “fix” cases, converting the judgments or judgment “risks” into favors for the employer defendants that would in turn be monetized as favors (promotions, pay raises et al) for the judges. The instant Complaint also considers the underlying facts of how both discrimination cases were handled in terms of evidence, judicial discretion, and accepted law, along with testimony from the Public Hearings held in the Summer of 2009 by the New York State Senate Judiciary Committee, where Judge Lippman was widely castigated as a “case fixer” and manipulator of the justice system, and facts from the Lippman-Kaye litigation against the Governor and Legislature demanding "private sector" pay raises that relied up a series of frauds and extortions by both Judges Lippman and Kaye.

The Complaint asserts that the Judiciary in New York has been corrupted by “decades of abuses of judicial discretion”, that has become so pervasive and embedded in the culture of the Courts of New York that the Judiciary has essentially been “operating as an organized crime unit”. The Complaint filed on December 30th, 2009 in Federal Court alleges allegations of “obstruction of justice, conspiracy to defraud, conversion, tampering with evidence and improper attempts to influence witnesses” and other causes of action. The case was assigned to Federal Court Judge Batts who disposed of it immediately in Fed Court citing that the claims against the defendants were "criminal".

A criminal investigation by the AG is expected. For now, the case if back before the Second Circuit, named in the lawsuit. Jordan & END continue to lobby the Senate for Judicial Reform.

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

landmark case against judiciary     Obstruction of Justice     WPP Group  Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman     VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS     WPP Group NYC