WPP HAD $2 TRILLION IN EXCESS CASH ON BOOKS IN 2010 AFTER DUPING FIRST DEPARTMENT INTO VACATING LANDMARK DISCRIMINATION JURY VERDICT IN 2007; REWARDED WITH ANOTHER TRILLION IN 2012 ELECTION.

New York NY, February 19th, 2013: Recent SEC documents have disclosed that WPP Group had more than $2 Trillion in cash on its books in 2010, only two years after it convinced the First Department to dump the "Jordan v. Bates" case partly because the World's largest advertising holding company could not pay the $3.3M judgment entered after a full jury trial. WPP Group made the decision to take the case to trial in 2005 despite knowing for over a decade (1996) that damning evidence existed that would almost certainly result in an adverse decision.. Although Martin Sorrell, the CEO of WPP Group that owned Bates Advertising, did not enter the situation until 2003 at the earliest, and he had an opportunity then to œwrite off the litigation at that time, Sorrell decided instead to roll the dice on a jury trial, following the "war of attrition" strategy. When WPP-Bates predictably lost the case after an 11 day trial in April 2005, then lost Post-Trial Motions that simulated an Appeal for œsufficiency, the case legally ended. The Court issued an Opinion in February 7th 2006 affirming the jury verdict and DENYING the jnovs. A hearing on a collateral issue of "legal fees" was supposed to be held on April 3rd, 2006 and was cancelled abruptly at the last minute so that Plaintiffs discharged "for cause" attorney, Laurence Lebowitz, could hold an Ex Parte œchat with the Judge to lobby for a $1.3M contingent legal fee, a matter NOT before the Court. When the Plaintiff, Kathryn Jordan, was called into Chambers, her attorney had clearly œmade his case and the Judge, Hon. Acosta made it clear that Jordan had no choice but to pay the fee or the judge would advocate against her in future litigation. This was extremely improper as contingent legal fees are not decided by the Trial court, only hourly fees. The contingent fee is a contractual issue. Acosta used his position of authority in the œJudgment phase of the case to allow Jordan's fired lawyer to submit œProposed Judgments for "Plaintiff" despite knowing her objection and her own submissions based on advice from new counsel, especially on the tax impact of the award. Lebowitz had put his interests consistently ahead of the Plaintiff and had committed myriad egregious legal errors. œHe simply refused to prepare a medical case despite being given a fully prepared file, experts and chronology, Jordan stated. Acosta repeatedly bullied Jordan when she attempted to defend her position. By August the situation was so out of control, Jordan filed for Disqualification. œHis Honor would never have interfered in the private legal representation choices of a male litigant. It was a total act of disrespect, Jordan stated. When threatening the Plaintiff did not result in accession, Judge Acosta warehoused the case until November 20th 2006 and issued an extrajudicial œFinal Judgment wherein he attacked the disabled woman as œcontemptuous. At the time, Jordan did not know that Acosta was being vetted for promotion to the First Department or that DBR had played a role in that promotion. œDBR had recused themselves from the April 3rd, 2005 "Legal Fee" hearing. What defense attorney does that? If you have a large legal fee liability in dispute, you appear. I suspect that DBR arranged this whole scheme to mask their failure to win the case. Because I had fired my unscrupulous attorney, their scheme to split the contingent fee was compromised. And with it, Acosta's part of the deal, his promotion to the First Department, was in jeopardy. That's why Acosta blew up his own case. He did not count on my refusal to œplay ball. He did not count on getting caught. œThere is no rational reason why a judge would throw his own jury verdict unless he has a deal going. Acosta kept his promise to sabotage the Malpractice cases as well, first getting himself assigned to the case, then handing it off to colleague Marcy Friedman, who in turn was promoted to complex litigation for her ˜favor. Her Honor allowed four law firms gang up on her while she was still in Palm Beach trying to defend herself against fraud by a notorious local contractor. In December 2005, Acosta finally recused. But the damage was done even though he lacked jurisdiction to issue the Final Judgment. Friedman refused to disqualify and disregarded MTD laws. She was promoted to Complex Litigation shortly thereafter.

When the frivolous œappeal came before the First Department for review on December 27, 2007, the Lippman panel was ready to help their œfriend and future colleague Hon. Acosta. Despite a complete lack of jurisdiction, they heard the appeal, ignored the complaints of misconduct and bullying by Acosta, and went on the attack against the disabled Plaintiff. œWe had a really strong Prima Facie case, so it was virtually impossible to reverse that, Jordan stated, œSo the Lippman panel essentially nullified a large part of the Record, the very Prima Facie case they admitted was strong, by libeling me as œlying in response to an illegal question about my need to use a cane for ambulation. I told the truth. However the panel did not check the record facts for either admissibility or accuracy. Further, they relied in a misapplication of œsufficiency legal standards where the record must be viewed œin the light most favorable to the prevailing party. The Lippman Panel reweighted the evidence so that this new false record was created and the false evidence was rendered more important than that which was before the Jury. They literally changed the evidence in the case to make it conform to their ingoing biases and agenda. Judge Gische arranged to have the Bond vacated in another Ex Parte deal with DBR. She too was promoted (First Dept). Four days after Lippman issued the decision reversing the Jury Verdict, Judge Acosta announced his promotion. Six months later Judge Gonzales announced his replacement of Judge Lippman and later that year Chief Justice Lippman advanced to NYCOA. The Succession Plan went forward as planned. The real question is whether there were ˜quid pro quo deals involved in these schemes. œWhen a $3.3M jury verdict is rebated back to the party that was proven to have violated discrimination laws, that is œfixing a case. The question become œWhat were the motives? Was it solely to gain influence with a large corporation in the future? Or was it part of a deal whereby WPP would be relieved of a large verdict in return for the very promotions that the acting judges received? œ.

Jordan has stated that she believes there was a conspiracy and that œagents who played roles in the conspiracy, including former Governor Spitzer, may not have been aware of their role due to the arms-length role that corporate law firms play in these nominations. It's also possible that the entire matter was orchestrated in DC, after the Phase I dismissal in Federal court did not yield a fatal blow when Swidler was the law firm. œThere are facts that are indisputable that cannot be ignored: 1) a large unexpected jury verdict (although 40% lower than "Make Whole" due to Acosta's misdirection to the jury); 2) a Succession scheme involving at least three of the judges who actively adjudicated the case; 3) a major drama around a œcontingent legal fee which normally would not even come up for discussion; 4) intimidation tactics directed at censoring and discrediting the Plaintiff; 5) the jury verdict œdisappears in a bogus appeal that should never have been heard; 6) a $3.3M Bond evaporates after an Ex Parte "hearing" arranged by DBR.



Jordan believes the failure by the DOJ to investigate is political. œGovernment is so partisan crazy these days that even if there is irrefutable evidence of wrong doing, people are unwilling to hold these jurists accountable for fearthey will lose political standing. What they do not realize is how damaging these scandals are and that they don't need corrupt judges tainting the reputation of their party.

As for WPP Group, Sir Martin Sorrell made the decision to take the case to trial in 2005 but refused to pay the Judgment. œThat appeal should not have been filed. He should have paid up and written it off. Now another seven years have gone by when even more damage has been inflicted. Just in the last two year I have suffered foreclosures, evictions, bank seizures and destruction of my credit as predators all along the east coast have moved in seeing the weak leakership. Predator lawyers and corrupt landlords rightfully saw the Lippman-Acosta scandal as weakness by the Court. This weakness has also been evident in housing court where kickbacks to the judges are œdu jour and where disabled and elderly persons are being systematically thrown on the street. Amongst this turmoil, law enforcement remains mute, while judges who should know better are œblaming the victim.

Only the Governor has made noises that indicate a willingness to stand up to this scourge. Nonetheless Sorrell still refuses to signal his willingness to accept accountability for his bad judgment in trying the case in the first place. œI have told the truth from the beginning. I even tried to get both companies to simply rehire me at the start of these matters. But their legal departments have only one gear: battle mode, and unfortunately, it's not one they are particularly proficient at. I have lost 17 years of my life, an entire career, when I could have been helping these companies with their branding and strategy. It's incomprehensible , Jordan lamented. œI made the decision to see this through to help the Protected Classes and it has meant incredible, painful sacrifices. I knew that blowing the whistle on these schemes would not make me flavor of the month. It does not bother me that people who should get this don't. But I also knew I would win the case. The tr