Judicial Reform Now.com

http://www.enddiscriminationnow.com/

-------------------------------------------------------------

United States District Court

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

KATHRYN JORDAN,

Plaintiff,

v.                                                                                                                                                                   INDEX  NO._09 cv 3319

                                                                      Date Index Purchased:_December 30^th, 2009

JUDGE JONATHAN LIPPMAN, JUDGE JUDITH

KAYE, JUDGE LUIS GONZALES, JUDGE ROLANDO

T. ACOSTA, JUDGE JAMES CATTERSON,                         Complaint

JUDGE DAVID FRIEDMAN, JUDGE JOSEPH P. SULLIVAN;

JUDGE PETER TOM,  JUDGE MARCY FRIEDMAN;

JUDGE SHIRA S. SCHEINDLIN, JUDGE GEORGE P. DANIELS;

JUDGE GERARD LYNCH, JUDGE RONALD ELLIS,

SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (C/O

JUDGE RALPH WINTER & CLERK OF COURT);

NEW YORK COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT;

NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK;  GREGORY HOMER,

DONALD BESHADA. DRINKER BIDDLE; KENNETH GAGE,

PAUL HASTINGS; LAURENCE LEBOWITZ, KLEIN ZELLMAN;

GARY PHELAN, WAYNE OUTTEN, OUTTEN & GOLDEN,

DAVID M. FISH, ROSEN LEFF; VERIZON GENERAL COUNSEL;

WPP GENERAL COUNSEL.

                                                Defendants.

To the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK:

                        COMES NOW PLAINTIFF, Kathryn Jordan, and the People of New York, pursuant to the Constitution of the United States and Bill rights, CVR Article 2 (10) and 2(13),  Violation of USC Title 18; 286; 371; 1505; 1511;1512; 1513; 1519;  42 USC 1961-1962; 18 USC 2; New York Penal Code 460.10 Article 1(a) Sections 190.65, 200.45;200.50; 215.35; 215.19, 205.65, 215.40 and Article 3; New York Judicial Code Article 4 Section 90; Article 7-c; 22 NYCRR Part 100 Rules of Judicial Conduct; 22 NYCRR Part 1200 New York Rules of Professional Conduct, the Americans with Disability Act, Title VII, and federal anti retaliation laws, sues the named Defendants individually and as officers of the Courts they represent for Obstruction of Justice, Conspiracy to Defraud and Fraud in the Inducement, Violation of Constitutional Right to Free Speech, Hearing before a Jury, Right to Appeal, Right to Accommodation under the Americans with Disability Act, Right to Legal Representation, especially upon execution of release of complex legal rights, Right to Appear Self Represented,  Tampering with Witnesses, Attempt to Influence a Judge(s), Acceptance of Bribe(s) by Judge(s);  Tampering with Evidence,Coercion, Extortion, Retaliation, Breach of Judiciary Law, Breach of the Professional Conduct Law, Failure to Recuse by a Judge with Conflict of Interest, et al.

1.The Plaintiff is a resident of New York, New York (954 Lexington Avenue, #502 is Plaintiff's mailing addresss) and has been for most of her life, with the exception of almost three years as a resident of Palm Beach Florida beginning in 2005.

2. The Defendants are judges with the Supreme Court of New York (Judge Marcy Friedman, 80 Centre Street, NY, NY 10007); the First Department Appellate Division

(Judge Luis Gonzales, Judge James M. Catterson, Judge Joseph P. Sullivan, Judge David Friedman, Judge Rolando T. Acosta, Judge Peter Tom @ 27 Madison Avenue, NY NY 10010), Judge Jonathan Lippman, NYCOA (@20 Eagle Street, Albany 12202), Judge Judith Kaye (formerly NYCOA Chief, now Chief of Commission on Judicial Conduct,

1133 Avenue of Americas, NY NY 10036;  Judge Shira S. Scheindlin, USDC Southern District , 500 Pearl St, New York NY 10007; Judge George P. Daniels, USDC Southern District, 500 Pearl St. New York NY 10007; Judge Ronald Ellis, USDC Southern District 500 Pearl St, New York NY 10007; Second Circuit Court of Appeals (attn: Judge Ralph Winter) 40 Foley Sq, New York NY 10007; Gregory Homer, Donald Beshada, Drinker Biddle 140 Broadway New York NY 10005, Kenneth Gage, Paul Hastings, 191 N. Wacker Dr. Chicago IL 60606; Laurence Lebowitz @ Klein Zellman, 485 Madison Avenue, New York NY 10022; Gary Phelan, Wayne Outten, Outten & Golden, 3 Park Avenue, NY NY 10016; David M. Fish & Rosen Leff, 3 Park Avenue, New York NY 10016 (c/o Outten & Golden).

            3.  Plaintiff asserts that at all times throughout the incidents described in this Complaint that she was disabled with Multiple Sclerosis, and that all of the Defendants were on notice of this during the now 15 year ordeal.   Despite this obvious challenge, Plaintiff had advanced her career to become a senior Marketing and Advertising Executive in the $250K base salary range at the start of this saga.  Recent disclosure of judicial compensation disputes have made this information more relevant to the Complaint.

            4.  Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants, who comprise a small portion of the potential Defendant population of violators of the Judicial Law and Professional Conduct laws have created a "culture of corruption"in New York Courts, willfully and knowingly conspired to defraud her of her rights for protection against discrimination under federal and state law,  her right to trial by jury, her right to an impartial hearing of the facts, and her right to appeal, if necessary, of the same.   Instead, Plaintiff was targeted for an  elaborate "case fixing" scheme aimed at depriving her of her rightful remedies as a victim of discrimination, , in order to dispense favors and exemptions to corporate violators of federal and state anti discrimination laws, who, in turn  along with fellow attorney conspirators, would secure referrals, recommendations, and introductions that would lead to judicial promotions.  These schemes involved improper influence of and by judges,

influence of witnesses and intimidation of Plaintiff as the key witness in an active case, evidence tampering, manipulation and circumvention of the Laws of New York.   As was proven at the July 2009 Public Hearings of the Judicial Committee of the New York State Senate, this malaise was pervasive across all courts and jurisdictions and not limited to Plaintiff's cases.  Thus the class action implications.

4.This Complaint is about how a dysfunctional judiciary, without any oversight of an effective regulatory body, and under a corruption leadership, was able to execute a complex 15 year case fixing scheme whereby the Rules of Judicial Conduct and various Federal and State Laws the Laws of New York, as well as the Rules of Evidence, were  circumvented and  manipulated and where judges "chose"  evidence and used their judicial powers to influence, censure, sanction and intimidate witnesses, in order to secure certain case outcomes and to cover up their own misconduct.   Many of these schemes involved improper overtures from counsel to the acting judges, others involved judges deploying attorneys as arms-length agents of their conspiracy, some judges are alleged to outright broker deals when there was a large liability for the corporation or a large legal fee for the attorneys involved, and most involved judges failing to report corrupt and criminal acts by their peers, instead whitewashing the complaints and punishing the reporters of the same.   Plaintiff was not just three time victim of these frauds and abuses, but  an eye witness of a corrupt system, and a victim of judicial retaliation.  Plaintiff not only observed how cases were "fixed", but how all of the judges involved would be promoted or rewarded within a short time after the unlawful schemes.  Plaintiff also was an eye witness to how the JCC refused to investigate complaints of these serious violations, and how other agents of the Courts (like administrative arms of County Clerk and Clerk of Court) often aid in the conspiracies to cover up judicial corruption.   However, it was when Plaintiff attended Public Hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee in July 2009 that she realized how widespread this malaise had become.

Jurisdiction and Venue

This is an action seeking damages in excess of $75,000 but not less than $100,000,000, exclusive of costs, legal fees, & punitive damages. .

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction under diversity of citizenship

And complexity and nature of allegations, and the $75,000 minimum is more

than met by the court costs that Plaintiff has incurred.

Kathryn Jordan, Plaintiff ("Jordan"), was a citizen and resident of New York

during the period of employer liability for the related discrimination cases

(Kathryn Jordan v. Bates Advertising; Kathryn Jordan v. Verizon Communications) for the majority of her life including the present.

However, during the period of 2005-2008 when many of these violations

were committed, Plaintiff was a resident and citizen of Palm Beach FL,

created a diversity issue that qualifies for federal jurisdiction.   Moreover,

the issues of the underlying case involve violations of federal and state law,

the former and most serious of obstruction of justice, one that clearly

requires this Court's jurisdiction.

Defendant judges and all clerical personnel all occupy positions in Manhattan courts (Supreme Court, 60 and 80 Centre Street, Appellate Division 27 Madison Ave, NY NY 10010), with the exception of Judge Jonathan Lippman who occupies office in Albany. Defendant Commission on Judicial Conduct is located in New York, NY, as is the County Clerk (60 Centre Street).  The Commission on Judicial Nomination is located in New York, NYas well.

Most of the violations asserted fall under Federal and State Law.

Summary

While this case may appear on the surface to be a tragic tale of how a group of rogue activist judges and Machiavellian  attorneys circled the wagons around a disabled female victim of discrimination virtually entrapping her in a legal prison for 15 years, in order to help their corrupt clients evade justice, it is really a snapshot of a dysfunctional Judicial system out of control for decades, lacking both leadership and regulation, and a clarion call to all that this is just the tip of a very large iceberg, one that poses to erupt in scandal that will cast a shadow for decades to come if not timely and conscientiously addressed.

General Allegations

"Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law, it invites every man to come a law unto himself. It invites anarchy. (United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438 (1928).

For the last 15 years, beginning in December 1995, when Plaintiff filed a disability discrimination case against Bates Advertising  before the EEOC, and then before this Court (dismissed without prejudice by Judge Jed Rakoff,  in a highly contested and confusing Opinion that contravened federal anti discrimination law that led the case to New York Supreme Court for trial, and a decade of appeals), and again in 2002 when Plaintiff filed a second, separate lawsuit for disability discrimination against Verizon Communications,(a case that was forced into settlement by the Trial Court Southern District Judge Shira Scheindlin through unlawful means, a scheme endorsed by the Second Circuit), and related Malpractice cases, Plaintiff has been embarked on a search for justice.   This justice was delayed and  denied.   Instead, Plaintiff  became Witness to the dark underbelly of our Judicial system, where favors are routinely dispensed to corporate violators and errant judges, where the Rules of Evidence and Rule of Law are routinely disregarded and manipulated to conform to ingoing biases of the particular judge or the "deal" on the table or the particular agenda or the politics of the situation, and where corporate attorneys frequently act as agents of these frauds as "armslength" favors for the judges.

In May-July 2009, Plaintiff participated, along with countless other deponents in public hearings before the New York State

Senate Judiciary Committee chaired by Senator John Sampson, the latter who bravely initiated this process to provide a bona fide mechanism for residents to voice their outrage about the abuses of the Judiciary. It was here that Plaintiff learned she was not alone in the bizarre experiences she had with the legal system.   It was here that Plaintiff realized the cavernous gap that divided public servant and served.  It was here that Plaintiff realized that "justice" as a concept has become perverted without the oversight of an effective regulatory body or strong, ethical leadership of the Judiciary that would not only serve as the Model for the Modern Court but an example for all other jurists across New York, and across the country.

Unfortunately, Plaintiff becames witness to, along with other deponents (NY State Senate Judiciary Committee Public Hearings), of a "culture of corruption" and elitism, that has pervaded and spread a malaise across all levels of the Judiciary and all jurisdictions, clearly for a very long period of time.  "Case fixing", evidence tampering, coercion of witnesses, influencing judges, conspiracies to defraud litigants, the government and the taxpayers in "deals" on large cases, disregard of the Rule of Law and Rules of evidence, manipulation of facts and records, sanitizing dockets, transcripts and Orders are all part of the accepted practice of judicial administration.  Moreover, universal disgust with an impotent and incompetent JCC have left even the most sanguine litigants and the most ethical jurists disillusioned.

Plaintiff exhausted all of her remedies in all of the Courts to provide the Judiciary with multiple opportunities to "course correct" and for the Commission on Judicial Conduct to do it's job and investigation Plaintiff's multiple complaints

against the named defendants (posted on "JudgeWatch.com).

Plaintiff has witnessed how these corrupt judges, and their conspiratorial peers, have abused the trust of New York residents, voters and tax payers, to advance their careers and pocketbooks, and how they justified the most outrageous abuse

of discretion and law to achieve their ends.

While judges are protected by a vast cloak of immunity, they are not protected from willful and criminal acts and violations of the Rules and Laws.

This case is legally about obstruction of justice by the guardians of justice,and the conspiracy that the leadership of the Courts have engendered in an "ends justifies the means" culture, where peers cover up, not report, violations of their judicial colleagues, and attorneys act as agents of elaborate frauds, where deceptions are perpetuated by manipulation of records and facts and law, and where the judges involved have all benefited, de minimus with promotions, and associated increased compensation, after using their power and authority to grant favors, manipulate facts and law to defraud litigants and taxpayers.  The sense of hubris is so immense that a public extortion demand for increased  Judicial compensation was followed by an unlawful "order" of stipends of $10K for each judge in New York (a $147M taxpayer burden) for incidentals like "robe cleaning".    This is just the tip of the iceberg.   Many of these judicial favors are dispensed in return for "recommendations", "referral", "introductions" and other reciprocal acts that can advance judicial careers through the corrupt judicial nomination system that is controlled by corporate law firms and Corporate America.

We the People have had enough.   We will no longer tolerate this abuse of trust and the judges who flaunt the Rules and the Laws.   We will no longer be "censored" "sanctioned" or suppressed.    We seek the named defendants impeachment and appropriate sanctions imposed.  We seek disbarment of any attorney who has improperly attempted to influence a judge or whom knowingly carried out an illegal scheme for a judge.  We seek sanctions for any judge who failed to report such abuses.   We seek the dissolution of the Commission on Judicial Conduct and new leadership for a new regulatory body.   We seek review of the Commission on Professional Conduct Rules.  We seek removal from office Judge Judith Kaye as Chair of the Nomination Commission.

The allegations below revolve around four cases which involved judicial corruption and obstruction of justice, fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, organized crime by the Judiciary, retaliation against witnesses, extortion,

blackmail, tampering with evidence, tendering and acceptance of bribes, and other violations of Federal and State law.

The Jordan v. Bates and Jordan v. Verizon cases were "fixed" in deals with trial and appellate judges.

            The same was effected on the Attorney Malpractice cases where many of the same defendants appeared.

Fixing of Supreme Court Jury Verdict by First Department

§ 10. Justice to be administered without favor and speedily. Neither   justice nor right should be sold to any person, nor denied, nor   deferred; and writs and process ought to be granted freely and without   delay, to all persons requiring the same, on payment of the fees   established by law.

Kathryn Jordan v. Bates Advertising 118785-99

10.. Plaintiff won a major wrongful discharge disability discrimination case in April 2005¹  after a decade of litigation,  attenuated discovery and three appeals.  During the trial it became apparent to Jordan that her trial counsel, Laurence Lebowitz, whom she knew to have been unprepared for what became an 11 day hearing, was actively cultivating a personal relationship with the judge. Later it would become apparent that

1. Jordan won the "wrongful discharge" for "perceived disability" charge, and was awarded 40% of her potential economic damages and zero P&S, and lost two other causes of action due to negligence by attorney Lebowitz and deceptions by opposing counsel Gregory Homer during discovery, withholding relevants documents , a clear fraud.

WPP/Bates  lost all post trial motions, after agreeing to jury instructions, and posted $3.3M Bond.

this "relationship" was motivated by an intent to cut a deal on the case.   In February 2006, the trial court upheld the jury verdict.  However, in March 2006, after announcing her termination of counsel Laurence Lebowitz for cause, things took a negative turn. On April 3^rd, 2006 after a legal fee hearing was "cancelled" with her adversary,  the trial judge (Rolando T. Acosta) met privately with her then discharged attorney "Ex Parte" in in chambers about the $1.3M contingent legal fee, a matter that was not before him.  Plaintiff was subsequently summoned to the meeting and threatened by the judge and advised that he intended to "act as a fact witness against you" and "get assigned as the judge on the Malpractice case", the latter threat he carried out on at least two occasions. Moreover, Judge Acosta continued to encourage discharged counsel to make appearances in Court and file pleadings, over Plaintiff's repeated objections. When  Plaintiff objected to this conduct, Judge Acosta sanctioned Plaintiff and issued a gag order censoring"the parties", which he only enforced with respect to her and not the male attorneys.   Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Commission on Judicial Conduct shortly after the first incident and amended her complaints of the same, but no action was ever taken by the JCC.  During the first half of 2006, Post Trial Motions to dismiss or reduce the verdict were filed and dismissed(Bates had agreed to the jury instructions so there were no "issues of law" and the Defendants had admitted to knowing about the discrimination, but failing to take remedial action, hiring new non disabled planners during the alleged "financial crisis", along with supervisor admissions about the alleged efficiency of trading one disabled executive for "several" non disabled ones, disproved the "pretext"s.  The case was appeal proof). During the latter part of 2006, Judge Acosta was asked to recuse himself by Jordan, based largely on the conduct between the jurist and her former attorney.  While he recused himself in September 2006, he could not resist issuing a Final Judgment in November 2006 (published in February 2007) wherein he viciously attacked Plaintiff as "contemptuous" and "contumacious" for making "baseless" allegations against him, all explicit violations of the Rules of Judicial Conduct. Legally, he only addressed the legal fee hearing in the Judgment, where he praised Mr. Lebowitz and awarded him his fully hourly fees, while selectively reciting and paraphrasing Plaintiff's alleged communications to the Court objecting to the whole sordid situation.

However, the vindictive  and manipulative jurist was not satisfied with destroying Plaintiff's credibility with the Appellate Court, he then released (via clerks/Lebowitz) a press release to the legal press and Internet (Court Central) where he presented the same distorted version of events.(It is indisputable that this story was leaked as Plaintiff spoke to the Law Journal at the time and was advised that the story "came from chambers").  Plaintiff took a voluntary polygraph about the events that occurred, which was conveniently removed from the Motion for Recusal to which it had been appended.  (See Appendix for Poly)

Unbeknownst to Plaintiff at the time, Judge Acosta was beginning to be considered for advancement to the First Department Appellate Division, upon recommendation by Elliot Spitzer (who also recommended Judge Lippman).  This was also around the time that WPP would file it's frivolous appeal, around July 2007.

First Department Participates in Cover Up

The First Department Appellate Division, which is statutorily obligated to guard the sanctity of trial verdicts and disturb them only on the rare occasion of "no rational person could arrive at the same"finding/ verdict or a serious issue of law, departed from its policy and decided to reverse the jury verdict on December 27, 2007, four days before the announcement of Judge Rolando Acosta's promotion to the First Department.   It was apparent from the Decision that the panel, comprised of Judge Jonathan Lippman, Judge James Catterson, Judge David Friedman, Judge Joseph Sulivan, and Judge Luis Gonzales,  were dispensing a large favor to the jurist by improperly rendering a credibility decision about the  allegedly"baseless" allegations that Judge Acosta referenced in his Final Judgment to enable his vetting to proceed.    Most relevant, this "evidence" was not before the jury or related in any way to Plaintiff's credibility during the 11 day hearing, yet it was subsequently used (upon lay-up by Judge Acosta) to discredit  Plaintiff and call into quesiton the facts of the Bates case, which the jury found credible.   The attack by the jurist, where facts had been selectively culled from Plaintiff's pleadings without her being able to rebut the same,  should have been remanded to a special referee, or at least not considered in evaluating the Jury Decision, the latter of whom did not have the "evidence" of the dispute between the judge and plaintiff regarding his misconduct before them.  (Plaintff-Appellant raised the issue of the propriety of the Judge "sanctioning" the disabled litigant for her complaints about the Court in her appeal to the First Department -The Rules Of Conduct would automatically have indicted the jurist, if applied.   However, Appellant also emphasized that the $1.3M "contigent" legal fee dispute, a contract issue between Lebowitz and Jordan, was not before the Court and hence not on appeal).    This decision to adopt the unsworn denials of the judge as fact was an outrageous abuse of discretion by the First Department, but to include this in their calculus about the jury decision which ended a year and a half earlier was simply irrational and a deception of monumental proportion.   The "fixing" was apparent by the circumvention of the relevant laws, the creation of new facts and paraphrasing of Appellant's testimony, the disregard of the sworn admissions of guilt by the employer, and the dismissal of the case instead of remanding it to correct the alleged defects.  Further, the alleged legal defects were frivolous as Defendants had agreed to the jury instructions or the "law of the case" without objection.  The First Department effectively re-tried the case without appellant present.

Moreover, Judge Lippman then used this favor as an opportunity to change the laws on proving pretext in discrimination cases, adopting the ridiculously obscure "Stephenson v. Hotel Employees" case and the "legitimate reason" legal standard, which was not consistent with the tripartite standard of McDonnell Douglas or the more advanced "real reason" standard adopted by other states.   However, the timing could not be ignored.   Judge Lippman was dispensing two favors, for which he would expect to be repaid: One, to his troubled colleague Judge Rolando Acosta who had been nominated by Elliot Spitzer to fill what would be an empty position as Judge Lippman, who had just entered the First Department six months prior, who was being vetted for advancement to NYCOA, and Judge Gonzales (also on the "Bates" panel) would replace him as Chief Judge for the First Dept; and a second favor to WPP Group and DBR, the latter of whom faced a $3.3M liability at that time.   This favor would be repaid many times as each of the judges involved in this scheme would be promoted, not censured, for their crimes.

Plaintiff got in the way of this scheme when she filed her complaint against Judge Acosta.  Thus Plantiff's jury verdict bond of $3.3M was converted into a "favor for favor" commodity.

Perhaps most damning was the fact that during the investigation by the New York Commission on Judicial Conduct, Judge Acosta lied to investigators and failed to produce relevant information.  However, the "contemptuous" attack by Judge Acosta on the disabled plaintiff was alone a serious violation that required no investigation but the JCC refused to comply with Judicial Law and censure the intemperate and retaliatory jurist.

New York Court of Appeals Declines to Hear Most Important Discrimination Case

In the Last Decade

  § 15. Right of appeal not to be denied. Notwithstanding the provisions   of  any  general  or special law to the contrary, a citizen shall not be   deprived of the right to appeal to the legislature,  or  to  any  public   officer,  board, commission  or  other  public body, for the redress of   grievances, on account of employment in the civil service of  the state   or any of its civil divisions or cities.

            In January 2008, Plaintiff filed for leave to appeal before NYCOA.  Plaintiff  knew that her case had met the most important criteria of "unresolved disputes among New York Courts" on a legal issue of "great importance" to New York Courts,  especially where there was inconsistency or dispute about how the law should be interpreted..   Her precedent disability discrimination case met all the criteria. The Courts in New York were still inconsistently adjudicating the legal standard for proving "pretext" discrimination cases, many assuming that all an employer had to do was produce, but not prove, a "legitimate reason" (like "financial problems" and be exempted from any discrimination charge, while Courts outside New York (MI, NJ, CT, CA) had aligned around the "real reason" standard of proof.   Thus, NYCOA, under Chief Judge Kaye (with Judge Lippman on his way in)  instead heard theBianca Jagger eviction case" and Plaintiff's Appeal repeatedly denied.  Later, Plaintiff would learn that Judge Kaye was an old "friend" of Judge Acosta.   She would also learn that what they had in common was a ruthless pursuit of power at any cost.  This was when Plaintiff realized how far up the judicial ladder the corruption had crept.  Judge Kaye, also a long ally  of Judge Lippman, obviously dispensed a favor to him by not hearing the controversial case he had just fixed.   Judge Kaye would then be repaid with an important appointment.  But her betrayal, to her gender and the last 40 years of civil rights advances, was beyond comprehension and would overshadow her legacy.

            Plaintiff's complaints to the JCC (which are posted on JudgeWatch.com) included the violations of all of the named defendants including the appellate court judges but like all complaints filed with the JCC, they were ignored and dismissed via form letter.

Malpractice Cases( Bates & Verizon)  Fixed

Kathryn Jordan v. Laurence Lebowitz et al , Kathryn Jordan v. Gary Phelan et alKathryn Jordan v. David Fish et al(600246/2007;105183/200;601806/2007),

11. Equally important to this cover up was the fixing and disposal of three related Malpractice cases filed by Plaintiff in January 2007.   These cases related to the mishandling of evidence and witnesses by attorney Laurence Lebowitz on the Bates case, the failure to conduct discovery on both cases by the two other attorneys (Defendants Gary Phelan and David Fish) and the fixing of another discrimination case, Jordan v. Verizon, filed by Plaintiff in Federal Court (addressed below) by attorney Gary Phelan.  Mr. Phelan had entered into a secret agreement with opposing counsel Ken Gage to "settle" the case and not conduct discovery, a fact that Plaintiff-Appellant only became aware of as critical deadlines were missed and an MTC not filed.  Mr. Fish willfully misrepreresented to Plaintiff that she would retain certain ERISA benefits in the Settlement which Mr. Gage had disposed of through the legalese of the Agreement.

Judge Acosta Carries Out Threat

  The first judge to appear on the Malpractice cases was, astonishingly,  Judge Rolando Acosta.   This was a brazen attempt to carryout his threat toJordan on April 3, 2005 to "get assigned to the Malpractice case" and use his power to act against her.   Jordan demanded recusal and in June 2007, Acosta recused for a second time.   Judge Marcy Friedman, then within less than six months, prior to discovery and after she knew that  the First Department Decisionclearly laid accountability for the alleged fatal defects of the "Bates" case on the attorneys,  dismissed all three cases in July 2008 after granting MTD's in mid December 2007(See First Dept Order December 27,2007) and when Plaintiff's counsel Mr. Bluestone was allowed to withdraw after demanding a large retainer from Plaintiff that was not part of their agreement, leaving the disabled Jordan to answer 3000 pages of MTD pleadings in a matter of weeks.  Clearly, there could be no depositions held related to the "case fixing" where attorneys would be forced to tell the truth. Moreover, Judge Friedman also ordered that Plaintiff "seek permission of the Court" prior to filing any pleadings in Supreme Court, a completely arrogant and unenforceable directive but one intended to seal the deal.   The fix was in and there would be no loose ends.

Upon dismissal by Judge Friedman, Plaintiff filed timely appeals with the First Department in January 2007.  However, the County Clerk, now clearly part of this conspiracy, failed to deliver any of the records after 18 months.  Plaintiff petitioned the First Department to compel production of a Certified Record repeatedly via pleadings,

and for enlargement of the Record, after her adversary refused to sign the Attorney Affirmation, which was denied without explanation, and a second enlargement of time which was also denied.  This was despite the fact that Plaintiff could not perfect her appeal without a record, and she was disabled with MS and Pro Se.   Most damning though was the appearance of two judges who had serious conflicts: Judges Catterson and Judge Acosta.   Judge Catterson was petitioned via motion to recuse.  Without any response, he was secretly replaced by Judge Acosta who rendered the decision to dismiss the cases.

Again, for a third time, Judge Acosta  recused, but again only after he had rendered his biased retaliatory Decision.   This was clearly a conspiracy to protect this jurist again and to get rid of the "whistleblower" who had reported his misconduct.  Judge Tom issued the final denial of Motion to Reconsider/Vacate and the fixing of this matter was complete by the insidious  First Department Appellate Division (M 4648, 4549, 2242, 3454, 3490, 4080,4081) , Perhaps most indicative of the hubris that these jurists possessed was the outrageous and completely discriminatory demand that Appellant "seek permission of the court" before filing any future responsive pleadings.  This was a gag order in disguise. No explanation was forthcoming as to how the First Department could find the attorneys liable for the reversal of the Bates jury verdict but then dismiss the malpractice cases. (Including the fixing of the Verizon case, detailed below).

Verizon Case Fixed in Coerced "Settlement" by Trial Judge

Kathryn Jordan v. Verizon Communications 19144-cv-02

                12. Plaintiff had filed a second disability discrimination case in federal court in 1996 "Kathryn Jordan v. Verizon Communications"(10144-cv-02 ), against a repeat employer violator who flaunted the ADA.  The case was scheduled for jury trial, per the Complaint.   However, behind the scenes, another case fixing scheme was being created.

Apparently, USDC Judge Shira Scheindlin decided that the case would be settled without telling Plaintiff who was attempting to advance discovery.  Plaintiff counsel Gary Phelan and Defense Counsel Ken Gage had brokered the secret settlement for Judge Scheindlin, obviously with the intent of helping their clients and cultivating favor with a powerful federal judge.   Mr. Phelan refused to conduct or compel discovery, and misled Plaintiff about the status of the same until critical deadlines lapsed,  Once the "deal" was agreed by the attorneys, Phelan informally withdrew.  New counsel David Fish was then recruited to "help" close the deal.  He  misrepresented the terms of the settlement including critical ERISA benefits to Plaintiff, all to fraudulently induce Jordan to surrender her rights to a jury trial on the merits, her disputed ERISA  benefits, and and any damages for her ordeal (worth millions in liability to Verizon; the demand was $31M).    The token settlement ($100K) barely covered her current attorneys legal fees and was paid to Plaintiff  to silence the attorneys.  Jordan received no consideration and actually was forced to relinquish millions in benefit rights.

            Judge Scheindlin achieved the goal of fixing the case for settlement by  willfully circumventing the Rules and Laws of New York and intervene in the"settlement negotiation",  outside the scope of her legislated role,  and used her power and authority, and the threat of "litigation and sanctions" by Defendants, and an additional threat of "permanent  litigation" by her, to force a coerced settlement when Plaintiff was without counsel and known to be "ill" at the time, but who had repeatedly rejected the offer (the first verbal "acceptance" by Mr. Fish was based upon a series of frauds, necessitating two more conferences which were NOT successful) .   Judge Scheindlin was well versed in the legal standard for "voluntary releases".   She knew that Plaintiff should have been represented by counsel de minimus, yet she forced the deal down and intervened by improperly scheduling the "status conference" when Jordan's attorney had just withdrawn.  Moreover she denied the petition for rescission only four days later after the "status conference",  when Jordan had been able to see an attorney to review the agreement she had signed, clearly under duress, pro se.   Then, as in all true cover ups, Judge Scheindlin set about tidying the paperwork.  First, representing that Jordan was represented by Mr. Fish during the execution of the settlement in her Order, despite knowing he had withdrawn days before on July 12^th, 2004, and then representing the same in the hearing transcript.   Then, about a month later she had second thoughts and issued a new Order that represented Jordan has "Pro Se".   This was not the Order Plaintiff received or used for the appeals. This was  tampering with evidence that the judge knew would go on appeal.  Attorney Gage also helped by removing Exhibit A from the Agreement, which attested to the severity of the damage inflicted by Verizon's three year hazing and retaliation campaign upon disclosure of her disability and need for accommodation (letter from Jordan's physician).

On appeal,  Judge Ellis would define the standard for voluntary releases as a "Voluntary...Strategic Choice".   He then dismissed the appeal, misstating the facts of the record and the relevant law. On receipt of the Rule 60 (b) petition USDC fellow jurist Judge George P. Daniels denied the petition despite clear evidence of duress and coercion, and knowing Jordan was not represented.  That was no problem for Judge Daniels who simply stated that Appellant wasrepresented by counsel (a whopper lie) and exculpated all of the attorneys, none of whom "acted improperly".   The Second Circuit, which clearly had an opportunity and obligation given the demand to review de novo to course correct this elaborate deception twice put its imprimatur on the cover up and then sanitized the docket.(The Second Circuit Decision has evaporated from the Pacer dockets as have the First Department's Orders on the Malpractice appeals as has Judge Acosta's original decision to uphold the jury verdict, which is appended to the Appendix of this Complaint).



Lippman-Kaye Lawsuits Against Governor & Legislature:

Maron v. Silver (58 AD 3^rd 102); Larabee v. Governor(4761,4761A), and Kaye v. Silver(400763/08),

            There is no better example of the corruption that has contaminated our courts and its leadership than the decade long scheme by Judge Lippman and Judge Kaye, neither of whom were qualified for their roles as Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals (neither is a "scholar" or example of judicial ethics) and Chair of the Commission on Judicial Nomination, to sue the Governor and the New York Senate in a blatant extortion attempt, colluding and conspiring against the Legislature and the Governor to force an increase in judicial compensation.   Deploying a series of frauds and legal manipulations, and clearly incensed about the disparity in compensation between the trial judges in New York Supreme Court (an IOU for sure) and Federal Courts, as well as jealousy about "private sector" compensation,  Judge Lippman and Kaye have been diverting taxpayer funds for over a decade in cases like Maron v. Silver (58 AD 3^rd 102); Larabee v. Governor(4761,4761A), and Kaye v. Silver(400763/08). In these matters  Judges Kaye (former Chief New York Court of Appeals) and Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman (current head of NYCOA), deployed a series of false or exaggerated representations, and misapplication of New York Law, to literally extort pay raises for New York Judges.   This vanity project and abuse of judicial power ("advertising" the lawsuit on the Supreme Court website, misusing taxpayer funds to finance the same) along with Judge Lippman's public admissions that judicial compensation is "my greatest priority", and his announced orders to circumvent the law by ordering "judicial stipends of $10K per judge" at a time when New York faces a potential $5B budget deficit, a fraud upon NY taxpayers, are completely outside the scope of either of their job descriptions, and constitute an abuse of tax payer funds, if not outright fraud.   Moreover, both leaders have presided over a decade of corruption in New York Courts, where "case fixing" and other violations of the law, have been encouraged and rewarded.   Every judge involved in the cases cited above for Plaintiff Kathryn Jordan, where favors were dispensed to employer defendants and the judicial process and Laws of New York circumvented to accommodate the same,  have been promoted (Judge Lippman, Judge Kaye, Judge Gonzales, Judge Acosta, Judge Friedman).  In fact, Judge Acosta's promotion on December 30^th, 2007 could not have been possible without  the favor of Judge Lippman's reversal of the Jordan v. Bates case on December 27^th, 2007 and Mr. Robert Tembeckjian's & JCC's  failure to properly investigate  complaints of the same.  .Mr. Tembeckjian has never investigated a complaint against an appellate judge or censored the same, despite a historic rise in complaints against the same.

            Finally, upon information and belief, Judge Lippman has been signaling to judges that they are entitled to dismiss any case for any reason, in order to work down the admittedly overwhelming caseloads of New York Courts.   He has claimed to reduce caseloads by 25% todate already.  This is NOT the solution that the admittedly overburdened courts need.  (It will be interesting to see the proportion of protected class cases dismissed in this slaughter).  It is a fraud upon New  York Taxpayers, and a violation of the rights of all New Yorkers, and the trust that was endowed him when he was appointed to the highest leadership position in the Judiciary but whose admitted jealousy of "private sector compensation" and immense sense of entitlement and power have incited the current judicial crisis (along with processor Judge Kaye)..  The "favor for favor" culture of New York Courts was also observed by virtually all deponents at the public hearings for the Judicary Committee of Senator Sampson in May- July of 2009.  The cases against Plaintiff were all pre-judged and vetted with "Ex Parte" information from the attorneys.  All of the name judges have disregarded the Rules of Evidence and Rule of Law. This is now an accepted practice in the New York Courts.

Remedy Sought

            The impeachment of all named jurists, and resignation of all clerical personnel for the same, and  the resignations of the  leadership of the Commission on Judicial Conduct  and the County Clerk  involved in this organized  conspiracy to obstruct justice is sought, and where not secured, criminal proceedings will be initiated with the Attorney General.     The attorneys involved should be investigated for their roles  as agents of these crimes, sanctioned severely, and where appropriate disbarred,  according to the relevant civil and criminal laws.  Mr. Lebowitz, Mr. Phelan, and Mr. Gage should all be barred from practicing law for their knowing,  repeated,  willful attempts to influence a judge on an acting case they were involved in with the intent of "fixing" the case and their participating in a conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff and the taxpayers of New York, and cover up the same.  Mr. Homer and Mr. Beshada should also be investigated as to their role in the cover up, and sanctioned for both filing a frivolous appeal (a fraud upon the tax payers) and failing to report judicial and attorney misconduct that they were witness to, and their fraud in suppressing documents during a discovery (a serious crime).  The allegations that they lied to Plaintiff and  the discovery court about the relationship between the Parent and Operating companies (Cordiant, Bates and AC&R) should  be pursued as a fraud, and prosecuted accordingly.   And to the extent that any of these attorneys willfully misrepresented facts to gain their ends, the most severe penalties should be invoked.

            Plaintiff seeks full restitution for her 15 year ordeal, which was indisputably protracted by the illegal and wrongful conduct of the Defendants, the parent company clients they represented and the General Counsel's for the same, all of whom knew was transpiring, and allowed it to continue as long as a Judge put their imprimatur on it.  Plaintiff seeks full  economic, Medical, emotional, and punitive damages that she should have collected at the time of filing of her cases of discrimination (1995 for Bates; 2002 for Verizon), and the reimbursement of all court and legal costs including the "time in" for her role as her own attorney, and all interest accrued from 1995 when she first filed her first complaint..

            Plaintiff seeks double punitive damages that will send a large message to the Judiciary as to the "zero tolerance" of these kinds of abuses.  For Mr. Lebowitz, Phelan and Fish, who were paid to protect her interests and instead betrayed her trust, she seeks triple punitive damages.

            Plainiff seeks permanent change in the Judicial System so that no litigant is ever again denied his or her constitutional rights to a jury trial, and to the protection of that verdict, and the to Rules that currently provide overly broad discretion to judges to abuse their authority and to impose their biases upon litigants instead of acting as impartial triers of fact.  Included .

            Plaintiff seeks full restitution to New York TaxPayers for the time these judges  abused acting against the Laws of New York, triple punitive damages for the same, and as these orders were mailed or emailed , Mail and Wire Fraud charges are sought.

COUNT I

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE:

TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE; INFLUENCING A JUDGE;

INTIMIDATING A WITNESS

1.      This is an action for damages in excess of $75,000.

2.      The jurisdiction for this action is based in part upon diversity of citizenship,

and partly upon federal law and US Codes, and complex litigation with multiple parties.

3.      Plaintiff is domiciled in New York, New York.

4.      Defendants are mostly domiciled in New York, New York, and Albany NY.

5.      The claims of Obstruction of Justice are governed by US Codes Title 18; 286; 371; 1505; 1511;1512; 1513; 1519; 42 USC 1961-2; 18 USC 2;

6.      The Defendants involved in this cause of action are all of the Defendants named in this action;

7.      Plaintiff re-alleges all of the General Allegations and adds:

8.      Judge Rolando Acosta is charged with changing his Decision of February 2006 to uphold the jury verdict in the Jordan v. Bates case, and effectively throwing the case by libeling Plaintiff as "contemptuous" after she reported misconduct by the jurist, and by using his role as trial judge to discredit the jury verdict for the purpose of overcoming obstacles to his vetting for

promotion to the First Dept, and more seriously using his powers of sanction and censure to stifle her complaints of judicial and attorney misconduct.

Further, his use of his position to issue threats against Plaintiff regarding her

termination of discharged counsel Lebowitz for cause (the validity confirmed

by the First Department Decision of December 27^th, 2009 which criticized the

handling of evidence by counsel), her dispute with him about his claim for a $1,300,000 legal fee (a contract dispute not before the court), and her intention to file a Malpractice case for innumerable reasons that were not before the Court.   Judge Acosta carried out those threats and had himself appointed as trier of fact three times on these matters (trial and appellate)

and was recused three times.  However, prior to recusal Judge Acosta illegally

obstructed justice and Plaintiff's right to a fair hearing by an impartial trier of fact by entering biased, retaliatory Judgments (April 2006, November 2006,

April 2007 and September 2009).

9.      Judge Acosta also ventured outside his sanctioned role when he published stories in the legal press slandering and libeling Plaintiff.   And when he removed Plaintiff's polygraph from the Recusal Motion that was filed on appeal.

10.  Judges Lippman, Catterson, Friedman, Gonzales, Sullivan et al are charged

with obstructing justice by "fixing" the Jordan v. Bates case  to cultivate favor with a corporate violator of Anti Discrimination laws, WPP Group (former unit Bates Advertising), and a large corporate law firm, Drinker Biddle,

whom these jurists would then secure referrals, recommendations and other benefits leading to promotions and raises from.    The First Department panel

also willfully violated the Rules of Judicial Conduct and New York Law

by adopting Judge Acosta's unsworn denials of baseless allegations without a proper investigation and legally, incorporating these "credibility" assessments about Plaintiff into their assessment of the Jury Verdict on the Bates case.

The jury had no knowledge of the dispute between the jurist and plaintiff, nor should it have, consequently the incorporation of this "fact" into the calculus of the jury decision was not just improper,it was irrational.   It was clearly effected to dispense a favor to the errant judge so his vetting for promotion would not be complicated by an embarrassing relevation.

11.  Moreoever, the First Department departed from accepted practice for disturbing jury verdicts (a 2%-5% incidence in most appellate jurisdictions) to reverse a jury verdict which was allegedly legally defective.   Assuming the latter was true, the remedy is remand for retrial not disposition of a 14 year old case on trumped up legal theories and new "facts".   Given that the employer admitted to the allegations and Plaintiff was a highly credible witness, the verdict should have remained undisturbed.    Instead, the FirstDepartment seized the opportunity to re-write the laws on proving "pretext" in discrimination cases, legislating from the bench, instead of enforcing existing anti discrimination laws.  The appellate panel, who admitted a bias against Appellant, should have recused itself.   Instead the jurists chose to obstruct justice and dole out favors to Judge Acosta and violator WPP Group.   This was a conspiracy to obstruct justice by

jurists who had already violated the Rules of Judicial Conduct by failing to report Judge Acosta's breach of the Rules (the various charges against the jurists are posted on Judgewatch.com).   Either way, the decision to dismiss the case instead of remanding it back to the trial court for remedy of the alleged defects was clearly case fixing, especially when viewed in the context of the declared bias and calling of Plaintiff a "liar"for a) not reporting the discrimination to "anyone" at the time of the hazing by her supervisors; and b) her alleged "admission" that her employer had "layoffs" and "lost big accounts", a Fact that supposedly supported the pretext of "financial problems" (Note: the Lippman panel failed to see that the hiring of non disabled Planners during this alleged financial crisis, along with innumerable other inconsistencies, rebutted the pretext. But given the acceptance of the jury instructions the entire appeal was moot and frivolous)

12.  Further in January 2008, Appellant filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals, then overseen by Judge Lippman pal Judge Kaye, where the issue of the inconsistency in the interpretation of discrimination laws by New York Courts was disregarded and the case not heard, clearly as another favor. This time the favor was dispensed to Judge Lippman, and in return Judge Lippman would return the favor when it was time to appoint the Chair of the Nomination Commission.  Nonetheless, this was another act to obstruct justice by Judge Lippman.

13.  Judge Marcy Friedman's decision to dismiss all four malpractice cases prior to discovery knowing that the First Department had placed blame squarely on the backs of the attorneys for negligent handling of evidence,

was clearly an obstruction of justice, as she denied Plaintiff her right to appeal in order to perpetuate a cover up of a fraud.

14.  The First Department's decision, under Judge Acosta, who recused himself only after dismissing the Lebowitz and other malpractice cases were clear evidence of fraud and obstruction of justice by the Court.  Neither Judge
Catterson (who appeared and rendered the first Decision on June16th not to enlarge the record) and Judge Acosta (who affirmed the same) had any right to appear given their obvious conflicts and the allegations of case fixing by Jordan, and both of their declared biases against Plaintiff.   Such appearances were obviously made to obstruct justice.

15.  Judge Shira Scheindlin's fixing of the Verizon case was more subtle by Judicial standards but far more insidious.   As a federal court judge charged with enforcing federal anti discrimination laws, her betrayal of her role as impartial trier of fact and protector of the defenseless, was far more serious.   Judge Scheindlin conspired with both plaintiff and defense counsel to ensure that Plaintiff's case would never to go trial upon receipt of the case in July 2003.  A plain reading of the complaint (ironically crafted by Mr. Phelan who dropped the Retaliation charge) revealed that Plaintiff was not just discriminated against but hazed, denied an RA, punished for disclosed a need for the same by being put on probation for TWO YEARS and forced into a state of collapse, then denied her fully elected ERISA benefits.   The willfulness of the Defendant's actions were sufficient to give a thoughtful judge pause, and the level of Plaintiff's status should have given rise to a firm "NO" when the token settlement was proffered.   But Judge Scheindlin, like the other defendants in this action, could not resist the opportunity to do a large employer  a favor, hoping that she too might become a chosen one.

This federal judge's decision to disregard federal and state laws on voluntary settlements and her scheme to manipulate a disabled woman without an attorney (Phelan and Fish withdrew after they got their money) into surrendering her employment rights including her ERISA rights and her right to a fair hearing on the merits for her discrimination claims, for a token settlement that went to the attorneys, was nothing short of Darth Vader. (Jordan's demand was $31M and she received $100K that after tax did not even cover her litigation costs).  However, like most criminals, Judge Scheindlin made "mistakes".    Her biggest mistake, in her impatience to get the case off her docket with the aid of Gage/Phelan, was to intervene in the settlement process.   This was a clear act of obstruction of justice, as acting judges are not allowed to intervene in settlements, especially where a Magistrate or mediator has been assigned.  Judge Scheindlin also left a long paper trail (this is where those who still do not get this are taking notes)

where Jordan had clearly objected to the terms of the Settlement, repeatedly contacted the court for help, advised the court she was "ill" and without an attorney, advised the Court that Gage had literally stolen the settlement agreement when she decided not to go forward, had advisedVerizon General Counsel that she did not want to execute the agreement (prior to his execution), that she was "confused" about the purpose of the surprise "status conference", and that she had been repeatedly threatened by opposing counsel with "litigation and sanctions".  The trial courts response to these acts to obstruct justice was to initiate one of her own: creating ominous scenarios for Plaintiff of "permanent litigation" if she did not accede to the offer.  Further, if there was any doubt about the intentions of the trial court, the angry denial of Plaintiff's request for rescission four days later (within the statutory grace period) after having been medically treated and seeing an attorney,  said it all.   There was a Plan in place, a DEAL, and the trial court was not moved by the pleas of a sick woman.   Scheindlin had her deal and she was intent on Verizon paying up when the time came.

16.  While judges do commit frauds and obstruct justice from time to time,  there is always the appellate arm to keep matters in check.  Here we saw thelevel at which corruption has risen in New York Courts.   Jordan appealed the Scheindlin decision, as it has been her practice to allow the Courts the right to speak and defend their decision, to exhaust her remedies.   But her Rule 60 (b) Motion was DENIED by Judge George Daniels, who intentionally misrepresented Plaintiff's representation status, falsely stating that she had been "represented by three attorneys" (all of which departed prior to execution time), was not under duress (despite the indisputable threats by Ken Gage to sue her and impose sanctions if she did not go through with the "deal", knowing her own attorney lied to her and being part of that lie); and that "no one did anything improper, including the attorneys" , a complete whitewashing of the Record with the flick of a pen.  Opposing Counsel Ken Gage perpetuated the ruse by omitting Exhibit A from the partially signed Settlement Agreement (a document that attested to the severity of the damage Jordan endured at Verizon).  By the time the appeal got to the Second Circuit, who was asked to perform a De Novo review, the facts were beyond recognition.   Plaintiff was now a troublemaker, not a victim.  The Attorneys who orchestrated this obstruction of justice with Judge Scheindline were vindicated.   Everyone could sleep soundly because the deception had come home to the heartland: The Second Circuit Court of Appeals, where errant judges are greeted by St. Peter at the Gates.

                  Jordan went to great lengths to point out the inconsistencies, outright falsehoods, and the relevant law (Judge Ellis to his credit defined it as a "strategic choice" but clearly caved to the iron fist of Judge Scheindlin, not the torch of Lady Justice) to the Second Circuit.   They were put on notice of the scheme to defraud her of her constitutional rights when she was most vulnerable and without counsel to advise her about an Agreement filled with legalese.   They upheld the decisions of the Southern District (while corrupt and illegal, the Second Circuit clearly recognized the legal power of trial judges; but failed to recognize its obligation to deploy veto power when crimes were being committed against defenseless victims and the State)

17.  Plaintiff had her suspicions about the motives of these judges who trampled on her constitutional rights and conspired to defraud her for their own persona gain, but when she saw the lawsuit by Judges Lippman and Kaye against the Governor and Senate, and Chief Judge Lippman's outrageous remarks about "priorities", something clicked.    It was clear now that these judges were jealous and resentful of their "private sector" colleagues and that Jordan as a $250K base salary disabled female did not represent a heroine who had overcome insurmountable odds, but an enemy to be envied and destroyed.   Ironically, by conspiring to betray the rights of the one most defenseless, these greedy and power crazed jurists saw an opportunity to "get in" on the private sector feast.

18.  It would be tempting to treat this as an isolated incident that befell a helpless disabled woman.  However, as Jordan learned in the summer of 2009. this was just the tip of a very large iceberg.   Upon attending the public hearings

For the New York Senate Judiciary Committee, Plaintiff became aware of innumerable NY residents whose lives had been destroyed by callous, greedy and Machiavellian judges and lawyers.  It was a moment she would not forget

and a cause that kept her awake at night.

19.  It was also apparent that these frauds were allowed to occur and foment because of the complete lack of oversight by an effective regulatory body.

20.  In preparing this Complaint, Plaintiff learned that dockets have been sanitized (Second Circuit, First Dept) as the guilty desperately attempt to erase their footsteps.

21.  Lastly, it is believed that through the manipulations of Judge Kaye and Judge Lippman, and their willful assertion of false facts  and irrelevant law, that the State had to pay for a faux vanity lawsuit against the Legislature, rooted in the same greed and jealousy that all of their actions have been, all at great cost to the taxpayers of New York and at great cost to the image of the Judiciary overall which has been irreparable harmed by these rogue jurists.

22.  Finally, Judge Lippman's judicial activism, whereby he has repeatedly acted as a legislator, reversing laws and preaching politics, has also been a fraud upon the tax payers of NY.

22 a. Moreover, the attorneys involved, Mssrs., Gregory Homer, Donald Beshada, Kenneth Gage, et al, all are accused of

     evidence tampering.   Mr. Homer and Beshada willfully suppressed documents that proved the relationship

     between Cordiant/Saactchi, Bates USA, and Bates Advertising (AC&R).    They withheld this discovery denying any

     legal relationship between these sister companies, only to later disclose this relationship in the Bond

     disclosure notice.  This and other discovery deceptions precluded Plaintiff from being able to prove her entitlement to the

     top EVP Planning job, which was awarded to a non disabled male outside the company.   Mr. Gage

similarly cheated, suppressing discovery so Plaintiff would not be able to value the "consideration", and omitting the critical Exhibit I, from the Settlement Agreement.  More seriously, he stole the agreement, which had been partially executed from a adjacent building where it had been delivered,   knowing Plaintiff intended to retrieve it.  This was a serious criminal act and the trial court was well aware of what transpired as she referenced it in the hearing.

COUNT II

CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD

                                              Civil Conspiracy Against Plaintiff

                                    &the People of New York and the US Government



A civil conspiracy or collusion is an agreement between two or more parties to deprive a third party of legal rights or deceive a third party to obtain an illegal objective.

23.  This is an action for damages in excess of $75,000.

24.  The jurisdiction for this action is based in part upon diversity of citizenship,

and partly upon federal law and US Codes, and complex litigation with multiple parties.

25.  Plaintiff is domiciled in New York, New York.

26.  Defendants are mostly domiciled in New York, New York, and Albany NY.

27.  The claims of Conspiracy to Defraud are governed by the Statute of Frauds.

28.  The Defendants involved in this cause of action are all of the Defendants named in this action;

29.  Plaintiff re-alleges all of the General Allegations and Allegations 1-20 from Count I, and adds;

30.  That all of the judges knew that the actions that they were commiting

and the statements t that they made in their Decisions/Orders/Judgments

were false and rooted in frauds, and that they rendered these actions with the purpose of defrauding Plaintiff of her right to trial by an impartial trier of factor jury, the right to all benefits available to her as a victim of discrimination

under Federal and State Laws, which they knew to have worth in the significant seven figures, but that they suppressed and tampered with evidence and manipulated Plaintiff's rights to coerce her into acting against her own interests;  that they knew attorneys on these matters had tampered with evidence, and that they made willful misrepresentations to cover up their conspiracy; that they required the collusion of other judges, attorneys, clerks, and administrative officers of the court to carry out these conspiracies, and that the judges involved benefited from the conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff as did the original defendant corporations and their law firms.

That the Appellate Courts involved (First Department, New York Court  Of Appeals, and Second Circuit) were willful agents whose acceptance of Decisions known to be undertaken in violations of Federal and State Laws, and the Rules of Judicial Conduct, rendered them co-conspirators.  The same is alleged of the New York Commission on Judicial Conduct who departed from its statutory role to aid these deceptions and cover them up instead of initiating real investigations and impeachment proceedings.

31.  That Judges Kaye and Lippman conspired to defraud NY Taxpayers by filing a filing a frivolous baseless lawsuit filled with false claims, facts and law for the purpose of enriching themselves and paying back the innumerable

IOU's that these jurists have accumulated over the years with the "favor for favor" culture they created.  Their actions disrupted the smooth running of government and irrevocably harmed the image of the Judiciary.

Their motives, jealousy with the "private sector" and versus their USDC "peers" compensation, were transparent and clearly have played a role in their dispensation of justice in Jordan's cases and in countless others.

These actions were financed by NY Tax payer funds and constitute frauds upon government.   Moreover, the decision by Judge Lippman by circumvent the Law set down by the First Department on this "issue of greatest priority"

by unilaterally ordering $10K stipends for each judge in the state was a gross violation and a willful attempt to defraud the Taxpayers.  It was only not effected because the Legislature caught Chief Judge Lippman in the act after he announced his intent to circumvent the law publicly.  While he has been ordered to return these illicit funds by the Legislature, there is still "time in" owed to the New York taxpayers for these frauds over a decade.

32, That Plaintiff was consequently irrevocably harmed by these frauds and lost 15 years of her life attempting to have the truth revealed in her pursuit of justice.  That Plaintiff who has MS suffered extreme physical and emotional pain during this agonizing ruse, lost her career and economic status, was deprived of rightful benefits, lost two homes to finance her

           litigation costs.

33.  That the costs of these conspiracies to defraud Plaintiff also defrauded the US Government and New York Taxpayers, who paid for these protracted legal schemes, and the salaries of the judges, attorneys and legal personnel

involved.  Plaintiff seeks reparation for these losses on behalf of the Peopleof New York, treble punitive damages, and recovery of all costs with interest.

COUNT III

VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH

Constitution of the United States and Bill rights,

CVR Article 2 (10) and 2(13),

34.  This is an action for damages in excess of $75,000.

35.  The jurisdiction for this action is based in part upon diversity of citizenship,

and partly upon federal law and US Codes, and complex litigation with multiple parties.

36.  Plaintiff is domiciled in New York, New York.

37.  Defendants are mostly domiciled in New York, New York, and Albany NY.

38.  The claims of Violation of Free Speech are governed by the Constitution..

39.  The Defendants involved in this cause of action are all of the Defendants named in this action;

40.  Plaintiff re-alleges all of the General Allegations and Allegations 1-20 from Count I, and adds;

41.  Plaintiff alleges that all of the named defendant judges abuse their discretionary powers of "sanction" and "censure" to suppress her complaints about their misconduct, including the "fixing" of three cases cited in the General Allegations, and to immunize themselves from disclosure and investigation.  In the Bates case, a gag order was issued by Judge Rolando Acosta immediately after Jordan complained of his "Ex Parte" meetings and communications with discharged counsel, she was sanctioned and publicly ridiculed as "contemptuous" for the same.   Judge Friedman issued an order

that Plaintiff "seek permission of the ALJ" before filing any future pleadings, despite knowing this would hamper Jordan's defense against her fixing of the Malpractice cases.   This "technique" was adopted by Judge Tom, undoubtedly at the urging of Judge Acosta, to prevent Plaintiff from filing objections to the wholesale dismissal of three malpractice appeals with the sole purpose of perpetuating an elaborate cover up of these judicial crimes.

And on  the Verizon case, judicial power was deployed to coerce Plaintiff into taking action against her own interests and over her repeated objections to relinquish both her existing rights and her claims of discrimination and ERISA violations.  These abuses removed the concept of free will and voluntary from the outcomes as Plaintiffs voice was stifled,  and her real positions manipulated to conform to the ingoing schemes of the conspiratorial judges and attorneys.

42.  Plaintiff was consequently irrevocably harmed by these frauds and lost 15 years of her life attempting to have the truth

revealed in her pursuit of justice.  That Plaintiff who has MS suffered extreme physical and emotional pain during this agonizing ruse, lost her career, both of her homes, her credit rating and economic status, suffered medical consequences, and was deprived of right to damages for the original discrimination crimes.  She seeks full restitution of her losses, interest,

and punitive damages.

COUNT IV

BRIBERY AND EXTORTION

18 U.S.C. 11, Section 201

18 U.S.C. § 1951

                                          New York Penal Code 200.45;200.50



43.This is an action for damages in excess of $75,000.

44.The jurisdiction for this action is based in part upon diversity of citizenship,

and partly upon federal law and US Codes, and complex litigation with multiple parties.

45.Plaintiff is domiciled in New York, New York.

46.  Defendants are mostly domiciled in New York, New York, and Albany NY.

47.The claims of Bribery and Extortion are governed by Federal and State Laws

And the Statute of Frauds.

48.The Defendants involved in this cause of action are all of the Defendants

      named in this action;

49.Plaintiff re-alleges all of the General Allegations and Allegations 1-20 from Count I, and adds;

50.  Plaintiff alleges that attorney Laurence Lebowitz attempted to bribe Judge

Rolando Acosta about a $1,300,000 contigent legal fee, a matter that was not before the court, by cultivating a personal relationship with the Jurist, by improperly meeting and communicating with said judge after attorney was discharged for cause, that said Judge was receptive  to these overtures and facilitated the illegal and wrongful agenda  by a) threatening Plaintiff with serious consequences if she did not agree to the contingent legal fee or abandon the malpractice cases; and b) encouraging the filing of pleadings by Mr. Lebowitz  after his termination, and disregarding Plaintiff's directive that he was discharged from the case,.  Moreover, Judge Acosta, on April 3, 2006,  allowed himself to be influenced by "evidence" that had not been authenticated much less entered into the record which Attorney Lebowitz introduced to discredit Plaintiff (his former client) an d induce the Judge to intervene in the contingent legal fee dispute and the planned malpractice case Jordan indicated she planned to file.  Judge Acosta accepted these invitations and subsequently had himself assigned as jurist to the Malpractice cases, both on trial and appeal, involving Attorney Lebowitz on no less than three occasions (where he had to recuse) and acted against Plaintiff's interests on each of these occasions.  Further, that Judge Acosta expressed an inordinate interest in the legal fee dispute after this "Ex Parte" meeting during which Plaintiff was threatened repeatedly. That opposing counsel participated in this scheme by aiding in the facilitation of Mr. Lebowitz presence on the case after his discharge and by filing a frivolous appeal, knowing that it would be reversed by either Judge Acosta (who was being promoted to that court) or Judge Lippman (who was leaving the First Department for NYCOA).

Upon information and belief,  the appointments of these and other  judges could not have occurred without the arms length manipulations of corporate attorneys who had a stake in the perpetuation of a corrupt system of favors.

51. Further, it is believed that a deal was entered into between Judge Acosta and Judge Lippman, and with the JCC, to immunize the jurist from investigation and censure, where opposing counsel played an arms length role,  by characterizing Plaintiff's bona fide claims as "baseless" without an independent investigation.   This in turn was used to dispose of Plaintiff's jury verdict, while Judge Acosta looked the other way, so that a favor could be dispensed to WPP Group and DBR, two entities positioned to aid Judge Lippman and Judge Acosta and the Lippman "Bates" panel in his future career plans.  And to advance Judge Lippmann's conservative Pro Employer agenda to make it more difficult to prove discrimination for victims of the same in NYS.   Judge Acosta was promoted within four days of the filing of the Decision by Judge Lippman that reversed the jury verdict on December 27^th, 2007.  Judge Lippman was promoted to Chief of NYCOA in December 2008, after having held the position of Chief Judge of the First Department for only six months.

52..That a  second deal was arranged whereby Judge Friedman, in NYSSC, would fix all of the malpractice cases, so the attorneys who aided in the cover ups would be protected and there would be no loose ends, in her decision of July 2008.  This was despite the First Department's Order placing blame on the attorneys.  Judge Friedman was advanced to Complex Litigation.

53. That a third deal on the Malpractice/Bates case was effected whereby Judges Catterson and Acosta would secretly issued dismissal of the appeals of said malpractice cases, when they were obligated to recuse, in order to perpetuate the cover up.  Judge Tom also participated in this scheme, along with the County Clerk, who failed to deliver a certified record upon which to appeal, where Jordan, known to be disabled with MS, but was denied enlargements of the record and time.

54. That every judge involved in the fixing of the Jordan v. Bates case was promoted within  a year of the scheme.

55. On the Jordan v. Verizon matter, it is believed that attorney Gary Phelan acted to advance the secret settlement deal, at the direction of Judge Shira Scheindlin, in order to cultivate future IOU's with the District Court and Paul Hastings  (future referrals from PH were openly discussed during Plaintiffs deposition), and David Fish promised a quick $10K without any risk of a protracted jury trial.   The trial court's role was to intercede in the stalled settlement negotiation, to enforce the wrongful threats of opposing counsel of "litigation and sanctions" to create the duress necessary to overcome Plaintiff's strong resistance to the "deal" and Mr. Phelan's role was  to force her to relinquish her rights to a $31M case and ERISA rights by allowing critical discovery deadlines to lapse, portraying both this and the Bates case (each valued at $5M plus) as "trainwrecks" and to provide a "strategy analysis" of the case that predicted doom.  Judge Scheindlin was eager to do a deal with the large employer whereby she might secure a high level connection or reference in her future career, either through Paul Hastings or some other corporate law firm.  Both law firms were more than willing to oblige.

56.  Judge Scheindlin used her position as trial judge to schedule a surprise "status conference" when she knew Plaintiff was "ill", "confused" and without counsel (Mr. Fish having withdrawn on 7/12, two days before the "final deadline" imposed by Mr. Gage), ignore Plaintiff's repeated pleas for help with the "coercion", and manipulate the record to make it appear Jordan was represented.  She also directed all critical questions at the final conference to co-conspirator and opposing counsel Ken Gage.

57.  Judge Scheindlin was well aware that a $100K settlement offer on a $31M case was an attempt to defraud the disabled Plaintiff and that forcing Plaintiff to accept the "deal", saving Verizon millions in damages, was in fact a fraud.  She knew that the partially executed Settlement document had been stolen by Defense counsel Paul Hastings, Ken Gage.  She knew the laws on voluntary releases.  She knew that she had the power to grant a short stay

for Jordan to secure new counsel when it was revealed that her attorneys had misrepresented the deal to her and her rights.  De Minimus, the jurist saw an opportunity to remove a case from her docket that she did not want to try but did not want to self recuse either.   However, the amount of the "favor" granted to a large corporate violator is not one that can be overlooked or minimized.   This is especially true given the frauds that Judge Scheindlin perpetrated to gain the appellate court's approval of her deceptions.   She  manipulated the Orders and the Record to suppress the true facts of the matter.  She even looked the other way when a "Settlement" document that was not even page signed, had no "Exhibit A' appended to the same when it was recorded for the appeal.

58.These facts were all before the appellate courts, including the Second Circuit and Judge Daniels, all of whom claimed to perform "de novo" reviews.   However, the legal system works on a system of bribes ("favors") and extortion (use of judicial power to manipulate outcomes of cases). And despite the Rules on Judicial Conduct that require reporting of crimes by other judges, the reality is systematic cover ups and circling the wagons.The attorneys are the agents of these crimes.

59.It is indisputable that the token settlement went to pay the attorneys,  and that Plaintiff received no "consideration" for her forfeiture, even the token settlement terms that Verizon refused to honor a month after execution

of the agreement.   Why maintain appearances when you have what you schemed to secure?  The bottomline is that Plaintiff was forced to forfeit millions in damages and benefits in this "no legal representation" coerced deal.  This was a very large favor that was bestowed in Verizon.   The motives and actions of the Court cannot be ignored, even if the appellate courts put their imprimatur on this conspiracy.

60.  In sum, all of  the cases brought by all of the named defendant judges involved abuse of their discretionary powers of "sanction" and "censure" to suppress her complaints about their misconduct and to immunize themselves from disclosure and investigation.  In many instances, most markedly in the Verizon case,this power was deployed to coerce Plaintiff into taking action against her own interests and over her repeated objections.  These abuses removed the concept of free will and voluntary from the outcomes as Plaintiffs voice was stifled, and her real positions manipulated to conform to the ingoing schemes of the conspiratorial judges and attorneys.  The bribes ranged from docket reduction to promotion referrals to cover up of illegal conduct of a judge by another judge(s).

61.  Plaintiff was consequently irrevocably harmed by these frauds and lost 15 years of her life attempting to have the truth revealed in her pursuit of justice.  That Plaintiff who has MS suffered extreme physical

and emotional pain during this agonizing ruse, lost her career and economic status, was deprived of rightful benefits, lost two homes to finance her

      litigation costs.

      62. There is no better example of this system of extortion and bribes than the Lawsuit filed by Judge Kaye and Judge Lippman for increased judicial compensation.  These jurists used their positions to literally hold the Legislature and Governor hostage by threatening to shut down the judicial system (via innuendo) if these increases were not met, and by circumventing the judiciary by appealing to the needs of "Families and Children" to the Legislature . It  does not get more insidious than this.   The People of New York had to foot the bill for these unlawful activities, that were clearly

outside the sanctioned role of either judge and we seek full restitution of this wasted time and expense for New York tax payers.

COUNT V

RICO

ORGANIZED CRIME BY JUDICIARY OFNEW YORK

AND CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD PLAINTIFF OF PENSION/RETIREMENT FUND

63..This is an action for damages in excess of $75,000.

64.The jurisdiction for this action is based in part upon diversity of citizenship, and partly upon federal law and US Codes, and complex litigation with multiple parties.

65.Plaintiff is domiciled in New York, New York.

66..Defendants are mostly domiciled in New York, New York, and Albany NY.

67.The claims of Organized Crime and Pension Fraud are governed by Federal Laws and by the Statute of Frauds.

68.The Defendants involved in this cause of action are all of the Defendants named in this action;

69.Plaintiff re-alleges all of the General Allegations and Allegations 1-20 from Count I, and adds;

70.Plaintiff alleges that all of the named defendant judges have transformed the Judiciaryinto an organized crime operation instead of an instrument of administration of justice.   As attested to by countless complaints sworn to at the Public Hearings before the New York State Senate Judicary Committee, widespread corruption of New York Court's has occurred, with witness intimidation/tampering, tampering with evidence, disregard of the Rule of Law, abuse of their discretionary powers of "sanction" and "censure" to suppress complaints about their misconduct and to immunize themselves from disclosure and investigation.  These abuses have transformed NY Courts into a "culture of corruption" where judges cover up for judges who violate the Rules and Law, attorneys act as their agents, and the most egregious offenses rewarded with promotions, pay raises, and other economic or status elevation renumeration.  Any attorney who did not play ball" was blacklisted' as was any plaintiff who objected to the scheme.

71 This systematic corruption requires a major mandate for investigation, sanction, impeachment and reform.

72.Plaintiff has personally witnessed, and been victim to, the fixing of at least three cases in federal and state court.   In these matters, the Judiciary acted to "circle the wagons" around the victim (Plaintiff) of the crime, and enable and exculpate the perpetrator of the same (Defendant Corporations ), using corporation counsel as armslength agents.    This was not just revictimization of a defenseless litigant, but a wholesale brazen willflul violation of the oaths these judges took when the public entrusted them in office.  And in each instance described in the General Allegations above, additional frauds were required to perpetuate the original deception and circumvention of the Laws.

73.  No regulatory body or appellate review panel ever interceded to stop this outrageous long term scheme,  instead dispensing favor after favor and in turn commiting further violations of the Rules and Laws.

74.  In one instance, Plaintiff personally was induced through fraud to surrender her meager Pension and Retirement savings, a violation of USC 664.

             75..Plaintiff was also witness to bribery of judges who sat on cases with large

                  Liabilities for the employers.   She herself was subjected to coercion and

Bribery but more serioiusly she witnessed an attorney bribe a judge (USC 201)  on the Bates case (Attorney Lebowitz with Judge Acosta, vis a vis a $1.3M legal fee; Judge Lippman bribe Judge Acosta to "Fix" the case by wrongfully attacking Plaintiff in a final judgment; Attorney Ken Gage bribes attorneys Phelan &  Fish with promises of "referrals" if they persuaded Plaintiff to accept the token settlement, and withdraw after threats were made, leaving Plaintiff to execute a Legal Document pro se; Judge Friedman was obviously promised certain benefits if she dispensed with three malpractice cases knowing that the First Department had already decided the attorneys made "fatal errors", and Judge Rolando Acosta who again appeared on appeals and manipulated his colleagues to dispose of the malpractice appeal

undoubtedly with the specter of future promotions, referrals and premium cases promised.

75.  This system of organized crime has replaced our system of justice,  as was repeatedly attested to over the Public Hearings of 2009,  and the taxpayers demand restitution.

COUNT VI

VIOLATION OF ADA AND TITLE VII

AND SYSTEMATIC DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PRO SE LITIGANTS

77..This is an action for damages in excess of $75,000.

78.The jurisdiction for this action is based in part upon diversity of citizenship,

and partly upon federal law and US Codes, and complex litigation with multiple parties.

79.Plaintiff is domiciled in New York, New York.

80..Defendants are mostly domiciled in New York, New York, and Albany NY.

81.The claims of Discrimination (Disability and Gender) are governed by Fedearl and State Anti Discrimination Laws.

82..The Defendants involved in this cause of action are all of the Defendants named in this action;

83.Plaintiff re-alleges all of the General Allegations and Allegations 1-20 from Count I, and adds;

84. It is a widely known fact that judges do not like to try discrimination cases

especially disability discrimination cases, and it is also widely known that

Pro Se litigants are systematically discriminated against by the Judicial System (even the Rules are inherently discriminatory).

85.Plaintiff alleges here that part of the motive to fix her discrimination cases

was to accommodate this judicial bias instead of accommodating her as the ADA requires.   Moreover, as a female in the legal sytem (See Florida Supreme Court Report on Gender Bias in Judicial System) Plaintiff's rights were systematically degraded and dismissed.   The most egregrious offender was former Human Rights Commission judge Rolando Acosta, who literally orchestrated an organized campaign to isolate and humiliate her, even before the overture by Lebowitz about the $1.3M legal fee was made.   These biases were also evident with Judge Scheindlin who treated Plaintiff, a former EVP executive, like an outcast who systematically needed to be silenced and disposed of.   Judge Friedman found Jordan's disability annoying as well.

The First Department revealed in their embarrassing December 27^th 2007 decision to reverse the jury verdict how little they knew about or appreciated discrimination against a disabled female, especially in the "for profit" world.

Their Opinion read like a law student paper out of the 1960's and literally embraced "blame the victim" theories.   Further, their bias in favor of Corporate America blinded them to the obvious facts of discrimination including their own sworn admissions of guilt.   Whether this was out of ignorance or greed or both will only be revealed after proper investigations made.  Judge Rakoffs early decision to dismiss this case "without prejudice" when he did not want to try it, and when he knew the issue of "layoffs" was a triable issue of fact, not to mention the most popular pretext deployed by  Errant employers, was simply shameful and led to Plaintff's heartbreaking  and agonizing 15 years of time inside Judicial Prison.

86.Plaintiff has been irrevocably harmed as asserted above and seeks full restitution.

87.Plaintiff also seeks a review of all discrimination cases that have been reversed upon appeal, or dismissed with triable issues of fact and restitution to others who suffered similar fates.

88.Plaintiff calls for the resignations of all jurors involved in a "case fixing" scheme especially those named in this lawsuit.

COUNT VII

CONVERSION

89.This is an action for damages in excess of $75,000.

90.The jurisdiction for this action is based in part upon diversity of citizenship,

and partly upon federal law and US Codes, and complex litigation with multiple parties.

91.Plaintiff is domiciled in New York, New York.

92.Defendants are mostly domiciled in New York, New York, and Albany NY.

93.The claims of Bribery and Extortion are governed by Federal and State Laws

And the Statute of Frauds.

94.The Defendants involved in this cause of action are all of the Defendants

      named in this action;

95.Plaintiff re-alleges all of the General Allegations and Allegations 1-20 from Count I, and adds;

            96. Plaintiff alleges that a $3.3M bond was posted on the Bates case, and that

                  a $1.3M legal fee was in dispute.

            97.  Plaintiff further alleges that Judge Acosta was approached by Mr. Lebowitz

                   For his assistance in securing the full contigent legal fee,which he knew

                   Plaintiff would fight him on having just fired him for cause.  A deal was

                   Struck.

98.    Plaintiff's complaints about the jurist posed a risk to the deal and to the

Imminent promotion of Judge Acosta.   The Final Judgment was intended

To dispose of Jordan's complaints by discrediting her, but Judge Acosta;s attack summoned on Jordan to question Jordan as a witness, despite the fact that the entire matter occurred a year and a half later.   Judge Lippman

Used the Acosta attack to reverse the jury verdict, which Judge Acosta had

clearly thrown making a decision to protect his own future ambitions, and

disband the deal with Lebowitz.

99.    However, there was still a $3.3M bond that Jordan believed to be in place right up until this week ( it was secretly dissolved via motion  a year ago with a new judge who never contacted Jordan).   Thus, the funds ID'd to renumerate Jordan for the discrimination that Bates admitted under aoth occurred suddenly evaparorated, and was converted back to violator WPP's coffers.

100.

This was a well orchestrated fraud and the fact that three of the judges involved in fixing the case were promoted within a year's period of the action (Judge Acosta was promoted to First Department judge  in December 2007, FOUR DAYS after the case reversal was announcedwith a large salary increase;Judge Gonzales (on the panel) was promoted to Chief of First Department; and Judge Lippman was promoted to Chief of NYCOA in December 2008)

As they say in all frauds "follow the money trail".   This reversal of the Bates case, when the most conservative position would have been remand for retrial was clearly a fixed case and the funds reverted to WPP's coffers would be used in part to advance these jurists careers, while keeping WPP's reputation intact.  At least that was the scheme.

101.

In the Verizon matter, a case valued similarly to Bates in terms of liability (most estimates valued it higher because of the damage that was inflicted), Judge Schiendlin fixed the Jordan v. Verizon case by forcing a token settlement, saving Verizon at least $5-7M.    However, because it was coerced and Jordan, who had MS, was denied counsel, it became clear very quickly that this too was a fixed case.   Of significance was the role of Plaintiff counsel Gary Phelan who refused to conduct or compel discovery, letting key deadlines lapse.  Verizon counsel then simply threatened Jordan with "litigation and sanctions".  When Jordan contacted Verizon GC and asked for his help, after Gage literally stole the settlement document, to advise him that she did NOT want to go forward, and the deal was still consummated, but with "issues" around the fraud, Judge Scheindlin had to intervene in the settlement and issue some heavy threats of her own to protect the deal.  Needless to say, there were some serious favors promised and given the blatant flaunting by Judge Scheindlin, probably some cash under the table as well.   Only a criminal investigation would prove the latter.

Either way, Jordan's claim was converted into cash for the attorneys ($100K) and large IOU's for the trial court from one of the largest NY employers with DC connections.

102a. That Judge Lippman and judge Kaye also unlawfully ordered a secret judicial slush fund to pay for judicial pay raises via "stipends" of $10K per judge, or $140M, converting taxpayer funds to their own unlawful purposes.

COUNT VII

VIOLATION OF NY JUDICIAL CODE OF CONDUCT

(INCLUDING ARTICLE 4; 90)

22 NYCRR PART 100; 22 NYCRR PART 1200

103This is an action for damages in excess of $75,000.

104.The jurisdiction for this action is based in part upon diversity of citizenship,

and partly upon federal law and US Codes, and complex litigation with multiple parties.

105.Plaintiff is domiciled in New York, New York.

106Defendants are mostly domiciled in New York, New York, and Albany NY.

107.The claims of Violations of the Rules of Judicial Conduct and Professional Conduct are governed by Judiciary Law.

108.The Defendants involved in this cause of action are all of the Defendants named in this action;

109. Plaintiff re-alleges all of the General Allegations and Allegations 1-20Count I, and adds;

All of the Judges involved have commited numerous violations of judicial conduct which require impartial administration of justice, equitable and fair dispensation of the Laws of New York (not legislating new laws or circumventing

accepted procedures to avoid compliance, or to propound an agenda), compliance with the Rules of Evidence and Rules of Law, appropriate legal precedent, recusal when unable to render an impartial decision (not retaliation), judicial restrain;

use of sanctions sparingly and for serious offenses, not to silence critics or compaints, and failure to report peer misconduct which all of the judges named here as defendants are guilty of.   Obviously "Case fixing" is not just a violation of the Rules but of the Laws of New York, as are evidence tampering and witness intimidation.

110. All of the attorneys named hear who acted as accessories or agents to these crimes and whom failed to report them when they witnessed the same re guilty of violating the Professional Rules of Conduct.  Mr. Lebowitz, Mr. Phelan and Mr. Fish and Mr. Homer, Beshada and Mr. Gage are all guilty of case fixing and filing false documents and frivolous pleadings at great cost to taxpayers (Mr. Homer also cheated during discovery when required to disclose the corporate relationships between AC&R and Bates Advertising, a matter that was only recently disclosed with the Bond, but which led to the wrongful dismissal of the Failure to Promote cause of action which lacked supporting evidence, that DBR claimed did not exist as Plaintiff was "not an employee of Bates Advertising", another lie).   This may come as a shock to the legal community who have come to accept manipulation and outright deception as part of a male dominated "win at all costs" culture.   Mr. Homer knew that he was filing a frivolous appeal as well.  He had already agreed to the jury instructions rendering the entire exercise moot, and it was his decision to try the case and not settle it even after his clients admitted in their federal depositions to knowing about the hazing and taking no remedial action.

111.For Mr. Gage, not only did he cheat Plaintiff out of discovery (with Mr. Phelan's assistance), he held "Ex Parte" meetings with the Court when Plaintiff was not present to defend herself, and he and Phelan conspired to force the case into settlement.  His act to steal the partially executed "Settlement Agreement" was clearly evidence tampering and his threats of "litigation and santions" coercion.

112. However it was the trial court that should have put a stop to it and instead was cheering the lawyers on behind the scenes.  And the appellate courts who should have noticed, in their de novo review, that these schemes were in play,

instead they became part of the vast cover up.

113.          Most seriously, the Commission on Judicial Conduct failed to investigate these crimes having full knowledge of the same (all complaints are now posted on Judgewatch.com).  Not one judge or appellate judge was even warned much less sanctioned or impeached, and we now seek to undue that harm by petitioning this action from this Court for the same and dissolving the JCC as an effete failure.

COUNT VIII

Denial of  Right to Due Process- Legal Representation, Pro Se Representation,

Right to Appeal, Right to Jury Trial

114.This is an action for damages in excess of $75,000.

115.The jurisdiction for this action is based in part upon diversity of citizenship,

and partly upon federal law and US Codes, and complex litigation with multiple parties.

116. Plaintiff is domiciled in New York, New York.

117. Defendants are mostly domiciled in New York, New York, and Albany NY.

118. The claims of Right to Due Process. Legal Representation, Right to Self Representation, and Right to Jury Trial and Appeal are governed by Constitution and First Amendment.

119. The Defendants involved in this cause of action are all of the Defendant Judges named in this action;

,           120.  Throughout the two main discrimination cases that were "fixed" by Judges

Shira S. Scheindlin and Judge Rolando Acosta, with the sole intention of precluding her from having a bona fide trial on the merits, and if necessary (because of her adversary) appeal of the same, Plaintiff has been subjected to an endless barrage of gender and disability laced venomous attacks, false allegations and name calling.   She has alternatively been accused of "firing all (nine of) her lawyers" (DBR.  A knowingly false statement accepted by the biased courts.  Jordan fired only one of her Bates attorneys: Laurence Lebowitz, for cause.  The latter was proven to be justified by the Appellate Divisions' incriminating Decision of 12/27/07).   In fact, in virtually almost all circumstances where Plaintiff entered litigation with counsel but that relationship was severed, it was by the attorney and almost always for monetary reasons.   The Courts simply do not appreciate the costs of litigation and why 95% of litigants cannot afford to write out a $100,000 check to defend themselves in Court.   Moreover, a Plaintiff like Jordan, who was deemed able to read a legalese filled "Settlement Agreement" (Verizon matter) was ridiculed for appearing in Court on simple motions Pro Se.   In fact, Plaintiff who had constraints like most litigants knew when she needed expert legal advice and knew when she could go it alone.   As a former EVP who aided senior management of companies with complex strategy issues, the Courts should have given her the benefit of the doubt.  Instead a barrage of "Pro Se" biases emerged in which Plaintiff's right to due process was almost always compromised or dissembled.     Along with the libelous Acosta Decision, every jurist who saw a pleading would pre-judge her claims and it was apparent that her right to due process was being systematically disregarded.  Instead of bestowing the same professionalism and courtesy given to their male peers, Plaintiff found herself frequently subjected to group ridicule and judicial bias.   The latest decision to deny Plaintiff's right to have the Malpractice case appeals heard, is a continuation of this bias fueled by the misogyny of Judge Acosta.   However, even in the civil Southern District, the undertone of contempt is pervasive.   Here it belongs to the fallacy that all peer judges are always correct and always operate in the interests of justice, despite massive evidence otherwise.

121. It is  not secret that judges do not wish to try Pro Se cases.  But it is not for the extremely exaggerated position that Pro Se litigants do not know what they are doing, even former Fortune 100 executives who make twice what they do.  It is exactly the opposite: It is the fear that attorneys could be easily replaced.    It is also the fear by judges that "fix" cases that they will be found out, and here their fears are well placed.  It is well recognized that attorneys will not report judicial conduct for fear of retaliation.

Pro Se litigants do not have this fear or liability, so they represent real threats to the abuse of judicial power that is destroying our judicial system today.

122. Nonetheless, Pro Se litigants are entitled to file cases and entitled to be treated with respect and professionalism.  Like everything else in life, the superior judges grant this respect and the insecure and inferior judges do not.  But here we are talking about the wholesale dismissal of bona fide cases, sometimes under the pretext of "case overload", a very dangerous concept, but even more seriously, dismissal of politically incorrect cases, especially where cases involve judicial misconduct or fraud.  Thus, we have a serious potential for class action fraud operative here.   Corrupt judges must be impeached.   To not remove them from office would encourage the majority to disregard every precept ever held.

123.  Plaintiff  has repeatedly had bona fide cases dismissed prior to trial(Verizon was fixed as a "settlement"), and cases won in bona fide trials thrown out on frivolous appeals (Bates Lippman Decision of 12/27/07).   However, we are talking FRAUD here and no amount of legalese is going to sustain that.

124.Plaintiff has also had her right to appeal denied.  This is unthinkable and has been masked under "technical" reasons.   And she has had appeals "heard" like the Lippman decision, which were clearly prejudged.  But again we are talking about FRAUD.  No one can say "just this once" and not realize what they are doing and the precedent it sets.    Clearly, the right to have legal advice during a Settlement is essential. Only a judge with an ulterior motive would deny such a petition, or pretend that the situation were otherwise.

125. Plaintiff seeks full restitution for the refusal to allow her time to secure counsel for the Verizon settlement, and the lack of a coercion free negotiation.  Conversely she seeks to reverse the disturbing of a bona fide jury verdict on the Bates matter unless the Court decides that Remand for retrial is the appropriate remedy.   Nonetheless the Court's decision to obstruct justice out of some hidden agenda on these cases is something that the Attorney General will not be inclined to ignore even if this Court does.

                                                                                    COUNT IX

LIBEL AND SLANDER

BY A JUDGE

126. This is an action for damages in excess of $75,000.

127The jurisdiction for this action is based in part upon diversity of citizenship,

and partly upon federal law and US Codes, and complex litigation with multiple parties.

128.Plaintiff is domiciled in New York, New York.

129.Defendants are mostly domiciled in New York, New York, and Albany NY.

130..The claims of Libel and Slander by a Judge are directed against Judge Rolando Acosta, who undertook a vindictive personnel campaign to destroy Plaintiff's reputation after she confronted him with his improper activities with attorney Laurence Lebowitz.  Judge Acosta, viciously attacked Plaintiff personally in his Final Judgment in November 2006, in retaliation for her complaints against him and for her refusal to award same attorney $1,300,000 in contingent legal fees.   Judge Acosta had previously upheld the jury verdict in February 2006 and the tone of the Decision (which was withheld from the Appeals Court) was factual and impartial.   However, after the Ex Parte meeting between Judge Acosta and Mr. Lebowtz, which resulted in threats being made to Plaintiff, the jurist embarked on a tirade of false allegations, paraphrased statements and selective evidence, all of which he included in his "Final Judgment"even after he had been recused.  Moreover, and this is where he committed clearly extra judicial acts, the jurist leaked innumerable stories to the press and on websites like Court Central beginning in August 2006, around the time he was being asked to recuse and when Jordan had initiated a Complaint to the JCC.   Judge Acosta also leaked stories spun to his advantage to the Law Journal and internally to the clerks and other legal personnel.   These events occurred long before the Appellate Division adopted his unsworn denials of "baseless allegations".

131.Plaintiff was so distraught and damaged by the attacks, and by the Appellate Division's adoption of the same, that she submitted to a voluntary polygraph, appended to her recusal motions (see Exhibit   ).

132. Over  the years, this false and libelous document has been cited by every attorney on the east coast with the intention of discrediting her.  Plaintiff has never been able to overcome the damage that was willfully inflicted by this vindictive jurist, who knowingly colluded to fix her case to advance his own career interests.

133. Plaintiff seeks full restitution of all damages plus interest and triple punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Kathryn Jordan preys for judgment against Defendants

Named above, including the General Counsels of the original defendant corporations who knew about the schemes and directed and paid for the same with shareholder funds;  Plaintiff and the People of New York now seek the following remedies:

Impeachment proceedings against all of the judges for their violations of the Rules and public trust, and for their violations of NY Law named above;
Investigation into the role of the attorneys as agents of the frauds;
Removal of Judge Lippman and Judge Kaye from their leadership positions

And barring them from ever acting as a judge in NYS again;

Dismissal of all cases filed on judicial compensation by Kaye/Lippman

And replacement of the same with a Special Commission to investigate

this issue empowered by the State Senate;

Vacating all orders issued by any of the named Defendants on any "fixed"

Cased including but not limited to "Kathryn Jordan v. Bates Advertising",

"Kathryn Jordan v. Verizon Communications", and the malpractice cases.

            Remand of these cases for trial/or settlement with legal representation during

             Negotiation;

Restitution of all damages incurred by Plaintiff for the last 15 years in all categories of harm.
Restitution of all taxpayer funds wrongfully collected in the pursuit of fixed cases.
Disbarments of all named attorney defendants.
Appointment of a Commission to Enact new Regulatory Legislation for the

Judiciary and dissolution of the JCC.

Replacement of leadership of County Clerk and review of all policies and

Procedures with caseloads in mind.

Appointment of  a new Judicial Reform Commission to examine the current judiciary and all obstacles to timely disposition of justice and to  deliver a proposed Judicial Reform Act of 2010 to Senator John Sampson by year end.

      12.  Double Punitive Damages for the willful nature of these crimes

WHEREFORE the taxpayers of New York  who have suffered irreparable harm, demand relief, and Plaintiff demands relief from her now 15 year ordeal, we pray for this Court's timely  adjudication of this matter.

Respectfully Submitted:

___________________

Kathryn Jordan,

PLAINTIFF
954 Lexington Avenue

#502

New York NY 10021

917 5964617

Cc: Attorney General Andrew Cuomo

       Senator John Sampson, New York Senate Judiciary Committee Chair



____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.enddiscriminationnow.com/

Bill and Petition for Judicial Impeachment

BILL FOR IMPEACHMENT OF CHIEF JUDGE JONATHAN LIPPMAN

FROM THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS and JUDGE JUDITH KAYE

AS CHAIR OF THE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL NOMINATION; AND FOR ALL THEIR JUDICIAL AND CLERICAL ACCOMPLICES(see USDC Complaint 09 CV 10616);  FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE SHIRA S. SCHEINDLIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, AND HER JUDICIAL AND CLERICAL ACCOMPLICES (See Complaint); FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AS GRAND ENABLBER (ATTN: JUDGE RALPH WINTER); AND FOR THE REMOVAL OF JUDGE KLONICK AND ROBERT TEMBECKJIAN AS DIRECTORS OF THE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT, for completely, knowingly and willfully failing to uphold its STATE CHARTER,  AND for DISSOLUTION OF THIS CORRUPT AND FAILED REGULATORY ENTITY ; FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK, NORMAN GOODMAN et al; and finally the AGENTS OF this GRAND CONSPIRACY: LAW FIRMS DRINKER BIDDLE REATH, PAUL HASTINGS, OUTTEN & GOLDEN, DAVID M. FISH/ROSEN LEFF, AND LAURENCE LEBOWITZ/KLEIN ZELLMAN.

"Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to come a law unto himself. It invites anarchy. (United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438 (1928).

We, The People, of the State of New York, hereby demand that Judge Jonathan Lippman, formerly Chief Judge Of the First Department Appellate Division, appointed to that position by Chief Judge Judith Kaye, and appointed by Governor David Patterson in January 2008 to Chief Judge for the New York Court of Appeals, and Judge Shira S. Scheindlin, Federal Judge of the Southern District of New York, and all their co-conspiratorial colleagues in the appellate courts, along with New York Supreme Court Judge Marcy Friedman,  be impeached and removed from office for crimes of grand treason, obstruction of justice, conspiracy to defraud (Plaintiff,  New York Taxpayers and the US Government), for their role in transforming the Judicial System into a Criminal Enterprise (Title 42 USC 1961) and by using the very Rules of Judicial Conduct 22 NYCRR Part 100, and Judiciary Law, they were bound contractually to abide by,  to immunize themselves against their own malfeasance, and by acting outside their sanctioned roles as agents of public trust and circumventing the Rules of Evidence, Rule of Law and  the Rules of New York and relevant federal Statutes, AND by unlawfully converting New York taxpayer funds to support these unlawful enterprises and the expense of these litigations which were deployed to create "IOU's" that could be monetized and then converted into judicial advancements (promotions, appointments, referrals et al) and/ or enhanced judicial compensation.   We the People demand that the judicial leaders, who have spearheaded a decade of corruption and degraded the image of the Judiciary, by replacing the time honored and respected profession of the impartial Trier of fact, with an era of elitist, activist "jealous" judges, obsessed with power, money, and social advancement in the business world, along with notoriety, and endowed with a sense of unlimited entitlement to abuse of their powers for any purpose that suited these agendas.  We The People charge Judge Shira Scheindlin, a once esteemed federal judge, with intervening  in a settlement of a case, a scheme she contrived in concert with attorneys Gary Phelan and Ken Gage to bestow a favor upon defendant Verizon Corporation (with the aid of General Counsel),  acting outside her sanctioned legal role, to coerce and force a disabled litigant into "agreeing" to completely unfavorable and undisclosed terms of a "deal" to forfeit her right to a jury trial under the threat of "litigation and sanctions".  We also charge her with manipulation of evidence to perpetuate a false impression of the facts of the matter, and with using her power and authority to threaten Plaintiff and to misrepresent Plaintiff's legal rights, options, and choices.  We The People also charge four other federal judges named above as co-conspirators, all of whom knew the Plaintiff, a victim of disability discrimination, suffered from MS, with enabling a cover up of this conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff of her rights, in order to dispense a favor to a large powerful employer Verizon Communications, who had repeatedly discriminated against the disabled, in order to cull large future "favors" from the same.   We charge the Second Circuit, who claimed to have performed a de novo review, with the highest crime of all, and having the power and authority to overturn a blatant abuse of judicial power and discretion, and an obligation to report the same (as required by the Rules), yet choosing instead of perpetuate a grand seven year fraud and conspiracy to cover up those frauds deploying judicial power, and to later vett the case and evidence of the same from the docket.

We The People charge former Supreme Court Judge Rolando Acosta, a once highly regarded Human Rights jurist, with setting up the Jordan v. Bates disability discrimination case to be "fixed" for jury nullification, and with violating the Rules of Judicial Conduct by allowing himself to  be improperly influenced about a large contingent legal fee by a discharged attorney and for attacking Plaintiff as "contemptuous",  and for obstructing justice by signaling his accession to the scheme to defraud Plaintiff, giving Judge Lippman the opening he needed to challenge the solid jury verdict on appeal with the First Department, a favor which led to Acosta's promotion a month later, and Judge Lippman's subsequent promotion to Chief Judge a year later, all part of a well organized long planned scheme.  We also charge the "Nuclear" jurist with perpetuating a prolonged retaliation campaign against Plaintiff for reporting his improper "Ex Parte" conduct with her discharged attorney regarding the disputed $1.3M legal fee, a matter not before him, and his threats to "act (as a fact witness) against you"  and "be assigned the (malpractice) case". (Threats Judge Acosta carried out when he had himself assigned as jurist to the Malpractice case, and failed to self recuse).    We charge Robert Tembeckjian, Director of the JCC, with covering up, instead of investigating, Plaintiff's complaints against this jurist and against the appellate judges who enabled this scheme, after the JCC was advised of an elaborate obstruction of justice scheme by Acosta-Lippman-Kaye-Friedman, and later Kaye.   We charge Judge Lippman, and the First Department Panel who heard the Jordan v. Bates appeal (118785-99) who failed to report Judge Acosta's misconduct and violation of the Rules, with obstruction of justice (along with all the other defendant judges who were aware of the scheme), and who improperly adopted the unsworn denials of the jurist, without an impartial adjudication by a referee,  and with creating new "evidence" and "law" to justify disturbing a bona fide jury verdict, deviating outside his sworn oath to uphold the laws of the State of New York. We also charge Judge Acosta, his clerks and the attorneys involved, with obstructing an investigation and withholding facts and evidence and lying to investigators.  We charge him with acting outside his role as judge to release "spin" to the legal press and publish slanderous stories about Plaintiff on the internet. Finally, we charge him with fixing the appeal of the Malpractice case of defendant Laurence Lebowitz, and dismissing the bona fide appeal after improperly appearing on the case when he had an obligation to self recuse.  He only recused after issuing a Decision dismissing the appeal by Plaintiff, just as he had done in the Supreme Court after Plaintiff's allegation of misconduct.

We The People also charge Judge Lippman with abusing his authority as Chief Judge of the First Department, and using his influence with then Chief Judge Kaye of the Court of Appeals, and later acting Chief Judge Cirpatrick,  to deny Jordan's right to an appeal of the Kathryn Jordan v. Bates Advertising case, where inconsistencies in state law, on a matter of national importance, clearly met the criteria for review, instead allowing the improper reversal of the precedent Jordan v. Bates case to stand, in order to perpetrate the political agenda of rolling back 30 years of civil rights advances and issuing an Order that made it infinitely harder for victims of discrimination to prove the same, creating a gigantic loophole for employers to evade federal and state anti-discrimination laws.

We The People charge Judge Shira Scheindlin with "fixing" the Kathryn Jordan v. Verizon Communications case through the orchestrated of a planned, coerced settlement, to replace the elected "Trial by Jury", and those judges who aided in masking the duress and lack of representation that Plaintiff was subjected to, as she was forced under various threats to "agree" to their "deal", specifically Judge George P. Daniels, Magistrate Gorenstein, Judge Ronald Ellis, Judge Gerard Lynch, and finally the Second Circuit, all of whom claimed to conduct a "de novo" review but instead falsified facts and misapplied Laws to justify their colleagues "mistake" instead of reporting the same to the JCC.  And Judge Lynch for ignoring these relevant facts when Verizon predictably violated the meager terms of the token Settlement, and instead again doled out another "favor", with the aid of defense counsel Ken Gage of Paul Hastings.   And for not one of these jurists taking a stand "in the interests of justice" to stop a conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff of her rights as a disabled employee who had suffered a collapse at the hands of her employer after disclosure of her status and request for Accommodation.

We charge these four power crazed jurists, Judge Scheindlin, Judge Lippman, Kaye and Acosta, with trampling on the Rules, the Law and the Rules of Evidence to cultivate favor and advancement of their careers, and (for Bates) with converting Plaintiff's $3.3M Bond from the jury verdict into four promotions (Judge Gonzales was only on the panel and was made Chief Judge of First Department  months later) with promises of several large future favors, for their unconstitutional reversal of Plaintiff's jury decision and the re-writing of discrimination law to aid corporate violators. (The "fix" was proven as a willful fraud, as opposed to "error", when the case was not remanded for re-trial to remedy the alleged defects in evidence and law but dismissed outright, despite admissions of guilt by the employer.) and (for Verizon) for converting Plaintiff's ERISA and ADA rights as a disabled employee into a valueless piece of paper, and for monetizing the same into unspoken promises of judicial advancement, remuneration for the attorneys, and a large favor for the employer.

Lastly, the disposition of three legal Malpractice cases -- by Judge Acosta and Friedman at the NYSSC level and Judge Acosta (again), Catterson and Tom at the First Department-also to perpetuate the cover up) on the Bates case to eliminate "loose ends" and "favors" by fellow Southern District judge, to falsify records and facts to misrepresent the Record on Appeal.   With the highest appellate court, the Second Circuit, providing cover, by failing to perform a "de novo" review.

            We charge Judge Lippman and Judge Kaye with refusing to hear the most important discrimination case to be brought before the Court of Appeals in decades, instead hearing the "Bianca Jagger Eviction Case", and that this was an act of obstruction of justice and a conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff and the voters and  taxpayers of New York.

We The People allege that a plan was in place for succession, instigated by Elliot Spitzer, and executed by Governor Patterson, to appoint judges for advancement that had not been properly vetted to higher office, including the Chief Judge of the highest court of New York, knowing that these jurists had schemed to enable each other's advancement by covering up those on the path to advancement's violations of the Rules, and committing violations of their own in the process.

We the People charge each of the judicial defendants with abuse of the Rules of Judicial Conduct (22 USC Part 100 ) and inhibiting investigations of complaints of peer or personal misconduct, and using their roles as judges to suppress investigations into the same, or to manipulate or intimidate witnesses, the latter constituting violations of federal and state law, and using their authority as judges to tamper with or manipulate evidence.  Some of the Defendant Judges allowed, encouraged or enabled improper and "Ex Parte" attempts to influence the outcome of a trial or decision by granting improper access by attorneys, by using attorneys as "arms length" agents of frauds or by encouraging or signaling accession to overtures by attorneys, on behalf of their corporations/clients, to negotiate "deals" where cases or verdicts would be "fixed" to conform with the outcome sought by the judge or the "client", in return for which a "favor" of some kind would be dispensed by same judge, and the Defendant would agree to return said "favor" at some point in the future.  Some jurists would intentionally manipulate the Law of the Case, or the facts of the case, to put the law into question to ensure that the desired outcome would occur.  This is how our modern courts fix cases.  It is no longer money under the table.

It has evolved to a more sophisticated and subtle practice where the judicial authority itself is used as armor against allegations or investigations.

These covert practices would be followed by a cover up campaign to ensure that no related cases or appeals would be ever tried, or any witnesses called, as evidenced by these "test" cases.   As part of these case fixing deals, the judges involved deployed an arsenal of tactics ranging from coercion and censorship of witnesses, often via "sanctions" or unlawful threats of "sanctions", threats of retaliation and acts of the same, denying of civil rights to jury trial or appeal, denial of right to free speech, denial of right to legal representation, denial of right to self representation (where voluntarily chosen), denial or attenuation of discovery, denial of damages or full damages (where the trial judge "slips" in directing the jury or where evidence is misplaced), denial of expert witnesses, personal defamatory or libelous attacks by a jurist or agent attorney, tampering with or altering or selective representation of evidence to support the "scheme".   If allegations of misconduct were filed against the Judge, there would be an organized effort to suppress, manipulate or cease any investigation into the same by peer jurists (this is a widely adopted practice) by the appropriate regulatory body and to discredit the claimant by either the same investigative body or other jurists, often with the aid of attorneys who had vested interests in the outcome.  This came with the willful cooperation of the Commission on Judicial Conduct and other regulatory entities.

            The cases upon which this Petition for Impeachment of Judges and Dissolution

Of Regulatory Bodies is made are based upon three related discrimination cases filed by a single female disabled litigant, who despite suffering from Multiple Sclerosis, was forced to endure 15 years of litigation in an attempt to secure justice and undo the frauds,

Namely:

Kathryn Jordan .v Bates Advertising Et Al (118785-99)
Kathryn Jordan v. Verizon Communications (10144-cv-02)
Kathryn Jordan v. Laurence Lebowitz, Gary Phelan & Outten Golden, David Fish (600246;105183;601806/07), Malpractice cases related to the Bates matter.

As well as a case of fraud by two of the Chief Judges involved in the grand scheme to de fraud New York taxpayers, Judge Jonathan Lippman and Judge Judith Kaye, who for the last decade used taxpayer funds to perpetuate a grand scheme to extort "judicial pay raises" , first, by alleging false and grossly exaggerated facts or improper comparisons, or misapplied law and suing the Governor and Legislature.    The scheme here was to pay off various "IOU"s accumulated by judicial leaders while enriching themselves personally, and upon rejection of said scheme, to use judicial powers to effect secret stipends to achieve the same purpose:

Maron v. Silver (58 AD 3^rd 102)
Larabee v. Governor (4761-4761A)
Kaye v. Silver (400763/08)

            While these are only four cases, they constitute a high level representation of

how institutionalized corruption ("a culture of corruption") based on unrestrained and unchecked judicial authority has allowed, enabled and encouraged a virtual epidemic of widespread judicial criminality where the rules, law and facts are systematically circumvented to conform with the judicial bias or agenda and where the regulatory entities are "in on the game".  The latter represents the antithesis of what our judicial system is intended to be:  an impartial instrument of justice and a third branch of government that serves to enforce laws and restitute victims of injustice, while

punishing violators of the same.  The conclusion that the Legislature will arrive at,

after examining these facts, and the facts uncovered at the July 2009 New York State Senate Public Hearings, is that our Justice System is broken, and that it is being led by

judges who have, by their own Decisions and actions, admitted to flaunting the Rules of Judiciary Law, and the Laws of New York and the federal laws of the United States.

These are serious treasonous crimes.

            Corruption always starts at the top.   If the leaders are corrupt, there will always be corrupt implementers, as corrupt leaders will signal the legitimization of brazen flaunting and undermining of the good and acceptance of evil.  Evil becomes the practice and the policy, and is no longer questioned.  Corruption flourishes where there is no regulation.  This Bill-Petition calls for removal of corrupt leadership and corrupt and incompetent institutions like the Commission on Judicial Conduct. The leadership crisis is serious and has reached the highest levels of the judiciary.  On trial here are the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals and the Chief Judge of the First Department, and several Federal judges, as well as the Second Circuit, one of our countries most esteemed appellate review bodies, or at least historically one. But also on trial are the ethics and standards that we have come to accept over the years as burgeoning caseloads have made it more acceptable to deviate from time accepted practices for ethical impartial dispensation of justice.   Our Rules and Laws contain many loopholes that allow and encourage corruption.   And because they have been drafted by the very entities that have benefited from them, the jurists and lawyers who run our corrupt legal system, and because they have never incorporated the input of the most important stakeholder, the taxpayer and voters of New York who use the legal system, the latter eyewitnesses to the corruption, the system itself has served to perpetuate the schemes and ensure that the cover-ups are legitimized.

Public Hearings Confirm Widespread Corruption

            There will be a temptation to re-characterize these four "test" cases to discount or discredit their import as a microcosm of a larger more disturbing trend, but there is substantial evidence that they are far from exceptions to the otherwise excellent execution of our state and nation's laws.   This past summer the New York Senate Judiciary Committee held public hearings and the results were astounding:  Virtually every deponent who testified attested to some version of the same scenario where systematic deviation of the Rules and Laws were deployed and sanctioned by higher courts and regulatory bodies.  Further, many of the same names, and one in particular, were repeated over and over again: Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman and JCC Chair Robert Tembeckjian.

Further reason for the call for Judge Lippman's Impeachment, from an office that he would otherwise hold for the next 14 years, is that Judge Lippman is not qualified for the Office, was not vetted, and has proven himself capable of doing great harm to the constituency that he serves.

We The People accuse the judicial leaders of grand treason and betrayal of the oaths of office that they took to enforce the Laws of New York and relevant federal statutes and to protect the rights of all New York residents and enforce the Federal and State Laws.

Lastly, we charge the attorneys with violation of their oaths of New York Professional Conduct, and acting as agents of these conspiracies.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A.Obstruction of Justice:

Obstruction of Justice is by definition "interference with the orderly administration of law and justice" and may be comprised of a "medley of crimes", but is generally governed by 18 USC Sections 1501-1520.  It was originally devised to protect "individuals involved in federal judicial proceedings and prevent "miscarriages of justice by corrupt methods".   It specifically seeks to "ensure that criminals cannot circumvent the laws purpose by devising novel and creative schemes that would interfere in the administration of justice but would nonetheless fall outside the scope of `1503's specific prohibitions".  The Omnibus provision was intended to protect judges and officers of court from threats, intimidation, and retaliation, and "attempted bribery" to alter the outcome of a proceding.

Included in this provision are attempts to influence a judge, a witness, or tamper with evidence.  Because judges are presumed to be honest and abiding with the Rules of Judicial Conduct, they are granted broad immunity.

            It is the predicate of this Bill that "times have changed" and that underpaid, overworked judges who have virtually unlimited power to manipulate cases and intimidate witnesses have altered the paradigm to such a degree that we now must view the judge as the possible offender.   Most judges are impeached when they attempt to interfere with investigations of their conduct in some way (see examples appended).

However, based on the evidence introduced at the public hearings, and the facts documented about the four case studies herein, the Legislature has a burden to go back and examine those Rules and Statutes to accommodate the reality of today's legal system.
The answer is not, as proposed by Judge Kaye and Chief Judge Lippman, in throwing money at judges and hoping to buy their "loyalty" as this obviously would create a bigger problem than exists at this time.   Rather, it requires strict interpretation and strengthening of Rules of Judicial Conduct and removing from office any judge who fails to meet them, even those who "offers the appearance of misconduct" by their own willful ethical lapses.

Of those judges who have actually crossed the line and "fixed" cases, the remedy must be impeachment as these judges have not only committed crimes, but their example will incite other judges to trample on the Judiciary Law as well.

            Further, any judge who had manipulated the outcome of a case, whether by altering evidence or law, and the consequence has been a monetary transfer that has benefited them, whether a promotion or raise or other "consideration", this judge has committed a felony against the US Government and New York Taxpayer and should be removed from office as well.  Unfortunately, we cannot trust the Judicial Conduct Commission to perform these investigations.  It is widely recognized that the JCC is an enabler of the higher level judges and only pursue "non political" complaints to justify

their status.  However, the demands for budget increases, and the failure to deliver commensurate results, can be considered a crime as well.

Case fixing is illegal and a form of obstruction of justice.

1. The Authority of the Appellate Court Upon Finding Evidentiary or Legal "Defects"Does Not Include Creating New Evidence, Law or Enabling Judicial Misconduct, or Dismissing Jury Verdicts without Appropriate Statutory Remedy

It is recognized here that the precept is that trial Judges are given a wide berth to render decisions of fact and law, and to interpret the same under the Judiciary Laws of New York.   The breadth of these powers were intended to not unnecessarily restrict the honorable jurist in his or her role as enforcer of the Laws of our State and Federal Statutes from acting as an "impartial trier of fact" and the agent of justice closest to the witnesses and evidence to determine whether it was possible for the jury to arrive at the verdict that it did.   The trial judge, and in the Bates case, Judge Rolando Acosta, also "interprets" the legal standard into jury instructions that translate the federal, state and city statutes into comprehensible guidelines for evaluation of case evidence.  The Jordan v. Bates case was the first "perceived disability" case to come before New York courts in many years, and Judge Acosta, who had come from the Human Rights Division, was intimately familiar with Discrimination Law.   The jury rendered a verdict in Plaintiff's favor on the wrongful discharge case, in the amount of $2.5M (a "split" verdict) and awarded legal fees, the hourly portion of which was before the Court (the contingent legal fee that the contentious decision references, and which Plaintiff was threatened about, of the $1.3M claim was not before the Court). The Failure to Promote claim was denied, after Plaintiff was not able to produce evidence of what transpired around the same (the latter is the subject of fraud by the defense attorneys at DBR who suppressed all evidence around EVP compensation and the search to fill that position, this being cited as only part of the role of the Fraud by the attorneys).   In Post Trial Motions, all of the issues raised in the appeal were tried and decided by the Trial Court.  These included "sufficiency of evidence", "alleged lack of evidence of pretext""demitterer", et al.  All were DENIED by the trial judge and an Opinion issued in February 2006 sustaining the verdict.  Between that time and November 2006, when the Final Judgment was issued, legal fee hearings were held.   The latter also involved allegations by Plaintiff, who had won the case, of misconduct between her discharged trial attorney and the judge, which involved the jurist's recusal in July 2006, but Judge Acosta still issued the Final Judgment attacking Plaintiff as "contemptuous" allegedly for disregarding a gag order.  It would be the latter dispute that would be used to discredit all of Plaintiff's testimony and the jury verdict after the First Department, upon receiving the otherwise frivolous appeal, determined without investigation, that Plaintiff's allegations against the trial court were "baseless" and that consequently she was a "liar".   The First Department also made other insightful observations including criticizing Jordan"not complain ..to anyone at AC&R about the inquiries about the use of the cane" even though it was aware that Plaintiff's harassers were her supervisors.

            Judge Lippman, Catterson, Gonzales, Friedman and Sullivan then used this artifice of the  nullification of Plaintiff's consistent and credible testimony, which had been weighed for credibility by the jury, and instead accepted at face value evidence rejected by the jury and the trial court of  employer Bates pretext of "financial reasons" as the excuse for firing Plaintiff and replacing her with "several" non disabled managers.

The panel also accepted the pretext that this was allegedly more "cost effective", despite any evidence to support this conclusion, and in face of direct evidence by the supervisor denying the same. (The employer also admitted to knowing of the hazing and failing to take any remedial action, normally direct evidence as well).  From this thin contrived façade, the Appellate Division then concluded that

"plaintiff presented no evidence of pretext, and so failed to controvert defendants' evidence of a legitimate non discriminatory reason for her termination".

Various other sworn statements by Plaintiff were intentionally misinterpreted by discrimination law standards, and some paraphrased, to create a new "story" that would justify the finding that "no jury could have reached the verdict in this case on any fair interpretation of the evidence.  Therefore the verdict was against the weight of the evidence" (White v. NYC Transit, 40 AD 3d 297 2007).  The First Department then found that the trial court should have GRANTED the motion to set aside the verdict, spending a full page or more on the issue of the alleged wisdom of the trial court in ordering "sanctions" against the disabled litigant and censoring her right to free speech. (The beauty of obstruction of justice is that the arguments are all circular and self reinforcing).   The First Department deemed the Plaintiff "obliged to comply with court's orders" and the allegations "baseless'" and the Court's unsworn self serving denials true.  Thus the era of the Fascist state of Judicial review was codified.

            Although the number of factual and legal errors that were made by the First Department in this reversal and dismissal of the Jury Verdict could fill a small library, and its adoption of the equally flawed legal standard of "Stephenson v. Hotel Employees", the latter which fails to provide for an opportunity for a victim of discrimination to prove what the "real reason" for the adverse employment action was, not just the proffered "legitimate reason" as provided by McDonnell Douglas tripartite standard  (issues raised on appeal to New York Court of Appeals), the fatal mistake of this ruse was determining that Plaintiff had no remedy.  In other words, the First Department should have remanded the issue of the "weight of the evidence" and "legal standard" to a new trial court, especially given the heavy reliance it placed upon evidence that was not before the jury (the trial judges' charge of "baseless" allegations by Plaintiff) and the fact that it essentially re-wrote discrimination law sua sponte.   The First Department did not order such remedy.  It just dismissed, and hence "Fixed" the Jordan v. Bates case.  There was no mention of "in the interests of justice" or statutory remedies or even the fact that the Court had essentially retried the entire case through the lens of discrimination bias.

            Further, after holding Plaintiff's attorney responsible for failing to enter certain evidence that was "fatal" to the case, the First Department then denied the appeal of Judge Friedman's improper dismissal of the Malpractice cases., even when there was no Certified Record upon which to file a Brief and when Plaintiff had requested an extension of time.   In sum, the First Department had killed the Plaintiff and was sealing the coffin.

            The Court of Appeals however had no excuse not to hear this appeal.  In fact, it had a statutory duty as there was no more important issue before it.   While most discrimination experts would instantly recognize the flaws in the First Department's legal argument, it is indisputable that even if Judge Lippman was correct about the legal standard (and Plaintiff's Briefs proved he was not), then adoption of the Stephenson case law required a new trial, and minimally there was now an "out of sync with standards adopted by other states outside New York," situation and even discordance within the State.   Incredibly thought this appeal was also DENIED.   The Bianca Jagger eviction case was deemed more "important".

There are many arguments as to why this entire process was statutorily deviant and why "due process" and "the interests of justice" were not served and why the Decision was inherently contradictory and contradictory with subsequent decisions on this matter..   However, in addition to the obvious "errors", the failure to remand for retrial being the least excusable, the Appellate Division exceeded its own narrow Rules for disturbing jury verdicts, and by its own declaration, did so in part because a disabled female  litigant who was being bullied by a trial judge, spoke up to defend herself.  And because the highly political and conservative First Department could not resist the opportunity to roll back civil rights advances.

Civil appeals are granted in most jurisdictions on only the slimmest of circumstances.

It was well recognized that appellate courts rarely tamper with trial judge decisions,

especially on civil matters.  The rate of reversal of jury verdicts is somewhere between

1-2%  and this is where there really was no factual basis for the jury to have ruled as it did. The First Department is known for exceeding the normal incidence of disturbing jury verdicts and "legislating from the bench".  However, even the First Department has rarely, if ever, altered a verdict and not sent the case back for re-trial.   More criminal cases are granted on appeal than civil, and the standards are still the same:

"the trier of fact has failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded, then the appellate court may set aside the verdict" (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495)

But only with the time honored respect for the jury's role as trier of fact:

"this court should not readily interfere with verdicts of jurors who have had the advantage of seeing and hearing witnesses" in conducting the weight of the evidence analysis (People v.Crum id. at 357)

"Empowered with this unique factual review, intermediate appellate courts have been careful not to substitute themselves for the jury. Great deference is accorded to the fact-finder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony and observe demeanor. Without question the differences between what the jury does and what the appellate court does in weighing evidence are delicately nuanced, but differences there are" Gaimari (id.).[FN2]

However, there must be a legal remedy for disturbing a jury verdict, and it is not outright

dismissal even if the "verdict is against the weight of the evidence" (BlueBird Partners v.

First Fidelity, First Department No. 601365/19907).  If an appellate review finds that the

"motion to set aside the verdict should have been granted" then the First Department had

a legal burden to order the case "remanded for retrial".   It did not.   However, it is clear

that the Appellate Division failed to apply the correct legal standards and was so biased

by the Trial Court's outburst that it created new facts and new law, a fraud, to justify

throwing out the entire matter   However, a JNOV always requires that an "issue of law"

is decided, not issues of fact.

Here the First Department "erred"  by deciding issues of fact and converting them

into issues of law instead of remanding the case for retrial on the alleged "new law".

This clever deus ex machine still does not comply with the statutory obligations of "due

process".  This latter choice took the result out of the realm of "error" and into the realm

of "fraud", as the First Department incorporated evidence that was not before the jury,

and disregarded evidence that was before the jury.

            Recent decisions in the Disability Discrimination arena have only bolstered the

fact that Judge Lippman should not have  disturbed the verdict in the Jordan v. Bates

case:

Myers v. AT&T, 380 N.J. Super. 443 (App. Div. 2005)

In this disability discrimination case, the trial court found that the plaintiff, Lois Myers, did not have enough evidence of discrimination for a jury to even consider whether AT&T fired her because she was a survivor of ovarian cancer. The trial court dismissed Ms. Myers' case even though her immediate supervisor admitted she lowered Ms. Myers' performance rating because she perceived that, as a cancer survivor, Ms. Myers was not working as hard as her non-disabled coworker. It was also undisputed that AT&T selected Ms. Myers to be included in a mass layoff because of her lowered performance rating.

On appeal, Jonathan I. Nirenberg helped convince the Appellate Division that Ms. Myers was entitled to her day in court. In fact, the appeals court found that the admission by Ms. Myers' supervisor was "direct evidence" of discrimination, and therefore instead of Ms. Myers having to prove that AT&T fired her because of her disability, the company would had the burden to prove that it would have fired Ms. Myers even if she never had cancer.

The Myers decision is an extremely important since it makes it significantly easier for an employee to place the burden of proof on the employer in discrimination cases.

Padilla v. Berkeley Educational Services of New Jersey, Inc., 383 N.J. Super. 177 (App. Div. 2005)

Prior to the appeal, a jury had determined that Berkeley Educational Services of New Jersey had discriminated against its employee, Cely Padilla, because she waspregnant. However, due to an error in the jury verdict sheet, the trial judge did not permit allow the jury to award any damages to Ms. Padilla.

On appeal, Jonathan I. Nirenberg and Jamie I. Cash convinced New Jersey's Appellate Division to send the case back to the trial court so a jury could award Ms. Padilla damages for her lost wages and benefits, her emotional distress, and her attorney's fees. Importantly, the appellate court recognized that an employee does not need to have a doctor or expert witness testify to recover emotional distress under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

Entrot v. BASF Corp., 359 N.J. Super. 162 (App. Div. 2003)

Cindylu Entrot sued her former employer, BASF, for sexual harassment under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). Mrs. Entrot alleged that BASF forced her to leave her job due to the mental distress caused by the hostile work environment and sexually charged atmosphere created by one of her superiors.

In a first case of its kind in New Jersey, New Jersey's Appellate Division held that a "constructive discharge" (meaning a forced resignation) caused by the sexually harassing conduct of a supervisor is a "tangible employment action," and that as a result BASF was not able to argue that it had an effective anti-harassment policy as a defense to Mrs. Entrot's claims against it. This is significant because it eliminates a possible defense that a company might otherwise be able to raise in a constructive discharge case.

These recent rulings, along with Plaintiff's Briefs, and the known Federal, State and City

anti Discrimination laws, and the Appellate Standard of Review all support the fact that

Plaintiff's jury verdict was bona fide, and that the First Department should not have used

the outburst of the trial judge (a year and half after jury decision) as "evidence" of

anything.  If the law was incorrect the case should have been remanded for retrial.

Plaintiff has repeatedly argued that the jury decision was correct and that the Defendant's

failure to object to the jury instructions precluded any bona fide appeal.

            However, it is the pattern of obstruction of justice that is most disturbing  and relevant to the instant matter.   We see a trial judge accused of misconduct not being

investigated by the JCC (or investigated so poorly that his slander of Plaintiff as "contemptuous" was not automatically found a violation of the Rules), and his own

misconduct used to not only immunize him from investigation, but superiors in appellate review siding with the intemperate judge and again failing to order an investigation

of a very serious charge.  The latter failure, is by virtue of the Rules, a violation of the appellate jurists who are legally obligated to report any judicial misconduct.  Instead,

the First Department also used their authority and power to silence Appellant (just as the trial court had with the "sanctions") by calling her a "liar" and improperly taking the trial court at face value, even when his Final Judgment could have been interpreted as a "Guilty" plea.   We find the Appellate Courts not just adjudicating  evidence in this matter, but creating new evidence, and simply disregarding the inconvenient evidence that did not fit the ingoing bias (including the employer's sworn testimony that it knew of the hazing but took no remedial action).   Then we have the First Department adopting a new legal standard "Stephenson v. Hotel Employees", an obscure New York case that it

used to redefine the standard for proving pretext as long established by the US Supreme Court, even though the employer had already agreed to the legal standard upon which the case was tried when the jury instructions were adopted without objection.  SO what was going on here?  Did the First Department not realize that it was covering up misconduct?

Did it not know that the appeal was "moot" and that there was no legal issue to "redefine"?  Of course, it did.   This group of activist judges knew exactly what they were doing because they had done it before many times, but had never been caught.   Because the Commission Director is so incompetent that he does not realize when he is being snowed, and so eager to "help"  high level lawbreakers, no bona fide"investigation" was made despite this Plaintiff's providing a virtual roadmap of law and witnesses.

The devil is usually in the details.   When it comes to judicial conduct, the "Rules" are written so that wide loopholes are given if the investigator takes the "get out of Jail card" excuse of "it's a legal issue", "it's an appellate issue", etc.

            Like all good conspiracies this required a "closed system" where no evidence would be discovered or witnesses allowed to testify.   So when the time came when the case went before the New York Court of Appeals, Judge Kaye was more than happy to help her friend Judge Lippman out of another "jam".   And Judge Lippman was ready with promises of future glory for Judge Kaye.  So the most important disability discrimination case of this decade was not heard by the State's highest court.

While all this was going on, we had Judge Marcy Friedman playing "defense" and making sure that all of the Malpractice cases would never even have discovery, much less due process.  This was after Judge Acosta carried out his threat to "be assigned as judge" to the malpractice case, which he did and was forced to recuse in July 2007.  The County Clerk joined in by taking 18 months to certify one of the records and failing to certify the others (But when the boss is winking, you are not worried).    Judge Acosta is the ultimate professional fixer.  He then had himself assigned on the appeal of the Malpractice cases, after Judge Catterson was recused, in secret. Again he rightfully anticipated that he would be recused if he announced his presence (three times a charm)

so the issued the ruling with his name on it before Plaintiff could recuse him.   And then had Judge Tom, a once esteemed jurist, carry the ball home.

            On Verizon, Judge Scheindlin used defense counsel to lob faux inquiries, to issue

threats against the Plaintiff, to ensure that there would be no discovery, to make sure that

Plaintiff was without attorney at time of execution, to make sure that Plaintiff would be deprived of a voluntary settlement and would take the "deal".  And her colleagues were more than delighted to accommodate the need to falsify the Record of facts, including the representation that Plaintiff was "represented by counsel at all relevant times".

            This is how obstruction of justice is done by the pros.   And everyone involved was rewarded for their role.  Each participant was promoted or moved into a higher position after the game was deemed "over".   Now our Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, Chief Judge of the First Department, Director of JCC,  County Clerk,

half of the First Department and a couple of Supreme Court Judges are all felons.

This is our leadership in New York.   Of course without willing officers of the court

and attorneys to do the dirty work, most of this would not have occurred, especially if these attorneys performed their obligation to report judicial misconduct, not aid it to "win".. These attorneys have also committed crimes of high treason punishable under New York Penal Law.

2. Coercion and Duress Cannot, by Definition, Be Deployed to Secure "Voluntary Releases" of Civil Rights

            Like the Bates disability discrimination case, the Jordan v. Verizon case was "fixed" and involved the "usual suspects".   Here however the status of a federal court judge allowed this scheme to be disguised.    The laws for voluntary releases are widely known in federal court, and Judge Ellis actually took the law to a slightly more modern standpoint of "a strategic choice".

            The issue of undue influence is readily recognized in areas of tort law like

Wills where elderly persons have been forced or induced to act against their interests,

Or in criminal law where a defendant is forced under duress to sign a confession without an attorney.   The principles of voluntary releases are no different and require "knowing and willful" decisions where the party is represented by an attorney.  This is particularly true when a party in an action like an employment action is particularly subject to "undue influence" or has no way of "knowing" what they are entering into because they have not been allowed legal representation or do not know the facts due to a lack of discovery.

A judicially created defense to transactions that have been imposed upon weak and vulnerable persons that allows the transactions to be set aside.

Virtually any act of persuasion that over-comes the free will and judgment of another, including exhortations, importunings, insinuations, flattery, trickery, and deception, may amount to undue influence. Undue influence differs from duress, which consists of the intentional use of force, or threat of force, to coerce another into a grossly unfair transaction. Blackmail, Extortion, bad faith threats of criminal prosecution, and oppressive Abuse of Process are classic examples of duress.

Four elements must be shown to establish undue influence. First, it must be demonstrated that the victim was susceptible to overreaching. Such conditions as mental, psychological, or physical disability or dependency may be used to show susceptibility. Second, there must be an opportunity for exercising undue influence. Typically, this opportunity arises through a confidential relationship. Courts have found opportunity for undue influence in confidential relationships between Husband and Wife, fiancé and fiancée, Parent and Child, trustee and beneficiary, administrator and legatee, Guardian and Ward, attorney and client, doctor and patient, and pastor and parishioner. Third, there must be evidence that the defendant was inclined to exercise undue influence over the victim. Defendants who aggressively initiate a transaction, insulate a relationship from outside supervision, or discourage a weaker party from seeking independent advice may be attempting to exercise undue influence. Fourth, the record must reveal an unnatural or suspicious transaction. Courts are wary, for example, of testators who make abrupt changes in their last will and testament after being diagnosed with a terminal illness or being declared incompetent, especially if the changes are made at the behest of a beneficiary who stands to benefit from the new or revised testamentary disposition.

Nevertheless, courts will examine the facts closely before finding that a transaction has been tainted by undue influence. Mere suspicion, surmise, or conjecture of overreaching is insufficient. The law permits loved ones and confidants to advise and comfort those in need of their support without fear of litigation. Courts are also aware that the doctrine of undue influence can be used as a sword by the vindictive and avaricious who seek to invalidate a perfectly legal transaction for personal gain. When undue influence is found to have altered a transaction, however, courts will make every effort to return the parties to the same position they would have occupied had the overreaching not occurred.

However, this is balanced by a need to have finality to any "settlement" of an action, which is why most settlements require discovery of the facts and the advice of an attorney.   A settlement cannot be "knowing" if the former employee has been precluded from knowing either the value of the "consideration" being offered or lost.  This cannot be possible when the party that controls the information (the employer in most discrimination cases) refuses to provide discovery to allow full knowledge, deploys unlawful threats, or worst of all, where the trial judge manipulates its power and authority to give one party, especially the weaker one, a distinct advantage.

            In the Jordan v. Verizon "settlement", we had a disabled former employee with MS who was without an attorney (whose prior attorneys withdrew after agreeing to hold settlement negotiations against Plaintiff's declared intentions ) and a large powerful employer with a large law firm (Paul Hastings) withholding discovery, while demanding the same from Plaintiff, and issuing a series of unlawful threats.   The trial court, who should only have intervened to protect the weaker party from exploitation, intervened in the settlement process to legitimize and enhance the unlawful threats.  Knowing that this conduct was illegal, the trial court, Judge Shira Scheindlin, used both defense counsel

and manipulation of documentary evidence to make it appear that Plaintiff "changed her mind" and was represented by an attorney when she executed the unfavorable agreement to trade out her right to jury trial and claims worth $31M for a token settlement that went to her attorneys, the latter more than willing to set up the fraud for a small fee and future promises of referrals and advancements.   There is no way, even stretching the very strict rules on voluntary releases that a disabled woman who has not had the benefit of discovery and had refused to accept several settlement overtures, but then does so after being threatened with "litigation and sanctions" could be considered acting voluntarily.

Equally egregrious she is denied the right to have an attorney negotiate for her and to review the "final" agreement, which has been manipulated with legalese to totally negate any rights she had going into the process and any consideration promised.

            This is what occurred under Judge Scheindlin's watch with the aid of both Plaintiff and Defense counsel, and this is what a "fixed case" looks like in federal court.

In exchange for doling out a favor to a large connected employer like Verizon Communications, Judge Scheindlin was more than willing to sell out a disabled woman who  held no promise of benefit to the Court.   The fact that there was enough evidence of wrongdoing by the employer to start a bonfire with was of no consequence.  And the prospect of this enticing case management opportunity was irresistible.    All that was needed for this scheme were a few helpful friends to do the arms length dirty work, a few tweaks of some key documents so it would appear that Plaintiff was represented by counsel, a surprise conference where a court reporter could take notes of the script, and some blind eyes at the Second Circuit.   The fact that Plaintiff was "ill" and "confused" at the time was a good thing because it meant minimal resistance.  However, just to make sure the Court issued a few of its own threats about the "nightmares" of "permanent litigation" and directed all faux investigations to Plaintiff's adversary.

            Now all of this was known to the Rule 60(b) panel, under Judge George Daniels, who's role in the cover up was to re-iterate that "plaintiff was represented by no less than three attorneys...at the relevant times", a blatant lie, and to exculpate the attorneys.   The latter is essential to all successful obstruction of justice and conspiracy to defraud schemes: Buy the attorneys silence.  Pay their fees.  Promise them future glory and connections.

            In both of these schemes the Judges involved used taxpayer funds to achieve the frauds.  Their judicial salaries and that of their personnel would be involved, and the use of court reporters and court staff and courtrooms,  all paid for the New York taxpayer.

            In both of these schemes the employers themselves played roles in obstructing due process.   Both General Counsels, who knew of their respective corporate Codes of Conduct, and EEO guidelines, were not only aware of what was going on but gave the order to perpetuate these agonizing litigation ordeals against Plaintiff. In fact, Verizon knew Jordan did not want to execute the Settlement Agreement as she had contacted the GC in writing about the same (the excuse given here will be that is why we use outside counsel, so that when we break the law the company execs are not caught).  It is rare that CEO's are not apprised of these critical decisions as shareholder funds are involved.

In the Bates case, we know that the successor corporation WPP Group authorized the appeal, after the purchase of Bates from Cordiant Group on or around 2005-6, so while they were not involved in the original decision to try the case before a jury when their own execs admitted to the crimes, they certainly knew that perpetuating this scheme by taking on a frivolous "appeal" , one that would circumvent the intention of federal anti discrimination laws was unethical if not illegal.   And clearly they knew that dragging a disabled former exec (who had been twice an exec at the agency group) through a 15 year litigation was not just immoral, but a disaster in the making.

There are issues of tax and shareholder fraud as well, as the employers get to write down these "costs" and as any expense that is deployed for fraudulent reasons is no longer an "expense" but a scheme to cheat the IRS.

The Laws on Discrimination are not being enforced, and the jealous judges, envious of private sector compensation, and opportunistically aware that they can use these "relationships" to advance their careers , are the reason why.   Discrimination in all classes was up in 2008, and it should come as no surprise when complaints against judges are as well.  When Judges conspire to cover up each others misconduct, which is a conspiracy of fraud.  It is also obstruction of justice. When judges conspire to deprive a disabled litigant of her rights under the law, and retaliate her for reporting their misconduct, and use their own power to justify and "legitimize" their malfeasance, this is the worst kind of crime, and deserves the most severe penalty.

THE ARGUMENT FOR NEW LEADERSHIP

I. IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE LIPPMAN and JUDGE KAYE:

The focus is most heavily on these judges because of their leadership positions, and appropriateness as role models for the Judiciary, and the duration and willfulness of their deceptions.

A. Importance and Influence Position of Chief Judge

Judge Lippman as Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals and Chief Administrator of all of the lower courts throughout the state oversees the most important judicial position in New York.  In 2005, the Court of Appeals heard 961Motions for Leave to Appeal, of which only 6% were granted (given the criteria of "statewide" issues of legal import where the law is not resolved or in conflict; i.e. like the Bianca Jagger eviction case that was heard in lieu of Plaintiff-Appellant's precedent setting discrimination case).  Judge Lippman also oversees the appellate and trial courts (See Exhibit   ) a mammoth organization that processes upwards of 3M cases a year. Although there are higher courts above him in other jurisdictions, specifically Federal Courts and the respective Courts of Appeals, he holds the highest office of appellate review outside of the United States Supreme Court itself.    Judge Lippman, as Chief Judge, sets judicial policy for New York Courts by deciding what cases will be heard for judicial review and by writing Opinions that affect the Laws of New York.   Through his Opinions and the legal press interpretation of the same, We The People of New York, have come to know Judge Lippman as an activist judge, who views his role expansively and politically, not as Enforcer of the Laws but Creator of Laws. Judge Lippman, by his own admission, is the Thought Leader for other Courts around the United States who look to New York for guidance in interpreting complex state laws and the application of federal laws to New York State.    His decisions are highly influential on the Law of our country and the policies of the courts across our country.

B. Importance of Chair of Commission on Judicial Nomination

And Judge Kaye's "Fit":

Although it is facially true, it is important to emphasize the importance and power of the Chair of the Commission for Judicial Nomination.  This position selects the panel who determines the criteria by which judges will be selected, and plays a major role in the actual selection process itself.   Judge Kaye, as a partner in a major corporate law firm,

with questionable conflicts of interest that were never explored in vetting (it is doubtful that any actual vetting occurred), holds the fourth most important judicial position in New York, after Chief Judge of Court of Appeals, Chief Judge of the First Department,

and Director of the Judicial Nomination Commission.  This position is the most important position to the FUTURE OF THE JUDICIARY as the leader of this function will serve as

the model of leadership and will determine the criteria for future judges and select those future judges.   All of the standards that currently enable judges to circumvent the Laws and the Rules were adopted by her when she failed to act on any of these issues or to set a "shining example" here in New York of thought leadership on key issues for other courts around the Country.   In fact, Judge Kaye has been proven to be unfit, if one only reviews her conduct as the chief agitator for the "judicial compensation" issue where she used her power and authority to "advertise" this case, and used taxpayer funds to propound a series of frauds to advance her and Judge Lippman's agendas.

C. Lippman Repeat Violator of Laws of New York and Rules of Judicial Conduct

Judge Lippman has created treasonous crimes over the course of his administration of our justice system and has demonstrated contempt for the Rule of Law, the Rules of Evidence, and the Rules of Judicial Conduct.    He has engaged in conspiracies to fix cases with other Supreme Court and First Department jurists and has enabled other judges' misconduct by covering up the same and failing to report violations to the Commission on Judicial Conduct.    He has engaged in frauds and conspiracies to commit frauds in order to gain support for various political judicial agendas. In the process of committing these frauds he abused and misappropriated tax payer resources.  He personally has violated several of the Rules of Judicial Conduct governing judges in New York State and as such cannot possibly act as a role model for this position.

1.      Fixing of Major Disability Discrimination Case, December 27^th, 2009

In December 2009, Judge Lippman committed a felony when he fixed the "Kathryn Jordan v. Bates Advertising" case.  Although Judge Klonick and Mr. Tembeckjian, appointed as Chair and Director of the Judicial Conduct Commission, would consider his malfeasance "an appellate matter", there is no doubt that the altering of the outcome of a bona fide jury verdict, sustained by the trial court (Judge Rolando Acosta, who also played a key role in the "fixing" of this case) after dismissing post trial motions on the exact same issues, for political reasons, including his own advancement to Chief Judge of New York Court of Appeals.  "Case fixing" occurs when a judge deviates from his legislated role as impartial Trier of fact, and at the appellate level, which is generally restricted to whether the lower court made the correct legal determination, rather than hearing direct evidence or determining what the facts of the case were, often abusing the Court's discretion by disregard, manipulation or creation of evidence to conform to the ingoing bias of the Court, or the application of a "new" legal theory that is not consistent with accepted legal precedent, or that which was before the lower court.   Historically,

only about 2-5% of jury verdicts are reversed or amended, and virtually all are remanded to the lower court for retrial or other remedy.   When an appellate judge receives a case where a unanimous jury verdict is received, a substantial reduction in damages awarded

(from an unrebutted economic expert), and where the defendant has accepted the jury instructions as "the law of the case", the appeal is automatically considered frivolous.

(There is abundant case law to support this customary posture).

            Contrasting this standard to the decision to reverse and dispose of the Kathryn Jordan v. Bates Advertising (118785-99) jury verdict, where the jury heard the corporate defendants admit to knowing about Plaintiff's being hazed as "a cripple" and failing to take any remedial action but rather choosing to replace the disabled executive with several non disabled executives, during an alleged "financial crisis" (when Planners were being actively hired from outside the agency), and where Plaintiff was found to be a very credible and consistent witness, and where Defense counsel agreed to the jury instructions, and failed to object to the same, was clearly an abuse of power.   Moreover the decision to dispose of the case, instead of remanding it to the trial court for remedying the alleged defects, was tantamount to admitting that the Appellate panel was intent on imposing its political agenda.   In the Jordan v. Bates case, the agenda was two fold:

a.The Secret Succession Plan:  Aiding and abetting trial judge Rolando Acosta in the vetting process by openly and blatantly taking a position on the issue of the "contemptuous" attack by the jurist on the disabled Plaintiff (a matter not before the First Department on appeal, only the sanctioning of Appellant). and acting as "trier of fact" in lieu of the jury (outside the sanctioned role), to consider a legal issue not before it (whether Plaintiff's allegations of misconduct about the Jurist who ultimately self recused after making improper threats to Plaintiff and allowing himself to be influenced about a an exceptionally large award of legal fees by a discharged attorney, Laurence Lebowitz) and issuing a declaration that the jurists unsworn denials of Plaintiff's allegations were "baseless", and incredibly calling Plaintiff a "liar" relying upon constructed "evidence" including paraphrasing of Plaintiff's testimony and misapplication and misinterpretation of facts.  The latter included criticizing Plaintiff "for not telling anyone" when she was being hazed by her supervisors at Bates Advertising, when there was no EEO department in place and when she was under the threat of termination after being ordered to "fire the woman with the clubbed foot"(Plaintiff's subordinate).  These "findings" by the Lippman panel contravened the last 40 years of social research and supported a "blame the victim" 1960's model of discrimination.  However, it was the blatant outrage that Judge Lippman expressed about Plaintiff's criticism of a judge that was most disturbing and which indisputably constituted a violation of the Rules and Judiciary Law.    Judge Acosta's conduct constituted a violation of the Rules of Judicial Conduct and should have been reported by the Lippman panel to the Commission on Judicial Conduct.   Instead, the Lippman panel used their power and authority to cover up this misconduct in order to facilitate the vetting of this judge for the First Department, knowing of the complaint and knowing he had been twice recused.  Judge Lippman's scheme paved the wave for Judge Acosta's appointment to the Appellate Division which was announced on December 30^th, 2009, four days after the Order was issued to fix the Jordan v. Bates case on December 27^th, 2009. (Note: There is an unspoken rule that judges always defend other judges when there is an allegation of misconduct, a practice that systematically undermines the intent of Judiciary Law.   Further, in Judge Lippman's situation, Judge Acosta's advancement was linked to his and colleague Judge Gonzales, both of whom were part of the succession plan to advance Judge Lippman to Chief of the Court of Appeals (circumventing several more experienced Jurists in Court of Appeals), advance Judge Gonzales as replacement for Judge Lippman, and fill the open position created by

these "promotions" with Judge Acosta's promotion to the First Department).   Obviously, Plaintiff's allegations against Judge Acosta came at an inconvenient time.  The Commission on Judicial Conduct was more than happy to dismiss the complaint (as they do with all appellate complaints), and the rest of the panel (Judge Catterson, Friedman, Sullivan) were more than willing to participate in the cover up.   Judge Lippman repeatedly proved that the fastest track to advancement was circumvention of the "Rules" and use of the same to censor, silence, and discredit any critics.  (Contrast this fact pattern to the accepted practice in those rare instances where the appellate courts overrule trial judges, of remanding the case to the trial court, and limiting remarks to whether the jury acted "irrationally...and that no rational mind could arrive at the same conclusion" and the issue of Law, which is address below, which would also have been remanded for review to the trial court, perhaps with guidance by the appellate court.

b.      Judge Lippman Legislates from the bench new Discrimination Law:

Judge Lippman used the controversial issue of Judge Acosta's vitriolic attack on Plaintiff  to divert attention from his real agenda: changing the laws on proving "pretext" in discrimination cases.   Judge Lippman rendered a decision that adopted the obscure Stephenson v. Hotel Employees  case as the legal standard, which advocated that all an employer had to do to rebut an allegation of discrimination was to proffer, but not prove, a "legitimate reason", such as "financial reasons".   If this reason were "true" (accurate as a fact) all the better.   However, this was a marked departure from the UNITED STATE SUPREME COURT ruling on proving discrimination, including perceive disability discrimination (where the "regarded as" standard is applied).  Under federal and state law, most states have adopted the tripartite federal standard created by Mc Donnell Douglas where the Plaintiff proffers her "prima facie case" (a complex burden in itself), the Defendant offers a "legitimate reason" for the adverse employment action, BUT the analysis proceeds to a THIRD critical level: that the Plaintiff has the opportunity (and currently the burden) to prove that the employer was motivated by discrimination and that the "real reason" (which is usually distinct from the "legitimate reason") for the adverse employment action was unlawful discrimination.  The First Department is notoriously politic, and notoriously pro-corporation.  But it was not their role to use this case to re-write federal anti-discrimination laws.

               c.. Case Fixing was willful and intentional breach of trust of People of New York.   Judge Lippman knew that Jordan's case was a precedent setting case that would affect not only all disabled victims of discrimination but all persons in any protected class including minorities, gender, age, et al.   Thus, his political agenda was to use his position to roll back 40 years of civil rights advances through this case. Equally important, he knew he was dispensing a large "favor" to a large corporate employer who had violated the law and was liable for the damages.  However, this is how the Judiciary has operated under Judge Lippman's "leadership" for some time, and it has become accepted practice.  For ambitious jurists like Judge Lippman, Gonzales and Acosta, this is a fast track to the top of the Courts, or so they believe.   The reality is that the judges involved in this conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff of her remedy, defraud the stockholders of WPP Group, defraud the taxpayers of New York, defraud the voters of New York, committed a gross fraud that constituted a felony and clearly obstruction of justice.   When judges act outside the scope of their legislated role they are subject to Article VI Section 23 and 24, as well as the Rules of Judicial Conduct  22 Title NYCRR Part 7000.4, and the Constitution, the Federal Statutes and Codes governing Obstruction of Justice and Fraud, and the Laws of New York (Penal Codes) governing the same. Impeachment is the minimum penalty that would be appropriate in this circumstance given the willfulness and intent to deceive, the manipulation of the Rules to deploy them as immunity for these judges own crimes, the circumvention of the Laws to perpetuate their malfeasance, and the disgraceful breach of trust that these jurists have demonstrated.  Finally, there is the damage that has been sustained by Plaintiff, and other plaintiffs like her, as a direct consequence of a corrupt judicial system that effectively punished and revictimized Plaintiff for a period of 15 years.

2.Judges Lippman and Kaye commit crimes and violations of the Rules together,

And enable each others violations of Law and Rules.  It is no secret that Judges Lippman and Kaye have operated in concert to perpetuate their political and legal agendas, and to aid each other's advancement, and those of judicial agents, while trampling on the rights of litigants, peers, and using the taxpayer as a pawn to monetize the same schemes.

            A. Refusal by COURT OF APPEALS to hear Jordan v. Bates precedent

setting perceived disability discrimination case where issues of State law conflicts clearly existed as part of "fixing" and "cover up"by Chief Judge Kaye, aka long time ally, advisor and enabler of Judge Lippman's schemes.

            As previously asserted, Judge Lippman, Judge Catterson, Judge Gonzales,

Judge Sullivan and Judge (David) Friedman conspired to fix the Kathryn Jordan v.

Bates Advertising case by reversing the bona fide jury verdict on December 27^th, 2007.

This was effected to advance the promotional opportunities of at least three judges (Judge Rolando Acosta, who was promoted four days after the decision, December 30^th, 2007, Judge Lippman, who was promoted a year later in December 2008 to Chief Judge NYCOA, and Judge Gonzales, who was promoted to Chief Judge First Department in March 2009. ) and to secure a substantial favor for a corporate violator of the federal and state anti discrimination laws, WPP Group, who faced a then $3.3M Bond as a result of the jury verdict.  These favors were dispensed with the expectation of future favors that would be "monetized" in the future in the form of referrals, references, introductions and other favors that might advance their position in the court system, or provide monetary compensation at discrete moments.   At the time that Plaintiff-Appellant's Brief was filed (after WPP filed a frivolous appeal), in January 2007,  Judge Kaye was still the presiding Chief Judge.

Appellant's Motion for Re-Hearing was filed in September 2008, around the time that Judge Lippman was being vetted, and Judge Kaye was preparing to "retire" and head up the Judicial Nomination Commission. (It is very unlikely that both of these judges did not know about Jordan's case as Judge Lippman had issued the "fixed" decision in the appellate court, and Judge Acosta, also a long time crony of Judge Kaye, was looking to bury the case, and had gone to great lengths to do so; see Below).  Appellant's Brief, beginning in July 2008, and again in an even narrower Petition for ReHearing, addressed the most important discrimination issue to come before the Court of Appeals in decades: What is the burden of proof for both parties for proving discrimination  especially as it relates to the employer's "pretext"? Moreover, did the United States Supreme Court intend, in the precedent McDonnell Douglas case, to require that employers need only proffer a "legitimate reason" to rebut an allegation of discrimination, or did they intend that the victim be allowed to prove the "real reason" for the unlawful act?.   And given the decision of the First Department, that the "legitimate reason" could be as prevalent a pretext as "financial reasons" and assertion of the same (without any burden of proof) as the "legitimate reason" for the adverse employment action, to dispose of any claim of discrimination did this not necessitate closer review especially when New York Courts most definitely do not agree.

Appellant disagreed with the First Department.  She argued vigorously that the Supreme Court intended that a "tripartite" model be applied, whereby the Plaintiff had to proffer, and ultimately prove,  a "prima facie" case of discrimination, whence the Defendant employer was allowed to rebut it with a "legitimate reason", and (whether or not the legitimate reason was "true" or not) the Plaintiff then had the opportunity to prove that even if the legitimate reason were "true" that if Plaintiff also proved that the employer was shown to be motivated by discrimination, and that the "legitimate reason" was not the "real reason", that the victim of discrimination would have prevailed.  The latter legal model was deployed with the jury on the Jordan v. Bates case, by trial judge Rolando Acosta, and the jury instructions accepted without objection by Appellee Bates Advertising, rendering the entire matter of an appeal moot.   Moreover, the identical issues cited upon appeal were disposed of by the trial judge, Judge Rolando Acosta, in Post Trial pleadings.  Given the 2% reversal rate for appeals, it was beyond possible that the trial judges' Decision, even with it's attack on Plaintiff in the final version, that the WPP bid for appeal would succeed.  However, that was on the Law, not the politics.

            The outcome was predictable given the Lippman-Kaye agenda: The Decision by the First Department to reverse the bona fide jury verdict was effectively upheld as the Court of Appeals declined to hear the most important discrimination case in decades in order to hear the "Bianca Jagger Eviction Case".  In any cover-up there must be a

closed system, and there can be no opportunity for witnesses to speak about the same, or for the deus ex machina of the conspirators to be examined by any judge or fact finder outside that closed system.

            The First Department Appellate Division only heard 6% of appeals filed in 2005.

Why would they hear an appeal that, as a matter of law, was frivolous?  Why would they also intervene in a dispute that was not before it, the issue of whether the Court improperly allowed itself to be influenced about a $1.3M contingent legal fee and deployed threats of sanctions to censor and silence Plaintiff's complaints, when by Rule and Law, they were required to report the vicious personal attack on the disabled female Plaintiff as "contemptuous", and not rely upon the selected "facts" presented by the trial court?  The answer is simple: Because it had to in order for the succession scheme to succeed.  Judge Acosta's promotion enabled the other jurists, Judge Lippman and Judge Gonzales, to advance to the next level.   If this were mired in a messy investigation, all of their promotions would be at risk.  (In the counter-appeal, Appellant only asked that the $5000 sanction be removed as improper and punitive, if not retaliatory, as it was effected after the trial judge recused himself, and knew Appellant had filed a complaint with the Commission on Judicial Conduct).  However, the Rules required that all of the judges who knew of Judge Acosta's misconduct to report the same, not suppress the evidence in an angry Decision where Plaintiff was deemed to have made "baseless" allegations, and was effectively called a liar. The latter "evidence" is addressed in the appended Complaint for Obstruction of Justice et al against these jurists.

B..Filing of Fraudulent Lawsuit against Legislature and Governor for "Judicial Compensation":  As alleged in the case filed in Federal Court against the Defendant Judges and their accomplices, Judge Lippman and Judge Kaye have been advocating behind the scenes and in public for increased judicial compensation.  In three cases filed Matter of Edwin Maron v. Sheldon Silver (58 AD 3^rd 102), Honorable Susan Larabee v. Governor(4761-4761A), and Kaye v. Silver (400763/08),  Judges Kaye and Lippman took highly political and public positions acting outside their legislated roles as judges to propound their agenda of greed and power.     There was nothing wrong with the stated principle of this cause.  Judicial compensation is an area that requires thoughtful examination.  However, these two ruthless jurists deployed every deception and manipulation imaginable to threaten, blackmail, and deceive the First Department panel which originally rejected the case  (part of which was correctly reversed on appeal: "linkage" with legislative compensation), and to improperly influence the Court of Appeals where the case is now being heard, despite Chief Judge's denials of a voice in the matter.

The lawsuit has alleged that a "constitutional crisis" so severe that it "impaired the Judiciary's ability to function" (a not so subtle threat) was created by the decision to deny pay raises to judges in New York Supreme Courts.    Judge Kaye also argued that NYSSC "was no longer able to attract the best and brightest" because of the alleged compensation crisis (omitting the fact that New York is one of the highest paying states for judges).   The duo also argued that the "ravages of inflation" were going to undermine the ability of judges to survive, at a time when the CPI-U fell 0.2 percent.  Moreover, and perhaps most revealing, Judges Lippman and Kaye claimed outrage about the "huge" disparity between federal judge compensation and state judge compensation, demanding equality.   That disparity is 6% and actually lower than most states.   Demanding to be compensated the same as private law firm whose "partners (earn) in the 50^th percentile total of cash compensation of more than $260,000"  was perhaps the most damning.

Plaintiff, a disabled female executive, had been denied her rightful remedy for damages

in her case of discrimination (she was the only EVP not paid $250K per year base salary and she was denied the top EVP Planning job for which she was eminently qualified for the same compensation.  An outside non disabled male was hired).  (Note: Defendants citing of older male EVP's, some who were later terminated on payout contracts or for non discriminatory reasons, slightly lower compensation was inappropriate as it was not "time adjusted").    Ironically, these "jealous judges" were punishing Plaintiff to hold up the First Department on this judicial compensation issue, and undoubtedly their "contempt" was enveloped in a whopping dose of disability bias (why would a disabled exec be worth the same as a non disabled one, contrary to all studies proving the contrary).

            Both Jurists, Judge Lippman and Judge Kaye, used their positions of leadership to

threaten both the Governor and Legislature  on this issue.  They both acted outside their sanctioned role to "advertise" the case on the New York Supreme Court website.

They both called in favors to Mr. Tembeckjian, who had been the beneficiary of their

favoritism in the past, he was appointed by Judge Lippman and aided by Judge Kaye,

to induce him to post similar propaganda on the Commission's website and to commission him to speak out publicly on this issue in the press and on his Cable TV show where he interviews judges and lawyers.

            The intensity which this issue was propounded by Judge Lippman, who publicly stated that his "greatest priority" in his first year of office was awarding judicial pay raises to New York Judges was not just a convoluted scheme to enrich himself and Judge Kaye, but also part of the "pay back" that he owed to all the judges whose "loyalty" enabled him to pull off these frauds over the years.

            In the final analysis, Judge Lippman's desperation to make good on his promise to his fellow jurists no matter what the price, he unilaterally circumvented the Legislature and "ordered" these pay raises under the guise of "robe cleaning" stipends, an indisputable "back door" scheme to disregard the legal ruling against him, and his unwillingness to wait for the Court of Appeals final determination in 2010.  He did this at a time when New York State was $5B in the hole and looking for ways to reduce the monumental budget deficit, and when unemployment was at historic levels.  Ironically, it was a Republican legislator that expressed outrage over this abuse of power and demanded that Judge Lippman return the extorted "bonuses", or disguised pay raises.

This was not just abuse of power; this was fraud and conspiracy to defraud New York tax payers.   This extremely poor example of Judicial leadership must be discouraged and punished, or New Yorkers cannot be surprised when a surge of abuses by other judges follows to flaunt the Rules and Laws of New York.

C.Abuse of Power in Promoting All Parties involved in Jordan v. Bates Cover Up.  Chief JudgeLippman entered his decision to fix the Jordan v. BatesCase on December 27^th, 2007, four days before Judge Rolando Acosta was appointed to the same court.  Plaintiff/Appellant filed her appeal of the same immediately before the New York Court of Appeals (briefs appended in Exhibit     ).  Judge Lippman's decision was necessary for Judge Acosta to survive the judicial vetting process and necessary for his own timetable to advance to Chief Judge of NYCOA.  Approximately one year later,  Judge Lippman would be rewarded for his "favor", when Governor Patterson nominated him as Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals (Governor Patterson misrepresented Judge Lippman's credentials for the top judgeship at the time, spinning a 7 month stint hearing cases into a year and a half by emphasizing his role as "Chief Administrative Judge".  Judge Lippman, the Favor King, thanked Judge Cirpatrick, but "commended" Judge Kaye as "an exemplary judge", setting the stage for her appointment as Director of the Judicial Nomination Commission. Judge Cirpatrick was merely a pawn in the game, to be disposed of. Judge Lippman was vetted in December 2008 and appointed Chief Judge in January 2009.  For his role in the cover up, Judge Luis Gonzales was promoted to Presiding Justice, First Department Appellate Division on March 25^th, 2009.. Less than two months later, Judge Kaye was appointed to Chair the Commission on Judicial Nomination on May 21, 209.

D.Lippman Not Vetted by Nomination Commission

Upon information and belief, Judge Lippman's candidacy for Chief Judge was not actually vetted, nor did he go through a formal vetting process.  His appointment was fixed by Elliot Spitzer back in May 2007, when Governor Spitzer appointed Judge Lippman as Chief Judge of the First Department Appellate Division.    After being nominated by Governor Patterson for the position of Chief Judge in December 2007, the anticipated appointment was announced to the press on January 13^th,  2008.  Although Governor Patterson had at least six months to cultivate candidates for the most important judiciary job in New York for our lifetimes, Judge Lippman had the shortest "vetting" process in the history of the Courts.   In June 2008, it was announced that the position was open in the press.   Then on December 1^st, 2008, Judge Kaye announced that 7 candidates, all men, had been nominated to the position that would be vacated by her departure when she retired at the end of the year. However, Judge Kaye knew what the outcome would be: her old friend Judge Lippman, who had not even been Chief Judge

for the First Department six months at the time, would be slotted for her position, and he in turn would return the favor.  There was no chance that any of the other candidates would be seriously considered for the single reason that Judge Lippman and Judge Kaye

had jointly determined who the members of the Independent Judicial Election Qualification Commission (IJEQC) would be in February 2007.  In another well planned

manipulation of justice, the "voluntary statewide screening process for evaluating judicial candidates was approved by the New York State Court of Appeals (overseen by Judge Kaye) following a recommendation from the Commission to Promote Public Confidence in Judicial Elections, chaired by John Feerick, Chair of the Commission to Promote Public Integrity (an ironic note, these positions were previously held by Judge Rolando T. Acosta, another Judge Kaye crony).   In other words the election was "legitimized" by Judge Kaye cronies, but it was long decided that Judge Lippman would be appointed.

E. Fixing of Chief Judgeship by Judge Kaye/Former Governor Spitzer;

Judge Jonathan Lippman least qualified candidate is appointed.

It is widely recognized that Judicial Scholarship is the "threshold criteria" for advancement in the Judiciary especially the Court of Appeals. Judge Jonathan Lippman had no record of scholarship or distinguished opinions to qualify him whatsoever. Further, experience hearing cases in the trial and appellate courts is almost always a threshold requirement.  Judge Lippman had only begun to hear cases in January 2006, and had less than a year and a half as a judge hearing cases prior to his appointment by Governor Spitzer in May 2007, to Chief Judge for the Appellate Division.   In fact, given the criteria asserted by the nominating commission, as articulated by Judge Kaye in a press release, it would be hard to explain the appointment to Chief Judge by Judge Jonathan Lippman at all:

            Professional ability;

            Character;

            Independence;

Integrity;

            Reputation for Fairness and Lack of Bias;

            Temperament including Courtesy and Patience.

Although "scholarship" was not mentioned by Judge Kaye, it is regarded by virtually all judges as the number one criteria for higher office.   Consequently, Judge Lippman, whose claim to fame was a year and a half hearing cases and substantial administrative experience, was a very unlikely choice.

            The pool of candidates for the critical appointment to Chief Judge to succeed Judge Kaye included two male judges considered front runners that were far more experienced than Judge Jonathan Lippman, Judge Eugene F. Piggott Jr., already a jurist on the Court of Appeals, and Judge Theodore Jones Jr, sitting judge on the Court of Appeals and the only African American candidate, previously administrative judge for the Civil Part of Brooklyn Supreme Court, and Justice Steven Fisher of the Appellate Division Second Department , administrative judge for six years in the Eleventh District,. along with three lawyers as candidates, one of  which, George Carpinello of Boies Schiller& Flexner, had previously chaired the state advisory Committee on Civil Practice since 1985 (and whose brother is distinguished judge Anthony Carpinello of the Fourth Department).  A glaring omission from the list was Acting Judge Carmen Cirpatrick, the senior associate judge of the Court of Appeals and the only Hispanic to ever have served.  She had already been on the Court of Appeals for four years at the time. (Peter L. Zimroth, a partner at Arnold & Porter, was the other candidate. Given this candidate pool, it could easily be argued that Judge Lippman was the least qualified, at least on paper.

E. Spitzer, Patterson Pressure Legislature for Speedy Approval

    It was widely recognized behind the scenes that Lippman had the nomination all along given his association with the manipulative "hookergate" Elliot Spitzer, his long term partnership with outgoing Judge Judith Kaye and his close ties to Sheldon Silver, an Assemblyman for the 64^th District of Lower Manhattan.  With the Kaye-Silver-Spitzer trifecta going, Judge Lippman did not need Governor Patterson's hastily executed blessing after publicly expressing outrage about the lack of diversity among the candidates.  Spitzer had lain the groundwork years ago.   Moreover, both Judge Kaye and Acosta were longtime cronies of the former Governor. And Judge Kaye was known for rewarding "loyalty" and looking the other way on "indiscretions" (aka blatant violations of law).  However, this was the most important decision of Governor Patteron's career as he was appointing a man that would, theoretically, remain in office for 14 years, and who would have absolute control and power over the civil rights of all minorities and people in protected classes.

Nonetheless, Governor Patterson, a disabled African American, ordained Judge Lippman with much fanfare in January 2009, after making his decision in December 2008.   Judge Lippman was not even vetted.  He was confirmed in an expedited nomination process of just six weeks after the announcement of the Governor's preferences by the Senate Judiciary Committee and over considerable objection by constituents (those that pay the salaries of judges and whom the "justice system" serves) and insiders especially in the Legislature.   Perhaps the only voice of the People was Senator John Sampson, who was clearly sandbagged by "friend" Patterson, and sent a list of seven male candidates with the instruction that Judge Lippman would be picked.   The Senator did not mince words about the political maneuver:

I find it incomprehensible and deeply disturbing that not a single woman appeared on the list of qualified judicial candidates to succeed Judith Kaye, our first female Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, As the birthplace of women's suffrage and civil and political rights, the Commission failed to meet the high standards and great tradition of our state when it failed to include a woman on its list of candidates for our highest court.

Senator John Sampson, Chair, Senate Judiciary Committee

In fact, despite Governor Patterson's professed outrage about "diversity", he clearly disregarded three female candidates that were more qualified for the open position than Judge Lippman given their tenure on the New York Court of Appeals. (This was an act of gender bias by the Governor).  The most obvious blunder was the dismissal of Carmen Cirpatrick as a candidate.  Governor Patterson has consistently failed to address diversity issues.   However, in this instance it would be fair to say that the Lippman-Kaye team had this locked up a long time ago, in another "quid pro quo" deal.   Given how Machiavellian these two jurists are, one scenario that comes to mind is that Chief Judge Cirpatrick was not considered because she was a female and that would have complicated the "grand plan" to have Judge Lippman assume the stewardship of the Court of Appeals, with Judge Kaye's public enthusiastic support, and Judge Lippman returning that favor when it came time to appoint a director for the Nomination Commission, an appointment that was handed to Judge Kaye on a silver platter.

            This scheme, on the surface, might not be considered "illegal" even though it is apparent that the game was "fixed" just as all of the Judge Lippman games are and even though it is apparent that the exclusion of the only Black judge and Female Hispanic could clearly be considered a violation of Title VIl.   It unquestionably demonstrates, however, how deft Judge Lippman and Judge Kaye are at circumventing Rules and Laws to achieve their ambitions and help their "friends" (usually each other).   Generally when the least qualified candidate is a white male and the most qualified candidate is a Hispanic female, this would meet the threshold argument for prima facie discrimination.

            There are many questions about the past that are answered by the understanding of this crafty team of jurists.  However, there are just as many questions. While many of the judges involved in this scandal were nominated and mentored by disgraced Former Governor Elliot Spitzer (who would hand off his recommendations to Governor Patterson after his removal from office)         , what was in it for Elliot Spitzer?   And why these particular judges?   Was it that he felt that he could control them as they all owed him after he advanced their careers?   These certainly are questions that would be of interest to the Attorney General and current DA.  The judges involved, as the appended Complaint alleges, are accused of racketeering and obstruction of justice, so the answers could come sooner than originally expected.

II. The Removal of Judge Klonick and Robert Tembeckjian as JCC Directors

And the Dissolution of this ineffective regulatory body.

            There is no more damning evidence of the ineffectiveness of the New York Commission on Judicial Conduct than the 2008 Annual Report.  In its own report of its actions, the JCC admitted that despite an unprecedented rise in Judicial Complaints

in 2008 (continuing a long upward trend) to almost two thousand complaints, a 12% rise, and despite a substantial increase in budget per the Legislature and hiring a multitude of new investigators, that the Commission failed miserably.   Only 8% of all complaints

in Supreme Court were investigated, 2% charged, and zero disciplined.  At the appellate level where FORTY judges were complained about, ZERO were investigated.  In fact, the only "success" appears to be in the remote rural areas where the more blatant acts were noted.   The Report confirms two facts that have been speculated for many years:

That the JCC will not "touch" a high level judge (especially in Manhattan)
That the JCC is effectively enabling the judicial frauds

There is abundant evidence and documentation of the disconnect between complaints of misconduct by litigants and the willful failures of the JCC on JudgeWatch.com as the Center for Judicial Accountability has been religiously documenting these complaints for decades.  Further, Plaintiff made a report of this to the Legislature during the hearings and in a report to Senator Sampson (attached).

The rise of these corrupt jurists, Judge Lippman, Kaye, Acosta, First Department, even Judge Marcy Friedman (fixed Malpractice cases), could not have occurred without the abdication of his duties by Mr. Tembeckjian, the Director of the Commission for Judicial Conduct, who actually took a public position on the issue of judicial compensation, promoted it and published it on the JCC website.  His organization is supposed to be a regulatory impartial body. Yet he has made no secret of his partisan views on issues. He has also had the temerity to operate a cable TV show that interviews judges and lawyers, and from publish biased opinions on issues that always favor judges.   Along with his long standing public opinions that portray judges as victims of litigants, and his refusal to investigate high level judges (zero appellate judges were investigated in 2009) and his misleading statement in the New York Times in 2006 that the problems were focused on "the small town courts", an incredibly revealing admission that he was unwilling to tackle the "big fish" in Manhattan Courts and Appellate Courts.  (See Exhibit   )

III. Removal of New York County Clerk Director

The County Clerk function in the judicial process is vital.  An appeal cannot be filed without certification.  Plaintiff received one certified record (without the certification)

on one of her malpractice cases (Jordan v. Lebowitz) eighteen months after the case closed! And the other two records were never certified (This did not stop the First Department from using this as an excuse to dispose of the appeals).  Plaintiff has observed first hand how case files get certified and even when the County Clerk is provided Bates Numbered, chronological copies as reference, the files never get certified on any kind of reasonable schedule.  Part of the problem is the individual who handles the appeals, and his temperament.   Moreover, the "certification" process is highly defective as is the retention of files, the latter of  which is a process based in the Dark Ages of manual retention (and with it the high potential for "lost" records).  Digitization of files and a new process and new leadership are needed de minimus.

IV. REMOVAL OF JUDGES SCHEINDLIN AND DANIELS in SOUTHERN DISTRICT FOR FIXING OF CASE and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

Kathryn Jordan  v. Verizon Communications 10144-cv-02

Judge Shira Scheindlin of the USDC for the Southern Circuit, is similarly accused of obstruction of justice and conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff of her constitutional right to a jury trial, along with innumerable other serious charges (see Complaint 09 cv 10616).

Judge Scheindlin was assigned the instant matter in July 2003.  Judge Scheindlin made no secret of her desire to "settle" the case.  However, Plaintiff's attorney at the time, Gary Phelan, of Outten & Golden, was specifically advised that she wanted to take the case to trial.  Mr. Phelan tried an assortment of coercive tactics to alterJordan's mind including demanding a $100,000 retainer and allowing critical deadlines for discovery to lapse.

Apparently, early in Mr. Phelan's appearance in January 2004, Judge Scheindlin scheduled a conference with the attorneys (always suspect), and decided unilaterally that the case would be "settled".  Mr. Phelan failed to share this decision with his client, the Plaintiff. Instead, he allowed various discovery deadlines to lapse, including an MTC that Plaintiff, in desperation, agreed to write and pay for, and deadlines for expert reports.

In May 2004, after Jordan indicated zero interest in his scheme to settle the $31M demand for $50K (see complaint); Mr. Phelan de facto stopped representing Plaintiff after scheduling a "Settlement Conference".   Plaintiff hastily retained David Fish who had two weeks to prepare for the same.  However, the Machiavellian force behind the scenes was Judge Scheindlin, who through Verizon counsel Ken Gage, arranged for Jordan's videotaped deposition (and no one at Verizon's), and without any discovery on the consideration, the value of the case or the terms of settlement, scheduled a conference before Magistrate Gorenstein.   Fish lied to Jordan about the terms she would retain after settlement, especially certain ERISA benefits.   At this conference, Fish urged Jordan to accept the "deal", which Jordan only verbally acceded to the cash component of, and demanded further discussion of the other terms. (Again, no disclosure of what she was being asked to forfeit was made). Jordan then refused to go forward once she realized that Fish had misrepresented the deal.  A second conference was scheduled before Gorenstein, only this time under the threat of "litigation and sanctions" by Gage.

(Gage erroneously assumed that verbal acceptance of one term without acceptance of all terms was enforceable, a "fact" that the Magistrate wrongly re-iterated).  The parties were not able to agree on terms when Verizon refused to improve its ridiculous offer.  Gage then set a deadline for Jordan to "agree" or "face litigation and sanctions" of July 12^th.

(Jordan believed the deadline to be the 14^th).  Fish withdrew on July 12^th, 2004.  Jordan contacted the trial court repeatedly as to the coercive circumstances and the fact that she did not accept the Verizon offer. When the trial court failed to respond by the deadline, Jordan executed the agreement by necessity without an attorney and erroneously addressed it to the wrong building, where it wound up by default.  During this four hour period, Judge Scheindlin decided to hold a "status conference" which she represented through Jordan's now former attorney was unrelated to the settlement (a blatant falsity).  She then had her clerk "cancel" the settlement (see Record on Appeal).  Jordan asked for return of the partially executed agreement.  Gage stole the agreement from a remote location and delivered it to his client.  Jordancontacted the client (General Counsel) via email and advised him that she did NOT want to go forward (this was still the same fateful day, July 14^th, 2004).  Verizon disregarded Jordan's intentions and executed the Agreement upon advice of Gage.  Jordan again advised the Court that she did NOT want to go forward in "an extraordinary number of faxes" in the weeks leading up to the surprise "status conference" (There was no other mechanism for Jordan to stop Gage's onslaught).   At the status conference on July 23^rd, 2004, Jordan attended Pro Se, as she had not had time to replace Fish, the trial court immediately raised the issue of the Settlement (and identified Jordan as still represented by counsel in labeled all related documents) and used her position to threaten Jordan into believing that the "choice" was the "thoughtful settlement" (without discovery or experts to value the consideration v the loss of benefits) or "permanent litigation" that the court described would be a "nightmare" for the disabled Jordan.   The Trial Court was indisputably on notice that Jordan was "ill" and "confused" about the hearing, yet pressed forward and directed all questions about the bona fides to Jordan's adversary, Ken Gage.

            Once Plaintiff felt well enough to locate an attorney to review the Agreement

(four days after the surprise "on the record" "status conference"), Jordan was advised to petition the Court for Rescission, which she did.   However, Judge Scheindlin had what she started out to secure: a favor dispensed to a large employer and all that goes with the same.  The fact that Jordan's request was based on clear bona fides and that she was lured into the entire Settlement by a series of misrepresentations was of no moment to Judge Scheindlin.  Nor was the jurist particularly concerned about the equity of the deal.

The token $100K cash offer (which, after taxes, did not even cover litigation costs and went to the attorneys) was tendered only if Jordan relinquished her employment rights as a disabled person, something she intuitively did not want to do, along with the discrimination case that was roughly worth between $5M and $31M, along with millions in disputed ERISA rights.  Ironically, Verizon and the Court would later argue that Jordan was "a sophisticated businesswoman" despite her Multiple Sclerosis condition.

Why would a shrewd businesswoman voluntarily surrender millions or tens of millions in benefits for a token cash disposition that went to her attorneys?

            Judge Scheindlin should never have intervened in the Settlement process.  She was legally precluded from doing so.   A trial judge cannot also act as settlement broker.

Moreover, despite knowing that all "voluntary" settlements require legal representation,

and should be "knowing, willful and non coercive", Judge Scheindlin pressed forward when Jordan was most vulnerable and without counsel to advise her.  She knew the "Settlement and Release" was riddled with legalese and loopholes, and that a layperson would not see all of these, no matter how intelligent.  Further, Judge Scheindlin used the threat of economic duress ("you'll have to hire another attorney and the expense of that")

to scare Plaintiff into acceptance.  This is what our courts have devolved to.  This is what the Southern District, and apparently the Second Circuit, sees as "voluntary". Next year we should expect water boarding, as the caseloads will be even higher along with the rationalizations to act illegally.

            The Second Circuit had an opportunity, as did Judge George Daniels in a Rule 60(b) motion by Plaintiff, to review the matter de novo.   They had evidence before them that Jordan was not represented by counsel, however, and this is truly disgraceful, Judge Daniels misrepresented Jordan's legal status and stated that the "Plaintiff had three attorneys...and was represented at all stages of the Settlement".   This was an outright lie.

These legal representations were long before the Agreement that Jordan actually signed was executed (there were earlier drafts, but again, the final draft was never submitted to legal review).  Judge Daniels knew this was a major misrepresentation but like his colleague Judge Lippman decided to help a colleague who had commited a wrong out.

Now we have judges and lawyers circling the wagons around disabled litigants hoping they will "make a mistake" or fail to act in their own interests, when they have not been given the opportunity to know what the latter might even be.  And we have appellate courts that are so determined to uphold lower court "mis-steps" that they are willing to knowingly violate the very laws and rules they are charged to honor.

            This Plaintiff does not believe in Non Structured Settlements as a legal or bona fide substitute for jury trials.   There are Structured Mediations with proper discovery, and accompanied by competent counsel, that can be honored.  But as long as Courts as high as the Second Circuit (now referred to as the "Second Circus" by most litigants),

see clear evidence of coercion and duress but look the other way, we can continue to see more and greater abuses of judicial discretion.   Courts are clearly overloaded with cases, and that issue finds a sympathetic audience with the tax payers of New York.  However, the "solutions" that have been experienced first hand by Plaintiff, and validated by hundreds of other litigants, are not solutions at all.  They are ticking time bombs that threaten the very survival of the Judiciary.

V. JUDICIAL "SIGNALLING", "COICIDENCES", AND ABUSE OF POWER

Case fixing, as we have defined here, is tantamount to obstruction of justice and almost always involved a conspiracy of those who take action, and those who fail to take action.

It should be noted that judges today participate in an exercise that is known as "Judicial Signaling" to tip off a successor judge of what his real intentions are and whether he is willing to "play ball" in a particular scheme.   In the Bates case, Judge Acosta's attack on Plaintiff as "contemptuous", after he had upheld the jury verdict, and his selective rectitation of evidence in support thereof, was a form of signaling to the Appellate Division that he was ready to throw the case.  Without this "signal" the Appellate Division could otherwise rightfully expect a trial judge to fight for his own Decision.

As already argued, Judge Acosta was more concerned about surviving vetting than saving

his reputation as a knowledgeable or fair judge in human rights law.   Judge Marcy Friedman signaled her "loyalty" by dismissing all four malpractice cases related to Bates, despite a ruling from the First Department that clearly laid blame with the trial attorney.

The First Department then formed an Opinion on Bates that tried to anticipate a future Court of Appeals action, and redefine the issues of law to make it appear as if consistent with accepted practice (after altering the facts).  In the Verizon matter, the trial judge had manipulated the record to make it appear that Plaintiff was represented by counsel.  The Rule 60(b) ruling, which "coincidently" came on the same day as the Bates reversal of the jury verdict, December 27^th, 2007, bolstered this "cue" by the trial court, and alleged that "Plaintiff was represented by no less than three attorneys....at all relevant times", knowing that the Second Circuit could not affirm a decision where a disabled Plaintiff was not just coerced but without counsel.  Futher, Judge Daniels justified the trial court's intervention in the settlement process, a violation of New York Law.   These signals, along with the characterization of Plaintiff as not credible (issues outside their purview)

are usually accepted by busy higher courts.   Frauds propound frauds and soon a conspiracy is in place.  Attorneys who "helped" must be vindicated (as Judge Daniels improperly did) and silenced with a quick payoff or promise of relief for their guilty client.

VI. CONSEQUENCES-DAMAGES:

The Human result of this tragedy of justice and corruption of public trust has been incalculable. Tens of millions in tax payer funds have been wasted by diverting scare judicial time to favor par-cement, disturbing bona fide (and expensive) verdicts and incurring unnecessary appellate investment, and encouraging violators of the law to repeat (which, if ever studied, would be astronomical).   The damage and continued  threat to New York's former image of integrity and reputation as civilized, progressive Courts is immeasurable.  A disabled woman who had been proven to have been subjected to two separate disability discrimination and hazing campaigns by two different employers was forced to endure 15 years of litigation for one action,  and 7 years for the other.   At the beginning of the Bates Advertising case, the employer admitted to knowing of the hazing and taking no remedial action but later firing and replacing the disabled victim, direct evidence of discrimination, yet was released of all responsibility by reversal of  the jury verdict in her favor, and effectively rewarded for their crimes. (Credit to federal judge (Rakoff) whose "error" actions sent the case through years of appeals and finally NYSSC). The other employer, Verizon Communications, knew at that start of the filing that it's actions had led to Jordan's collapse in 2002, yet kept the litigation going 7 years after cutting a deal with a federal judge (Scheindlin) where Plaintiff would never have her case heard by a jury and would be forced to "settle" or "face litigation and sanctions".   "Voluntary" settlements are never executed where the party being asked to release their rights is without counsel. Nor are they entered into prior to discovery, or worse, suppression of documents known to be relevant to the value of the deal.  This same employer Verizon, a consistent violator and discriminator against the Disabled,  had intentionally omitted the word "disabled" from their EEO Policy for that same period and denied Plaintiff her fully elected ERISA benefits after she collapsed after a two year hazing and humiliation campaign and deprived of ADA accommodation as "punishment" for failing to meet performance targets (Plaintiff's pre-disclosure review was "exceeds performance" and was nominated for the Verizon Excellence Award).  After brazenly withholding her ERISA benefits, Verizon then schemed to create "faux" consideration terms, which they promptly violated a month after the ink was dry on the coerced settlement.

            The Plaintiff, Kathryn Jordan, personally lost her home, life savings, and economic worth. The toll on her physical and mental health, and her reputation, was incalculable (Her then therapist characterized it as "severe").  She was subjected to viscous "baseless" rumors, many started by the judges and lawyers themselves. Instead of the violators being "sanctioned", she was. Instead of the lawyers who improperly sought to influence the judges being subjected to the wrath of the court, she was.  And because she had invested everything in the myth of justice, like many unsuspecting "clients" of the legal system, there was no way out.  She was imprisoned by her own naïve beliefs in due process, the Constitution and the Rule of Law and in the Legal System that worked so hard against it. She had only one goal: to make sure that the truth was told so that no one would be victimized and fooled again.  It meant countless holidays without her family, and thousands of hours doing what no one else would do.

Nonetheless, the violations of law by Plaintiff's employers, where she was hazed as "a cripple" (the equivalent of the "N" word in racist terms), denied equality and tortured for being "handicapped" and needing an accommodation under the ADA, were nothing compared to the systematic abuse she was subjected to by the legal system.

Power crazed, elitist judges, who are clearly disconnected from the suffering of the constituents that they serve, and greedy lawyers more than willing to act as accessories, have supplanted the impartial trier of fact and jury system.  Judges cherry pick cases, vetting them through the attorney "grapevine", and delegate pretrial duties to attorneys that they like.  They manipulate evidence, Rules, and Laws to conform to their ingoing biases.  They get friends at the County Clerk to "sit" on appellate records for 18 months.

They call in "favors" and they dispense the same.   "Justice" is not even in the lexicon of today's jurist.

The facts of the cases defined above would shock most voters who have bought into a romanticized portrait of the legal system marketed by programs like "Law and Order"

and movies like "The Juror".  Most people do not understand how far we have deviated from that idealized metaphor.  Today's legal system is run by Michael Clayton not Atticus Finch.  And the Courts are beyond "Runaway Jury".  Runaway Judge is more like it.

At stake here is a malaise that is more serious than our burgeoning budget crisis.

Our Judicial System is completely corrupt.  The New York Senate Public Hearings

proved that.  The Commission's 2008 Report proved that.  The historic rise in discrimination as reported by the EEOC proves that (Laws that are not enforced by the Courts will not be complied with by employers).  And yes, the Courts' clearly targeted this Plaintiff because picking off the weakest link in the chain is the start button for unraveling of all that we have held sacred since our nation was born.   The right to free speech.  The right to an attorney.  The right to a jury trial.  The right to self representation.  The right to be compensated for wrongs.  The right to punish those who break the Laws.  We live in an age where there is no accountability, and where greed and power are respected commodities.

We have embarked on a dangerous course that will lead to disaster if unchecked.  We have allowed our Judiciary to become overrun with charlatans, crooks, and power crazed narcissists.  Our Rules of Conduct and Judiciary Laws have become so weakened that they are now the tools for justification of the same.

Senators, stop this out of hijacked plane.   We need Judicial Reform and we need it fast and we need it badly.  Do not wait for New York to become the laughing stock of the country. Do not compromise because "we don't have the money".  Creativity and innovation solve more problems than money.  Do not accept excuses that you know are not consistent with our values.  And don't deploy old failed tools to solve new problems.  You have choices.   You can redefine Justice for the Modern Court.   And don't say "Oh well, what's done is done".  What's done is far from done. The Voters will not accept this

Response.

Finally, make this the Bipartisan priority for 2010 that is should be.   And reach out to your constituents.  Many of us have much to offer beyond our horror stories of experiences with the legal system.  We know where the weaknesses in the system are.  We know who the Guilty are.  We know how they do it.  And we will take no prisoners and will not compromise our principles for quickie solutions.  .  And there are issues of tax fraud as well, as the employers get to write down these "costs".

VII. ACTION REQUIRED

So with this Bill for Impeachment, we ask the Legislature to begin a necessary process

of Judicial Reform.   This will be the first in many bills that you will probably consider, as the following action items must be addressed:

Impeachment of all judges who have participating in "case fixing" schemes, no

matter how high up the judicial ladder.  Replace them after a careful vetting of qualified candidates is undertaken.

2. Replace both Chief Judges (Judge Lippman and Gonzales), and find new that this  person should possess.

3. Appoint a task force of multi stakeholders to work with this Judicial Committee

to develop a Judicial Reform agenda, and to re-examine all of the Rules of Judicial

Conduct with an eye toward finding loopholes and inequities.

4. Abolish the Commission of Judicial Conduct and terminate its Directors.  Appoint

a task force to review the Charter, the criteria, the qualifications and training of investigators, all with an eye to creating a new Regulatory entity for the Judiciary.

5. Replace the Directors of the County Clerk and review all policies with an eye

toward expediting certification of appellate records. Digitize all court records.

6. Appoint a panel of judges whose trust is unassailable and bipartisan to review the

Judicial Law and process, beginning with appeals, to begin the process of defining the "Modern Court". This will be a longer term project but it must begin now.

7. Appoint a multi-stakeholder team to review the issue of judicial compensation, to reward highly productive judges who follow the Rules, and punish those who do not.

8. Review the cases referenced in this Bill and Case 09 Cv 10616 (not yet served)

De novo and provide restitution if these abuses have compromised just outcomes.

If compensation is linked to judicial ethics, as is used in the "for profit" world, you will see faster change.  There is a fine line but it can be found.  It is indisputable that even good judges are handling too many caseloads and do not always have time to make good decisions. (The judges named above acted willfully to circumvent the Rules and Law and do not fall into that category).  However, we do not want to be vetting judges for higher office, or even hiring them, if they would prefer to work for a "large for profit law firm",

or who are resentful of private sector compensation, and under-appreciative of the lifetime job security and benefits, and the status they hold.  Nor do we want judges who are not suited by temperament, or have strong biases or a need for attention.  We need scholarly, temperate, wise,  compassionate judges.  However the case load situation is such that the Judiciary must consider other forms of conflict resolution, and other ways to categorize cases that do not encompass systematic bias (like all Pro Se cases), or wholesale trampling of particular classes of litigant's rights, to prioritize and leverage limited resources.

Credit for beginning this process by having the courage to hold public hearings belongs to Senator John Sampson, who took the initiative to listen to the People of New York after hundreds flocked to him with complaints of corruption in our Judicial and Legal System.  He needs funding and support to continue this critical initiative.  This challenge requires strong consistent leadership and the will and courage to stand up to the powerful Judicial machine and Partisan interests.  This should be a Bi Partisan effort and the proposed Mission The Reform of Our Court System in New York and the Opportunity to Define the Modern Court must be led with unwavering commitment to this goal.

Respectfully Submitted By:

Kathryn Grace Jordan

On behalf of the

Voters, Tax Payers and Residents of New York

Dated: January 8, 2010

Copy Distribution List:

            Angelo Aponte, Secretary of the Senate

Sen. John Sampson, Chair of Judiciary Committee

Timothy Spotts Esquire

Sen. Eric Adams

Sen. John J. Bonacic

Sen. Neil D. Breslin

Sen. John A. DeFrancisco

Sen. Ruben Diaz

Sen. Martin Malavé Dilan

Sen. Pedro Espada

Sen. Ruth Hassell-Thompson

Sen. Jeffrey D. Klein

Sen. Andrew J Lanza

Sen. Kenneth P. LaValle

Sen. George D. Maziarz

Sen. Michael F. Nozzolio

Sen. George Onorato

Sen. Bill Perkins

Sen. Michael H. Ranzenhofer

Sen. Stephen M. Saland

Sen. Diane J. Savino

Sen. Eric T. Schneiderman

Sen. Dale M. Volker

Sen. George Winner

Note;   The case against the Defendants 09 CV 10616 has not be served yet, but will be in the near future despite 120 days provided by Law.

APPENDIX

I.                   JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS

II.                JUDICIAL DECISIONS

A.    Jordan v. Bates  Trial Court (JudgeAcosta):

                                                              i.       Original 2/06;

                                                            ii.      Final Judgment 11/06;

                                                          iii.      Appellate Decision 12/07

                                                          iv.      Motion to Re-Hear Brief to Court of Appeals (Denied)

B.     Malpractice Decisions (Bates Related)

C.    Jordan v. Verizon

III.             COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

IV.             STATUTES AND LAWS (Sampling of Existing Laws, New Laws Needed)

A.    New Change in Judicial Canons (effective 7/09)

V.                IMPEACHMENT articles

II.              JUDICIAL DECISIONS

A. Jordan v. Bates,   Trial Court (JudgeAcosta):

i. Original 2/06;

ii. Final Judgment 11/06;

      iii.Appellate Division Decision 2/07

B. Malpractice Decisions (Bates Related)

      C. Jordan v. Verizon

I. JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS

III.             COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

IV.             STATUTES AND LAWS (Sampling of Existing Laws,

New Laws Needed)

                        V. IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES

            VI JUDGE ACOSTA RECUSAL (FIRST OF THREE)



Enter subhead content here

http://www.enddiscriminationnow.com/

-------------------------------------------------------------

United States District Court

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

KATHRYN JORDAN,

Plaintiff,

v.                                                                                                                                                                   INDEX  NO._09 cv 3319

                                                                      Date Index Purchased:_December 30^th, 2009

JUDGE JONATHAN LIPPMAN, JUDGE JUDITH

KAYE, JUDGE LUIS GONZALES, JUDGE ROLANDO

T. ACOSTA, JUDGE JAMES CATTERSON,                         Complaint

JUDGE DAVID FRIEDMAN, JUDGE JOSEPH P. SULLIVAN;

JUDGE PETER TOM,  JUDGE MARCY FRIEDMAN;

JUDGE SHIRA S. SCHEINDLIN, JUDGE GEORGE P. DANIELS;

JUDGE GERARD LYNCH, JUDGE RONALD ELLIS,

SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (C/O

JUDGE RALPH WINTER & CLERK OF COURT);

NEW YORK COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT;

NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK;  GREGORY HOMER,

DONALD BESHADA. DRINKER BIDDLE; KENNETH GAGE,

PAUL HASTINGS; LAURENCE LEBOWITZ, KLEIN ZELLMAN;

GARY PHELAN, WAYNE OUTTEN, OUTTEN & GOLDEN,

DAVID M. FISH, ROSEN LEFF; VERIZON GENERAL COUNSEL;

WPP GENERAL COUNSEL.

                                                Defendants.

To the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK:

                        COMES NOW PLAINTIFF, Kathryn Jordan, and the People of New York, pursuant to the Constitution of the United States and Bill rights, CVR Article 2 (10) and 2(13),  Violation of USC Title 18; 286; 371; 1505; 1511;1512; 1513; 1519;  42 USC 1961-1962; 18 USC 2; New York Penal Code 460.10 Article 1(a) Sections 190.65, 200.45;200.50; 215.35; 215.19, 205.65, 215.40 and Article 3; New York Judicial Code Article 4 Section 90; Article 7-c; 22 NYCRR Part 100 Rules of Judicial Conduct; 22 NYCRR Part 1200 New York Rules of Professional Conduct, the Americans with Disability Act, Title VII, and federal anti retaliation laws, sues the named Defendants individually and as officers of the Courts they represent for Obstruction of Justice, Conspiracy to Defraud and Fraud in the Inducement, Violation of Constitutional Right to Free Speech, Hearing before a Jury, Right to Appeal, Right to Accommodation under the Americans with Disability Act, Right to Legal Representation, especially upon execution of release of complex legal rights, Right to Appear Self Represented,  Tampering with Witnesses, Attempt to Influence a Judge(s), Acceptance of Bribe(s) by Judge(s);  Tampering with Evidence,Coercion, Extortion, Retaliation, Breach of Judiciary Law, Breach of the Professional Conduct Law, Failure to Recuse by a Judge with Conflict of Interest, et al.

1.The Plaintiff is a resident of New York, New York (954 Lexington Avenue, #502 is Plaintiff's mailing addresss) and has been for most of her life, with the exception of almost three years as a resident of Palm Beach Florida beginning in 2005.

2. The Defendants are judges with the Supreme Court of New York (Judge Marcy Friedman, 80 Centre Street, NY, NY 10007); the First Department Appellate Division

(Judge Luis Gonzales, Judge James M. Catterson, Judge Joseph P. Sullivan, Judge David Friedman, Judge Rolando T. Acosta, Judge Peter Tom @ 27 Madison Avenue, NY NY 10010), Judge Jonathan Lippman, NYCOA (@20 Eagle Street, Albany 12202), Judge Judith Kaye (formerly NYCOA Chief, now Chief of Commission on Judicial Conduct,

1133 Avenue of Americas, NY NY 10036;  Judge Shira S. Scheindlin, USDC Southern District , 500 Pearl St, New York NY 10007; Judge George P. Daniels, USDC Southern District, 500 Pearl St. New York NY 10007; Judge Ronald Ellis, USDC Southern District 500 Pearl St, New York NY 10007; Second Circuit Court of Appeals (attn: Judge Ralph Winter) 40 Foley Sq, New York NY 10007; Gregory Homer, Donald Beshada, Drinker Biddle 140 Broadway New York NY 10005, Kenneth Gage, Paul Hastings, 191 N. Wacker Dr. Chicago IL 60606; Laurence Lebowitz @ Klein Zellman, 485 Madison Avenue, New York NY 10022; Gary Phelan, Wayne Outten, Outten & Golden, 3 Park Avenue, NY NY 10016; David M. Fish & Rosen Leff, 3 Park Avenue, New York NY 10016 (c/o Outten & Golden).

            3.  Plaintiff asserts that at all times throughout the incidents described in this Complaint that she was disabled with Multiple Sclerosis, and that all of the Defendants were on notice of this during the now 15 year ordeal.   Despite this obvious challenge, Plaintiff had advanced her career to become a senior Marketing and Advertising Executive in the $250K base salary range at the start of this saga.  Recent disclosure of judicial compensation disputes have made this information more relevant to the Complaint.

            4.  Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants, who comprise a small portion of the potential Defendant population of violators of the Judicial Law and Professional Conduct laws have created a "culture of corruption"in New York Courts, willfully and knowingly conspired to defraud her of her rights for protection against discrimination under federal and state law,  her right to trial by jury, her right to an impartial hearing of the facts, and her right to appeal, if necessary, of the same.   Instead, Plaintiff was targeted for an  elaborate "case fixing" scheme aimed at depriving her of her rightful remedies as a victim of discrimination, , in order to dispense favors and exemptions to corporate violators of federal and state anti discrimination laws, who, in turn  along with fellow attorney conspirators, would secure referrals, recommendations, and introductions that would lead to judicial promotions.  These schemes involved improper influence of and by judges,

influence of witnesses and intimidation of Plaintiff as the key witness in an active case, evidence tampering, manipulation and circumvention of the Laws of New York.   As was proven at the July 2009 Public Hearings of the Judicial Committee of the New York State Senate, this malaise was pervasive across all courts and jurisdictions and not limited to Plaintiff's cases.  Thus the class action implications.

4.This Complaint is about how a dysfunctional judiciary, without any oversight of an effective regulatory body, and under a corruption leadership, was able to execute a complex 15 year case fixing scheme whereby the Rules of Judicial Conduct and various Federal and State Laws the Laws of New York, as well as the Rules of Evidence, were  circumvented and  manipulated and where judges "chose"  evidence and used their judicial powers to influence, censure, sanction and intimidate witnesses, in order to secure certain case outcomes and to cover up their own misconduct.   Many of these schemes involved improper overtures from counsel to the acting judges, others involved judges deploying attorneys as arms-length agents of their conspiracy, some judges are alleged to outright broker deals when there was a large liability for the corporation or a large legal fee for the attorneys involved, and most involved judges failing to report corrupt and criminal acts by their peers, instead whitewashing the complaints and punishing the reporters of the same.   Plaintiff was not just three time victim of these frauds and abuses, but  an eye witness of a corrupt system, and a victim of judicial retaliation.  Plaintiff not only observed how cases were "fixed", but how all of the judges involved would be promoted or rewarded within a short time after the unlawful schemes.  Plaintiff also was an eye witness to how the JCC refused to investigate complaints of these serious violations, and how other agents of the Courts (like administrative arms of County Clerk and Clerk of Court) often aid in the conspiracies to cover up judicial corruption.   However, it was when Plaintiff attended Public Hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee in July 2009 that she realized how widespread this malaise had become.

Jurisdiction and Venue

This is an action seeking damages in excess of $75,000 but not less than $100,000,000, exclusive of costs, legal fees, & punitive damages. .

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction under diversity of citizenship

And complexity and nature of allegations, and the $75,000 minimum is more

than met by the court costs that Plaintiff has incurred.

Kathryn Jordan, Plaintiff ("Jordan"), was a citizen and resident of New York

during the period of employer liability for the related discrimination cases

(Kathryn Jordan v. Bates Advertising; Kathryn Jordan v. Verizon Communications) for the majority of her life including the present.

However, during the period of 2005-2008 when many of these violations

were committed, Plaintiff was a resident and citizen of Palm Beach FL,

created a diversity issue that qualifies for federal jurisdiction.   Moreover,

the issues of the underlying case involve violations of federal and state law,

the former and most serious of obstruction of justice, one that clearly

requires this Court's jurisdiction.

Defendant judges and all clerical personnel all occupy positions in Manhattan courts (Supreme Court, 60 and 80 Centre Street, Appellate Division 27 Madison Ave, NY NY 10010), with the exception of Judge Jonathan Lippman who occupies office in Albany. Defendant Commission on Judicial Conduct is located in New York, NY, as is the County Clerk (60 Centre Street).  The Commission on Judicial Nomination is located in New York, NYas well.

Most of the violations asserted fall under Federal and State Law.

Summary

While this case may appear on the surface to be a tragic tale of how a group of rogue activist judges and Machiavellian  attorneys circled the wagons around a disabled female victim of discrimination virtually entrapping her in a legal prison for 15 years, in order to help their corrupt clients evade justice, it is really a snapshot of a dysfunctional Judicial system out of control for decades, lacking both leadership and regulation, and a clarion call to all that this is just the tip of a very large iceberg, one that poses to erupt in scandal that will cast a shadow for decades to come if not timely and conscientiously addressed.

General Allegations

"Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law, it invites every man to come a law unto himself. It invites anarchy. (United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438 (1928).

For the last 15 years, beginning in December 1995, when Plaintiff filed a disability discrimination case against Bates Advertising  before the EEOC, and then before this Court (dismissed without prejudice by Judge Jed Rakoff,  in a highly contested and confusing Opinion that contravened federal anti discrimination law that led the case to New York Supreme Court for trial, and a decade of appeals), and again in 2002 when Plaintiff filed a second, separate lawsuit for disability discrimination against Verizon Communications,(a case that was forced into settlement by the Trial Court Southern District Judge Shira Scheindlin through unlawful means, a scheme endorsed by the Second Circuit), and related Malpractice cases, Plaintiff has been embarked on a search for justice.   This justice was delayed and  denied.   Instead, Plaintiff  became Witness to the dark underbelly of our Judicial system, where favors are routinely dispensed to corporate violators and errant judges, where the Rules of Evidence and Rule of Law are routinely disregarded and manipulated to conform to ingoing biases of the particular judge or the "deal" on the table or the particular agenda or the politics of the situation, and where corporate attorneys frequently act as agents of these frauds as "armslength" favors for the judges.

In May-July 2009, Plaintiff participated, along with countless other deponents in public hearings before the New York State

Senate Judiciary Committee chaired by Senator John Sampson, the latter who bravely initiated this process to provide a bona fide mechanism for residents to voice their outrage about the abuses of the Judiciary. It was here that Plaintiff learned she was not alone in the bizarre experiences she had with the legal system.   It was here that Plaintiff realized the cavernous gap that divided public servant and served.  It was here that Plaintiff realized that "justice" as a concept has become perverted without the oversight of an effective regulatory body or strong, ethical leadership of the Judiciary that would not only serve as the Model for the Modern Court but an example for all other jurists across New York, and across the country.

Unfortunately, Plaintiff becames witness to, along with other deponents (NY State Senate Judiciary Committee Public Hearings), of a "culture of corruption" and elitism, that has pervaded and spread a malaise across all levels of the Judiciary and all jurisdictions, clearly for a very long period of time.  "Case fixing", evidence tampering, coercion of witnesses, influencing judges, conspiracies to defraud litigants, the government and the taxpayers in "deals" on large cases, disregard of the Rule of Law and Rules of evidence, manipulation of facts and records, sanitizing dockets, transcripts and Orders are all part of the accepted practice of judicial administration.  Moreover, universal disgust with an impotent and incompetent JCC have left even the most sanguine litigants and the most ethical jurists disillusioned.

Plaintiff exhausted all of her remedies in all of the Courts to provide the Judiciary with multiple opportunities to "course correct" and for the Commission on Judicial Conduct to do it's job and investigation Plaintiff's multiple complaints

against the named defendants (posted on "JudgeWatch.com).

Plaintiff has witnessed how these corrupt judges, and their conspiratorial peers, have abused the trust of New York residents, voters and tax payers, to advance their careers and pocketbooks, and how they justified the most outrageous abuse

of discretion and law to achieve their ends.

While judges are protected by a vast cloak of immunity, they are not protected from willful and criminal acts and violations of the Rules and Laws.

This case is legally about obstruction of justice by the guardians of justice,and the conspiracy that the leadership of the Courts have engendered in an "ends justifies the means" culture, where peers cover up, not report, violations of their judicial colleagues, and attorneys act as agents of elaborate frauds, where deceptions are perpetuated by manipulation of records and facts and law, and where the judges involved have all benefited, de minimus with promotions, and associated increased compensation, after using their power and authority to grant favors, manipulate facts and law to defraud litigants and taxpayers.  The sense of hubris is so immense that a public extortion demand for increased  Judicial compensation was followed by an unlawful "order" of stipends of $10K for each judge in New York (a $147M taxpayer burden) for incidentals like "robe cleaning".    This is just the tip of the iceberg.   Many of these judicial favors are dispensed in return for "recommendations", "referral", "introductions" and other reciprocal acts that can advance judicial careers through the corrupt judicial nomination system that is controlled by corporate law firms and Corporate America.

We the People have had enough.   We will no longer tolerate this abuse of trust and the judges who flaunt the Rules and the Laws.   We will no longer be "censored" "sanctioned" or suppressed.    We seek the named defendants impeachment and appropriate sanctions imposed.  We seek disbarment of any attorney who has improperly attempted to influence a judge or whom knowingly carried out an illegal scheme for a judge.  We seek sanctions for any judge who failed to report such abuses.   We seek the dissolution of the Commission on Judicial Conduct and new leadership for a new regulatory body.   We seek review of the Commission on Professional Conduct Rules.  We seek removal from office Judge Judith Kaye as Chair of the Nomination Commission.

The allegations below revolve around four cases which involved judicial corruption and obstruction of justice, fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, organized crime by the Judiciary, retaliation against witnesses, extortion,

blackmail, tampering with evidence, tendering and acceptance of bribes, and other violations of Federal and State law.

The Jordan v. Bates and Jordan v. Verizon cases were "fixed" in deals with trial and appellate judges.

            The same was effected on the Attorney Malpractice cases where many of the same defendants appeared.

Fixing of Supreme Court Jury Verdict by First Department

§ 10. Justice to be administered without favor and speedily. Neither   justice nor right should be sold to any person, nor denied, nor   deferred; and writs and process ought to be granted freely and without   delay, to all persons requiring the same, on payment of the fees   established by law.

Kathryn Jordan v. Bates Advertising 118785-99

10.. Plaintiff won a major wrongful discharge disability discrimination case in April 2005¹  after a decade of litigation,  attenuated discovery and three appeals.  During the trial it became apparent to Jordan that her trial counsel, Laurence Lebowitz, whom she knew to have been unprepared for what became an 11 day hearing, was actively cultivating a personal relationship with the judge. Later it would become apparent that

1. Jordan won the "wrongful discharge" for "perceived disability" charge, and was awarded 40% of her potential economic damages and zero P&S, and lost two other causes of action due to negligence by attorney Lebowitz and deceptions by opposing counsel Gregory Homer during discovery, withholding relevants documents , a clear fraud.

WPP/Bates  lost all post trial motions, after agreeing to jury instructions, and posted $3.3M Bond.

this "relationship" was motivated by an intent to cut a deal on the case.   In February 2006, the trial court upheld the jury verdict.  However, in March 2006, after announcing her termination of counsel Laurence Lebowitz for cause, things took a negative turn. On April 3^rd, 2006 after a legal fee hearing was "cancelled" with her adversary,  the trial judge (Rolando T. Acosta) met privately with her then discharged attorney "Ex Parte" in in chambers about the $1.3M contingent legal fee, a matter that was not before him.  Plaintiff was subsequently summoned to the meeting and threatened by the judge and advised that he intended to "act as a fact witness against you" and "get assigned as the judge on the Malpractice case", the latter threat he carried out on at least two occasions. Moreover, Judge Acosta continued to encourage discharged counsel to make appearances in Court and file pleadings, over Plaintiff's repeated objections. When  Plaintiff objected to this conduct, Judge Acosta sanctioned Plaintiff and issued a gag order censoring"the parties", which he only enforced with respect to her and not the male attorneys.   Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Commission on Judicial Conduct shortly after the first incident and amended her complaints of the same, but no action was ever taken by the JCC.  During the first half of 2006, Post Trial Motions to dismiss or reduce the verdict were filed and dismissed(Bates had agreed to the jury instructions so there were no "issues of law" and the Defendants had admitted to knowing about the discrimination, but failing to take remedial action, hiring new non disabled planners during the alleged "financial crisis", along with supervisor admissions about the alleged efficiency of trading one disabled executive for "several" non disabled ones, disproved the "pretext"s.  The case was appeal proof). During the latter part of 2006, Judge Acosta was asked to recuse himself by Jordan, based largely on the conduct between the jurist and her former attorney.  While he recused himself in September 2006, he could not resist issuing a Final Judgment in November 2006 (published in February 2007) wherein he viciously attacked Plaintiff as "contemptuous" and "contumacious" for making "baseless" allegations against him, all explicit violations of the Rules of Judicial Conduct. Legally, he only addressed the legal fee hearing in the Judgment, where he praised Mr. Lebowitz and awarded him his fully hourly fees, while selectively reciting and paraphrasing Plaintiff's alleged communications to the Court objecting to the whole sordid situation.

However, the vindictive  and manipulative jurist was not satisfied with destroying Plaintiff's credibility with the Appellate Court, he then released (via clerks/Lebowitz) a press release to the legal press and Internet (Court Central) where he presented the same distorted version of events.(It is indisputable that this story was leaked as Plaintiff spoke to the Law Journal at the time and was advised that the story "came from chambers").  Plaintiff took a voluntary polygraph about the events that occurred, which was conveniently removed from the Motion for Recusal to which it had been appended.  (See Appendix for Poly)

Unbeknownst to Plaintiff at the time, Judge Acosta was beginning to be considered for advancement to the First Department Appellate Division, upon recommendation by Elliot Spitzer (who also recommended Judge Lippman).  This was also around the time that WPP would file it's frivolous appeal, around July 2007.

First Department Participates in Cover Up

The First Department Appellate Division, which is statutorily obligated to guard the sanctity of trial verdicts and disturb them only on the rare occasion of "no rational person could arrive at the same"finding/ verdict or a serious issue of law, departed from its policy and decided to reverse the jury verdict on December 27, 2007, four days before the announcement of Judge Rolando Acosta's promotion to the First Department.   It was apparent from the Decision that the panel, comprised of Judge Jonathan Lippman, Judge James Catterson, Judge David Friedman, Judge Joseph Sulivan, and Judge Luis Gonzales,  were dispensing a large favor to the jurist by improperly rendering a credibility decision about the  allegedly"baseless" allegations that Judge Acosta referenced in his Final Judgment to enable his vetting to proceed.    Most relevant, this "evidence" was not before the jury or related in any way to Plaintiff's credibility during the 11 day hearing, yet it was subsequently used (upon lay-up by Judge Acosta) to discredit  Plaintiff and call into quesiton the facts of the Bates case, which the jury found credible.   The attack by the jurist, where facts had been selectively culled from Plaintiff's pleadings without her being able to rebut the same,  should have been remanded to a special referee, or at least not considered in evaluating the Jury Decision, the latter of whom did not have the "evidence" of the dispute between the judge and plaintiff regarding his misconduct before them.  (Plaintff-Appellant raised the issue of the propriety of the Judge "sanctioning" the disabled litigant for her complaints about the Court in her appeal to the First Department -The Rules Of Conduct would automatically have indicted the jurist, if applied.   However, Appellant also emphasized that the $1.3M "contigent" legal fee dispute, a contract issue between Lebowitz and Jordan, was not before the Court and hence not on appeal).    This decision to adopt the unsworn denials of the judge as fact was an outrageous abuse of discretion by the First Department, but to include this in their calculus about the jury decision which ended a year and a half earlier was simply irrational and a deception of monumental proportion.   The "fixing" was apparent by the circumvention of the relevant laws, the creation of new facts and paraphrasing of Appellant's testimony, the disregard of the sworn admissions of guilt by the employer, and the dismissal of the case instead of remanding it to correct the alleged defects.  Further, the alleged legal defects were frivolous as Defendants had agreed to the jury instructions or the "law of the case" without objection.  The First Department effectively re-tried the case without appellant present.

Moreover, Judge Lippman then used this favor as an opportunity to change the laws on proving pretext in discrimination cases, adopting the ridiculously obscure "Stephenson v. Hotel Employees" case and the "legitimate reason" legal standard, which was not consistent with the tripartite standard of McDonnell Douglas or the more advanced "real reason" standard adopted by other states.   However, the timing could not be ignored.   Judge Lippman was dispensing two favors, for which he would expect to be repaid: One, to his troubled colleague Judge Rolando Acosta who had been nominated by Elliot Spitzer to fill what would be an empty position as Judge Lippman, who had just entered the First Department six months prior, who was being vetted for advancement to NYCOA, and Judge Gonzales (also on the "Bates" panel) would replace him as Chief Judge for the First Dept; and a second favor to WPP Group and DBR, the latter of whom faced a $3.3M liability at that time.   This favor would be repaid many times as each of the judges involved in this scheme would be promoted, not censured, for their crimes.

Plaintiff got in the way of this scheme when she filed her complaint against Judge Acosta.  Thus Plantiff's jury verdict bond of $3.3M was converted into a "favor for favor" commodity.

Perhaps most damning was the fact that during the investigation by the New York Commission on Judicial Conduct, Judge Acosta lied to investigators and failed to produce relevant information.  However, the "contemptuous" attack by Judge Acosta on the disabled plaintiff was alone a serious violation that required no investigation but the JCC refused to comply with Judicial Law and censure the intemperate and retaliatory jurist.

New York Court of Appeals Declines to Hear Most Important Discrimination Case

In the Last Decade

  § 15. Right of appeal not to be denied. Notwithstanding the provisions   of  any  general  or special law to the contrary, a citizen shall not be   deprived of the right to appeal to the legislature,  or  to  any  public   officer,  board, commission  or  other  public body, for the redress of   grievances, on account of employment in the civil service of  the state   or any of its civil divisions or cities.

            In January 2008, Plaintiff filed for leave to appeal before NYCOA.  Plaintiff  knew that her case had met the most important criteria of "unresolved disputes among New York Courts" on a legal issue of "great importance" to New York Courts,  especially where there was inconsistency or dispute about how the law should be interpreted..   Her precedent disability discrimination case met all the criteria. The Courts in New York were still inconsistently adjudicating the legal standard for proving "pretext" discrimination cases, many assuming that all an employer had to do was produce, but not prove, a "legitimate reason" (like "financial problems" and be exempted from any discrimination charge, while Courts outside New York (MI, NJ, CT, CA) had aligned around the "real reason" standard of proof.   Thus, NYCOA, under Chief Judge Kaye (with Judge Lippman on his way in)  instead heard theBianca Jagger eviction case" and Plaintiff's Appeal repeatedly denied.  Later, Plaintiff would learn that Judge Kaye was an old "friend" of Judge Acosta.   She would also learn that what they had in common was a ruthless pursuit of power at any cost.  This was when Plaintiff realized how far up the judicial ladder the corruption had crept.  Judge Kaye, also a long ally  of Judge Lippman, obviously dispensed a favor to him by not hearing the controversial case he had just fixed.   Judge Kaye would then be repaid with an important appointment.  But her betrayal, to her gender and the last 40 years of civil rights advances, was beyond comprehension and would overshadow her legacy.

            Plaintiff's complaints to the JCC (which are posted on JudgeWatch.com) included the violations of all of the named defendants including the appellate court judges but like all complaints filed with the JCC, they were ignored and dismissed via form letter.

Malpractice Cases( Bates & Verizon)  Fixed

Kathryn Jordan v. Laurence Lebowitz et al , Kathryn Jordan v. Gary Phelan et alKathryn Jordan v. David Fish et al(600246/2007;105183/200;601806/2007),

11. Equally important to this cover up was the fixing and disposal of three related Malpractice cases filed by Plaintiff in January 2007.   These cases related to the mishandling of evidence and witnesses by attorney Laurence Lebowitz on the Bates case, the failure to conduct discovery on both cases by the two other attorneys (Defendants Gary Phelan and David Fish) and the fixing of another discrimination case, Jordan v. Verizon, filed by Plaintiff in Federal Court (addressed below) by attorney Gary Phelan.  Mr. Phelan had entered into a secret agreement with opposing counsel Ken Gage to "settle" the case and not conduct discovery, a fact that Plaintiff-Appellant only became aware of as critical deadlines were missed and an MTC not filed.  Mr. Fish willfully misrepreresented to Plaintiff that she would retain certain ERISA benefits in the Settlement which Mr. Gage had disposed of through the legalese of the Agreement.

Judge Acosta Carries Out Threat

  The first judge to appear on the Malpractice cases was, astonishingly,  Judge Rolando Acosta.   This was a brazen attempt to carryout his threat toJordan on April 3, 2005 to "get assigned to the Malpractice case" and use his power to act against her.   Jordan demanded recusal and in June 2007, Acosta recused for a second time.   Judge Marcy Friedman, then within less than six months, prior to discovery and after she knew that  the First Department Decisionclearly laid accountability for the alleged fatal defects of the "Bates" case on the attorneys,  dismissed all three cases in July 2008 after granting MTD's in mid December 2007(See First Dept Order December 27,2007) and when Plaintiff's counsel Mr. Bluestone was allowed to withdraw after demanding a large retainer from Plaintiff that was not part of their agreement, leaving the disabled Jordan to answer 3000 pages of MTD pleadings in a matter of weeks.  Clearly, there could be no depositions held related to the "case fixing" where attorneys would be forced to tell the truth. Moreover, Judge Friedman also ordered that Plaintiff "seek permission of the Court" prior to filing any pleadings in Supreme Court, a completely arrogant and unenforceable directive but one intended to seal the deal.   The fix was in and there would be no loose ends.

Upon dismissal by Judge Friedman, Plaintiff filed timely appeals with the First Department in January 2007.  However, the County Clerk, now clearly part of this conspiracy, failed to deliver any of the records after 18 months.  Plaintiff petitioned the First Department to compel production of a Certified Record repeatedly via pleadings,

and for enlargement of the Record, after her adversary refused to sign the Attorney Affirmation, which was denied without explanation, and a second enlargement of time which was also denied.  This was despite the fact that Plaintiff could not perfect her appeal without a record, and she was disabled with MS and Pro Se.   Most damning though was the appearance of two judges who had serious conflicts: Judges Catterson and Judge Acosta.   Judge Catterson was petitioned via motion to recuse.  Without any response, he was secretly replaced by Judge Acosta who rendered the decision to dismiss the cases.

Again, for a third time, Judge Acosta  recused, but again only after he had rendered his biased retaliatory Decision.   This was clearly a conspiracy to protect this jurist again and to get rid of the "whistleblower" who had reported his misconduct.  Judge Tom issued the final denial of Motion to Reconsider/Vacate and the fixing of this matter was complete by the insidious  First Department Appellate Division (M 4648, 4549, 2242, 3454, 3490, 4080,4081) , Perhaps most indicative of the hubris that these jurists possessed was the outrageous and completely discriminatory demand that Appellant "seek permission of the court" before filing any future responsive pleadings.  This was a gag order in disguise. No explanation was forthcoming as to how the First Department could find the attorneys liable for the reversal of the Bates jury verdict but then dismiss the malpractice cases. (Including the fixing of the Verizon case, detailed below).

Verizon Case Fixed in Coerced "Settlement" by Trial Judge

Kathryn Jordan v. Verizon Communications 19144-cv-02

                12. Plaintiff had filed a second disability discrimination case in federal court in 1996 "Kathryn Jordan v. Verizon Communications"(10144-cv-02 ), against a repeat employer violator who flaunted the ADA.  The case was scheduled for jury trial, per the Complaint.   However, behind the scenes, another case fixing scheme was being created.

Apparently, USDC Judge Shira Scheindlin decided that the case would be settled without telling Plaintiff who was attempting to advance discovery.  Plaintiff counsel Gary Phelan and Defense Counsel Ken Gage had brokered the secret settlement for Judge Scheindlin, obviously with the intent of helping their clients and cultivating favor with a powerful federal judge.   Mr. Phelan refused to conduct or compel discovery, and misled Plaintiff about the status of the same until critical deadlines lapsed,  Once the "deal" was agreed by the attorneys, Phelan informally withdrew.  New counsel David Fish was then recruited to "help" close the deal.  He  misrepresented the terms of the settlement including critical ERISA benefits to Plaintiff, all to fraudulently induce Jordan to surrender her rights to a jury trial on the merits, her disputed ERISA  benefits, and and any damages for her ordeal (worth millions in liability to Verizon; the demand was $31M).    The token settlement ($100K) barely covered her current attorneys legal fees and was paid to Plaintiff  to silence the attorneys.  Jordan received no consideration and actually was forced to relinquish millions in benefit rights.

            Judge Scheindlin achieved the goal of fixing the case for settlement by  willfully circumventing the Rules and Laws of New York and intervene in the"settlement negotiation",  outside the scope of her legislated role,  and used her power and authority, and the threat of "litigation and sanctions" by Defendants, and an additional threat of "permanent  litigation" by her, to force a coerced settlement when Plaintiff was without counsel and known to be "ill" at the time, but who had repeatedly rejected the offer (the first verbal "acceptance" by Mr. Fish was based upon a series of frauds, necessitating two more conferences which were NOT successful) .   Judge Scheindlin was well versed in the legal standard for "voluntary releases".   She knew that Plaintiff should have been represented by counsel de minimus, yet she forced the deal down and intervened by improperly scheduling the "status conference" when Jordan's attorney had just withdrawn.  Moreover she denied the petition for rescission only four days later after the "status conference",  when Jordan had been able to see an attorney to review the agreement she had signed, clearly under duress, pro se.   Then, as in all true cover ups, Judge Scheindlin set about tidying the paperwork.  First, representing that Jordan was represented by Mr. Fish during the execution of the settlement in her Order, despite knowing he had withdrawn days before on July 12^th, 2004, and then representing the same in the hearing transcript.   Then, about a month later she had second thoughts and issued a new Order that represented Jordan has "Pro Se".   This was not the Order Plaintiff received or used for the appeals. This was  tampering with evidence that the judge knew would go on appeal.  Attorney Gage also helped by removing Exhibit A from the Agreement, which attested to the severity of the damage inflicted by Verizon's three year hazing and retaliation campaign upon disclosure of her disability and need for accommodation (letter from Jordan's physician).

On appeal,  Judge Ellis would define the standard for voluntary releases as a "Voluntary...Strategic Choice".   He then dismissed the appeal, misstating the facts of the record and the relevant law. On receipt of the Rule 60 (b) petition USDC fellow jurist Judge George P. Daniels denied the petition despite clear evidence of duress and coercion, and knowing Jordan was not represented.  That was no problem for Judge Daniels who simply stated that Appellant wasrepresented by counsel (a whopper lie) and exculpated all of the attorneys, none of whom "acted improperly".   The Second Circuit, which clearly had an opportunity and obligation given the demand to review de novo to course correct this elaborate deception twice put its imprimatur on the cover up and then sanitized the docket.(The Second Circuit Decision has evaporated from the Pacer dockets as have the First Department's Orders on the Malpractice appeals as has Judge Acosta's original decision to uphold the jury verdict, which is appended to the Appendix of this Complaint).



Lippman-Kaye Lawsuits Against Governor & Legislature:

Maron v. Silver (58 AD 3^rd 102); Larabee v. Governor(4761,4761A), and Kaye v. Silver(400763/08),

            There is no better example of the corruption that has contaminated our courts and its leadership than the decade long scheme by Judge Lippman and Judge Kaye, neither of whom were qualified for their roles as Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals (neither is a "scholar" or example of judicial ethics) and Chair of the Commission on Judicial Nomination, to sue the Governor and the New York Senate in a blatant extortion attempt, colluding and conspiring against the Legislature and the Governor to force an increase in judicial compensation.   Deploying a series of frauds and legal manipulations, and clearly incensed about the disparity in compensation between the trial judges in New York Supreme Court (an IOU for sure) and Federal Courts, as well as jealousy about "private sector" compensation,  Judge Lippman and Kaye have been diverting taxpayer funds for over a decade in cases like Maron v. Silver (58 AD 3^rd 102); Larabee v. Governor(4761,4761A), and Kaye v. Silver(400763/08). In these matters  Judges Kaye (former Chief New York Court of Appeals) and Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman (current head of NYCOA), deployed a series of false or exaggerated representations, and misapplication of New York Law, to literally extort pay raises for New York Judges.   This vanity project and abuse of judicial power ("advertising" the lawsuit on the Supreme Court website, misusing taxpayer funds to finance the same) along with Judge Lippman's public admissions that judicial compensation is "my greatest priority", and his announced orders to circumvent the law by ordering "judicial stipends of $10K per judge" at a time when New York faces a potential $5B budget deficit, a fraud upon NY taxpayers, are completely outside the scope of either of their job descriptions, and constitute an abuse of tax payer funds, if not outright fraud.   Moreover, both leaders have presided over a decade of corruption in New York Courts, where "case fixing" and other violations of the law, have been encouraged and rewarded.   Every judge involved in the cases cited above for Plaintiff Kathryn Jordan, where favors were dispensed to employer defendants and the judicial process and Laws of New York circumvented to accommodate the same,  have been promoted (Judge Lippman, Judge Kaye, Judge Gonzales, Judge Acosta, Judge Friedman).  In fact, Judge Acosta's promotion on December 30^th, 2007 could not have been possible without  the favor of Judge Lippman's reversal of the Jordan v. Bates case on December 27^th, 2007 and Mr. Robert Tembeckjian's & JCC's  failure to properly investigate  complaints of the same.  .Mr. Tembeckjian has never investigated a complaint against an appellate judge or censored the same, despite a historic rise in complaints against the same.

            Finally, upon information and belief, Judge Lippman has been signaling to judges that they are entitled to dismiss any case for any reason, in order to work down the admittedly overwhelming caseloads of New York Courts.   He has claimed to reduce caseloads by 25% todate already.  This is NOT the solution that the admittedly overburdened courts need.  (It will be interesting to see the proportion of protected class cases dismissed in this slaughter).  It is a fraud upon New  York Taxpayers, and a violation of the rights of all New Yorkers, and the trust that was endowed him when he was appointed to the highest leadership position in the Judiciary but whose admitted jealousy of "private sector compensation" and immense sense of entitlement and power have incited the current judicial crisis (along with processor Judge Kaye)..  The "favor for favor" culture of New York Courts was also observed by virtually all deponents at the public hearings for the Judicary Committee of Senator Sampson in May- July of 2009.  The cases against Plaintiff were all pre-judged and vetted with "Ex Parte" information from the attorneys.  All of the name judges have disregarded the Rules of Evidence and Rule of Law. This is now an accepted practice in the New York Courts.

Remedy Sought

            The impeachment of all named jurists, and resignation of all clerical personnel for the same, and  the resignations of the  leadership of the Commission on Judicial Conduct  and the County Clerk  involved in this organized  conspiracy to obstruct justice is sought, and where not secured, criminal proceedings will be initiated with the Attorney General.     The attorneys involved should be investigated for their roles  as agents of these crimes, sanctioned severely, and where appropriate disbarred,  according to the relevant civil and criminal laws.  Mr. Lebowitz, Mr. Phelan, and Mr. Gage should all be barred from practicing law for their knowing,  repeated,  willful attempts to influence a judge on an acting case they were involved in with the intent of "fixing" the case and their participating in a conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff and the taxpayers of New York, and cover up the same.  Mr. Homer and Mr. Beshada should also be investigated as to their role in the cover up, and sanctioned for both filing a frivolous appeal (a fraud upon the tax payers) and failing to report judicial and attorney misconduct that they were witness to, and their fraud in suppressing documents during a discovery (a serious crime).  The allegations that they lied to Plaintiff and  the discovery court about the relationship between the Parent and Operating companies (Cordiant, Bates and AC&R) should  be pursued as a fraud, and prosecuted accordingly.   And to the extent that any of these attorneys willfully misrepresented facts to gain their ends, the most severe penalties should be invoked.

            Plaintiff seeks full restitution for her 15 year ordeal, which was indisputably protracted by the illegal and wrongful conduct of the Defendants, the parent company clients they represented and the General Counsel's for the same, all of whom knew was transpiring, and allowed it to continue as long as a Judge put their imprimatur on it.  Plaintiff seeks full  economic, Medical, emotional, and punitive damages that she should have collected at the time of filing of her cases of discrimination (1995 for Bates; 2002 for Verizon), and the reimbursement of all court and legal costs including the "time in" for her role as her own attorney, and all interest accrued from 1995 when she first filed her first complaint..

            Plaintiff seeks double punitive damages that will send a large message to the Judiciary as to the "zero tolerance" of these kinds of abuses.  For Mr. Lebowitz, Phelan and Fish, who were paid to protect her interests and instead betrayed her trust, she seeks triple punitive damages.

            Plainiff seeks permanent change in the Judicial System so that no litigant is ever again denied his or her constitutional rights to a jury trial, and to the protection of that verdict, and the to Rules that currently provide overly broad discretion to judges to abuse their authority and to impose their biases upon litigants instead of acting as impartial triers of fact.  Included .

            Plaintiff seeks full restitution to New York TaxPayers for the time these judges  abused acting against the Laws of New York, triple punitive damages for the same, and as these orders were mailed or emailed , Mail and Wire Fraud charges are sought.

COUNT I

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE:

TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE; INFLUENCING A JUDGE;

INTIMIDATING A WITNESS

1.      This is an action for damages in excess of $75,000.

2.      The jurisdiction for this action is based in part upon diversity of citizenship,

and partly upon federal law and US Codes, and complex litigation with multiple parties.

3.      Plaintiff is domiciled in New York, New York.

4.      Defendants are mostly domiciled in New York, New York, and Albany NY.

5.      The claims of Obstruction of Justice are governed by US Codes Title 18; 286; 371; 1505; 1511;1512; 1513; 1519; 42 USC 1961-2; 18 USC 2;

6.      The Defendants involved in this cause of action are all of the Defendants named in this action;

7.      Plaintiff re-alleges all of the General Allegations and adds:

8.      Judge Rolando Acosta is charged with changing his Decision of February 2006 to uphold the jury verdict in the Jordan v. Bates case, and effectively throwing the case by libeling Plaintiff as "contemptuous" after she reported misconduct by the jurist, and by using his role as trial judge to discredit the jury verdict for the purpose of overcoming obstacles to his vetting for

promotion to the First Dept, and more seriously using his powers of sanction and censure to stifle her complaints of judicial and attorney misconduct.

Further, his use of his position to issue threats against Plaintiff regarding her

termination of discharged counsel Lebowitz for cause (the validity confirmed

by the First Department Decision of December 27^th, 2009 which criticized the

handling of evidence by counsel), her dispute with him about his claim for a $1,300,000 legal fee (a contract dispute not before the court), and her intention to file a Malpractice case for innumerable reasons that were not before the Court.   Judge Acosta carried out those threats and had himself appointed as trier of fact three times on these matters (trial and appellate)

and was recused three times.  However, prior to recusal Judge Acosta illegally

obstructed justice and Plaintiff's right to a fair hearing by an impartial trier of fact by entering biased, retaliatory Judgments (April 2006, November 2006,

April 2007 and September 2009).

9.      Judge Acosta also ventured outside his sanctioned role when he published stories in the legal press slandering and libeling Plaintiff.   And when he removed Plaintiff's polygraph from the Recusal Motion that was filed on appeal.

10.  Judges Lippman, Catterson, Friedman, Gonzales, Sullivan et al are charged

with obstructing justice by "fixing" the Jordan v. Bates case  to cultivate favor with a corporate violator of Anti Discrimination laws, WPP Group (former unit Bates Advertising), and a large corporate law firm, Drinker Biddle,

whom these jurists would then secure referrals, recommendations and other benefits leading to promotions and raises from.    The First Department panel

also willfully violated the Rules of Judicial Conduct and New York Law

by adopting Judge Acosta's unsworn denials of baseless allegations without a proper investigation and legally, incorporating these "credibility" assessments about Plaintiff into their assessment of the Jury Verdict on the Bates case.

The jury had no knowledge of the dispute between the jurist and plaintiff, nor should it have, consequently the incorporation of this "fact" into the calculus of the jury decision was not just improper,it was irrational.   It was clearly effected to dispense a favor to the errant judge so his vetting for promotion would not be complicated by an embarrassing relevation.

11.  Moreoever, the First Department departed from accepted practice for disturbing jury verdicts (a 2%-5% incidence in most appellate jurisdictions) to reverse a jury verdict which was allegedly legally defective.   Assuming the latter was true, the remedy is remand for retrial not disposition of a 14 year old case on trumped up legal theories and new "facts".   Given that the employer admitted to the allegations and Plaintiff was a highly credible witness, the verdict should have remained undisturbed.    Instead, the FirstDepartment seized the opportunity to re-write the laws on proving "pretext" in discrimination cases, legislating from the bench, instead of enforcing existing anti discrimination laws.  The appellate panel, who admitted a bias against Appellant, should have recused itself.   Instead the jurists chose to obstruct justice and dole out favors to Judge Acosta and violator WPP Group.   This was a conspiracy to obstruct justice by

jurists who had already violated the Rules of Judicial Conduct by failing to report Judge Acosta's breach of the Rules (the various charges against the jurists are posted on Judgewatch.com).   Either way, the decision to dismiss the case instead of remanding it back to the trial court for remedy of the alleged defects was clearly case fixing, especially when viewed in the context of the declared bias and calling of Plaintiff a "liar"for a) not reporting the discrimination to "anyone" at the time of the hazing by her supervisors; and b) her alleged "admission" that her employer had "layoffs" and "lost big accounts", a Fact that supposedly supported the pretext of "financial problems" (Note: the Lippman panel failed to see that the hiring of non disabled Planners during this alleged financial crisis, along with innumerable other inconsistencies, rebutted the pretext. But given the acceptance of the jury instructions the entire appeal was moot and frivolous)

12.  Further in January 2008, Appellant filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals, then overseen by Judge Lippman pal Judge Kaye, where the issue of the inconsistency in the interpretation of discrimination laws by New York Courts was disregarded and the case not heard, clearly as another favor. This time the favor was dispensed to Judge Lippman, and in return Judge Lippman would return the favor when it was time to appoint the Chair of the Nomination Commission.  Nonetheless, this was another act to obstruct justice by Judge Lippman.

13.  Judge Marcy Friedman's decision to dismiss all four malpractice cases prior to discovery knowing that the First Department had placed blame squarely on the backs of the attorneys for negligent handling of evidence,

was clearly an obstruction of justice, as she denied Plaintiff her right to appeal in order to perpetuate a cover up of a fraud.

14.  The First Department's decision, under Judge Acosta, who recused himself only after dismissing the Lebowitz and other malpractice cases were clear evidence of fraud and obstruction of justice by the Court.  Neither Judge
Catterson (who appeared and rendered the first Decision on June16th not to enlarge the record) and Judge Acosta (who affirmed the same) had any right to appear given their obvious conflicts and the allegations of case fixing by Jordan, and both of their declared biases against Plaintiff.   Such appearances were obviously made to obstruct justice.

15.  Judge Shira Scheindlin's fixing of the Verizon case was more subtle by Judicial standards but far more insidious.   As a federal court judge charged with enforcing federal anti discrimination laws, her betrayal of her role as impartial trier of fact and protector of the defenseless, was far more serious.   Judge Scheindlin conspired with both plaintiff and defense counsel to ensure that Plaintiff's case would never to go trial upon receipt of the case in July 2003.  A plain reading of the complaint (ironically crafted by Mr. Phelan who dropped the Retaliation charge) revealed that Plaintiff was not just discriminated against but hazed, denied an RA, punished for disclosed a need for the same by being put on probation for TWO YEARS and forced into a state of collapse, then denied her fully elected ERISA benefits.   The willfulness of the Defendant's actions were sufficient to give a thoughtful judge pause, and the level of Plaintiff's status should have given rise to a firm "NO" when the token settlement was proffered.   But Judge Scheindlin, like the other defendants in this action, could not resist the opportunity to do a large employer  a favor, hoping that she too might become a chosen one.

This federal judge's decision to disregard federal and state laws on voluntary settlements and her scheme to manipulate a disabled woman without an attorney (Phelan and Fish withdrew after they got their money) into surrendering her employment rights including her ERISA rights and her right to a fair hearing on the merits for her discrimination claims, for a token settlement that went to the attorneys, was nothing short of Darth Vader. (Jordan's demand was $31M and she received $100K that after tax did not even cover her litigation costs).  However, like most criminals, Judge Scheindlin made "mistakes".    Her biggest mistake, in her impatience to get the case off her docket with the aid of Gage/Phelan, was to intervene in the settlement process.   This was a clear act of obstruction of justice, as acting judges are not allowed to intervene in settlements, especially where a Magistrate or mediator has been assigned.  Judge Scheindlin also left a long paper trail (this is where those who still do not get this are taking notes)

where Jordan had clearly objected to the terms of the Settlement, repeatedly contacted the court for help, advised the court she was "ill" and without an attorney, advised the Court that Gage had literally stolen the settlement agreement when she decided not to go forward, had advisedVerizon General Counsel that she did not want to execute the agreement (prior to his execution), that she was "confused" about the purpose of the surprise "status conference", and that she had been repeatedly threatened by opposing counsel with "litigation and sanctions".  The trial courts response to these acts to obstruct justice was to initiate one of her own: creating ominous scenarios for Plaintiff of "permanent litigation" if she did not accede to the offer.  Further, if there was any doubt about the intentions of the trial court, the angry denial of Plaintiff's request for rescission four days later (within the statutory grace period) after having been medically treated and seeing an attorney,  said it all.   There was a Plan in place, a DEAL, and the trial court was not moved by the pleas of a sick woman.   Scheindlin had her deal and she was intent on Verizon paying up when the time came.

16.  While judges do commit frauds and obstruct justice from time to time,  there is always the appellate arm to keep matters in check.  Here we saw thelevel at which corruption has risen in New York Courts.   Jordan appealed the Scheindlin decision, as it has been her practice to allow the Courts the right to speak and defend their decision, to exhaust her remedies.   But her Rule 60 (b) Motion was DENIED by Judge George Daniels, who intentionally misrepresented Plaintiff's representation status, falsely stating that she had been "represented by three attorneys" (all of which departed prior to execution time), was not under duress (despite the indisputable threats by Ken Gage to sue her and impose sanctions if she did not go through with the "deal", knowing her own attorney lied to her and being part of that lie); and that "no one did anything improper, including the attorneys" , a complete whitewashing of the Record with the flick of a pen.  Opposing Counsel Ken Gage perpetuated the ruse by omitting Exhibit A from the partially signed Settlement Agreement (a document that attested to the severity of the damage Jordan endured at Verizon).  By the time the appeal got to the Second Circuit, who was asked to perform a De Novo review, the facts were beyond recognition.   Plaintiff was now a troublemaker, not a victim.  The Attorneys who orchestrated this obstruction of justice with Judge Scheindline were vindicated.   Everyone could sleep soundly because the deception had come home to the heartland: The Second Circuit Court of Appeals, where errant judges are greeted by St. Peter at the Gates.

                  Jordan went to great lengths to point out the inconsistencies, outright falsehoods, and the relevant law (Judge Ellis to his credit defined it as a "strategic choice" but clearly caved to the iron fist of Judge Scheindlin, not the torch of Lady Justice) to the Second Circuit.   They were put on notice of the scheme to defraud her of her constitutional rights when she was most vulnerable and without counsel to advise her about an Agreement filled with legalese.   They upheld the decisions of the Southern District (while corrupt and illegal, the Second Circuit clearly recognized the legal power of trial judges; but failed to recognize its obligation to deploy veto power when crimes were being committed against defenseless victims and the State)

17.  Plaintiff had her suspicions about the motives of these judges who trampled on her constitutional rights and conspired to defraud her for their own persona gain, but when she saw the lawsuit by Judges Lippman and Kaye against the Governor and Senate, and Chief Judge Lippman's outrageous remarks about "priorities", something clicked.    It was clear now that these judges were jealous and resentful of their "private sector" colleagues and that Jordan as a $250K base salary disabled female did not represent a heroine who had overcome insurmountable odds, but an enemy to be envied and destroyed.   Ironically, by conspiring to betray the rights of the one most defenseless, these greedy and power crazed jurists saw an opportunity to "get in" on the private sector feast.

18.  It would be tempting to treat this as an isolated incident that befell a helpless disabled woman.  However, as Jordan learned in the summer of 2009. this was just the tip of a very large iceberg.   Upon attending the public hearings

For the New York Senate Judiciary Committee, Plaintiff became aware of innumerable NY residents whose lives had been destroyed by callous, greedy and Machiavellian judges and lawyers.  It was a moment she would not forget

and a cause that kept her awake at night.

19.  It was also apparent that these frauds were allowed to occur and foment because of the complete lack of oversight by an effective regulatory body.

20.  In preparing this Complaint, Plaintiff learned that dockets have been sanitized (Second Circuit, First Dept) as the guilty desperately attempt to erase their footsteps.

21.  Lastly, it is believed that through the manipulations of Judge Kaye and Judge Lippman, and their willful assertion of false facts  and irrelevant law, that the State had to pay for a faux vanity lawsuit against the Legislature, rooted in the same greed and jealousy that all of their actions have been, all at great cost to the taxpayers of New York and at great cost to the image of the Judiciary overall which has been irreparable harmed by these rogue jurists.

22.  Finally, Judge Lippman's judicial activism, whereby he has repeatedly acted as a legislator, reversing laws and preaching politics, has also been a fraud upon the tax payers of NY.

22 a. Moreover, the attorneys involved, Mssrs., Gregory Homer, Donald Beshada, Kenneth Gage, et al, all are accused of

     evidence tampering.   Mr. Homer and Beshada willfully suppressed documents that proved the relationship

     between Cordiant/Saactchi, Bates USA, and Bates Advertising (AC&R).    They withheld this discovery denying any

     legal relationship between these sister companies, only to later disclose this relationship in the Bond

     disclosure notice.  This and other discovery deceptions precluded Plaintiff from being able to prove her entitlement to the

     top EVP Planning job, which was awarded to a non disabled male outside the company.   Mr. Gage

similarly cheated, suppressing discovery so Plaintiff would not be able to value the "consideration", and omitting the critical Exhibit I, from the Settlement Agreement.  More seriously, he stole the agreement, which had been partially executed from a adjacent building where it had been delivered,   knowing Plaintiff intended to retrieve it.  This was a serious criminal act and the trial court was well aware of what transpired as she referenced it in the hearing.

COUNT II

CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD

                                              Civil Conspiracy Against Plaintiff

                                    &the People of New York and the US Government



A civil conspiracy or collusion is an agreement between two or more parties to deprive a third party of legal rights or deceive a third party to obtain an illegal objective.

23.  This is an action for damages in excess of $75,000.

24.  The jurisdiction for this action is based in part upon diversity of citizenship,

and partly upon federal law and US Codes, and complex litigation with multiple parties.

25.  Plaintiff is domiciled in New York, New York.

26.  Defendants are mostly domiciled in New York, New York, and Albany NY.

27.  The claims of Conspiracy to Defraud are governed by the Statute of Frauds.

28.  The Defendants involved in this cause of action are all of the Defendants named in this action;

29.  Plaintiff re-alleges all of the General Allegations and Allegations 1-20 from Count I, and adds;

30.  That all of the judges knew that the actions that they were commiting

and the statements t that they made in their Decisions/Orders/Judgments

were false and rooted in frauds, and that they rendered these actions with the purpose of defrauding Plaintiff of her right to trial by an impartial trier of factor jury, the right to all benefits available to her as a victim of discrimination

under Federal and State Laws, which they knew to have worth in the significant seven figures, but that they suppressed and tampered with evidence and manipulated Plaintiff's rights to coerce her into acting against her own interests;  that they knew attorneys on these matters had tampered with evidence, and that they made willful misrepresentations to cover up their conspiracy; that they required the collusion of other judges, attorneys, clerks, and administrative officers of the court to carry out these conspiracies, and that the judges involved benefited from the conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff as did the original defendant corporations and their law firms.

That the Appellate Courts involved (First Department, New York Court  Of Appeals, and Second Circuit) were willful agents whose acceptance of Decisions known to be undertaken in violations of Federal and State Laws, and the Rules of Judicial Conduct, rendered them co-conspirators.  The same is alleged of the New York Commission on Judicial Conduct who departed from its statutory role to aid these deceptions and cover them up instead of initiating real investigations and impeachment proceedings.

31.  That Judges Kaye and Lippman conspired to defraud NY Taxpayers by filing a filing a frivolous baseless lawsuit filled with false claims, facts and law for the purpose of enriching themselves and paying back the innumerable

IOU's that these jurists have accumulated over the years with the "favor for favor" culture they created.  Their actions disrupted the smooth running of government and irrevocably harmed the image of the Judiciary.

Their motives, jealousy with the "private sector" and versus their USDC "peers" compensation, were transparent and clearly have played a role in their dispensation of justice in Jordan's cases and in countless others.

These actions were financed by NY Tax payer funds and constitute frauds upon government.   Moreover, the decision by Judge Lippman by circumvent the Law set down by the First Department on this "issue of greatest priority"

by unilaterally ordering $10K stipends for each judge in the state was a gross violation and a willful attempt to defraud the Taxpayers.  It was only not effected because the Legislature caught Chief Judge Lippman in the act after he announced his intent to circumvent the law publicly.  While he has been ordered to return these illicit funds by the Legislature, there is still "time in" owed to the New York taxpayers for these frauds over a decade.

32, That Plaintiff was consequently irrevocably harmed by these frauds and lost 15 years of her life attempting to have the truth revealed in her pursuit of justice.  That Plaintiff who has MS suffered extreme physical and emotional pain during this agonizing ruse, lost her career and economic status, was deprived of rightful benefits, lost two homes to finance her

           litigation costs.

33.  That the costs of these conspiracies to defraud Plaintiff also defrauded the US Government and New York Taxpayers, who paid for these protracted legal schemes, and the salaries of the judges, attorneys and legal personnel

involved.  Plaintiff seeks reparation for these losses on behalf of the Peopleof New York, treble punitive damages, and recovery of all costs with interest.

COUNT III

VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH

Constitution of the United States and Bill rights,

CVR Article 2 (10) and 2(13),

34.  This is an action for damages in excess of $75,000.

35.  The jurisdiction for this action is based in part upon diversity of citizenship,

and partly upon federal law and US Codes, and complex litigation with multiple parties.

36.  Plaintiff is domiciled in New York, New York.

37.  Defendants are mostly domiciled in New York, New York, and Albany NY.

38.  The claims of Violation of Free Speech are governed by the Constitution..

39.  The Defendants involved in this cause of action are all of the Defendants named in this action;

40.  Plaintiff re-alleges all of the General Allegations and Allegations 1-20 from Count I, and adds;

41.  Plaintiff alleges that all of the named defendant judges abuse their discretionary powers of "sanction" and "censure" to suppress her complaints about their misconduct, including the "fixing" of three cases cited in the General Allegations, and to immunize themselves from disclosure and investigation.  In the Bates case, a gag order was issued by Judge Rolando Acosta immediately after Jordan complained of his "Ex Parte" meetings and communications with discharged counsel, she was sanctioned and publicly ridiculed as "contemptuous" for the same.   Judge Friedman issued an order

that Plaintiff "seek permission of the ALJ" before filing any future pleadings, despite knowing this would hamper Jordan's defense against her fixing of the Malpractice cases.   This "technique" was adopted by Judge Tom, undoubtedly at the urging of Judge Acosta, to prevent Plaintiff from filing objections to the wholesale dismissal of three malpractice appeals with the sole purpose of perpetuating an elaborate cover up of these judicial crimes.

And on  the Verizon case, judicial power was deployed to coerce Plaintiff into taking action against her own interests and over her repeated objections to relinquish both her existing rights and her claims of discrimination and ERISA violations.  These abuses removed the concept of free will and voluntary from the outcomes as Plaintiffs voice was stifled,  and her real positions manipulated to conform to the ingoing schemes of the conspiratorial judges and attorneys.

42.  Plaintiff was consequently irrevocably harmed by these frauds and lost 15 years of her life attempting to have the truth

revealed in her pursuit of justice.  That Plaintiff who has MS suffered extreme physical and emotional pain during this agonizing ruse, lost her career, both of her homes, her credit rating and economic status, suffered medical consequences, and was deprived of right to damages for the original discrimination crimes.  She seeks full restitution of her losses, interest,

and punitive damages.

COUNT IV

BRIBERY AND EXTORTION

18 U.S.C. 11, Section 201

18 U.S.C. § 1951

                                          New York Penal Code 200.45;200.50



43.This is an action for damages in excess of $75,000.

44.The jurisdiction for this action is based in part upon diversity of citizenship,

and partly upon federal law and US Codes, and complex litigation with multiple parties.

45.Plaintiff is domiciled in New York, New York.

46.  Defendants are mostly domiciled in New York, New York, and Albany NY.

47.The claims of Bribery and Extortion are governed by Federal and State Laws

And the Statute of Frauds.

48.The Defendants involved in this cause of action are all of the Defendants

      named in this action;

49.Plaintiff re-alleges all of the General Allegations and Allegations 1-20 from Count I, and adds;

50.  Plaintiff alleges that attorney Laurence Lebowitz attempted to bribe Judge

Rolando Acosta about a $1,300,000 contigent legal fee, a matter that was not before the court, by cultivating a personal relationship with the Jurist, by improperly meeting and communicating with said judge after attorney was discharged for cause, that said Judge was receptive  to these overtures and facilitated the illegal and wrongful agenda  by a) threatening Plaintiff with serious consequences if she did not agree to the contingent legal fee or abandon the malpractice cases; and b) encouraging the filing of pleadings by Mr. Lebowitz  after his termination, and disregarding Plaintiff's directive that he was discharged from the case,.  Moreover, Judge Acosta, on April 3, 2006,  allowed himself to be influenced by "evidence" that had not been authenticated much less entered into the record which Attorney Lebowitz introduced to discredit Plaintiff (his former client) an d induce the Judge to intervene in the contingent legal fee dispute and the planned malpractice case Jordan indicated she planned to file.  Judge Acosta accepted these invitations and subsequently had himself assigned as jurist to the Malpractice cases, both on trial and appeal, involving Attorney Lebowitz on no less than three occasions (where he had to recuse) and acted against Plaintiff's interests on each of these occasions.  Further, that Judge Acosta expressed an inordinate interest in the legal fee dispute after this "Ex Parte" meeting during which Plaintiff was threatened repeatedly. That opposing counsel participated in this scheme by aiding in the facilitation of Mr. Lebowitz presence on the case after his discharge and by filing a frivolous appeal, knowing that it would be reversed by either Judge Acosta (who was being promoted to that court) or Judge Lippman (who was leaving the First Department for NYCOA).

Upon information and belief,  the appointments of these and other  judges could not have occurred without the arms length manipulations of corporate attorneys who had a stake in the perpetuation of a corrupt system of favors.

51. Further, it is believed that a deal was entered into between Judge Acosta and Judge Lippman, and with the JCC, to immunize the jurist from investigation and censure, where opposing counsel played an arms length role,  by characterizing Plaintiff's bona fide claims as "baseless" without an independent investigation.   This in turn was used to dispose of Plaintiff's jury verdict, while Judge Acosta looked the other way, so that a favor could be dispensed to WPP Group and DBR, two entities positioned to aid Judge Lippman and Judge Acosta and the Lippman "Bates" panel in his future career plans.  And to advance Judge Lippmann's conservative Pro Employer agenda to make it more difficult to prove discrimination for victims of the same in NYS.   Judge Acosta was promoted within four days of the filing of the Decision by Judge Lippman that reversed the jury verdict on December 27^th, 2007.  Judge Lippman was promoted to Chief of NYCOA in December 2008, after having held the position of Chief Judge of the First Department for only six months.

52..That a  second deal was arranged whereby Judge Friedman, in NYSSC, would fix all of the malpractice cases, so the attorneys who aided in the cover ups would be protected and there would be no loose ends, in her decision of July 2008.  This was despite the First Department's Order placing blame on the attorneys.  Judge Friedman was advanced to Complex Litigation.

53. That a third deal on the Malpractice/Bates case was effected whereby Judges Catterson and Acosta would secretly issued dismissal of the appeals of said malpractice cases, when they were obligated to recuse, in order to perpetuate the cover up.  Judge Tom also participated in this scheme, along with the County Clerk, who failed to deliver a certified record upon which to appeal, where Jordan, known to be disabled with MS, but was denied enlargements of the record and time.

54. That every judge involved in the fixing of the Jordan v. Bates case was promoted within  a year of the scheme.

55. On the Jordan v. Verizon matter, it is believed that attorney Gary Phelan acted to advance the secret settlement deal, at the direction of Judge Shira Scheindlin, in order to cultivate future IOU's with the District Court and Paul Hastings  (future referrals from PH were openly discussed during Plaintiffs deposition), and David Fish promised a quick $10K without any risk of a protracted jury trial.   The trial court's role was to intercede in the stalled settlement negotiation, to enforce the wrongful threats of opposing counsel of "litigation and sanctions" to create the duress necessary to overcome Plaintiff's strong resistance to the "deal" and Mr. Phelan's role was  to force her to relinquish her rights to a $31M case and ERISA rights by allowing critical discovery deadlines to lapse, portraying both this and the Bates case (each valued at $5M plus) as "trainwrecks" and to provide a "strategy analysis" of the case that predicted doom.  Judge Scheindlin was eager to do a deal with the large employer whereby she might secure a high level connection or reference in her future career, either through Paul Hastings or some other corporate law firm.  Both law firms were more than willing to oblige.

56.  Judge Scheindlin used her position as trial judge to schedule a surprise "status conference" when she knew Plaintiff was "ill", "confused" and without counsel (Mr. Fish having withdrawn on 7/12, two days before the "final deadline" imposed by Mr. Gage), ignore Plaintiff's repeated pleas for help with the "coercion", and manipulate the record to make it appear Jordan was represented.  She also directed all critical questions at the final conference to co-conspirator and opposing counsel Ken Gage.

57.  Judge Scheindlin was well aware that a $100K settlement offer on a $31M case was an attempt to defraud the disabled Plaintiff and that forcing Plaintiff to accept the "deal", saving Verizon millions in damages, was in fact a fraud.  She knew that the partially executed Settlement document had been stolen by Defense counsel Paul Hastings, Ken Gage.  She knew the laws on voluntary releases.  She knew that she had the power to grant a short stay

for Jordan to secure new counsel when it was revealed that her attorneys had misrepresented the deal to her and her rights.  De Minimus, the jurist saw an opportunity to remove a case from her docket that she did not want to try but did not want to self recuse either.   However, the amount of the "favor" granted to a large corporate violator is not one that can be overlooked or minimized.   This is especially true given the frauds that Judge Scheindlin perpetrated to gain the appellate court's approval of her deceptions.   She  manipulated the Orders and the Record to suppress the true facts of the matter.  She even looked the other way when a "Settlement" document that was not even page signed, had no "Exhibit A' appended to the same when it was recorded for the appeal.

58.These facts were all before the appellate courts, including the Second Circuit and Judge Daniels, all of whom claimed to perform "de novo" reviews.   However, the legal system works on a system of bribes ("favors") and extortion (use of judicial power to manipulate outcomes of cases). And despite the Rules on Judicial Conduct that require reporting of crimes by other judges, the reality is systematic cover ups and circling the wagons.The attorneys are the agents of these crimes.

59.It is indisputable that the token settlement went to pay the attorneys,  and that Plaintiff received no "consideration" for her forfeiture, even the token settlement terms that Verizon refused to honor a month after execution

of the agreement.   Why maintain appearances when you have what you schemed to secure?  The bottomline is that Plaintiff was forced to forfeit millions in damages and benefits in this "no legal representation" coerced deal.  This was a very large favor that was bestowed in Verizon.   The motives and actions of the Court cannot be ignored, even if the appellate courts put their imprimatur on this conspiracy.

60.  In sum, all of  the cases brought by all of the named defendant judges involved abuse of their discretionary powers of "sanction" and "censure" to suppress her complaints about their misconduct and to immunize themselves from disclosure and investigation.  In many instances, most markedly in the Verizon case,this power was deployed to coerce Plaintiff into taking action against her own interests and over her repeated objections.  These abuses removed the concept of free will and voluntary from the outcomes as Plaintiffs voice was stifled, and her real positions manipulated to conform to the ingoing schemes of the conspiratorial judges and attorneys.  The bribes ranged from docket reduction to promotion referrals to cover up of illegal conduct of a judge by another judge(s).

61.  Plaintiff was consequently irrevocably harmed by these frauds and lost 15 years of her life attempting to have the truth revealed in her pursuit of justice.  That Plaintiff who has MS suffered extreme physical

and emotional pain during this agonizing ruse, lost her career and economic status, was deprived of rightful benefits, lost two homes to finance her

      litigation costs.

      62. There is no better example of this system of extortion and bribes than the Lawsuit filed by Judge Kaye and Judge Lippman for increased judicial compensation.  These jurists used their positions to literally hold the Legislature and Governor hostage by threatening to shut down the judicial system (via innuendo) if these increases were not met, and by circumventing the judiciary by appealing to the needs of "Families and Children" to the Legislature . It  does not get more insidious than this.   The People of New York had to foot the bill for these unlawful activities, that were clearly

outside the sanctioned role of either judge and we seek full restitution of this wasted time and expense for New York tax payers.

COUNT V

RICO

ORGANIZED CRIME BY JUDICIARY OFNEW YORK

AND CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD PLAINTIFF OF PENSION/RETIREMENT FUND

63..This is an action for damages in excess of $75,000.

64.The jurisdiction for this action is based in part upon diversity of citizenship, and partly upon federal law and US Codes, and complex litigation with multiple parties.

65.Plaintiff is domiciled in New York, New York.

66..Defendants are mostly domiciled in New York, New York, and Albany NY.

67.The claims of Organized Crime and Pension Fraud are governed by Federal Laws and by the Statute of Frauds.

68.The Defendants involved in this cause of action are all of the Defendants named in this action;

69.Plaintiff re-alleges all of the General Allegations and Allegations 1-20 from Count I, and adds;

70.Plaintiff alleges that all of the named defendant judges have transformed the Judiciaryinto an organized crime operation instead of an instrument of administration of justice.   As attested to by countless complaints sworn to at the Public Hearings before the New York State Senate Judicary Committee, widespread corruption of New York Court's has occurred, with witness intimidation/tampering, tampering with evidence, disregard of the Rule of Law, abuse of their discretionary powers of "sanction" and "censure" to suppress complaints about their misconduct and to immunize themselves from disclosure and investigation.  These abuses have transformed NY Courts into a "culture of corruption" where judges cover up for judges who violate the Rules and Law, attorneys act as their agents, and the most egregious offenses rewarded with promotions, pay raises, and other economic or status elevation renumeration.  Any attorney who did not play ball" was blacklisted' as was any plaintiff who objected to the scheme.

71 This systematic corruption requires a major mandate for investigation, sanction, impeachment and reform.

72.Plaintiff has personally witnessed, and been victim to, the fixing of at least three cases in federal and state court.   In these matters, the Judiciary acted to "circle the wagons" around the victim (Plaintiff) of the crime, and enable and exculpate the perpetrator of the same (Defendant Corporations ), using corporation counsel as armslength agents.    This was not just revictimization of a defenseless litigant, but a wholesale brazen willflul violation of the oaths these judges took when the public entrusted them in office.  And in each instance described in the General Allegations above, additional frauds were required to perpetuate the original deception and circumvention of the Laws.

73.  No regulatory body or appellate review panel ever interceded to stop this outrageous long term scheme,  instead dispensing favor after favor and in turn commiting further violations of the Rules and Laws.

74.  In one instance, Plaintiff personally was induced through fraud to surrender her meager Pension and Retirement savings, a violation of USC 664.

             75..Plaintiff was also witness to bribery of judges who sat on cases with large

                  Liabilities for the employers.   She herself was subjected to coercion and

Bribery but more serioiusly she witnessed an attorney bribe a judge (USC 201)  on the Bates case (Attorney Lebowitz with Judge Acosta, vis a vis a $1.3M legal fee; Judge Lippman bribe Judge Acosta to "Fix" the case by wrongfully attacking Plaintiff in a final judgment; Attorney Ken Gage bribes attorneys Phelan &  Fish with promises of "referrals" if they persuaded Plaintiff to accept the token settlement, and withdraw after threats were made, leaving Plaintiff to execute a Legal Document pro se; Judge Friedman was obviously promised certain benefits if she dispensed with three malpractice cases knowing that the First Department had already decided the attorneys made "fatal errors", and Judge Rolando Acosta who again appeared on appeals and manipulated his colleagues to dispose of the malpractice appeal

undoubtedly with the specter of future promotions, referrals and premium cases promised.

75.  This system of organized crime has replaced our system of justice,  as was repeatedly attested to over the Public Hearings of 2009,  and the taxpayers demand restitution.

COUNT VI

VIOLATION OF ADA AND TITLE VII

AND SYSTEMATIC DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PRO SE LITIGANTS

77..This is an action for damages in excess of $75,000.

78.The jurisdiction for this action is based in part upon diversity of citizenship,

and partly upon federal law and US Codes, and complex litigation with multiple parties.

79.Plaintiff is domiciled in New York, New York.

80..Defendants are mostly domiciled in New York, New York, and Albany NY.

81.The claims of Discrimination (Disability and Gender) are governed by Fedearl and State Anti Discrimination Laws.

82..The Defendants involved in this cause of action are all of the Defendants named in this action;

83.Plaintiff re-alleges all of the General Allegations and Allegations 1-20 from Count I, and adds;

84. It is a widely known fact that judges do not like to try discrimination cases

especially disability discrimination cases, and it is also widely known that

Pro Se litigants are systematically discriminated against by the Judicial System (even the Rules are inherently discriminatory).

85.Plaintiff alleges here that part of the motive to fix her discrimination cases

was to accommodate this judicial bias instead of accommodating her as the ADA requires.   Moreover, as a female in the legal sytem (See Florida Supreme Court Report on Gender Bias in Judicial System) Plaintiff's rights were systematically degraded and dismissed.   The most egregrious offender was former Human Rights Commission judge Rolando Acosta, who literally orchestrated an organized campaign to isolate and humiliate her, even before the overture by Lebowitz about the $1.3M legal fee was made.   These biases were also evident with Judge Scheindlin who treated Plaintiff, a former EVP executive, like an outcast who systematically needed to be silenced and disposed of.   Judge Friedman found Jordan's disability annoying as well.

The First Department revealed in their embarrassing December 27^th 2007 decision to reverse the jury verdict how little they knew about or appreciated discrimination against a disabled female, especially in the "for profit" world.

Their Opinion read like a law student paper out of the 1960's and literally embraced "blame the victim" theories.   Further, their bias in favor of Corporate America blinded them to the obvious facts of discrimination including their own sworn admissions of guilt.   Whether this was out of ignorance or greed or both will only be revealed after proper investigations made.  Judge Rakoffs early decision to dismiss this case "without prejudice" when he did not want to try it, and when he knew the issue of "layoffs" was a triable issue of fact, not to mention the most popular pretext deployed by  Errant employers, was simply shameful and led to Plaintff's heartbreaking  and agonizing 15 years of time inside Judicial Prison.

86.Plaintiff has been irrevocably harmed as asserted above and seeks full restitution.

87.Plaintiff also seeks a review of all discrimination cases that have been reversed upon appeal, or dismissed with triable issues of fact and restitution to others who suffered similar fates.

88.Plaintiff calls for the resignations of all jurors involved in a "case fixing" scheme especially those named in this lawsuit.

COUNT VII

CONVERSION

89.This is an action for damages in excess of $75,000.

90.The jurisdiction for this action is based in part upon diversity of citizenship,

and partly upon federal law and US Codes, and complex litigation with multiple parties.

91.Plaintiff is domiciled in New York, New York.

92.Defendants are mostly domiciled in New York, New York, and Albany NY.

93.The claims of Bribery and Extortion are governed by Federal and State Laws

And the Statute of Frauds.

94.The Defendants involved in this cause of action are all of the Defendants

      named in this action;

95.Plaintiff re-alleges all of the General Allegations and Allegations 1-20 from Count I, and adds;

            96. Plaintiff alleges that a $3.3M bond was posted on the Bates case, and that

                  a $1.3M legal fee was in dispute.

            97.  Plaintiff further alleges that Judge Acosta was approached by Mr. Lebowitz

                   For his assistance in securing the full contigent legal fee,which he knew

                   Plaintiff would fight him on having just fired him for cause.  A deal was

                   Struck.

98.    Plaintiff's complaints about the jurist posed a risk to the deal and to the

Imminent promotion of Judge Acosta.   The Final Judgment was intended

To dispose of Jordan's complaints by discrediting her, but Judge Acosta;s attack summoned on Jordan to question Jordan as a witness, despite the fact that the entire matter occurred a year and a half later.   Judge Lippman

Used the Acosta attack to reverse the jury verdict, which Judge Acosta had

clearly thrown making a decision to protect his own future ambitions, and

disband the deal with Lebowitz.

99.    However, there was still a $3.3M bond that Jordan believed to be in place right up until this week ( it was secretly dissolved via motion  a year ago with a new judge who never contacted Jordan).   Thus, the funds ID'd to renumerate Jordan for the discrimination that Bates admitted under aoth occurred suddenly evaparorated, and was converted back to violator WPP's coffers.

100.

This was a well orchestrated fraud and the fact that three of the judges involved in fixing the case were promoted within a year's period of the action (Judge Acosta was promoted to First Department judge  in December 2007, FOUR DAYS after the case reversal was announcedwith a large salary increase;Judge Gonzales (on the panel) was promoted to Chief of First Department; and Judge Lippman was promoted to Chief of NYCOA in December 2008)

As they say in all frauds "follow the money trail".   This reversal of the Bates case, when the most conservative position would have been remand for retrial was clearly a fixed case and the funds reverted to WPP's coffers would be used in part to advance these jurists careers, while keeping WPP's reputation intact.  At least that was the scheme.

101.

In the Verizon matter, a case valued similarly to Bates in terms of liability (most estimates valued it higher because of the damage that was inflicted), Judge Schiendlin fixed the Jordan v. Verizon case by forcing a token settlement, saving Verizon at least $5-7M.    However, because it was coerced and Jordan, who had MS, was denied counsel, it became clear very quickly that this too was a fixed case.   Of significance was the role of Plaintiff counsel Gary Phelan who refused to conduct or compel discovery, letting key deadlines lapse.  Verizon counsel then simply threatened Jordan with "litigation and sanctions".  When Jordan contacted Verizon GC and asked for his help, after Gage literally stole the settlement document, to advise him that she did NOT want to go forward, and the deal was still consummated, but with "issues" around the fraud, Judge Scheindlin had to intervene in the settlement and issue some heavy threats of her own to protect the deal.  Needless to say, there were some serious favors promised and given the blatant flaunting by Judge Scheindlin, probably some cash under the table as well.   Only a criminal investigation would prove the latter.

Either way, Jordan's claim was converted into cash for the attorneys ($100K) and large IOU's for the trial court from one of the largest NY employers with DC connections.

102a. That Judge Lippman and judge Kaye also unlawfully ordered a secret judicial slush fund to pay for judicial pay raises via "stipends" of $10K per judge, or $140M, converting taxpayer funds to their own unlawful purposes.

COUNT VII

VIOLATION OF NY JUDICIAL CODE OF CONDUCT

(INCLUDING ARTICLE 4; 90)

22 NYCRR PART 100; 22 NYCRR PART 1200

103This is an action for damages in excess of $75,000.

104.The jurisdiction for this action is based in part upon diversity of citizenship,

and partly upon federal law and US Codes, and complex litigation with multiple parties.

105.Plaintiff is domiciled in New York, New York.

106Defendants are mostly domiciled in New York, New York, and Albany NY.

107.The claims of Violations of the Rules of Judicial Conduct and Professional Conduct are governed by Judiciary Law.

108.The Defendants involved in this cause of action are all of the Defendants named in this action;

109. Plaintiff re-alleges all of the General Allegations and Allegations 1-20Count I, and adds;

All of the Judges involved have commited numerous violations of judicial conduct which require impartial administration of justice, equitable and fair dispensation of the Laws of New York (not legislating new laws or circumventing

accepted procedures to avoid compliance, or to propound an agenda), compliance with the Rules of Evidence and Rules of Law, appropriate legal precedent, recusal when unable to render an impartial decision (not retaliation), judicial restrain;

use of sanctions sparingly and for serious offenses, not to silence critics or compaints, and failure to report peer misconduct which all of the judges named here as defendants are guilty of.   Obviously "Case fixing" is not just a violation of the Rules but of the Laws of New York, as are evidence tampering and witness intimidation.

110. All of the attorneys named hear who acted as accessories or agents to these crimes and whom failed to report them when they witnessed the same re guilty of violating the Professional Rules of Conduct.  Mr. Lebowitz, Mr. Phelan and Mr. Fish and Mr. Homer, Beshada and Mr. Gage are all guilty of case fixing and filing false documents and frivolous pleadings at great cost to taxpayers (Mr. Homer also cheated during discovery when required to disclose the corporate relationships between AC&R and Bates Advertising, a matter that was only recently disclosed with the Bond, but which led to the wrongful dismissal of the Failure to Promote cause of action which lacked supporting evidence, that DBR claimed did not exist as Plaintiff was "not an employee of Bates Advertising", another lie).   This may come as a shock to the legal community who have come to accept manipulation and outright deception as part of a male dominated "win at all costs" culture.   Mr. Homer knew that he was filing a frivolous appeal as well.  He had already agreed to the jury instructions rendering the entire exercise moot, and it was his decision to try the case and not settle it even after his clients admitted in their federal depositions to knowing about the hazing and taking no remedial action.

111.For Mr. Gage, not only did he cheat Plaintiff out of discovery (with Mr. Phelan's assistance), he held "Ex Parte" meetings with the Court when Plaintiff was not present to defend herself, and he and Phelan conspired to force the case into settlement.  His act to steal the partially executed "Settlement Agreement" was clearly evidence tampering and his threats of "litigation and santions" coercion.

112. However it was the trial court that should have put a stop to it and instead was cheering the lawyers on behind the scenes.  And the appellate courts who should have noticed, in their de novo review, that these schemes were in play,

instead they became part of the vast cover up.

113.          Most seriously, the Commission on Judicial Conduct failed to investigate these crimes having full knowledge of the same (all complaints are now posted on Judgewatch.com).  Not one judge or appellate judge was even warned much less sanctioned or impeached, and we now seek to undue that harm by petitioning this action from this Court for the same and dissolving the JCC as an effete failure.

COUNT VIII

Denial of  Right to Due Process- Legal Representation, Pro Se Representation,

Right to Appeal, Right to Jury Trial

114.This is an action for damages in excess of $75,000.

115.The jurisdiction for this action is based in part upon diversity of citizenship,

and partly upon federal law and US Codes, and complex litigation with multiple parties.

116. Plaintiff is domiciled in New York, New York.

117. Defendants are mostly domiciled in New York, New York, and Albany NY.

118. The claims of Right to Due Process. Legal Representation, Right to Self Representation, and Right to Jury Trial and Appeal are governed by Constitution and First Amendment.

119. The Defendants involved in this cause of action are all of the Defendant Judges named in this action;

,           120.  Throughout the two main discrimination cases that were "fixed" by Judges

Shira S. Scheindlin and Judge Rolando Acosta, with the sole intention of precluding her from having a bona fide trial on the merits, and if necessary (because of her adversary) appeal of the same, Plaintiff has been subjected to an endless barrage of gender and disability laced venomous attacks, false allegations and name calling.   She has alternatively been accused of "firing all (nine of) her lawyers" (DBR.  A knowingly false statement accepted by the biased courts.  Jordan fired only one of her Bates attorneys: Laurence Lebowitz, for cause.  The latter was proven to be justified by the Appellate Divisions' incriminating Decision of 12/27/07).   In fact, in virtually almost all circumstances where Plaintiff entered litigation with counsel but that relationship was severed, it was by the attorney and almost always for monetary reasons.   The Courts simply do not appreciate the costs of litigation and why 95% of litigants cannot afford to write out a $100,000 check to defend themselves in Court.   Moreover, a Plaintiff like Jordan, who was deemed able to read a legalese filled "Settlement Agreement" (Verizon matter) was ridiculed for appearing in Court on simple motions Pro Se.   In fact, Plaintiff who had constraints like most litigants knew when she needed expert legal advice and knew when she could go it alone.   As a former EVP who aided senior management of companies with complex strategy issues, the Courts should have given her the benefit of the doubt.  Instead a barrage of "Pro Se" biases emerged in which Plaintiff's right to due process was almost always compromised or dissembled.     Along with the libelous Acosta Decision, every jurist who saw a pleading would pre-judge her claims and it was apparent that her right to due process was being systematically disregarded.  Instead of bestowing the same professionalism and courtesy given to their male peers, Plaintiff found herself frequently subjected to group ridicule and judicial bias.   The latest decision to deny Plaintiff's right to have the Malpractice case appeals heard, is a continuation of this bias fueled by the misogyny of Judge Acosta.   However, even in the civil Southern District, the undertone of contempt is pervasive.   Here it belongs to the fallacy that all peer judges are always correct and always operate in the interests of justice, despite massive evidence otherwise.

121. It is  not secret that judges do not wish to try Pro Se cases.  But it is not for the extremely exaggerated position that Pro Se litigants do not know what they are doing, even former Fortune 100 executives who make twice what they do.  It is exactly the opposite: It is the fear that attorneys could be easily replaced.    It is also the fear by judges that "fix" cases that they will be found out, and here their fears are well placed.  It is well recognized that attorneys will not report judicial conduct for fear of retaliation.

Pro Se litigants do not have this fear or liability, so they represent real threats to the abuse of judicial power that is destroying our judicial system today.

122. Nonetheless, Pro Se litigants are entitled to file cases and entitled to be treated with respect and professionalism.  Like everything else in life, the superior judges grant this respect and the insecure and inferior judges do not.  But here we are talking about the wholesale dismissal of bona fide cases, sometimes under the pretext of "case overload", a very dangerous concept, but even more seriously, dismissal of politically incorrect cases, especially where cases involve judicial misconduct or fraud.  Thus, we have a serious potential for class action fraud operative here.   Corrupt judges must be impeached.   To not remove them from office would encourage the majority to disregard every precept ever held.

123.  Plaintiff  has repeatedly had bona fide cases dismissed prior to trial(Verizon was fixed as a "settlement"), and cases won in bona fide trials thrown out on frivolous appeals (Bates Lippman Decision of 12/27/07).   However, we are talking FRAUD here and no amount of legalese is going to sustain that.

124.Plaintiff has also had her right to appeal denied.  This is unthinkable and has been masked under "technical" reasons.   And she has had appeals "heard" like the Lippman decision, which were clearly prejudged.  But again we are talking about FRAUD.  No one can say "just this once" and not realize what they are doing and the precedent it sets.    Clearly, the right to have legal advice during a Settlement is essential. Only a judge with an ulterior motive would deny such a petition, or pretend that the situation were otherwise.

125. Plaintiff seeks full restitution for the refusal to allow her time to secure counsel for the Verizon settlement, and the lack of a coercion free negotiation.  Conversely she seeks to reverse the disturbing of a bona fide jury verdict on the Bates matter unless the Court decides that Remand for retrial is the appropriate remedy.   Nonetheless the Court's decision to obstruct justice out of some hidden agenda on these cases is something that the Attorney General will not be inclined to ignore even if this Court does.

                                                                                    COUNT IX

LIBEL AND SLANDER

BY A JUDGE

126. This is an action for damages in excess of $75,000.

127The jurisdiction for this action is based in part upon diversity of citizenship,

and partly upon federal law and US Codes, and complex litigation with multiple parties.

128.Plaintiff is domiciled in New York, New York.

129.Defendants are mostly domiciled in New York, New York, and Albany NY.

130..The claims of Libel and Slander by a Judge are directed against Judge Rolando Acosta, who undertook a vindictive personnel campaign to destroy Plaintiff's reputation after she confronted him with his improper activities with attorney Laurence Lebowitz.  Judge Acosta, viciously attacked Plaintiff personally in his Final Judgment in November 2006, in retaliation for her complaints against him and for her refusal to award same attorney $1,300,000 in contingent legal fees.   Judge Acosta had previously upheld the jury verdict in February 2006 and the tone of the Decision (which was withheld from the Appeals Court) was factual and impartial.   However, after the Ex Parte meeting between Judge Acosta and Mr. Lebowtz, which resulted in threats being made to Plaintiff, the jurist embarked on a tirade of false allegations, paraphrased statements and selective evidence, all of which he included in his "Final Judgment"even after he had been recused.  Moreover, and this is where he committed clearly extra judicial acts, the jurist leaked innumerable stories to the press and on websites like Court Central beginning in August 2006, around the time he was being asked to recuse and when Jordan had initiated a Complaint to the JCC.   Judge Acosta also leaked stories spun to his advantage to the Law Journal and internally to the clerks and other legal personnel.   These events occurred long before the Appellate Division adopted his unsworn denials of "baseless allegations".

131.Plaintiff was so distraught and damaged by the attacks, and by the Appellate Division's adoption of the same, that she submitted to a voluntary polygraph, appended to her recusal motions (see Exhibit   ).

132. Over  the years, this false and libelous document has been cited by every attorney on the east coast with the intention of discrediting her.  Plaintiff has never been able to overcome the damage that was willfully inflicted by this vindictive jurist, who knowingly colluded to fix her case to advance his own career interests.

133. Plaintiff seeks full restitution of all damages plus interest and triple punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Kathryn Jordan preys for judgment against Defendants

Named above, including the General Counsels of the original defendant corporations who knew about the schemes and directed and paid for the same with shareholder funds;  Plaintiff and the People of New York now seek the following remedies:

Impeachment proceedings against all of the judges for their violations of the Rules and public trust, and for their violations of NY Law named above;
Investigation into the role of the attorneys as agents of the frauds;
Removal of Judge Lippman and Judge Kaye from their leadership positions

And barring them from ever acting as a judge in NYS again;

Dismissal of all cases filed on judicial compensation by Kaye/Lippman

And replacement of the same with a Special Commission to investigate

this issue empowered by the State Senate;

Vacating all orders issued by any of the named Defendants on any "fixed"

Cased including but not limited to "Kathryn Jordan v. Bates Advertising",

"Kathryn Jordan v. Verizon Communications", and the malpractice cases.

            Remand of these cases for trial/or settlement with legal representation during

             Negotiation;

Restitution of all damages incurred by Plaintiff for the last 15 years in all categories of harm.
Restitution of all taxpayer funds wrongfully collected in the pursuit of fixed cases.
Disbarments of all named attorney defendants.
Appointment of a Commission to Enact new Regulatory Legislation for the

Judiciary and dissolution of the JCC.

Replacement of leadership of County Clerk and review of all policies and

Procedures with caseloads in mind.

Appointment of  a new Judicial Reform Commission to examine the current judiciary and all obstacles to timely disposition of justice and to  deliver a proposed Judicial Reform Act of 2010 to Senator John Sampson by year end.

      12.  Double Punitive Damages for the willful nature of these crimes

WHEREFORE the taxpayers of New York  who have suffered irreparable harm, demand relief, and Plaintiff demands relief from her now 15 year ordeal, we pray for this Court's timely  adjudication of this matter.

Respectfully Submitted:

___________________

Kathryn Jordan,

PLAINTIFF
954 Lexington Avenue

#502

New York NY 10021

917 5964617

Cc: Attorney General Andrew Cuomo

       Senator John Sampson, New York Senate Judiciary Committee Chair



____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.enddiscriminationnow.com/

Bill and Petition for Judicial Impeachment

BILL FOR IMPEACHMENT OF CHIEF JUDGE JONATHAN LIPPMAN

FROM THE NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS and JUDGE JUDITH KAYE

AS CHAIR OF THE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL NOMINATION; AND FOR ALL THEIR JUDICIAL AND CLERICAL ACCOMPLICES(see USDC Complaint 09 CV 10616);  FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE SHIRA S. SCHEINDLIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, AND HER JUDICIAL AND CLERICAL ACCOMPLICES (See Complaint); FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AS GRAND ENABLBER (ATTN: JUDGE RALPH WINTER); AND FOR THE REMOVAL OF JUDGE KLONICK AND ROBERT TEMBECKJIAN AS DIRECTORS OF THE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT, for completely, knowingly and willfully failing to uphold its STATE CHARTER,  AND for DISSOLUTION OF THIS CORRUPT AND FAILED REGULATORY ENTITY ; FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK, NORMAN GOODMAN et al; and finally the AGENTS OF this GRAND CONSPIRACY: LAW FIRMS DRINKER BIDDLE REATH, PAUL HASTINGS, OUTTEN & GOLDEN, DAVID M. FISH/ROSEN LEFF, AND LAURENCE LEBOWITZ/KLEIN ZELLMAN.

"Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to come a law unto himself. It invites anarchy. (United States v. Olmstead, 277 U.S. 438 (1928).

We, The People, of the State of New York, hereby demand that Judge Jonathan Lippman, formerly Chief Judge Of the First Department Appellate Division, appointed to that position by Chief Judge Judith Kaye, and appointed by Governor David Patterson in January 2008 to Chief Judge for the New York Court of Appeals, and Judge Shira S. Scheindlin, Federal Judge of the Southern District of New York, and all their co-conspiratorial colleagues in the appellate courts, along with New York Supreme Court Judge Marcy Friedman,  be impeached and removed from office for crimes of grand treason, obstruction of justice, conspiracy to defraud (Plaintiff,  New York Taxpayers and the US Government), for their role in transforming the Judicial System into a Criminal Enterprise (Title 42 USC 1961) and by using the very Rules of Judicial Conduct 22 NYCRR Part 100, and Judiciary Law, they were bound contractually to abide by,  to immunize themselves against their own malfeasance, and by acting outside their sanctioned roles as agents of public trust and circumventing the Rules of Evidence, Rule of Law and  the Rules of New York and relevant federal Statutes, AND by unlawfully converting New York taxpayer funds to support these unlawful enterprises and the expense of these litigations which were deployed to create "IOU's" that could be monetized and then converted into judicial advancements (promotions, appointments, referrals et al) and/ or enhanced judicial compensation.   We the People demand that the judicial leaders, who have spearheaded a decade of corruption and degraded the image of the Judiciary, by replacing the time honored and respected profession of the impartial Trier of fact, with an era of elitist, activist "jealous" judges, obsessed with power, money, and social advancement in the business world, along with notoriety, and endowed with a sense of unlimited entitlement to abuse of their powers for any purpose that suited these agendas.  We The People charge Judge Shira Scheindlin, a once esteemed federal judge, with intervening  in a settlement of a case, a scheme she contrived in concert with attorneys Gary Phelan and Ken Gage to bestow a favor upon defendant Verizon Corporation (with the aid of General Counsel),  acting outside her sanctioned legal role, to coerce and force a disabled litigant into "agreeing" to completely unfavorable and undisclosed terms of a "deal" to forfeit her right to a jury trial under the threat of "litigation and sanctions".  We also charge her with manipulation of evidence to perpetuate a false impression of the facts of the matter, and with using her power and authority to threaten Plaintiff and to misrepresent Plaintiff's legal rights, options, and choices.  We The People also charge four other federal judges named above as co-conspirators, all of whom knew the Plaintiff, a victim of disability discrimination, suffered from MS, with enabling a cover up of this conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff of her rights, in order to dispense a favor to a large powerful employer Verizon Communications, who had repeatedly discriminated against the disabled, in order to cull large future "favors" from the same.   We charge the Second Circuit, who claimed to have performed a de novo review, with the highest crime of all, and having the power and authority to overturn a blatant abuse of judicial power and discretion, and an obligation to report the same (as required by the Rules), yet choosing instead of perpetuate a grand seven year fraud and conspiracy to cover up those frauds deploying judicial power, and to later vett the case and evidence of the same from the docket.

We The People charge former Supreme Court Judge Rolando Acosta, a once highly regarded Human Rights jurist, with setting up the Jordan v. Bates disability discrimination case to be "fixed" for jury nullification, and with violating the Rules of Judicial Conduct by allowing himself to  be improperly influenced about a large contingent legal fee by a discharged attorney and for attacking Plaintiff as "contemptuous",  and for obstructing justice by signaling his accession to the scheme to defraud Plaintiff, giving Judge Lippman the opening he needed to challenge the solid jury verdict on appeal with the First Department, a favor which led to Acosta's promotion a month later, and Judge Lippman's subsequent promotion to Chief Judge a year later, all part of a well organized long planned scheme.  We also charge the "Nuclear" jurist with perpetuating a prolonged retaliation campaign against Plaintiff for reporting his improper "Ex Parte" conduct with her discharged attorney regarding the disputed $1.3M legal fee, a matter not before him, and his threats to "act (as a fact witness) against you"  and "be assigned the (malpractice) case". (Threats Judge Acosta carried out when he had himself assigned as jurist to the Malpractice case, and failed to self recuse).    We charge Robert Tembeckjian, Director of the JCC, with covering up, instead of investigating, Plaintiff's complaints against this jurist and against the appellate judges who enabled this scheme, after the JCC was advised of an elaborate obstruction of justice scheme by Acosta-Lippman-Kaye-Friedman, and later Kaye.   We charge Judge Lippman, and the First Department Panel who heard the Jordan v. Bates appeal (118785-99) who failed to report Judge Acosta's misconduct and violation of the Rules, with obstruction of justice (along with all the other defendant judges who were aware of the scheme), and who improperly adopted the unsworn denials of the jurist, without an impartial adjudication by a referee,  and with creating new "evidence" and "law" to justify disturbing a bona fide jury verdict, deviating outside his sworn oath to uphold the laws of the State of New York. We also charge Judge Acosta, his clerks and the attorneys involved, with obstructing an investigation and withholding facts and evidence and lying to investigators.  We charge him with acting outside his role as judge to release "spin" to the legal press and publish slanderous stories about Plaintiff on the internet. Finally, we charge him with fixing the appeal of the Malpractice case of defendant Laurence Lebowitz, and dismissing the bona fide appeal after improperly appearing on the case when he had an obligation to self recuse.  He only recused after issuing a Decision dismissing the appeal by Plaintiff, just as he had done in the Supreme Court after Plaintiff's allegation of misconduct.

We The People also charge Judge Lippman with abusing his authority as Chief Judge of the First Department, and using his influence with then Chief Judge Kaye of the Court of Appeals, and later acting Chief Judge Cirpatrick,  to deny Jordan's right to an appeal of the Kathryn Jordan v. Bates Advertising case, where inconsistencies in state law, on a matter of national importance, clearly met the criteria for review, instead allowing the improper reversal of the precedent Jordan v. Bates case to stand, in order to perpetrate the political agenda of rolling back 30 years of civil rights advances and issuing an Order that made it infinitely harder for victims of discrimination to prove the same, creating a gigantic loophole for employers to evade federal and state anti-discrimination laws.

We The People charge Judge Shira Scheindlin with "fixing" the Kathryn Jordan v. Verizon Communications case through the orchestrated of a planned, coerced settlement, to replace the elected "Trial by Jury", and those judges who aided in masking the duress and lack of representation that Plaintiff was subjected to, as she was forced under various threats to "agree" to their "deal", specifically Judge George P. Daniels, Magistrate Gorenstein, Judge Ronald Ellis, Judge Gerard Lynch, and finally the Second Circuit, all of whom claimed to conduct a "de novo" review but instead falsified facts and misapplied Laws to justify their colleagues "mistake" instead of reporting the same to the JCC.  And Judge Lynch for ignoring these relevant facts when Verizon predictably violated the meager terms of the token Settlement, and instead again doled out another "favor", with the aid of defense counsel Ken Gage of Paul Hastings.   And for not one of these jurists taking a stand "in the interests of justice" to stop a conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff of her rights as a disabled employee who had suffered a collapse at the hands of her employer after disclosure of her status and request for Accommodation.

We charge these four power crazed jurists, Judge Scheindlin, Judge Lippman, Kaye and Acosta, with trampling on the Rules, the Law and the Rules of Evidence to cultivate favor and advancement of their careers, and (for Bates) with converting Plaintiff's $3.3M Bond from the jury verdict into four promotions (Judge Gonzales was only on the panel and was made Chief Judge of First Department  months later) with promises of several large future favors, for their unconstitutional reversal of Plaintiff's jury decision and the re-writing of discrimination law to aid corporate violators. (The "fix" was proven as a willful fraud, as opposed to "error", when the case was not remanded for re-trial to remedy the alleged defects in evidence and law but dismissed outright, despite admissions of guilt by the employer.) and (for Verizon) for converting Plaintiff's ERISA and ADA rights as a disabled employee into a valueless piece of paper, and for monetizing the same into unspoken promises of judicial advancement, remuneration for the attorneys, and a large favor for the employer.

Lastly, the disposition of three legal Malpractice cases -- by Judge Acosta and Friedman at the NYSSC level and Judge Acosta (again), Catterson and Tom at the First Department-also to perpetuate the cover up) on the Bates case to eliminate "loose ends" and "favors" by fellow Southern District judge, to falsify records and facts to misrepresent the Record on Appeal.   With the highest appellate court, the Second Circuit, providing cover, by failing to perform a "de novo" review.

            We charge Judge Lippman and Judge Kaye with refusing to hear the most important discrimination case to be brought before the Court of Appeals in decades, instead hearing the "Bianca Jagger Eviction Case", and that this was an act of obstruction of justice and a conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff and the voters and  taxpayers of New York.

We The People allege that a plan was in place for succession, instigated by Elliot Spitzer, and executed by Governor Patterson, to appoint judges for advancement that had not been properly vetted to higher office, including the Chief Judge of the highest court of New York, knowing that these jurists had schemed to enable each other's advancement by covering up those on the path to advancement's violations of the Rules, and committing violations of their own in the process.

We the People charge each of the judicial defendants with abuse of the Rules of Judicial Conduct (22 USC Part 100 ) and inhibiting investigations of complaints of peer or personal misconduct, and using their roles as judges to suppress investigations into the same, or to manipulate or intimidate witnesses, the latter constituting violations of federal and state law, and using their authority as judges to tamper with or manipulate evidence.  Some of the Defendant Judges allowed, encouraged or enabled improper and "Ex Parte" attempts to influence the outcome of a trial or decision by granting improper access by attorneys, by using attorneys as "arms length" agents of frauds or by encouraging or signaling accession to overtures by attorneys, on behalf of their corporations/clients, to negotiate "deals" where cases or verdicts would be "fixed" to conform with the outcome sought by the judge or the "client", in return for which a "favor" of some kind would be dispensed by same judge, and the Defendant would agree to return said "favor" at some point in the future.  Some jurists would intentionally manipulate the Law of the Case, or the facts of the case, to put the law into question to ensure that the desired outcome would occur.  This is how our modern courts fix cases.  It is no longer money under the table.

It has evolved to a more sophisticated and subtle practice where the judicial authority itself is used as armor against allegations or investigations.

These covert practices would be followed by a cover up campaign to ensure that no related cases or appeals would be ever tried, or any witnesses called, as evidenced by these "test" cases.   As part of these case fixing deals, the judges involved deployed an arsenal of tactics ranging from coercion and censorship of witnesses, often via "sanctions" or unlawful threats of "sanctions", threats of retaliation and acts of the same, denying of civil rights to jury trial or appeal, denial of right to free speech, denial of right to legal representation, denial of right to self representation (where voluntarily chosen), denial or attenuation of discovery, denial of damages or full damages (where the trial judge "slips" in directing the jury or where evidence is misplaced), denial of expert witnesses, personal defamatory or libelous attacks by a jurist or agent attorney, tampering with or altering or selective representation of evidence to support the "scheme".   If allegations of misconduct were filed against the Judge, there would be an organized effort to suppress, manipulate or cease any investigation into the same by peer jurists (this is a widely adopted practice) by the appropriate regulatory body and to discredit the claimant by either the same investigative body or other jurists, often with the aid of attorneys who had vested interests in the outcome.  This came with the willful cooperation of the Commission on Judicial Conduct and other regulatory entities.

            The cases upon which this Petition for Impeachment of Judges and Dissolution

Of Regulatory Bodies is made are based upon three related discrimination cases filed by a single female disabled litigant, who despite suffering from Multiple Sclerosis, was forced to endure 15 years of litigation in an attempt to secure justice and undo the frauds,

Namely:

Kathryn Jordan .v Bates Advertising Et Al (118785-99)
Kathryn Jordan v. Verizon Communications (10144-cv-02)
Kathryn Jordan v. Laurence Lebowitz, Gary Phelan & Outten Golden, David Fish (600246;105183;601806/07), Malpractice cases related to the Bates matter.

As well as a case of fraud by two of the Chief Judges involved in the grand scheme to de fraud New York taxpayers, Judge Jonathan Lippman and Judge Judith Kaye, who for the last decade used taxpayer funds to perpetuate a grand scheme to extort "judicial pay raises" , first, by alleging false and grossly exaggerated facts or improper comparisons, or misapplied law and suing the Governor and Legislature.    The scheme here was to pay off various "IOU"s accumulated by judicial leaders while enriching themselves personally, and upon rejection of said scheme, to use judicial powers to effect secret stipends to achieve the same purpose:

Maron v. Silver (58 AD 3^rd 102)
Larabee v. Governor (4761-4761A)
Kaye v. Silver (400763/08)

            While these are only four cases, they constitute a high level representation of

how institutionalized corruption ("a culture of corruption") based on unrestrained and unchecked judicial authority has allowed, enabled and encouraged a virtual epidemic of widespread judicial criminality where the rules, law and facts are systematically circumvented to conform with the judicial bias or agenda and where the regulatory entities are "in on the game".  The latter represents the antithesis of what our judicial system is intended to be:  an impartial instrument of justice and a third branch of government that serves to enforce laws and restitute victims of injustice, while

punishing violators of the same.  The conclusion that the Legislature will arrive at,

after examining these facts, and the facts uncovered at the July 2009 New York State Senate Public Hearings, is that our Justice System is broken, and that it is being led by

judges who have, by their own Decisions and actions, admitted to flaunting the Rules of Judiciary Law, and the Laws of New York and the federal laws of the United States.

These are serious treasonous crimes.

            Corruption always starts at the top.   If the leaders are corrupt, there will always be corrupt implementers, as corrupt leaders will signal the legitimization of brazen flaunting and undermining of the good and acceptance of evil.  Evil becomes the practice and the policy, and is no longer questioned.  Corruption flourishes where there is no regulation.  This Bill-Petition calls for removal of corrupt leadership and corrupt and incompetent institutions like the Commission on Judicial Conduct. The leadership crisis is serious and has reached the highest levels of the judiciary.  On trial here are the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals and the Chief Judge of the First Department, and several Federal judges, as well as the Second Circuit, one of our countries most esteemed appellate review bodies, or at least historically one. But also on trial are the ethics and standards that we have come to accept over the years as burgeoning caseloads have made it more acceptable to deviate from time accepted practices for ethical impartial dispensation of justice.   Our Rules and Laws contain many loopholes that allow and encourage corruption.   And because they have been drafted by the very entities that have benefited from them, the jurists and lawyers who run our corrupt legal system, and because they have never incorporated the input of the most important stakeholder, the taxpayer and voters of New York who use the legal system, the latter eyewitnesses to the corruption, the system itself has served to perpetuate the schemes and ensure that the cover-ups are legitimized.

Public Hearings Confirm Widespread Corruption

            There will be a temptation to re-characterize these four "test" cases to discount or discredit their import as a microcosm of a larger more disturbing trend, but there is substantial evidence that they are far from exceptions to the otherwise excellent execution of our state and nation's laws.   This past summer the New York Senate Judiciary Committee held public hearings and the results were astounding:  Virtually every deponent who testified attested to some version of the same scenario where systematic deviation of the Rules and Laws were deployed and sanctioned by higher courts and regulatory bodies.  Further, many of the same names, and one in particular, were repeated over and over again: Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman and JCC Chair Robert Tembeckjian.

Further reason for the call for Judge Lippman's Impeachment, from an office that he would otherwise hold for the next 14 years, is that Judge Lippman is not qualified for the Office, was not vetted, and has proven himself capable of doing great harm to the constituency that he serves.

We The People accuse the judicial leaders of grand treason and betrayal of the oaths of office that they took to enforce the Laws of New York and relevant federal statutes and to protect the rights of all New York residents and enforce the Federal and State Laws.

Lastly, we charge the attorneys with violation of their oaths of New York Professional Conduct, and acting as agents of these conspiracies.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A.Obstruction of Justice:

Obstruction of Justice is by definition "interference with the orderly administration of law and justice" and may be comprised of a "medley of crimes", but is generally governed by 18 USC Sections 1501-1520.  It was originally devised to protect "individuals involved in federal judicial proceedings and prevent "miscarriages of justice by corrupt methods".   It specifically seeks to "ensure that criminals cannot circumvent the laws purpose by devising novel and creative schemes that would interfere in the administration of justice but would nonetheless fall outside the scope of `1503's specific prohibitions".  The Omnibus provision was intended to protect judges and officers of court from threats, intimidation, and retaliation, and "attempted bribery" to alter the outcome of a proceding.

Included in this provision are attempts to influence a judge, a witness, or tamper with evidence.  Because judges are presumed to be honest and abiding with the Rules of Judicial Conduct, they are granted broad immunity.

            It is the predicate of this Bill that "times have changed" and that underpaid, overworked judges who have virtually unlimited power to manipulate cases and intimidate witnesses have altered the paradigm to such a degree that we now must view the judge as the possible offender.   Most judges are impeached when they attempt to interfere with investigations of their conduct in some way (see examples appended).

However, based on the evidence introduced at the public hearings, and the facts documented about the four case studies herein, the Legislature has a burden to go back and examine those Rules and Statutes to accommodate the reality of today's legal system.
The answer is not, as proposed by Judge Kaye and Chief Judge Lippman, in throwing money at judges and hoping to buy their "loyalty" as this obviously would create a bigger problem than exists at this time.   Rather, it requires strict interpretation and strengthening of Rules of Judicial Conduct and removing from office any judge who fails to meet them, even those who "offers the appearance of misconduct" by their own willful ethical lapses.

Of those judges who have actually crossed the line and "fixed" cases, the remedy must be impeachment as these judges have not only committed crimes, but their example will incite other judges to trample on the Judiciary Law as well.

            Further, any judge who had manipulated the outcome of a case, whether by altering evidence or law, and the consequence has been a monetary transfer that has benefited them, whether a promotion or raise or other "consideration", this judge has committed a felony against the US Government and New York Taxpayer and should be removed from office as well.  Unfortunately, we cannot trust the Judicial Conduct Commission to perform these investigations.  It is widely recognized that the JCC is an enabler of the higher level judges and only pursue "non political" complaints to justify

their status.  However, the demands for budget increases, and the failure to deliver commensurate results, can be considered a crime as well.

Case fixing is illegal and a form of obstruction of justice.

1. The Authority of the Appellate Court Upon Finding Evidentiary or Legal "Defects"Does Not Include Creating New Evidence, Law or Enabling Judicial Misconduct, or Dismissing Jury Verdicts without Appropriate Statutory Remedy

It is recognized here that the precept is that trial Judges are given a wide berth to render decisions of fact and law, and to interpret the same under the Judiciary Laws of New York.   The breadth of these powers were intended to not unnecessarily restrict the honorable jurist in his or her role as enforcer of the Laws of our State and Federal Statutes from acting as an "impartial trier of fact" and the agent of justice closest to the witnesses and evidence to determine whether it was possible for the jury to arrive at the verdict that it did.   The trial judge, and in the Bates case, Judge Rolando Acosta, also "interprets" the legal standard into jury instructions that translate the federal, state and city statutes into comprehensible guidelines for evaluation of case evidence.  The Jordan v. Bates case was the first "perceived disability" case to come before New York courts in many years, and Judge Acosta, who had come from the Human Rights Division, was intimately familiar with Discrimination Law.   The jury rendered a verdict in Plaintiff's favor on the wrongful discharge case, in the amount of $2.5M (a "split" verdict) and awarded legal fees, the hourly portion of which was before the Court (the contingent legal fee that the contentious decision references, and which Plaintiff was threatened about, of the $1.3M claim was not before the Court). The Failure to Promote claim was denied, after Plaintiff was not able to produce evidence of what transpired around the same (the latter is the subject of fraud by the defense attorneys at DBR who suppressed all evidence around EVP compensation and the search to fill that position, this being cited as only part of the role of the Fraud by the attorneys).   In Post Trial Motions, all of the issues raised in the appeal were tried and decided by the Trial Court.  These included "sufficiency of evidence", "alleged lack of evidence of pretext""demitterer", et al.  All were DENIED by the trial judge and an Opinion issued in February 2006 sustaining the verdict.  Between that time and November 2006, when the Final Judgment was issued, legal fee hearings were held.   The latter also involved allegations by Plaintiff, who had won the case, of misconduct between her discharged trial attorney and the judge, which involved the jurist's recusal in July 2006, but Judge Acosta still issued the Final Judgment attacking Plaintiff as "contemptuous" allegedly for disregarding a gag order.  It would be the latter dispute that would be used to discredit all of Plaintiff's testimony and the jury verdict after the First Department, upon receiving the otherwise frivolous appeal, determined without investigation, that Plaintiff's allegations against the trial court were "baseless" and that consequently she was a "liar".   The First Department also made other insightful observations including criticizing Jordan"not complain ..to anyone at AC&R about the inquiries about the use of the cane" even though it was aware that Plaintiff's harassers were her supervisors.

            Judge Lippman, Catterson, Gonzales, Friedman and Sullivan then used this artifice of the  nullification of Plaintiff's consistent and credible testimony, which had been weighed for credibility by the jury, and instead accepted at face value evidence rejected by the jury and the trial court of  employer Bates pretext of "financial reasons" as the excuse for firing Plaintiff and replacing her with "several" non disabled managers.

The panel also accepted the pretext that this was allegedly more "cost effective", despite any evidence to support this conclusion, and in face of direct evidence by the supervisor denying the same. (The employer also admitted to knowing of the hazing and failing to take any remedial action, normally direct evidence as well).  From this thin contrived façade, the Appellate Division then concluded that

"plaintiff presented no evidence of pretext, and so failed to controvert defendants' evidence of a legitimate non discriminatory reason for her termination".

Various other sworn statements by Plaintiff were intentionally misinterpreted by discrimination law standards, and some paraphrased, to create a new "story" that would justify the finding that "no jury could have reached the verdict in this case on any fair interpretation of the evidence.  Therefore the verdict was against the weight of the evidence" (White v. NYC Transit, 40 AD 3d 297 2007).  The First Department then found that the trial court should have GRANTED the motion to set aside the verdict, spending a full page or more on the issue of the alleged wisdom of the trial court in ordering "sanctions" against the disabled litigant and censoring her right to free speech. (The beauty of obstruction of justice is that the arguments are all circular and self reinforcing).   The First Department deemed the Plaintiff "obliged to comply with court's orders" and the allegations "baseless'" and the Court's unsworn self serving denials true.  Thus the era of the Fascist state of Judicial review was codified.

            Although the number of factual and legal errors that were made by the First Department in this reversal and dismissal of the Jury Verdict could fill a small library, and its adoption of the equally flawed legal standard of "Stephenson v. Hotel Employees", the latter which fails to provide for an opportunity for a victim of discrimination to prove what the "real reason" for the adverse employment action was, not just the proffered "legitimate reason" as provided by McDonnell Douglas tripartite standard  (issues raised on appeal to New York Court of Appeals), the fatal mistake of this ruse was determining that Plaintiff had no remedy.  In other words, the First Department should have remanded the issue of the "weight of the evidence" and "legal standard" to a new trial court, especially given the heavy reliance it placed upon evidence that was not before the jury (the trial judges' charge of "baseless" allegations by Plaintiff) and the fact that it essentially re-wrote discrimination law sua sponte.   The First Department did not order such remedy.  It just dismissed, and hence "Fixed" the Jordan v. Bates case.  There was no mention of "in the interests of justice" or statutory remedies or even the fact that the Court had essentially retried the entire case through the lens of discrimination bias.

            Further, after holding Plaintiff's attorney responsible for failing to enter certain evidence that was "fatal" to the case, the First Department then denied the appeal of Judge Friedman's improper dismissal of the Malpractice cases., even when there was no Certified Record upon which to file a Brief and when Plaintiff had requested an extension of time.   In sum, the First Department had killed the Plaintiff and was sealing the coffin.

            The Court of Appeals however had no excuse not to hear this appeal.  In fact, it had a statutory duty as there was no more important issue before it.   While most discrimination experts would instantly recognize the flaws in the First Department's legal argument, it is indisputable that even if Judge Lippman was correct about the legal standard (and Plaintiff's Briefs proved he was not), then adoption of the Stephenson case law required a new trial, and minimally there was now an "out of sync with standards adopted by other states outside New York," situation and even discordance within the State.   Incredibly thought this appeal was also DENIED.   The Bianca Jagger eviction case was deemed more "important".

There are many arguments as to why this entire process was statutorily deviant and why "due process" and "the interests of justice" were not served and why the Decision was inherently contradictory and contradictory with subsequent decisions on this matter..   However, in addition to the obvious "errors", the failure to remand for retrial being the least excusable, the Appellate Division exceeded its own narrow Rules for disturbing jury verdicts, and by its own declaration, did so in part because a disabled female  litigant who was being bullied by a trial judge, spoke up to defend herself.  And because the highly political and conservative First Department could not resist the opportunity to roll back civil rights advances.

Civil appeals are granted in most jurisdictions on only the slimmest of circumstances.

It was well recognized that appellate courts rarely tamper with trial judge decisions,

especially on civil matters.  The rate of reversal of jury verdicts is somewhere between

1-2%  and this is where there really was no factual basis for the jury to have ruled as it did. The First Department is known for exceeding the normal incidence of disturbing jury verdicts and "legislating from the bench".  However, even the First Department has rarely, if ever, altered a verdict and not sent the case back for re-trial.   More criminal cases are granted on appeal than civil, and the standards are still the same:

"the trier of fact has failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded, then the appellate court may set aside the verdict" (People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495)

But only with the time honored respect for the jury's role as trier of fact:

"this court should not readily interfere with verdicts of jurors who have had the advantage of seeing and hearing witnesses" in conducting the weight of the evidence analysis (People v.Crum id. at 357)

"Empowered with this unique factual review, intermediate appellate courts have been careful not to substitute themselves for the jury. Great deference is accorded to the fact-finder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony and observe demeanor. Without question the differences between what the jury does and what the appellate court does in weighing evidence are delicately nuanced, but differences there are" Gaimari (id.).[FN2]

However, there must be a legal remedy for disturbing a jury verdict, and it is not outright

dismissal even if the "verdict is against the weight of the evidence" (BlueBird Partners v.

First Fidelity, First Department No. 601365/19907).  If an appellate review finds that the

"motion to set aside the verdict should have been granted" then the First Department had

a legal burden to order the case "remanded for retrial".   It did not.   However, it is clear

that the Appellate Division failed to apply the correct legal standards and was so biased

by the Trial Court's outburst that it created new facts and new law, a fraud, to justify

throwing out the entire matter   However, a JNOV always requires that an "issue of law"

is decided, not issues of fact.

Here the First Department "erred"  by deciding issues of fact and converting them

into issues of law instead of remanding the case for retrial on the alleged "new law".

This clever deus ex machine still does not comply with the statutory obligations of "due

process".  This latter choice took the result out of the realm of "error" and into the realm

of "fraud", as the First Department incorporated evidence that was not before the jury,

and disregarded evidence that was before the jury.

            Recent decisions in the Disability Discrimination arena have only bolstered the

fact that Judge Lippman should not have  disturbed the verdict in the Jordan v. Bates

case:

Myers v. AT&T, 380 N.J. Super. 443 (App. Div. 2005)

In this disability discrimination case, the trial court found that the plaintiff, Lois Myers, did not have enough evidence of discrimination for a jury to even consider whether AT&T fired her because she was a survivor of ovarian cancer. The trial court dismissed Ms. Myers' case even though her immediate supervisor admitted she lowered Ms. Myers' performance rating because she perceived that, as a cancer survivor, Ms. Myers was not working as hard as her non-disabled coworker. It was also undisputed that AT&T selected Ms. Myers to be included in a mass layoff because of her lowered performance rating.

On appeal, Jonathan I. Nirenberg helped convince the Appellate Division that Ms. Myers was entitled to her day in court. In fact, the appeals court found that the admission by Ms. Myers' supervisor was "direct evidence" of discrimination, and therefore instead of Ms. Myers having to prove that AT&T fired her because of her disability, the company would had the burden to prove that it would have fired Ms. Myers even if she never had cancer.

The Myers decision is an extremely important since it makes it significantly easier for an employee to place the burden of proof on the employer in discrimination cases.

Padilla v. Berkeley Educational Services of New Jersey, Inc., 383 N.J. Super. 177 (App. Div. 2005)

Prior to the appeal, a jury had determined that Berkeley Educational Services of New Jersey had discriminated against its employee, Cely Padilla, because she waspregnant. However, due to an error in the jury verdict sheet, the trial judge did not permit allow the jury to award any damages to Ms. Padilla.

On appeal, Jonathan I. Nirenberg and Jamie I. Cash convinced New Jersey's Appellate Division to send the case back to the trial court so a jury could award Ms. Padilla damages for her lost wages and benefits, her emotional distress, and her attorney's fees. Importantly, the appellate court recognized that an employee does not need to have a doctor or expert witness testify to recover emotional distress under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

Entrot v. BASF Corp., 359 N.J. Super. 162 (App. Div. 2003)

Cindylu Entrot sued her former employer, BASF, for sexual harassment under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). Mrs. Entrot alleged that BASF forced her to leave her job due to the mental distress caused by the hostile work environment and sexually charged atmosphere created by one of her superiors.

In a first case of its kind in New Jersey, New Jersey's Appellate Division held that a "constructive discharge" (meaning a forced resignation) caused by the sexually harassing conduct of a supervisor is a "tangible employment action," and that as a result BASF was not able to argue that it had an effective anti-harassment policy as a defense to Mrs. Entrot's claims against it. This is significant because it eliminates a possible defense that a company might otherwise be able to raise in a constructive discharge case.

These recent rulings, along with Plaintiff's Briefs, and the known Federal, State and City

anti Discrimination laws, and the Appellate Standard of Review all support the fact that

Plaintiff's jury verdict was bona fide, and that the First Department should not have used

the outburst of the trial judge (a year and half after jury decision) as "evidence" of

anything.  If the law was incorrect the case should have been remanded for retrial.

Plaintiff has repeatedly argued that the jury decision was correct and that the Defendant's

failure to object to the jury instructions precluded any bona fide appeal.

            However, it is the pattern of obstruction of justice that is most disturbing  and relevant to the instant matter.   We see a trial judge accused of misconduct not being

investigated by the JCC (or investigated so poorly that his slander of Plaintiff as "contemptuous" was not automatically found a violation of the Rules), and his own

misconduct used to not only immunize him from investigation, but superiors in appellate review siding with the intemperate judge and again failing to order an investigation

of a very serious charge.  The latter failure, is by virtue of the Rules, a violation of the appellate jurists who are legally obligated to report any judicial misconduct.  Instead,

the First Department also used their authority and power to silence Appellant (just as the trial court had with the "sanctions") by calling her a "liar" and improperly taking the trial court at face value, even when his Final Judgment could have been interpreted as a "Guilty" plea.   We find the Appellate Courts not just adjudicating  evidence in this matter, but creating new evidence, and simply disregarding the inconvenient evidence that did not fit the ingoing bias (including the employer's sworn testimony that it knew of the hazing but took no remedial action).   Then we have the First Department adopting a new legal standard "Stephenson v. Hotel Employees", an obscure New York case that it

used to redefine the standard for proving pretext as long established by the US Supreme Court, even though the employer had already agreed to the legal standard upon which the case was tried when the jury instructions were adopted without objection.  SO what was going on here?  Did the First Department not realize that it was covering up misconduct?

Did it not know that the appeal was "moot" and that there was no legal issue to "redefine"?  Of course, it did.   This group of activist judges knew exactly what they were doing because they had done it before many times, but had never been caught.   Because the Commission Director is so incompetent that he does not realize when he is being snowed, and so eager to "help"  high level lawbreakers, no bona fide"investigation" was made despite this Plaintiff's providing a virtual roadmap of law and witnesses.

The devil is usually in the details.   When it comes to judicial conduct, the "Rules" are written so that wide loopholes are given if the investigator takes the "get out of Jail card" excuse of "it's a legal issue", "it's an appellate issue", etc.

            Like all good conspiracies this required a "closed system" where no evidence would be discovered or witnesses allowed to testify.   So when the time came when the case went before the New York Court of Appeals, Judge Kaye was more than happy to help her friend Judge Lippman out of another "jam".   And Judge Lippman was ready with promises of future glory for Judge Kaye.  So the most important disability discrimination case of this decade was not heard by the State's highest court.

While all this was going on, we had Judge Marcy Friedman playing "defense" and making sure that all of the Malpractice cases would never even have discovery, much less due process.  This was after Judge Acosta carried out his threat to "be assigned as judge" to the malpractice case, which he did and was forced to recuse in July 2007.  The County Clerk joined in by taking 18 months to certify one of the records and failing to certify the others (But when the boss is winking, you are not worried).    Judge Acosta is the ultimate professional fixer.  He then had himself assigned on the appeal of the Malpractice cases, after Judge Catterson was recused, in secret. Again he rightfully anticipated that he would be recused if he announced his presence (three times a charm)

so the issued the ruling with his name on it before Plaintiff could recuse him.   And then had Judge Tom, a once esteemed jurist, carry the ball home.

            On Verizon, Judge Scheindlin used defense counsel to lob faux inquiries, to issue

threats against the Plaintiff, to ensure that there would be no discovery, to make sure that

Plaintiff was without attorney at time of execution, to make sure that Plaintiff would be deprived of a voluntary settlement and would take the "deal".  And her colleagues were more than delighted to accommodate the need to falsify the Record of facts, including the representation that Plaintiff was "represented by counsel at all relevant times".

            This is how obstruction of justice is done by the pros.   And everyone involved was rewarded for their role.  Each participant was promoted or moved into a higher position after the game was deemed "over".   Now our Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, Chief Judge of the First Department, Director of JCC,  County Clerk,

half of the First Department and a couple of Supreme Court Judges are all felons.

This is our leadership in New York.   Of course without willing officers of the court

and attorneys to do the dirty work, most of this would not have occurred, especially if these attorneys performed their obligation to report judicial misconduct, not aid it to "win".. These attorneys have also committed crimes of high treason punishable under New York Penal Law.

2. Coercion and Duress Cannot, by Definition, Be Deployed to Secure "Voluntary Releases" of Civil Rights

            Like the Bates disability discrimination case, the Jordan v. Verizon case was "fixed" and involved the "usual suspects".   Here however the status of a federal court judge allowed this scheme to be disguised.    The laws for voluntary releases are widely known in federal court, and Judge Ellis actually took the law to a slightly more modern standpoint of "a strategic choice".

            The issue of undue influence is readily recognized in areas of tort law like

Wills where elderly persons have been forced or induced to act against their interests,

Or in criminal law where a defendant is forced under duress to sign a confession without an attorney.   The principles of voluntary releases are no different and require "knowing and willful" decisions where the party is represented by an attorney.  This is particularly true when a party in an action like an employment action is particularly subject to "undue influence" or has no way of "knowing" what they are entering into because they have not been allowed legal representation or do not know the facts due to a lack of discovery.

A judicially created defense to transactions that have been imposed upon weak and vulnerable persons that allows the transactions to be set aside.

Virtually any act of persuasion that over-comes the free will and judgment of another, including exhortations, importunings, insinuations, flattery, trickery, and deception, may amount to undue influence. Undue influence differs from duress, which consists of the intentional use of force, or threat of force, to coerce another into a grossly unfair transaction. Blackmail, Extortion, bad faith threats of criminal prosecution, and oppressive Abuse of Process are classic examples of duress.

Four elements must be shown to establish undue influence. First, it must be demonstrated that the victim was susceptible to overreaching. Such conditions as mental, psychological, or physical disability or dependency may be used to show susceptibility. Second, there must be an opportunity for exercising undue influence. Typically, this opportunity arises through a confidential relationship. Courts have found opportunity for undue influence in confidential relationships between Husband and Wife, fiancé and fiancée, Parent and Child, trustee and beneficiary, administrator and legatee, Guardian and Ward, attorney and client, doctor and patient, and pastor and parishioner. Third, there must be evidence that the defendant was inclined to exercise undue influence over the victim. Defendants who aggressively initiate a transaction, insulate a relationship from outside supervision, or discourage a weaker party from seeking independent advice may be attempting to exercise undue influence. Fourth, the record must reveal an unnatural or suspicious transaction. Courts are wary, for example, of testators who make abrupt changes in their last will and testament after being diagnosed with a terminal illness or being declared incompetent, especially if the changes are made at the behest of a beneficiary who stands to benefit from the new or revised testamentary disposition.

Nevertheless, courts will examine the facts closely before finding that a transaction has been tainted by undue influence. Mere suspicion, surmise, or conjecture of overreaching is insufficient. The law permits loved ones and confidants to advise and comfort those in need of their support without fear of litigation. Courts are also aware that the doctrine of undue influence can be used as a sword by the vindictive and avaricious who seek to invalidate a perfectly legal transaction for personal gain. When undue influence is found to have altered a transaction, however, courts will make every effort to return the parties to the same position they would have occupied had the overreaching not occurred.

However, this is balanced by a need to have finality to any "settlement" of an action, which is why most settlements require discovery of the facts and the advice of an attorney.   A settlement cannot be "knowing" if the former employee has been precluded from knowing either the value of the "consideration" being offered or lost.  This cannot be possible when the party that controls the information (the employer in most discrimination cases) refuses to provide discovery to allow full knowledge, deploys unlawful threats, or worst of all, where the trial judge manipulates its power and authority to give one party, especially the weaker one, a distinct advantage.

            In the Jordan v. Verizon "settlement", we had a disabled former employee with MS who was without an attorney (whose prior attorneys withdrew after agreeing to hold settlement negotiations against Plaintiff's declared intentions ) and a large powerful employer with a large law firm (Paul Hastings) withholding discovery, while demanding the same from Plaintiff, and issuing a series of unlawful threats.   The trial court, who should only have intervened to protect the weaker party from exploitation, intervened in the settlement process to legitimize and enhance the unlawful threats.  Knowing that this conduct was illegal, the trial court, Judge Shira Scheindlin, used both defense counsel

and manipulation of documentary evidence to make it appear that Plaintiff "changed her mind" and was represented by an attorney when she executed the unfavorable agreement to trade out her right to jury trial and claims worth $31M for a token settlement that went to her attorneys, the latter more than willing to set up the fraud for a small fee and future promises of referrals and advancements.   There is no way, even stretching the very strict rules on voluntary releases that a disabled woman who has not had the benefit of discovery and had refused to accept several settlement overtures, but then does so after being threatened with "litigation and sanctions" could be considered acting voluntarily.

Equally egregrious she is denied the right to have an attorney negotiate for her and to review the "final" agreement, which has been manipulated with legalese to totally negate any rights she had going into the process and any consideration promised.

            This is what occurred under Judge Scheindlin's watch with the aid of both Plaintiff and Defense counsel, and this is what a "fixed case" looks like in federal court.

In exchange for doling out a favor to a large connected employer like Verizon Communications, Judge Scheindlin was more than willing to sell out a disabled woman who  held no promise of benefit to the Court.   The fact that there was enough evidence of wrongdoing by the employer to start a bonfire with was of no consequence.  And the prospect of this enticing case management opportunity was irresistible.    All that was needed for this scheme were a few helpful friends to do the arms length dirty work, a few tweaks of some key documents so it would appear that Plaintiff was represented by counsel, a surprise conference where a court reporter could take notes of the script, and some blind eyes at the Second Circuit.   The fact that Plaintiff was "ill" and "confused" at the time was a good thing because it meant minimal resistance.  However, just to make sure the Court issued a few of its own threats about the "nightmares" of "permanent litigation" and directed all faux investigations to Plaintiff's adversary.

            Now all of this was known to the Rule 60(b) panel, under Judge George Daniels, who's role in the cover up was to re-iterate that "plaintiff was represented by no less than three attorneys...at the relevant times", a blatant lie, and to exculpate the attorneys.   The latter is essential to all successful obstruction of justice and conspiracy to defraud schemes: Buy the attorneys silence.  Pay their fees.  Promise them future glory and connections.

            In both of these schemes the Judges involved used taxpayer funds to achieve the frauds.  Their judicial salaries and that of their personnel would be involved, and the use of court reporters and court staff and courtrooms,  all paid for the New York taxpayer.

            In both of these schemes the employers themselves played roles in obstructing due process.   Both General Counsels, who knew of their respective corporate Codes of Conduct, and EEO guidelines, were not only aware of what was going on but gave the order to perpetuate these agonizing litigation ordeals against Plaintiff. In fact, Verizon knew Jordan did not want to execute the Settlement Agreement as she had contacted the GC in writing about the same (the excuse given here will be that is why we use outside counsel, so that when we break the law the company execs are not caught).  It is rare that CEO's are not apprised of these critical decisions as shareholder funds are involved.

In the Bates case, we know that the successor corporation WPP Group authorized the appeal, after the purchase of Bates from Cordiant Group on or around 2005-6, so while they were not involved in the original decision to try the case before a jury when their own execs admitted to the crimes, they certainly knew that perpetuating this scheme by taking on a frivolous "appeal" , one that would circumvent the intention of federal anti discrimination laws was unethical if not illegal.   And clearly they knew that dragging a disabled former exec (who had been twice an exec at the agency group) through a 15 year litigation was not just immoral, but a disaster in the making.

There are issues of tax and shareholder fraud as well, as the employers get to write down these "costs" and as any expense that is deployed for fraudulent reasons is no longer an "expense" but a scheme to cheat the IRS.

The Laws on Discrimination are not being enforced, and the jealous judges, envious of private sector compensation, and opportunistically aware that they can use these "relationships" to advance their careers , are the reason why.   Discrimination in all classes was up in 2008, and it should come as no surprise when complaints against judges are as well.  When Judges conspire to cover up each others misconduct, which is a conspiracy of fraud.  It is also obstruction of justice. When judges conspire to deprive a disabled litigant of her rights under the law, and retaliate her for reporting their misconduct, and use their own power to justify and "legitimize" their malfeasance, this is the worst kind of crime, and deserves the most severe penalty.

THE ARGUMENT FOR NEW LEADERSHIP

I. IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE LIPPMAN and JUDGE KAYE:

The focus is most heavily on these judges because of their leadership positions, and appropriateness as role models for the Judiciary, and the duration and willfulness of their deceptions.

A. Importance and Influence Position of Chief Judge

Judge Lippman as Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals and Chief Administrator of all of the lower courts throughout the state oversees the most important judicial position in New York.  In 2005, the Court of Appeals heard 961Motions for Leave to Appeal, of which only 6% were granted (given the criteria of "statewide" issues of legal import where the law is not resolved or in conflict; i.e. like the Bianca Jagger eviction case that was heard in lieu of Plaintiff-Appellant's precedent setting discrimination case).  Judge Lippman also oversees the appellate and trial courts (See Exhibit   ) a mammoth organization that processes upwards of 3M cases a year. Although there are higher courts above him in other jurisdictions, specifically Federal Courts and the respective Courts of Appeals, he holds the highest office of appellate review outside of the United States Supreme Court itself.    Judge Lippman, as Chief Judge, sets judicial policy for New York Courts by deciding what cases will be heard for judicial review and by writing Opinions that affect the Laws of New York.   Through his Opinions and the legal press interpretation of the same, We The People of New York, have come to know Judge Lippman as an activist judge, who views his role expansively and politically, not as Enforcer of the Laws but Creator of Laws. Judge Lippman, by his own admission, is the Thought Leader for other Courts around the United States who look to New York for guidance in interpreting complex state laws and the application of federal laws to New York State.    His decisions are highly influential on the Law of our country and the policies of the courts across our country.

B. Importance of Chair of Commission on Judicial Nomination

And Judge Kaye's "Fit":

Although it is facially true, it is important to emphasize the importance and power of the Chair of the Commission for Judicial Nomination.  This position selects the panel who determines the criteria by which judges will be selected, and plays a major role in the actual selection process itself.   Judge Kaye, as a partner in a major corporate law firm,

with questionable conflicts of interest that were never explored in vetting (it is doubtful that any actual vetting occurred), holds the fourth most important judicial position in New York, after Chief Judge of Court of Appeals, Chief Judge of the First Department,

and Director of the Judicial Nomination Commission.  This position is the most important position to the FUTURE OF THE JUDICIARY as the leader of this function will serve as

the model of leadership and will determine the criteria for future judges and select those future judges.   All of the standards that currently enable judges to circumvent the Laws and the Rules were adopted by her when she failed to act on any of these issues or to set a "shining example" here in New York of thought leadership on key issues for other courts around the Country.   In fact, Judge Kaye has been proven to be unfit, if one only reviews her conduct as the chief agitator for the "judicial compensation" issue where she used her power and authority to "advertise" this case, and used taxpayer funds to propound a series of frauds to advance her and Judge Lippman's agendas.

C. Lippman Repeat Violator of Laws of New York and Rules of Judicial Conduct

Judge Lippman has created treasonous crimes over the course of his administration of our justice system and has demonstrated contempt for the Rule of Law, the Rules of Evidence, and the Rules of Judicial Conduct.    He has engaged in conspiracies to fix cases with other Supreme Court and First Department jurists and has enabled other judges' misconduct by covering up the same and failing to report violations to the Commission on Judicial Conduct.    He has engaged in frauds and conspiracies to commit frauds in order to gain support for various political judicial agendas. In the process of committing these frauds he abused and misappropriated tax payer resources.  He personally has violated several of the Rules of Judicial Conduct governing judges in New York State and as such cannot possibly act as a role model for this position.

1.      Fixing of Major Disability Discrimination Case, December 27^th, 2009

In December 2009, Judge Lippman committed a felony when he fixed the "Kathryn Jordan v. Bates Advertising" case.  Although Judge Klonick and Mr. Tembeckjian, appointed as Chair and Director of the Judicial Conduct Commission, would consider his malfeasance "an appellate matter", there is no doubt that the altering of the outcome of a bona fide jury verdict, sustained by the trial court (Judge Rolando Acosta, who also played a key role in the "fixing" of this case) after dismissing post trial motions on the exact same issues, for political reasons, including his own advancement to Chief Judge of New York Court of Appeals.  "Case fixing" occurs when a judge deviates from his legislated role as impartial Trier of fact, and at the appellate level, which is generally restricted to whether the lower court made the correct legal determination, rather than hearing direct evidence or determining what the facts of the case were, often abusing the Court's discretion by disregard, manipulation or creation of evidence to conform to the ingoing bias of the Court, or the application of a "new" legal theory that is not consistent with accepted legal precedent, or that which was before the lower court.   Historically,

only about 2-5% of jury verdicts are reversed or amended, and virtually all are remanded to the lower court for retrial or other remedy.   When an appellate judge receives a case where a unanimous jury verdict is received, a substantial reduction in damages awarded

(from an unrebutted economic expert), and where the defendant has accepted the jury instructions as "the law of the case", the appeal is automatically considered frivolous.

(There is abundant case law to support this customary posture).

            Contrasting this standard to the decision to reverse and dispose of the Kathryn Jordan v. Bates Advertising (118785-99) jury verdict, where the jury heard the corporate defendants admit to knowing about Plaintiff's being hazed as "a cripple" and failing to take any remedial action but rather choosing to replace the disabled executive with several non disabled executives, during an alleged "financial crisis" (when Planners were being actively hired from outside the agency), and where Plaintiff was found to be a very credible and consistent witness, and where Defense counsel agreed to the jury instructions, and failed to object to the same, was clearly an abuse of power.   Moreover the decision to dispose of the case, instead of remanding it to the trial court for remedying the alleged defects, was tantamount to admitting that the Appellate panel was intent on imposing its political agenda.   In the Jordan v. Bates case, the agenda was two fold:

a.The Secret Succession Plan:  Aiding and abetting trial judge Rolando Acosta in the vetting process by openly and blatantly taking a position on the issue of the "contemptuous" attack by the jurist on the disabled Plaintiff (a matter not before the First Department on appeal, only the sanctioning of Appellant). and acting as "trier of fact" in lieu of the jury (outside the sanctioned role), to consider a legal issue not before it (whether Plaintiff's allegations of misconduct about the Jurist who ultimately self recused after making improper threats to Plaintiff and allowing himself to be influenced about a an exceptionally large award of legal fees by a discharged attorney, Laurence Lebowitz) and issuing a declaration that the jurists unsworn denials of Plaintiff's allegations were "baseless", and incredibly calling Plaintiff a "liar" relying upon constructed "evidence" including paraphrasing of Plaintiff's testimony and misapplication and misinterpretation of facts.  The latter included criticizing Plaintiff "for not telling anyone" when she was being hazed by her supervisors at Bates Advertising, when there was no EEO department in place and when she was under the threat of termination after being ordered to "fire the woman with the clubbed foot"(Plaintiff's subordinate).  These "findings" by the Lippman panel contravened the last 40 years of social research and supported a "blame the victim" 1960's model of discrimination.  However, it was the blatant outrage that Judge Lippman expressed about Plaintiff's criticism of a judge that was most disturbing and which indisputably constituted a violation of the Rules and Judiciary Law.    Judge Acosta's conduct constituted a violation of the Rules of Judicial Conduct and should have been reported by the Lippman panel to the Commission on Judicial Conduct.   Instead, the Lippman panel used their power and authority to cover up this misconduct in order to facilitate the vetting of this judge for the First Department, knowing of the complaint and knowing he had been twice recused.  Judge Lippman's scheme paved the wave for Judge Acosta's appointment to the Appellate Division which was announced on December 30^th, 2009, four days after the Order was issued to fix the Jordan v. Bates case on December 27^th, 2009. (Note: There is an unspoken rule that judges always defend other judges when there is an allegation of misconduct, a practice that systematically undermines the intent of Judiciary Law.   Further, in Judge Lippman's situation, Judge Acosta's advancement was linked to his and colleague Judge Gonzales, both of whom were part of the succession plan to advance Judge Lippman to Chief of the Court of Appeals (circumventing several more experienced Jurists in Court of Appeals), advance Judge Gonzales as replacement for Judge Lippman, and fill the open position created by

these "promotions" with Judge Acosta's promotion to the First Department).   Obviously, Plaintiff's allegations against Judge Acosta came at an inconvenient time.  The Commission on Judicial Conduct was more than happy to dismiss the complaint (as they do with all appellate complaints), and the rest of the panel (Judge Catterson, Friedman, Sullivan) were more than willing to participate in the cover up.   Judge Lippman repeatedly proved that the fastest track to advancement was circumvention of the "Rules" and use of the same to censor, silence, and discredit any critics.  (Contrast this fact pattern to the accepted practice in those rare instances where the appellate courts overrule trial judges, of remanding the case to the trial court, and limiting remarks to whether the jury acted "irrationally...and that no rational mind could arrive at the same conclusion" and the issue of Law, which is address below, which would also have been remanded for review to the trial court, perhaps with guidance by the appellate court.

b.      Judge Lippman Legislates from the bench new Discrimination Law:

Judge Lippman used the controversial issue of Judge Acosta's vitriolic attack on Plaintiff  to divert attention from his real agenda: changing the laws on proving "pretext" in discrimination cases.   Judge Lippman rendered a decision that adopted the obscure Stephenson v. Hotel Employees  case as the legal standard, which advocated that all an employer had to do to rebut an allegation of discrimination was to proffer, but not prove, a "legitimate reason", such as "financial reasons".   If this reason were "true" (accurate as a fact) all the better.   However, this was a marked departure from the UNITED STATE SUPREME COURT ruling on proving discrimination, including perceive disability discrimination (where the "regarded as" standard is applied).  Under federal and state law, most states have adopted the tripartite federal standard created by Mc Donnell Douglas where the Plaintiff proffers her "prima facie case" (a complex burden in itself), the Defendant offers a "legitimate reason" for the adverse employment action, BUT the analysis proceeds to a THIRD critical level: that the Plaintiff has the opportunity (and currently the burden) to prove that the employer was motivated by discrimination and that the "real reason" (which is usually distinct from the "legitimate reason") for the adverse employment action was unlawful discrimination.  The First Department is notoriously politic, and notoriously pro-corporation.  But it was not their role to use this case to re-write federal anti-discrimination laws.

               c.. Case Fixing was willful and intentional breach of trust of People of New York.   Judge Lippman knew that Jordan's case was a precedent setting case that would affect not only all disabled victims of discrimination but all persons in any protected class including minorities, gender, age, et al.   Thus, his political agenda was to use his position to roll back 40 years of civil rights advances through this case. Equally important, he knew he was dispensing a large "favor" to a large corporate employer who had violated the law and was liable for the damages.  However, this is how the Judiciary has operated under Judge Lippman's "leadership" for some time, and it has become accepted practice.  For ambitious jurists like Judge Lippman, Gonzales and Acosta, this is a fast track to the top of the Courts, or so they believe.   The reality is that the judges involved in this conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff of her remedy, defraud the stockholders of WPP Group, defraud the taxpayers of New York, defraud the voters of New York, committed a gross fraud that constituted a felony and clearly obstruction of justice.   When judges act outside the scope of their legislated role they are subject to Article VI Section 23 and 24, as well as the Rules of Judicial Conduct  22 Title NYCRR Part 7000.4, and the Constitution, the Federal Statutes and Codes governing Obstruction of Justice and Fraud, and the Laws of New York (Penal Codes) governing the same. Impeachment is the minimum penalty that would be appropriate in this circumstance given the willfulness and intent to deceive, the manipulation of the Rules to deploy them as immunity for these judges own crimes, the circumvention of the Laws to perpetuate their malfeasance, and the disgraceful breach of trust that these jurists have demonstrated.  Finally, there is the damage that has been sustained by Plaintiff, and other plaintiffs like her, as a direct consequence of a corrupt judicial system that effectively punished and revictimized Plaintiff for a period of 15 years.

2.Judges Lippman and Kaye commit crimes and violations of the Rules together,

And enable each others violations of Law and Rules.  It is no secret that Judges Lippman and Kaye have operated in concert to perpetuate their political and legal agendas, and to aid each other's advancement, and those of judicial agents, while trampling on the rights of litigants, peers, and using the taxpayer as a pawn to monetize the same schemes.

            A. Refusal by COURT OF APPEALS to hear Jordan v. Bates precedent

setting perceived disability discrimination case where issues of State law conflicts clearly existed as part of "fixing" and "cover up"by Chief Judge Kaye, aka long time ally, advisor and enabler of Judge Lippman's schemes.

            As previously asserted, Judge Lippman, Judge Catterson, Judge Gonzales,

Judge Sullivan and Judge (David) Friedman conspired to fix the Kathryn Jordan v.

Bates Advertising case by reversing the bona fide jury verdict on December 27^th, 2007.

This was effected to advance the promotional opportunities of at least three judges (Judge Rolando Acosta, who was promoted four days after the decision, December 30^th, 2007, Judge Lippman, who was promoted a year later in December 2008 to Chief Judge NYCOA, and Judge Gonzales, who was promoted to Chief Judge First Department in March 2009. ) and to secure a substantial favor for a corporate violator of the federal and state anti discrimination laws, WPP Group, who faced a then $3.3M Bond as a result of the jury verdict.  These favors were dispensed with the expectation of future favors that would be "monetized" in the future in the form of referrals, references, introductions and other favors that might advance their position in the court system, or provide monetary compensation at discrete moments.   At the time that Plaintiff-Appellant's Brief was filed (after WPP filed a frivolous appeal), in January 2007,  Judge Kaye was still the presiding Chief Judge.

Appellant's Motion for Re-Hearing was filed in September 2008, around the time that Judge Lippman was being vetted, and Judge Kaye was preparing to "retire" and head up the Judicial Nomination Commission. (It is very unlikely that both of these judges did not know about Jordan's case as Judge Lippman had issued the "fixed" decision in the appellate court, and Judge Acosta, also a long time crony of Judge Kaye, was looking to bury the case, and had gone to great lengths to do so; see Below).  Appellant's Brief, beginning in July 2008, and again in an even narrower Petition for ReHearing, addressed the most important discrimination issue to come before the Court of Appeals in decades: What is the burden of proof for both parties for proving discrimination  especially as it relates to the employer's "pretext"? Moreover, did the United States Supreme Court intend, in the precedent McDonnell Douglas case, to require that employers need only proffer a "legitimate reason" to rebut an allegation of discrimination, or did they intend that the victim be allowed to prove the "real reason" for the unlawful act?.   And given the decision of the First Department, that the "legitimate reason" could be as prevalent a pretext as "financial reasons" and assertion of the same (without any burden of proof) as the "legitimate reason" for the adverse employment action, to dispose of any claim of discrimination did this not necessitate closer review especially when New York Courts most definitely do not agree.

Appellant disagreed with the First Department.  She argued vigorously that the Supreme Court intended that a "tripartite" model be applied, whereby the Plaintiff had to proffer, and ultimately prove,  a "prima facie" case of discrimination, whence the Defendant employer was allowed to rebut it with a "legitimate reason", and (whether or not the legitimate reason was "true" or not) the Plaintiff then had the opportunity to prove that even if the legitimate reason were "true" that if Plaintiff also proved that the employer was shown to be motivated by discrimination, and that the "legitimate reason" was not the "real reason", that the victim of discrimination would have prevailed.  The latter legal model was deployed with the jury on the Jordan v. Bates case, by trial judge Rolando Acosta, and the jury instructions accepted without objection by Appellee Bates Advertising, rendering the entire matter of an appeal moot.   Moreover, the identical issues cited upon appeal were disposed of by the trial judge, Judge Rolando Acosta, in Post Trial pleadings.  Given the 2% reversal rate for appeals, it was beyond possible that the trial judges' Decision, even with it's attack on Plaintiff in the final version, that the WPP bid for appeal would succeed.  However, that was on the Law, not the politics.

            The outcome was predictable given the Lippman-Kaye agenda: The Decision by the First Department to reverse the bona fide jury verdict was effectively upheld as the Court of Appeals declined to hear the most important discrimination case in decades in order to hear the "Bianca Jagger Eviction Case".  In any cover-up there must be a

closed system, and there can be no opportunity for witnesses to speak about the same, or for the deus ex machina of the conspirators to be examined by any judge or fact finder outside that closed system.

            The First Department Appellate Division only heard 6% of appeals filed in 2005.

Why would they hear an appeal that, as a matter of law, was frivolous?  Why would they also intervene in a dispute that was not before it, the issue of whether the Court improperly allowed itself to be influenced about a $1.3M contingent legal fee and deployed threats of sanctions to censor and silence Plaintiff's complaints, when by Rule and Law, they were required to report the vicious personal attack on the disabled female Plaintiff as "contemptuous", and not rely upon the selected "facts" presented by the trial court?  The answer is simple: Because it had to in order for the succession scheme to succeed.  Judge Acosta's promotion enabled the other jurists, Judge Lippman and Judge Gonzales, to advance to the next level.   If this were mired in a messy investigation, all of their promotions would be at risk.  (In the counter-appeal, Appellant only asked that the $5000 sanction be removed as improper and punitive, if not retaliatory, as it was effected after the trial judge recused himself, and knew Appellant had filed a complaint with the Commission on Judicial Conduct).  However, the Rules required that all of the judges who knew of Judge Acosta's misconduct to report the same, not suppress the evidence in an angry Decision where Plaintiff was deemed to have made "baseless" allegations, and was effectively called a liar. The latter "evidence" is addressed in the appended Complaint for Obstruction of Justice et al against these jurists.

B..Filing of Fraudulent Lawsuit against Legislature and Governor for "Judicial Compensation":  As alleged in the case filed in Federal Court against the Defendant Judges and their accomplices, Judge Lippman and Judge Kaye have been advocating behind the scenes and in public for increased judicial compensation.  In three cases filed Matter of Edwin Maron v. Sheldon Silver (58 AD 3^rd 102), Honorable Susan Larabee v. Governor(4761-4761A), and Kaye v. Silver (400763/08),  Judges Kaye and Lippman took highly political and public positions acting outside their legislated roles as judges to propound their agenda of greed and power.     There was nothing wrong with the stated principle of this cause.  Judicial compensation is an area that requires thoughtful examination.  However, these two ruthless jurists deployed every deception and manipulation imaginable to threaten, blackmail, and deceive the First Department panel which originally rejected the case  (part of which was correctly reversed on appeal: "linkage" with legislative compensation), and to improperly influence the Court of Appeals where the case is now being heard, despite Chief Judge's denials of a voice in the matter.

The lawsuit has alleged that a "constitutional crisis" so severe that it "impaired the Judiciary's ability to function" (a not so subtle threat) was created by the decision to deny pay raises to judges in New York Supreme Courts.    Judge Kaye also argued that NYSSC "was no longer able to attract the best and brightest" because of the alleged compensation crisis (omitting the fact that New York is one of the highest paying states for judges).   The duo also argued that the "ravages of inflation" were going to undermine the ability of judges to survive, at a time when the CPI-U fell 0.2 percent.  Moreover, and perhaps most revealing, Judges Lippman and Kaye claimed outrage about the "huge" disparity between federal judge compensation and state judge compensation, demanding equality.   That disparity is 6% and actually lower than most states.   Demanding to be compensated the same as private law firm whose "partners (earn) in the 50^th percentile total of cash compensation of more than $260,000"  was perhaps the most damning.

Plaintiff, a disabled female executive, had been denied her rightful remedy for damages

in her case of discrimination (she was the only EVP not paid $250K per year base salary and she was denied the top EVP Planning job for which she was eminently qualified for the same compensation.  An outside non disabled male was hired).  (Note: Defendants citing of older male EVP's, some who were later terminated on payout contracts or for non discriminatory reasons, slightly lower compensation was inappropriate as it was not "time adjusted").    Ironically, these "jealous judges" were punishing Plaintiff to hold up the First Department on this judicial compensation issue, and undoubtedly their "contempt" was enveloped in a whopping dose of disability bias (why would a disabled exec be worth the same as a non disabled one, contrary to all studies proving the contrary).

            Both Jurists, Judge Lippman and Judge Kaye, used their positions of leadership to

threaten both the Governor and Legislature  on this issue.  They both acted outside their sanctioned role to "advertise" the case on the New York Supreme Court website.

They both called in favors to Mr. Tembeckjian, who had been the beneficiary of their

favoritism in the past, he was appointed by Judge Lippman and aided by Judge Kaye,

to induce him to post similar propaganda on the Commission's website and to commission him to speak out publicly on this issue in the press and on his Cable TV show where he interviews judges and lawyers.

            The intensity which this issue was propounded by Judge Lippman, who publicly stated that his "greatest priority" in his first year of office was awarding judicial pay raises to New York Judges was not just a convoluted scheme to enrich himself and Judge Kaye, but also part of the "pay back" that he owed to all the judges whose "loyalty" enabled him to pull off these frauds over the years.

            In the final analysis, Judge Lippman's desperation to make good on his promise to his fellow jurists no matter what the price, he unilaterally circumvented the Legislature and "ordered" these pay raises under the guise of "robe cleaning" stipends, an indisputable "back door" scheme to disregard the legal ruling against him, and his unwillingness to wait for the Court of Appeals final determination in 2010.  He did this at a time when New York State was $5B in the hole and looking for ways to reduce the monumental budget deficit, and when unemployment was at historic levels.  Ironically, it was a Republican legislator that expressed outrage over this abuse of power and demanded that Judge Lippman return the extorted "bonuses", or disguised pay raises.

This was not just abuse of power; this was fraud and conspiracy to defraud New York tax payers.   This extremely poor example of Judicial leadership must be discouraged and punished, or New Yorkers cannot be surprised when a surge of abuses by other judges follows to flaunt the Rules and Laws of New York.

C.Abuse of Power in Promoting All Parties involved in Jordan v. Bates Cover Up.  Chief JudgeLippman entered his decision to fix the Jordan v. BatesCase on December 27^th, 2007, four days before Judge Rolando Acosta was appointed to the same court.  Plaintiff/Appellant filed her appeal of the same immediately before the New York Court of Appeals (briefs appended in Exhibit     ).  Judge Lippman's decision was necessary for Judge Acosta to survive the judicial vetting process and necessary for his own timetable to advance to Chief Judge of NYCOA.  Approximately one year later,  Judge Lippman would be rewarded for his "favor", when Governor Patterson nominated him as Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals (Governor Patterson misrepresented Judge Lippman's credentials for the top judgeship at the time, spinning a 7 month stint hearing cases into a year and a half by emphasizing his role as "Chief Administrative Judge".  Judge Lippman, the Favor King, thanked Judge Cirpatrick, but "commended" Judge Kaye as "an exemplary judge", setting the stage for her appointment as Director of the Judicial Nomination Commission. Judge Cirpatrick was merely a pawn in the game, to be disposed of. Judge Lippman was vetted in December 2008 and appointed Chief Judge in January 2009.  For his role in the cover up, Judge Luis Gonzales was promoted to Presiding Justice, First Department Appellate Division on March 25^th, 2009.. Less than two months later, Judge Kaye was appointed to Chair the Commission on Judicial Nomination on May 21, 209.

D.Lippman Not Vetted by Nomination Commission

Upon information and belief, Judge Lippman's candidacy for Chief Judge was not actually vetted, nor did he go through a formal vetting process.  His appointment was fixed by Elliot Spitzer back in May 2007, when Governor Spitzer appointed Judge Lippman as Chief Judge of the First Department Appellate Division.    After being nominated by Governor Patterson for the position of Chief Judge in December 2007, the anticipated appointment was announced to the press on January 13^th,  2008.  Although Governor Patterson had at least six months to cultivate candidates for the most important judiciary job in New York for our lifetimes, Judge Lippman had the shortest "vetting" process in the history of the Courts.   In June 2008, it was announced that the position was open in the press.   Then on December 1^st, 2008, Judge Kaye announced that 7 candidates, all men, had been nominated to the position that would be vacated by her departure when she retired at the end of the year. However, Judge Kaye knew what the outcome would be: her old friend Judge Lippman, who had not even been Chief Judge

for the First Department six months at the time, would be slotted for her position, and he in turn would return the favor.  There was no chance that any of the other candidates would be seriously considered for the single reason that Judge Lippman and Judge Kaye

had jointly determined who the members of the Independent Judicial Election Qualification Commission (IJEQC) would be in February 2007.  In another well planned

manipulation of justice, the "voluntary statewide screening process for evaluating judicial candidates was approved by the New York State Court of Appeals (overseen by Judge Kaye) following a recommendation from the Commission to Promote Public Confidence in Judicial Elections, chaired by John Feerick, Chair of the Commission to Promote Public Integrity (an ironic note, these positions were previously held by Judge Rolando T. Acosta, another Judge Kaye crony).   In other words the election was "legitimized" by Judge Kaye cronies, but it was long decided that Judge Lippman would be appointed.

E. Fixing of Chief Judgeship by Judge Kaye/Former Governor Spitzer;

Judge Jonathan Lippman least qualified candidate is appointed.

It is widely recognized that Judicial Scholarship is the "threshold criteria" for advancement in the Judiciary especially the Court of Appeals. Judge Jonathan Lippman had no record of scholarship or distinguished opinions to qualify him whatsoever. Further, experience hearing cases in the trial and appellate courts is almost always a threshold requirement.  Judge Lippman had only begun to hear cases in January 2006, and had less than a year and a half as a judge hearing cases prior to his appointment by Governor Spitzer in May 2007, to Chief Judge for the Appellate Division.   In fact, given the criteria asserted by the nominating commission, as articulated by Judge Kaye in a press release, it would be hard to explain the appointment to Chief Judge by Judge Jonathan Lippman at all:

            Professional ability;

            Character;

            Independence;

Integrity;

            Reputation for Fairness and Lack of Bias;

            Temperament including Courtesy and Patience.

Although "scholarship" was not mentioned by Judge Kaye, it is regarded by virtually all judges as the number one criteria for higher office.   Consequently, Judge Lippman, whose claim to fame was a year and a half hearing cases and substantial administrative experience, was a very unlikely choice.

            The pool of candidates for the critical appointment to Chief Judge to succeed Judge Kaye included two male judges considered front runners that were far more experienced than Judge Jonathan Lippman, Judge Eugene F. Piggott Jr., already a jurist on the Court of Appeals, and Judge Theodore Jones Jr, sitting judge on the Court of Appeals and the only African American candidate, previously administrative judge for the Civil Part of Brooklyn Supreme Court, and Justice Steven Fisher of the Appellate Division Second Department , administrative judge for six years in the Eleventh District,. along with three lawyers as candidates, one of  which, George Carpinello of Boies Schiller& Flexner, had previously chaired the state advisory Committee on Civil Practice since 1985 (and whose brother is distinguished judge Anthony Carpinello of the Fourth Department).  A glaring omission from the list was Acting Judge Carmen Cirpatrick, the senior associate judge of the Court of Appeals and the only Hispanic to ever have served.  She had already been on the Court of Appeals for four years at the time. (Peter L. Zimroth, a partner at Arnold & Porter, was the other candidate. Given this candidate pool, it could easily be argued that Judge Lippman was the least qualified, at least on paper.

E. Spitzer, Patterson Pressure Legislature for Speedy Approval

    It was widely recognized behind the scenes that Lippman had the nomination all along given his association with the manipulative "hookergate" Elliot Spitzer, his long term partnership with outgoing Judge Judith Kaye and his close ties to Sheldon Silver, an Assemblyman for the 64^th District of Lower Manhattan.  With the Kaye-Silver-Spitzer trifecta going, Judge Lippman did not need Governor Patterson's hastily executed blessing after publicly expressing outrage about the lack of diversity among the candidates.  Spitzer had lain the groundwork years ago.   Moreover, both Judge Kaye and Acosta were longtime cronies of the former Governor. And Judge Kaye was known for rewarding "loyalty" and looking the other way on "indiscretions" (aka blatant violations of law).  However, this was the most important decision of Governor Patteron's career as he was appointing a man that would, theoretically, remain in office for 14 years, and who would have absolute control and power over the civil rights of all minorities and people in protected classes.

Nonetheless, Governor Patterson, a disabled African American, ordained Judge Lippman with much fanfare in January 2009, after making his decision in December 2008.   Judge Lippman was not even vetted.  He was confirmed in an expedited nomination process of just six weeks after the announcement of the Governor's preferences by the Senate Judiciary Committee and over considerable objection by constituents (those that pay the salaries of judges and whom the "justice system" serves) and insiders especially in the Legislature.   Perhaps the only voice of the People was Senator John Sampson, who was clearly sandbagged by "friend" Patterson, and sent a list of seven male candidates with the instruction that Judge Lippman would be picked.   The Senator did not mince words about the political maneuver:

I find it incomprehensible and deeply disturbing that not a single woman appeared on the list of qualified judicial candidates to succeed Judith Kaye, our first female Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, As the birthplace of women's suffrage and civil and political rights, the Commission failed to meet the high standards and great tradition of our state when it failed to include a woman on its list of candidates for our highest court.

Senator John Sampson, Chair, Senate Judiciary Committee

In fact, despite Governor Patterson's professed outrage about "diversity", he clearly disregarded three female candidates that were more qualified for the open position than Judge Lippman given their tenure on the New York Court of Appeals. (This was an act of gender bias by the Governor).  The most obvious blunder was the dismissal of Carmen Cirpatrick as a candidate.  Governor Patterson has consistently failed to address diversity issues.   However, in this instance it would be fair to say that the Lippman-Kaye team had this locked up a long time ago, in another "quid pro quo" deal.   Given how Machiavellian these two jurists are, one scenario that comes to mind is that Chief Judge Cirpatrick was not considered because she was a female and that would have complicated the "grand plan" to have Judge Lippman assume the stewardship of the Court of Appeals, with Judge Kaye's public enthusiastic support, and Judge Lippman returning that favor when it came time to appoint a director for the Nomination Commission, an appointment that was handed to Judge Kaye on a silver platter.

            This scheme, on the surface, might not be considered "illegal" even though it is apparent that the game was "fixed" just as all of the Judge Lippman games are and even though it is apparent that the exclusion of the only Black judge and Female Hispanic could clearly be considered a violation of Title VIl.   It unquestionably demonstrates, however, how deft Judge Lippman and Judge Kaye are at circumventing Rules and Laws to achieve their ambitions and help their "friends" (usually each other).   Generally when the least qualified candidate is a white male and the most qualified candidate is a Hispanic female, this would meet the threshold argument for prima facie discrimination.

            There are many questions about the past that are answered by the understanding of this crafty team of jurists.  However, there are just as many questions. While many of the judges involved in this scandal were nominated and mentored by disgraced Former Governor Elliot Spitzer (who would hand off his recommendations to Governor Patterson after his removal from office)         , what was in it for Elliot Spitzer?   And why these particular judges?   Was it that he felt that he could control them as they all owed him after he advanced their careers?   These certainly are questions that would be of interest to the Attorney General and current DA.  The judges involved, as the appended Complaint alleges, are accused of racketeering and obstruction of justice, so the answers could come sooner than originally expected.

II. The Removal of Judge Klonick and Robert Tembeckjian as JCC Directors

And the Dissolution of this ineffective regulatory body.

            There is no more damning evidence of the ineffectiveness of the New York Commission on Judicial Conduct than the 2008 Annual Report.  In its own report of its actions, the JCC admitted that despite an unprecedented rise in Judicial Complaints

in 2008 (continuing a long upward trend) to almost two thousand complaints, a 12% rise, and despite a substantial increase in budget per the Legislature and hiring a multitude of new investigators, that the Commission failed miserably.   Only 8% of all complaints

in Supreme Court were investigated, 2% charged, and zero disciplined.  At the appellate level where FORTY judges were complained about, ZERO were investigated.  In fact, the only "success" appears to be in the remote rural areas where the more blatant acts were noted.   The Report confirms two facts that have been speculated for many years:

That the JCC will not "touch" a high level judge (especially in Manhattan)
That the JCC is effectively enabling the judicial frauds

There is abundant evidence and documentation of the disconnect between complaints of misconduct by litigants and the willful failures of the JCC on JudgeWatch.com as the Center for Judicial Accountability has been religiously documenting these complaints for decades.  Further, Plaintiff made a report of this to the Legislature during the hearings and in a report to Senator Sampson (attached).

The rise of these corrupt jurists, Judge Lippman, Kaye, Acosta, First Department, even Judge Marcy Friedman (fixed Malpractice cases), could not have occurred without the abdication of his duties by Mr. Tembeckjian, the Director of the Commission for Judicial Conduct, who actually took a public position on the issue of judicial compensation, promoted it and published it on the JCC website.  His organization is supposed to be a regulatory impartial body. Yet he has made no secret of his partisan views on issues. He has also had the temerity to operate a cable TV show that interviews judges and lawyers, and from publish biased opinions on issues that always favor judges.   Along with his long standing public opinions that portray judges as victims of litigants, and his refusal to investigate high level judges (zero appellate judges were investigated in 2009) and his misleading statement in the New York Times in 2006 that the problems were focused on "the small town courts", an incredibly revealing admission that he was unwilling to tackle the "big fish" in Manhattan Courts and Appellate Courts.  (See Exhibit   )

III. Removal of New York County Clerk Director

The County Clerk function in the judicial process is vital.  An appeal cannot be filed without certification.  Plaintiff received one certified record (without the certification)

on one of her malpractice cases (Jordan v. Lebowitz) eighteen months after the case closed! And the other two records were never certified (This did not stop the First Department from using this as an excuse to dispose of the appeals).  Plaintiff has observed first hand how case files get certified and even when the County Clerk is provided Bates Numbered, chronological copies as reference, the files never get certified on any kind of reasonable schedule.  Part of the problem is the individual who handles the appeals, and his temperament.   Moreover, the "certification" process is highly defective as is the retention of files, the latter of  which is a process based in the Dark Ages of manual retention (and with it the high potential for "lost" records).  Digitization of files and a new process and new leadership are needed de minimus.

IV. REMOVAL OF JUDGES SCHEINDLIN AND DANIELS in SOUTHERN DISTRICT FOR FIXING OF CASE and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

Kathryn Jordan  v. Verizon Communications 10144-cv-02

Judge Shira Scheindlin of the USDC for the Southern Circuit, is similarly accused of obstruction of justice and conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff of her constitutional right to a jury trial, along with innumerable other serious charges (see Complaint 09 cv 10616).

Judge Scheindlin was assigned the instant matter in July 2003.  Judge Scheindlin made no secret of her desire to "settle" the case.  However, Plaintiff's attorney at the time, Gary Phelan, of Outten & Golden, was specifically advised that she wanted to take the case to trial.  Mr. Phelan tried an assortment of coercive tactics to alterJordan's mind including demanding a $100,000 retainer and allowing critical deadlines for discovery to lapse.

Apparently, early in Mr. Phelan's appearance in January 2004, Judge Scheindlin scheduled a conference with the attorneys (always suspect), and decided unilaterally that the case would be "settled".  Mr. Phelan failed to share this decision with his client, the Plaintiff. Instead, he allowed various discovery deadlines to lapse, including an MTC that Plaintiff, in desperation, agreed to write and pay for, and deadlines for expert reports.

In May 2004, after Jordan indicated zero interest in his scheme to settle the $31M demand for $50K (see complaint); Mr. Phelan de facto stopped representing Plaintiff after scheduling a "Settlement Conference".   Plaintiff hastily retained David Fish who had two weeks to prepare for the same.  However, the Machiavellian force behind the scenes was Judge Scheindlin, who through Verizon counsel Ken Gage, arranged for Jordan's videotaped deposition (and no one at Verizon's), and without any discovery on the consideration, the value of the case or the terms of settlement, scheduled a conference before Magistrate Gorenstein.   Fish lied to Jordan about the terms she would retain after settlement, especially certain ERISA benefits.   At this conference, Fish urged Jordan to accept the "deal", which Jordan only verbally acceded to the cash component of, and demanded further discussion of the other terms. (Again, no disclosure of what she was being asked to forfeit was made). Jordan then refused to go forward once she realized that Fish had misrepresented the deal.  A second conference was scheduled before Gorenstein, only this time under the threat of "litigation and sanctions" by Gage.

(Gage erroneously assumed that verbal acceptance of one term without acceptance of all terms was enforceable, a "fact" that the Magistrate wrongly re-iterated).  The parties were not able to agree on terms when Verizon refused to improve its ridiculous offer.  Gage then set a deadline for Jordan to "agree" or "face litigation and sanctions" of July 12^th.

(Jordan believed the deadline to be the 14^th).  Fish withdrew on July 12^th, 2004.  Jordan contacted the trial court repeatedly as to the coercive circumstances and the fact that she did not accept the Verizon offer. When the trial court failed to respond by the deadline, Jordan executed the agreement by necessity without an attorney and erroneously addressed it to the wrong building, where it wound up by default.  During this four hour period, Judge Scheindlin decided to hold a "status conference" which she represented through Jordan's now former attorney was unrelated to the settlement (a blatant falsity).  She then had her clerk "cancel" the settlement (see Record on Appeal).  Jordan asked for return of the partially executed agreement.  Gage stole the agreement from a remote location and delivered it to his client.  Jordancontacted the client (General Counsel) via email and advised him that she did NOT want to go forward (this was still the same fateful day, July 14^th, 2004).  Verizon disregarded Jordan's intentions and executed the Agreement upon advice of Gage.  Jordan again advised the Court that she did NOT want to go forward in "an extraordinary number of faxes" in the weeks leading up to the surprise "status conference" (There was no other mechanism for Jordan to stop Gage's onslaught).   At the status conference on July 23^rd, 2004, Jordan attended Pro Se, as she had not had time to replace Fish, the trial court immediately raised the issue of the Settlement (and identified Jordan as still represented by counsel in labeled all related documents) and used her position to threaten Jordan into believing that the "choice" was the "thoughtful settlement" (without discovery or experts to value the consideration v the loss of benefits) or "permanent litigation" that the court described would be a "nightmare" for the disabled Jordan.   The Trial Court was indisputably on notice that Jordan was "ill" and "confused" about the hearing, yet pressed forward and directed all questions about the bona fides to Jordan's adversary, Ken Gage.

            Once Plaintiff felt well enough to locate an attorney to review the Agreement

(four days after the surprise "on the record" "status conference"), Jordan was advised to petition the Court for Rescission, which she did.   However, Judge Scheindlin had what she started out to secure: a favor dispensed to a large employer and all that goes with the same.  The fact that Jordan's request was based on clear bona fides and that she was lured into the entire Settlement by a series of misrepresentations was of no moment to Judge Scheindlin.  Nor was the jurist particularly concerned about the equity of the deal.

The token $100K cash offer (which, after taxes, did not even cover litigation costs and went to the attorneys) was tendered only if Jordan relinquished her employment rights as a disabled person, something she intuitively did not want to do, along with the discrimination case that was roughly worth between $5M and $31M, along with millions in disputed ERISA rights.  Ironically, Verizon and the Court would later argue that Jordan was "a sophisticated businesswoman" despite her Multiple Sclerosis condition.

Why would a shrewd businesswoman voluntarily surrender millions or tens of millions in benefits for a token cash disposition that went to her attorneys?

            Judge Scheindlin should never have intervened in the Settlement process.  She was legally precluded from doing so.   A trial judge cannot also act as settlement broker.

Moreover, despite knowing that all "voluntary" settlements require legal representation,

and should be "knowing, willful and non coercive", Judge Scheindlin pressed forward when Jordan was most vulnerable and without counsel to advise her.  She knew the "Settlement and Release" was riddled with legalese and loopholes, and that a layperson would not see all of these, no matter how intelligent.  Further, Judge Scheindlin used the threat of economic duress ("you'll have to hire another attorney and the expense of that")

to scare Plaintiff into acceptance.  This is what our courts have devolved to.  This is what the Southern District, and apparently the Second Circuit, sees as "voluntary". Next year we should expect water boarding, as the caseloads will be even higher along with the rationalizations to act illegally.

            The Second Circuit had an opportunity, as did Judge George Daniels in a Rule 60(b) motion by Plaintiff, to review the matter de novo.   They had evidence before them that Jordan was not represented by counsel, however, and this is truly disgraceful, Judge Daniels misrepresented Jordan's legal status and stated that the "Plaintiff had three attorneys...and was represented at all stages of the Settlement".   This was an outright lie.

These legal representations were long before the Agreement that Jordan actually signed was executed (there were earlier drafts, but again, the final draft was never submitted to legal review).  Judge Daniels knew this was a major misrepresentation but like his colleague Judge Lippman decided to help a colleague who had commited a wrong out.

Now we have judges and lawyers circling the wagons around disabled litigants hoping they will "make a mistake" or fail to act in their own interests, when they have not been given the opportunity to know what the latter might even be.  And we have appellate courts that are so determined to uphold lower court "mis-steps" that they are willing to knowingly violate the very laws and rules they are charged to honor.

            This Plaintiff does not believe in Non Structured Settlements as a legal or bona fide substitute for jury trials.   There are Structured Mediations with proper discovery, and accompanied by competent counsel, that can be honored.  But as long as Courts as high as the Second Circuit (now referred to as the "Second Circus" by most litigants),

see clear evidence of coercion and duress but look the other way, we can continue to see more and greater abuses of judicial discretion.   Courts are clearly overloaded with cases, and that issue finds a sympathetic audience with the tax payers of New York.  However, the "solutions" that have been experienced first hand by Plaintiff, and validated by hundreds of other litigants, are not solutions at all.  They are ticking time bombs that threaten the very survival of the Judiciary.

V. JUDICIAL "SIGNALLING", "COICIDENCES", AND ABUSE OF POWER

Case fixing, as we have defined here, is tantamount to obstruction of justice and almost always involved a conspiracy of those who take action, and those who fail to take action.

It should be noted that judges today participate in an exercise that is known as "Judicial Signaling" to tip off a successor judge of what his real intentions are and whether he is willing to "play ball" in a particular scheme.   In the Bates case, Judge Acosta's attack on Plaintiff as "contemptuous", after he had upheld the jury verdict, and his selective rectitation of evidence in support thereof, was a form of signaling to the Appellate Division that he was ready to throw the case.  Without this "signal" the Appellate Division could otherwise rightfully expect a trial judge to fight for his own Decision.

As already argued, Judge Acosta was more concerned about surviving vetting than saving

his reputation as a knowledgeable or fair judge in human rights law.   Judge Marcy Friedman signaled her "loyalty" by dismissing all four malpractice cases related to Bates, despite a ruling from the First Department that clearly laid blame with the trial attorney.

The First Department then formed an Opinion on Bates that tried to anticipate a future Court of Appeals action, and redefine the issues of law to make it appear as if consistent with accepted practice (after altering the facts).  In the Verizon matter, the trial judge had manipulated the record to make it appear that Plaintiff was represented by counsel.  The Rule 60(b) ruling, which "coincidently" came on the same day as the Bates reversal of the jury verdict, December 27^th, 2007, bolstered this "cue" by the trial court, and alleged that "Plaintiff was represented by no less than three attorneys....at all relevant times", knowing that the Second Circuit could not affirm a decision where a disabled Plaintiff was not just coerced but without counsel.  Futher, Judge Daniels justified the trial court's intervention in the settlement process, a violation of New York Law.   These signals, along with the characterization of Plaintiff as not credible (issues outside their purview)

are usually accepted by busy higher courts.   Frauds propound frauds and soon a conspiracy is in place.  Attorneys who "helped" must be vindicated (as Judge Daniels improperly did) and silenced with a quick payoff or promise of relief for their guilty client.

VI. CONSEQUENCES-DAMAGES:

The Human result of this tragedy of justice and corruption of public trust has been incalculable. Tens of millions in tax payer funds have been wasted by diverting scare judicial time to favor par-cement, disturbing bona fide (and expensive) verdicts and incurring unnecessary appellate investment, and encouraging violators of the law to repeat (which, if ever studied, would be astronomical).   The damage and continued  threat to New York's former image of integrity and reputation as civilized, progressive Courts is immeasurable.  A disabled woman who had been proven to have been subjected to two separate disability discrimination and hazing campaigns by two different employers was forced to endure 15 years of litigation for one action,  and 7 years for the other.   At the beginning of the Bates Advertising case, the employer admitted to knowing of the hazing and taking no remedial action but later firing and replacing the disabled victim, direct evidence of discrimination, yet was released of all responsibility by reversal of  the jury verdict in her favor, and effectively rewarded for their crimes. (Credit to federal judge (Rakoff) whose "error" actions sent the case through years of appeals and finally NYSSC). The other employer, Verizon Communications, knew at that start of the filing that it's actions had led to Jordan's collapse in 2002, yet kept the litigation going 7 years after cutting a deal with a federal judge (Scheindlin) where Plaintiff would never have her case heard by a jury and would be forced to "settle" or "face litigation and sanctions".   "Voluntary" settlements are never executed where the party being asked to release their rights is without counsel. Nor are they entered into prior to discovery, or worse, suppression of documents known to be relevant to the value of the deal.  This same employer Verizon, a consistent violator and discriminator against the Disabled,  had intentionally omitted the word "disabled" from their EEO Policy for that same period and denied Plaintiff her fully elected ERISA benefits after she collapsed after a two year hazing and humiliation campaign and deprived of ADA accommodation as "punishment" for failing to meet performance targets (Plaintiff's pre-disclosure review was "exceeds performance" and was nominated for the Verizon Excellence Award).  After brazenly withholding her ERISA benefits, Verizon then schemed to create "faux" consideration terms, which they promptly violated a month after the ink was dry on the coerced settlement.

            The Plaintiff, Kathryn Jordan, personally lost her home, life savings, and economic worth. The toll on her physical and mental health, and her reputation, was incalculable (Her then therapist characterized it as "severe").  She was subjected to viscous "baseless" rumors, many started by the judges and lawyers themselves. Instead of the violators being "sanctioned", she was. Instead of the lawyers who improperly sought to influence the judges being subjected to the wrath of the court, she was.  And because she had invested everything in the myth of justice, like many unsuspecting "clients" of the legal system, there was no way out.  She was imprisoned by her own naïve beliefs in due process, the Constitution and the Rule of Law and in the Legal System that worked so hard against it. She had only one goal: to make sure that the truth was told so that no one would be victimized and fooled again.  It meant countless holidays without her family, and thousands of hours doing what no one else would do.

Nonetheless, the violations of law by Plaintiff's employers, where she was hazed as "a cripple" (the equivalent of the "N" word in racist terms), denied equality and tortured for being "handicapped" and needing an accommodation under the ADA, were nothing compared to the systematic abuse she was subjected to by the legal system.

Power crazed, elitist judges, who are clearly disconnected from the suffering of the constituents that they serve, and greedy lawyers more than willing to act as accessories, have supplanted the impartial trier of fact and jury system.  Judges cherry pick cases, vetting them through the attorney "grapevine", and delegate pretrial duties to attorneys that they like.  They manipulate evidence, Rules, and Laws to conform to their ingoing biases.  They get friends at the County Clerk to "sit" on appellate records for 18 months.

They call in "favors" and they dispense the same.   "Justice" is not even in the lexicon of today's jurist.

The facts of the cases defined above would shock most voters who have bought into a romanticized portrait of the legal system marketed by programs like "Law and Order"

and movies like "The Juror".  Most people do not understand how far we have deviated from that idealized metaphor.  Today's legal system is run by Michael Clayton not Atticus Finch.  And the Courts are beyond "Runaway Jury".  Runaway Judge is more like it.

At stake here is a malaise that is more serious than our burgeoning budget crisis.

Our Judicial System is completely corrupt.  The New York Senate Public Hearings

proved that.  The Commission's 2008 Report proved that.  The historic rise in discrimination as reported by the EEOC proves that (Laws that are not enforced by the Courts will not be complied with by employers).  And yes, the Courts' clearly targeted this Plaintiff because picking off the weakest link in the chain is the start button for unraveling of all that we have held sacred since our nation was born.   The right to free speech.  The right to an attorney.  The right to a jury trial.  The right to self representation.  The right to be compensated for wrongs.  The right to punish those who break the Laws.  We live in an age where there is no accountability, and where greed and power are respected commodities.

We have embarked on a dangerous course that will lead to disaster if unchecked.  We have allowed our Judiciary to become overrun with charlatans, crooks, and power crazed narcissists.  Our Rules of Conduct and Judiciary Laws have become so weakened that they are now the tools for justification of the same.

Senators, stop this out of hijacked plane.   We need Judicial Reform and we need it fast and we need it badly.  Do not wait for New York to become the laughing stock of the country. Do not compromise because "we don't have the money".  Creativity and innovation solve more problems than money.  Do not accept excuses that you know are not consistent with our values.  And don't deploy old failed tools to solve new problems.  You have choices.   You can redefine Justice for the Modern Court.   And don't say "Oh well, what's done is done".  What's done is far from done. The Voters will not accept this

Response.

Finally, make this the Bipartisan priority for 2010 that is should be.   And reach out to your constituents.  Many of us have much to offer beyond our horror stories of experiences with the legal system.  We know where the weaknesses in the system are.  We know who the Guilty are.  We know how they do it.  And we will take no prisoners and will not compromise our principles for quickie solutions.  .  And there are issues of tax fraud as well, as the employers get to write down these "costs".

VII. ACTION REQUIRED

So with this Bill for Impeachment, we ask the Legislature to begin a necessary process

of Judicial Reform.   This will be the first in many bills that you will probably consider, as the following action items must be addressed:

Impeachment of all judges who have participating in "case fixing" schemes, no

matter how high up the judicial ladder.  Replace them after a careful vetting of qualified candidates is undertaken.

2. Replace both Chief Judges (Judge Lippman and Gonzales), and find new that this  person should possess.

3. Appoint a task force of multi stakeholders to work with this Judicial Committee

to develop a Judicial Reform agenda, and to re-examine all of the Rules of Judicial

Conduct with an eye toward finding loopholes and inequities.

4. Abolish the Commission of Judicial Conduct and terminate its Directors.  Appoint

a task force to review the Charter, the criteria, the qualifications and training of investigators, all with an eye to creating a new Regulatory entity for the Judiciary.

5. Replace the Directors of the County Clerk and review all policies with an eye

toward expediting certification of appellate records. Digitize all court records.

6. Appoint a panel of judges whose trust is unassailable and bipartisan to review the

Judicial Law and process, beginning with appeals, to begin the process of defining the "Modern Court". This will be a longer term project but it must begin now.

7. Appoint a multi-stakeholder team to review the issue of judicial compensation, to reward highly productive judges who follow the Rules, and punish those who do not.

8. Review the cases referenced in this Bill and Case 09 Cv 10616 (not yet served)

De novo and provide restitution if these abuses have compromised just outcomes.

If compensation is linked to judicial ethics, as is used in the "for profit" world, you will see faster change.  There is a fine line but it can be found.  It is indisputable that even good judges are handling too many caseloads and do not always have time to make good decisions. (The judges named above acted willfully to circumvent the Rules and Law and do not fall into that category).  However, we do not want to be vetting judges for higher office, or even hiring them, if they would prefer to work for a "large for profit law firm",

or who are resentful of private sector compensation, and under-appreciative of the lifetime job security and benefits, and the status they hold.  Nor do we want judges who are not suited by temperament, or have strong biases or a need for attention.  We need scholarly, temperate, wise,  compassionate judges.  However the case load situation is such that the Judiciary must consider other forms of conflict resolution, and other ways to categorize cases that do not encompass systematic bias (like all Pro Se cases), or wholesale trampling of particular classes of litigant's rights, to prioritize and leverage limited resources.

Credit for beginning this process by having the courage to hold public hearings belongs to Senator John Sampson, who took the initiative to listen to the People of New York after hundreds flocked to him with complaints of corruption in our Judicial and Legal System.  He needs funding and support to continue this critical initiative.  This challenge requires strong consistent leadership and the will and courage to stand up to the powerful Judicial machine and Partisan interests.  This should be a Bi Partisan effort and the proposed Mission The Reform of Our Court System in New York and the Opportunity to Define the Modern Court must be led with unwavering commitment to this goal.

Respectfully Submitted By:

Kathryn Grace Jordan

On behalf of the

Voters, Tax Payers and Residents of New York

Dated: January 8, 2010

Copy Distribution List:

            Angelo Aponte, Secretary of the Senate

Sen. John Sampson, Chair of Judiciary Committee

Timothy Spotts Esquire

Sen. Eric Adams

Sen. John J. Bonacic

Sen. Neil D. Breslin

Sen. John A. DeFrancisco

Sen. Ruben Diaz

Sen. Martin Malavé Dilan

Sen. Pedro Espada

Sen. Ruth Hassell-Thompson

Sen. Jeffrey D. Klein

Sen. Andrew J Lanza

Sen. Kenneth P. LaValle

Sen. George D. Maziarz

Sen. Michael F. Nozzolio

Sen. George Onorato

Sen. Bill Perkins

Sen. Michael H. Ranzenhofer

Sen. Stephen M. Saland

Sen. Diane J. Savino

Sen. Eric T. Schneiderman

Sen. Dale M. Volker

Sen. George Winner

Note;   The case against the Defendants 09 CV 10616 has not be served yet, but will be in the near future despite 120 days provided by Law.

APPENDIX

I.                   JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS

II.                JUDICIAL DECISIONS

A.    Jordan v. Bates  Trial Court (JudgeAcosta):

                                                              i.       Original 2/06;

                                                            ii.      Final Judgment 11/06;

                                                          iii.      Appellate Decision 12/07

                                                          iv.      Motion to Re-Hear Brief to Court of Appeals (Denied)

B.     Malpractice Decisions (Bates Related)

C.    Jordan v. Verizon

III.             COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

IV.             STATUTES AND LAWS (Sampling of Existing Laws, New Laws Needed)

A.    New Change in Judicial Canons (effective 7/09)

V.                IMPEACHMENT articles

II.              JUDICIAL DECISIONS

A. Jordan v. Bates,   Trial Court (JudgeAcosta):

i. Original 2/06;

ii. Final Judgment 11/06;

      iii.Appellate Division Decision 2/07

B. Malpractice Decisions (Bates Related)

      C. Jordan v. Verizon

I. JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS

III.             COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

IV.             STATUTES AND LAWS (Sampling of Existing Laws,

New Laws Needed)

                        V. IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES

            VI JUDGE ACOSTA RECUSAL (FIRST OF THREE)



Enter subhead content here