Welcome to

E.N.D. End Discrimination Now        

changing perceptions. Changing the world.sm                                                            

" The Courts are what the Judges Make Them....."                            
" All it takes for Evil to Prevail is for one Good Man (or Woman)to do Nothing".

Call Us 24/7s @ 917 596 2319 or info@enddiscriminationnow.com

PLEASE LEAVE YOUR PHONE NUMBER ON ALL MESSAGES SO WE CAN RSVP

 If you have a story about a corrupt judge or attorney, we will publish it here at END.   Our new site will be up in December!  NOTE. This site is for professionals interested in the subject of discrimination.  E.N.D vigorously lobbies against discrimination and for the punishment of violators of federal and state laws, as well as the out-ing; of corrupt judges.  However, END does not susbscribe to any extremist groups or individuals who dvocate violent solutions to social problems.   We vett all partnerships very carefully.

2011-01-15 By

Highest Federal Appellate Court Denies En Banc Petition, Disregards Evidence of SDNY Cover Up of Verizon's "Willful" Breach of Settlement Agreement in Apparent "Deal".

For_Immediate_Release:

New York, N.Y. January 17th, 2011: In the latest chapter of the Second Circuit's role in the cover up of the Judge Scheindlin-Verizon "Case Fixing" scheme, New York's highest federal court issued another political decision founded in fraud in an apparent attempt to "whitewash" the Scheindlin mess from August 2004. In it's decision of January 5th, 2011 signed by an Administrative Attorney, the panel assigned to hear the Petition for Rehearing ( Hon. Pooler, Sack, Raggi) simply issued a denial of the En Banc Petition for Rehearing with no explanation (a practice deployed by "cherry picking" jurists. In its prior decision the Second Circuit (Hon.Raggi et al) issued a "combined" Order disposing of all motions on December 28th, 2010, citing to a criminal case (Pillay v. INS 45 F 3d 14) that provided a generic recitation that Jordan's Appeal allegedly was "lacking an arguable basis in law and fact" without providing any comparison of facts or law to the instant appeal. Jordan who filed a Motion for Reconsideration before her very detailed En Banc Petition, proved in her Briefs that the Southern District Judge Hon. Gerard Lynch had intentionally disregarded evidence that proved Verizon "willfully breached" the Settlement Agreement. Judge Pooler, who along with Judge Sack and Raggi, had overseen the Oral Argument, had scolded Verizon "Why did Verizon not reschedule the Exit Interview, Mr. Gage?", apparently got cold feet when it came time to enforcing the Law. Verizon, who had coerced Jordan into "agreeing" under duress, fraud and blackmail to the "unconscionable" Settlement Agreement with the aid of the manipulative Judge Scheindlin, after her attorney had withdrawn, breached two terms of the agreement almost immediately upon execution in August 2004. Judge Lynch, the jurist assigned to hear the "Breach of Settlement" case, entertained frivolous pleadings from Verizon Counsel Paul Hastings (Ken Gage) who asserted "diversity" and "subject matter jurisdiction (SMJ)" as defenses for his client's conduct. At no time did Verizon deny breaching the Settlement. Judge Lynch knew that Verizon had withheld their Corporate Disclosures during the MTD phase of the case (revealing them upon appeal), negating any "diversity" claims, and that Jordan had not only plausibly pled the "sum" of remedies in excess of "$75K" (without consideration for the "immeasurable" benefits), but she had produced Verizon branded documents which attested to the same. Judge Lynch did not reveal his bias openly until his "Final Judgment" ambush, dismissing the Amended Complaint "with prejudice" to help Verizon evade liability for its willful violation. In his Opinion, the Judge declared that "the only conclusion the Court can draw...is that the "value" at issue lies not in damages arising from the failure to be debriefed but in what plaintiff anticipates her claims would be worth if the Court "vacat(es) the Settlement Agreement in its entirety. But Plaintiff cannot wield the lack of an exit interview that has no shred of value in of itself...". A moot point.
Judge Pooler implicitly recognized that not only had Judge Lynch "abused his discretion" by rendering an Opinion on a case where he clearly had an ingoing bias, and speculating about the value of the damages (pre-empting expert valuation), but that the federal judge, like his colleague Judge Scheindlin, had manipulated evidence and law to force an outcome, obviously with the intent of doling out another favor to another corporate violator of Federal and State Law. However, instead of performing the necessary "de novo" review that Appellant Jordan advised was necessary to reviewing her appeal, Judge Pooler handed off the case to Judge Raggi who handed it off to a staff attorney. "I am deeply disappointed that Judge Pooler, who is a jurist of formidable intellect, would stoop to such manipulative behavior", Jordan stated. "But if there is another deal in the works here, as it certainly appears, there may be some more names added to the Defendants list on the Obstruction of Justice case".
In the Original decision which was rendered to support a "Mandate" only weeks after the Oral Argument (pre-empting Jordan's due process right to object), the Pooler panel cited case law (Scherer v. Equitable Life 347 F. 3d 394 (2003) that it asserted supported Verizon's faux defense of "Subject Matter Jurisdiction" , when in fact the case presented a standard of review that argued [against/i] Verizon's argument. As Jordan stated in her Brief "As evident from the well crafted [Scherer/i] case, the burden for proving Subject Matter Jurisdiction is not on Appellant to "prove the value" of the terms of the Agreement but one the "opposing (moving) party faces as "face of the complaint rebuttal presumption" where it must show to "a legal certainty" that the amount in controversy does NOT meet the jurisdictional requirement. Appellee Verizon provided no such evidence...". Jordan claimed that Verizon "anticipatorily repudiated" the Settlement Agreement which [de facto/i] was proven by Verizon's admission that it refused to reschedule the Exit Interview. Jordan has argued that this willful failure was "fatal" and that the evidence of Verizon's bad faith (implied covenant of good faith/ fair dealing in all NY Contracts) was a material and willful breach of an "Executory Accord" and hence fatal, requiring dissolution of the contract "in toto".
As Jordan argued in her brief citing "[Met Life v. Noble (84 2d 430 1994/i]) the New York Court of Appeals found "[The necessary theory of the complaint of breach of contract may be so intended and planned, so purposely fitted to time and circumstance and conditions so interwoven into a scheme of oppression and fraud, so made to set in motion innocent causes which otherwise would not operate, as to cease to be a mere breach of contract and become in its association with the attendant circumstances, a tortuous and wrongful fact of omission/i]".
Appellant Jordan believes the Second Circuit is "foolish" to believe it can circumvent hearing cases where judicial misconduct is operative, or "cherry pick" cases where a systematic circumvention of an entire class of people is operative (Pro Se litigants). "[The Amended Complaint plausibly pled facts that disposed of both the diversity and SMJ defenses and hence survived the MTD challenge. The District Court failed to arrive at this finding because of its indisputable bias and application of the incorrect legal standard. Hence the Second Circuit should have conducted the necessary "de novo" review of the Record/i]". Jordan asserted.
As for Verizon's latest scheme to circumvent responsibility for its misconduct, Jordan promises that the "repeat violator" will be held accountable. "[Verizon is the text book example of a Corporation which has repeatedly flaunted Federal and State Laws and been rewarded for doing so by corrupt and incompetent judges. They failed to enforce a "Zero Tolerance" Discrimination Policy or honor Erisa contracts, the latter of which they have multiple litigations, but there are also willful attempts at deception by this employer: Omitting the word" Disabled" from their Codes of Conduct, "fixing" discrimination cases so that they never get to trial, authorizing outside counsel to deploy onerous and unlawful tactics to circumvent the Law (like forging an eight year litigation against a disabled woman and using coercion and blackmail to force her off the payroll). They are one of the most aggressive litigators and abusers of the legal system, yet ironically libel their legal adversaries as "vexatious". When you have that kind of defiant and persistent flaunting, it always emanates from the Chief Executive's Office"/i], an End-JRN spokesperson stated. Ironically, judges reviewing discrimination cases never scrutinize the [employer's/i] track record in EEO. They put all the emphasize on "blam(ing) the victim". "It's like the last 40 years of Civil Rights advances never happened", Jordan anguished.
There is a clear price for the failure of our Judges to enforce discrimination laws. Litigant's can literally lose their lives while waiting for decisions.. Corporate violators like Verizon see this failure as a sign of weakness by the Judiciary and only perpetuate and escalate avoidance of compliance. They will refuse to hire Women, Minorities and Disabled persons for executive positions or compensate them equally with their white male non- disabled counterparts. Verizon did just this after Judge Scheindlin and Judge Lynch acted to "fix" the Jordan discrimination case and cover up the Breach of Settlement. Until this past week, Verizon hired an inner circle of all white male executives : http://www22.verizon.com/onecms/LeadershipTeam/BiosAndPictures/BiosAndPictures.htm

END-JRN predicts any fixes will be temporary and that once the light is turned off of them, that they will resume their discriminatory practices. "This is the price we pay for weak leadership and corrupt judges in the Judiciary". However JRN will not accept these offensive and unlawful Conspiracies where justice is bought and sold and "exemptions" are doled out like papal dispensations. "The predicate that a judge will be "immune" from liability no matter how outrageous their conduct or how much they abuse their discretion and act outside their jurisdiction is simply delusional." Jordan warned."As for Pooler, "She's clearly pitching for the Conservative agenda".


####

For more information:
Visit our website: www.enddiscriminationnow.com

Contact us: 954 Lexington Avenue

LANDMARK CASE FILED AGAINST CHIEF JUDGE,

NY JUDICIARY FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.   ATTORNEY GENERAL ASKED TO INVESTIGATE

ALLEGATIONS THAT THE JUDICIARY ACTED AS "ORGANIZED CRIME UNIT" IN 'FAVORS FOR PROMOTIONS" DEALS.

For Immediate Release                                                                                                                       

TOP NY JUDGES SUED FOR “OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE” IN LANDMARK CASE AGAINST JUDICIARY IN FEDERAL COURT Chief Judge Lippman and Fed Judge Shira Scheindlin charged with "case fixing", WPP, Verizon with RICO-Conspiracy to Defraud-Conversion

( See Judicial Reform Now Navigation Button or go to  www.enddiscriminationnow.com/judicialreformnow)

March 12th, 2010, New York, N.Y.:  Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman and thirty other defendants including two corporations, Verizon Communications and WPP Group, 13 appellate and federal judges, five law firms, and the Judicial Conduct Commission itself in New York  have been served a lawsuit by Plaintiff Kathryn Jordan in Federal Court (09 cv 10616) alleging “obstruction of justice” and eight other acts of civil fraud.  Jordan is President and Founder of End Discrimination Now and a former Fortune 100 executive.  The Chief Judge has been charged with transforming the Judiciary from the enforcer of Federal and State laws into an “arcane, corrupt system of favors, partisanship and political ideology where justice is bought and sold everyday”.     The complaint alleges that the Defendant judges illegally used their judicial power and discretion to “fix” cases and litigation outcomes, frequently circumventing the Rules of Evidence and the Rule of Law in the process.  In return for these favors, the corporate defendants would be relieved of liability, even judgments, or have their cases positioned for early “settlements”, the latter of which were always a fraction of the corporate exposure.   Both WPP Group and Verizon Corporation’s CEO’s are believed to have given the order to perpetuate the frauds and to force the disabled litigant to endure 15 years of litigation in order to secure her constitutional rights.  Ms. Jordan was a former executive at both companies.  WPP Group refused to pay the $3.3M Bond after losing the jury case they demanded be tried, and Verizon deployed coercion to force a token “settlement” under fraudulent circumstances then reneged on the token terms..  Most seriously the Judicial Conduct Commission, the state’s regulatory body for the Judiciary, is believed to have enabled the cover ups and allowed crimes similar to the cases cited in the Complaint to go undetected, acting as an agent of the conspiracy and deploying tax payer funds to perpetuate the schemes.

Chief Judge Lippman, Chief Judge Gonzales,  Judge Acosta Promoted After

“Fixing” of Jordan v. Bates Case; sampson aids cover up.

  The Chief Judge is alleged to have personally “fixed” the outcome of the Jordan v. Bates case (118785-99-cv), an important “perceived disability” discrimination case to dispense a favor to Drinker Biddle’s client, WPP Group, which lost the jury trial and post trial verdicts in 2005 after refusing to settle the case during the preceding decade, despite hard evidence of liability in the form of  sworn omissions of guilt by agency management.  In return for this large favor (a $3.3M Bond had been posted),  Judge Lippman was positioned as the front runner of the nomination process for Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals and all of the Courts of New York, ahead of colleagues far more experienced and qualified.  A faux debate about “diversity”, led by Senator John Sampson ensued, but Judge Lippman was approved for Chief Judge by the NY Senate Judiciary Committee that Sampson chairs,  in what was believed to be another “favor for favor” deal negotiated behind the scenes to direct “support” to Samspon’s district. (Senator Sampson, who has refused to answer questions about the matter after declaring his support for Judge Lippman, is expected to be the 31^st Defendant).  Judge Lippman is also charged with aiding and abetting a numerous other “errant” judges whom he knew to have violated the Rules of Judicial Conduct, including then Supreme Court Judge Rolando Acosta, who had attacked Jordan as “contemptuous”  after she reported her discharged  attorney’s “Ex Parte” meetings (Laurence Lebowitz) with the Court seeking to improperly influence the jurist on a large disputed contingent legal fee ($1.3M), a matter not before him.  Knowing that Acosta had threatened the Plaintiff with retaliation, and that he has indisputably attacked her personally in the “Final Judgment, Judge Lippman, acting from a posture of bias by his own admission, aided the scheme to “dump” the case to avoid any messy “investigation” during the vetting process.   After Chief Judge Lippman legitimized (instead of reporting) Acosta’s conduct, he used this “evidence” to not only discredit the Plaintiff but to justify reversing the jury verdict upheld by the trial court based on an alleged “JNOV” (Judgment Nothwithstanding the Verdict).   Ironically, the Acosta himself had already denied the JNOV, rendering any appellate review suspect for “collateral estoppel” and “res judicata”.   More seriously, the “evidence” of the allegations by Acosta against Jordan did not even exist at the time of the jury trial, so incorporation of this into the calculus of the Opinion to disturb the verdict was, by definition, fraud.    Nonetheless, Judge Acosta was promptly “vetted” for his promotion to the First Department, the latter of which would not have occurred without the intercession of Chief Judge Lippman.

Chief Judge Lippman uses Acosta Ruse to Re-Write Discrimination Laws

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

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

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

Judge Batts will hear Landmark Case

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

The Complaint asserts that the Judiciary in New York has been corrupted by “decades of abuses of judicial discretion”, that has become so pervasive and embedded in the culture of the Courts of New York that the Judiciary has essentially been “operating as an organized crime unit”.   The Complaint filed on December 30^th, 2009 in Federal Court alleges allegations of “obstruction of justice, conspiracy to defraud, conversion, tampering with evidence and improper attempts to influence witnesses” among others in the eight causes of action.  The case has been assigned to Federal Court Judge Deborah Batts. 

 It is not known if the Attorney General will be accepting the Plaintiff’s invitation to represent her on behalf of the People of New York, or if he will defend the judges, JCC, and Clerk of the Court as Defendants who claim “entitlement to representation under Public Officer’s Law 17”.   End Discrimination Now has condemned the judges attempt to deploy tax payer resources to run a “tax payer financed defense” while the disabled plaintiff, who has already endured 15 years of litigation, would have to prosecute the case not only against the 26 Defendants but the Attorney General’s office.

Complaint alleges judiciary has been “operating As Organized Crime Unit”.

            Either way the case will be historic as it tests the underlying premise that judges are “immune” from prosecution for violations of New York Law.    Jordan’s landmark case revolves around her discovery of a “pattern of misconduct with multiple judges in multiple related cases conspiring to “fix” the outcomes and cover up the deceptions with the arms-length assistance of corporate attorneys”.   Jordan’s research also revealed that the “deus ex machine” for the frauds was the conversion of judgments or potential judgment risks against large corporate defendants into favors dispensed by the Judges, which would then be converted back into “favors’, “IOU’s” , with the same corporate law firms at  future date.   “Monetizing the fraud was the key”, Jordan observed. “It was clear that the judges were doling out favors.  We had to define the premise that made this favors illegal, and it was the conversion of the favors to promotions, among other things”.

            Apparently because the judges involved acted outside their authorized role, and committed crimes against the State, the normal “immunity” that Judges are afforded is not available to them.  This means that if the Defendants are found guilty of the crimes alleged, that they could be doing hard jail time for felonies under New York Law.

            Legally, the case has been given a boost by the Judicial Conference’s recent amendment in July 2009 which strengthened the bases upon which judges can be found in violation of Judiciary Law Canon I if they demonstrate conduct which “gives the appearance of impropriety” and under Canon II the section addressing “improper influence” has been codified to support the “impropriety” violation.  Recent court cases where judges actually have been impeached in other states have been successful when the actions of the jurist were willful, where there was an attempt to evade investigators,

and where the Judge used taxpayer funds to effect the frauds. 

            The Complaint’s allegations of  “obstruction of justice” by Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman and others (For full Complaint go to www.enddiscriminationnow.com/judicialreform now ) is based upon two major discrimination cases which were “fixed” both at the trial and appellate level, and four related malpractice cases that were “fixed” as well as part of a 15 year organized effort to deny the Plaintiff the right to due process and enforcement of federal and state “anti discrimination laws”.  “People have a very naïve view of how our legal system works,:” Jordan stated “Most corporate law firms give lip service to anti- discrimination laws, and when accused of violations usually  avoid liability by entering into “deals” to “settle” the case early on for a fraction of their value.  If the case makes it to trial and is lost by the employer,  there has long been a secret understanding that the appellate courts will ride to the rescue of the employers, changing evidence and laws after the case is over if necessary to “fix” the outcome so the employer evades liability”. For decades, attorneys, who frequently act as arm-length agents for the judges, have pushed litigants into “settlements”  to avoid risk to the plaintiff’s attorney, who unlike the corporate defendant can neither summon “insurance” nor “tax write offs” to subsidize these costs.  The illegal but accepted practice of systematically altering outcomes of discrimination cases may explain why discrimination has risen year after year in virtually all protected classes, despite the emphasis on EEO policies in recent years.  

            Jordan believes that the “fixing” of her two discrimination and four malpractice cases are metaphors for the corruption that has degraded the judicial system, and that the case will be a “test market” for proving that “judges do act in concert of commit fraud everyday” and that verdicts being monetized is how corruption has evolved from “cash under the table” justice of yesterday to a sophisticated system masked by Byzantine rules and jargon.   Apparently, her experience is far from the exception.  This past summer countless  deponents flew to Albany to testify at the New York Senate Judiciary Committee Public Hearings about “pervasive corruption in the Judiciary” and to specifically name Chief Judge Lippman as ringleader.

Lack of Regulatory Oversight by JCC, conspiracies by appellate “review” enabled cover ups.

            A key defendant is the Commission for Judicial Conduct, which has been alleged to have abdicated its role as the regulatory oversight for the Judiciary and acted to enable the violations, frauds and cover ups.    In the 2009 Annual Report, Director Robert Tembeckjian admitted to a “historic rise in complaints against judges”, despite being afforded a large budget increase and new investigators,  yet investigated only around 10% of them and rarely issued any censure or sanction.  “The real tip off was the fact that Mr. Tembeckjian had not issued ONE sanction or censure against a judge in the higher level courts.  In fact, of the 40 appellate complaints that were received in that year ZERO were investigated”, Jordan affirmed. “This means that “RT” has been enabling the frauds by deploying a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for higher level judges”.  The lack of regulation was cited by other deponents at the hearings.

            Although it certainly is not surprising in the current climate of government scandals to discover that the Judiciary has been affected by this “malaise of ethical breaches”, Jordan herself was shocked to realize that the Appellate Courts were playing a key role in covering up any judicial deceptions.   “When the Second Circuit adopted the Southern District’s position that the Verizon settlement was “voluntary”, even though I was without counsel and had been threatened and coerced, and the trial court had intervened in violation of NY Law, I knew the corruption was completely systemic. And when the First Department re-”. 

            The Plaintiff, a disabled woman who has MS, won her jury verdict against Bates Advertising in April 2005, and prevailed on all post trial motions which rendered the case “appeal proof”, especially after WPP’s attorneys agreed to the “law of the case”.  (Responsibility for the case was assumed by WPP Group after the acquisition-merger with Bates USA ). However, a deal was signaled by the trial court, Judge Rolando Acosta, who by that time was being vetted for a promotion to the First Department and on appeal, Judge Lippman, adopted the lower courts unsworn denials of misconduct by Plaintiff as “baseless” and used the same fallacy to attack Plaintiff’s “credibility”, dispose of all the evidence of discrimination, and effectively re-write the facts of the case to support a “JNOV” (insufficiency of evidence pleading).   Not only was the First Department legally precluded from “re-hearing” the JNOV, they were legally obligated to report not suppress the claims of misconduct by the lower court.  Instead the trial judge was promoted! One year later so was Chief Judge Lippman and Judge Gonzales, both part of the “fixing-cover up” scheme.  On the Verizon matter, Jordan was forced into an involuntary settlement for a token ‘pay the attorneys deal” under threat of “litigation and sanctions’ by Judge Shira Scheindlin.  Then all four malpractice cases were disposed of prior to trial and again on appeal.  “It has been a hellish 15 years but I was committed to surfacing the truth and securing real change in our most important law enforcement system”.

Voters to push for Comprehensive Judicial Reform Mandate

            End Discrimination Now, and Judicial Reform Now, the latter a group that emerged out of the public hearings, see the litigation as the first necessary step toward “much needed Judicial Reform” and has been lobbying to have the Impeachment Bill heard.  “It would certainly speed things up a bit, and after 15 years of sacrifices and similar hardships for other voters and litigants, there clearly is a case to be made for expeditious disposition of these charges”, Jordan stated..   Unfortunately, embattled Judiciary Chair Senator John Sampson will not be leading the way, Jordan lamented.   After a year of notice about the case against Chief Judge Lippman, and after countless promises to tackle the tough decisions, the Senator has repeatedly “played politics” and turned a blind eye to the corruption going as far as endorsing Judge Lippman’s violations of the Law and Rules.    END has called for his resignation as Chair of the Committee.   “I was surprised at the Senator’s lack of appreciation of the legal significance of the case, and his failure of will to stand up to these criminals”, Jordan stated, “But the voters need a strong leader who will not sell us out for political gain”.  END is still optimistic that the Attorney General will step in and investigate and prosecute the case against the judges in this “David and Goliath” battle.

            Judicial Reform Now and other activist groups will be lobbying for the Attorney General to support the impeachment of the Chief Judge, who was only recently cited for his attempt to exploit taxpayer funds in the “Judicial Robe Cleaning Scam” this past winter.  “We are seeking a major Judicial Reform Mandate, equal in scope to the Medicare Bill, where the by product will be a new model for the Modern Court.  Real reform will require meaningful Change.  You cannot start to build a new house if you know you have a rotten foundation. A model for the Modern Court will incorporate a multi stakeholder approach with a commitment to an ongoing dialogue with the Public, deployment of academic experts, and be led by skilled strategic faciliators. Amateur night is over” END President Kathryn Jordan affirmed. 

www.enddiscriminationnow.com/judicialreformnow’

For further information about this story, please contact END at  917 596 2319

End Discrimination Now VIDEOS:

November 2009: "Senator" Lippman (f/k/a Chief Case Fixer Judge Jonathan Lippman) not just jealous of "private sector"compensation, now apparently running for elective office: View live NY NOW interview on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka26KyAC0ao

Jordan reveals Lippman political agenda as Jurist advocates for "families"; Inept ruse to silence uproar over judicial pay raises and case fixing allegations only re-inforces criticisms.  "He was intended to be the  Republican Trojan horse", Jordan said. "But he has consistently embarrassed the Judiciary and few supporters with his bad judgment. Now he's trying horse-trading promises for "families".Why is the  Chief Judge on TV talking about anything?   Is he competing with Elliot "hookergate" Spizter for "most inappropriate" conduct by a government  official? July 2009  END President Testifies at NY State Senate Judiciary Hearings      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28afajRkDwY ( 2 min in.)              January 2010 You Tube Preview:  Topic: Judicial Reform, Interview with       Panel of Experts:"Status of Justice in our "Modern Courts.                           

SENATE HEARINGS REVEAL "PERVASIVE JUDICIAL BIAS AND MISCONDUCT" THROUGHOUT JUDICIAL SYSTEM 

November 3rd, 2009, New York NY : E.N.D. End Discrimination Now has released a report that reveals substantial misconduct by New York judges in virtually all jurisdictions, as revealed before the Senate Judiciary Hearings led by Senator John Sampson, Senate Majority Leader.  The hearings provided a forum for citizen and legal community to provide input about the integrity and effectiveness of the Judiciary.   "The results were astounding", END President Kathryn Jordan stated.  "Virtually every deponent attested to some form of corruption or criminality by a judge in the New York State judicial system".    The hearings which occurred over the summer and included testimony from trial attorneys, judges and the JCC, revealed misconduct ranging from blatant bias against litigants, especially females, (and a refusal to recuse); cover up of peer misconduct rather than reporting it as required by the Rules of JCC; case fixing for a variety of reasons ranging from favor dispostion to power plays; blatant violation of the Rules (cheered on by fellow jurists); tampering with evidence; disregard of applicable law and rule of law; intimidation tactics ranging from threats to sanctions to censorship to outright fixing of settlements and cases; "Ex Parte" communications with trial attorneys where deals were entered into pre-trial (usually to prevent the same); degradation of complainants who objected to sexist and biased treatment; retaliation; and conspiracies to obstruct justice involving trial attorneys on both sides, magistrates, special referees, and other judges.  "Generally, misconduct is accompanied by a contempt for litigants, especially litigants in protected classes like women, minorites or the disabled.    Male judges, who have consolidated their power and authority through exclusionary and punitive practices against women and other minority groups, and whom have demonstrated preferential treatment of white male colleagues, feel threatened by female and minority litigants, especially those who have pierced the glass ceiling.  The current lobby for judicial pay raises is less about money and more about judges feeling that they should be made equal to executives in the private sector, especially females and minorities, despite the complete lack of accountability and unparralled job security that judges currently enjoy.";   END President Jordan has personally endured severe judicial misconduct: "I have had judges threaten me if I pursued a particular course of action; judges attack me personally on a character /veracity level without any evidence whatsoever, magistrates and referees who threatened my livelihood and who demanded degrading acts (like demanding that the disabled get down and "pick up your garbage") or used degrading language or characterizations (like "contemptuous") or impugned my intergrity or honesty without a scintilla of proof ; judges who used their authority to suppress my freedom of speech, my right to choice of legal counsel, and my right to choose a course of action, especially if the latter required a trial on the merits; judges who sided with career criminals over a female with a long history of honesty, hard work and achievement; judges who lied on the record to justify their misconduct.  Judges who ignored, created or manipulated evidence.

I have seen it all", Jordan said.   Apparently, her experiences with the Judiciary were hardly a minority experience, as the hundreds of deponents who flocked to the hearings to voice their concerns attested to .  The judge most frequently mentioned by virtually every deponent as being a source of corruption or misconduct was none other than Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman.  His name was mentioned in virtually every report.

Lippman has focused on judicial compensation as a panacea, while failing to even acknowlege the problem of judicial misconduct.  END believes that he has "the tail wagging the dog". "You cannot even begin a dialogue about judicial compensation that compares "private sector" compensation without comparing private sector accountability, Jordan claimed.  "We need an entirely new system of compensation that ties performance with pay, and ensures that tax payer funds are not going to corrupt lazy judges";.

The Senate Commission on Judicial Conduct has been served END's Report and those of other groups in attendance and will be issuing their findings in the near future.                                                           

FIRST DEPT "FIXES" ATTORNEY MALPRACTICE CASES TO PERPETUATE LIPPMAN-ACOSTA CASE FIXING SCAM

FIRST DEPARTMENT BYPASSES APPELLATE RULES TO FIX LIPPMAN; PANEL ATTORNEY FRAUD CASES November 16th, 2009

November 16^th, 200, New York NY: In the latest development in the scandal of case fixing allegations against the First Department, the activist appellate division dismissed three appeals of attorney malpractice cases related to the Jordan v. Bates discrimination case that was “fixed” and reversed on appeal by WPP GROUP in December 2007.   The Malpractice cases were rejected by the appellate division prior to “brief filing”, when the Record was still in dispute, a circumvention of the Appellate Rules of Civil Procedure, as part of what is widely believed to be the largest case fixing scheme in New York judicial history.   The Malpractice case cover up, which involved dismissal by Supreme Court Judge Marcy Friedman prior to any discovery was believed to have been undertaken to ensure that the frauds perpetuated by the Lippman Panel;  would never be tried or investigated, and the closing of all “loose ends”.

            The First Department had ironically criticized the same lawyers in the underlying Jordan v. Bates case for negligent handling of evidence as fatal to the case in their Final Order.   To then dismiss the Malpractice cases proved that the activist court was creating a ‘zero sum” game, where the attorneys who enabled the frauds would be exculpated. It also demonstrated that there is a complete lack of accountability in the legal system today.  The malpractice cases had come before Supreme Court judge Marcy Friedman, also believed to be instrumental in the elaborate conspiracy of case fixing, who dismissed all three malpractice cases (against trial counsel Laurence Lebowitz, Gary Phelan of Outten & Golden, and David Fish), prior to discovery. Plaintiff Jordan had filed the latter malpractice cases after the Lippman Panel of the First Department issued its Decision in December 2007 reversing the jury verdict citing negligent handling of evidence that was “fatal” to the case, placing the blame squarely on the discovery and trial attorneys. Jordan has contended that the related Malpractice cases were dismissed despite “numerous issues of triable fact and law” in order to perpetuate Chief Judge Lippman’s fraud and fixing of the Jordan v. Bates discrimination case. A trial of the malpractice cases would almost certainly have re-opened the cover up of the reversal of the underlying discrimination case.

Apparently, Jordan’s suspicions were not unfounded. As soon as she filed her Malpractice cases in New York Supreme Court, Judge Rolando Acosta, the jurist who had upheld the jury verdict in February 2006 but later sabotaged it in his Final Judgment of November 2007 while he was being vetted for a promotion to the First Department,
attacked Jordan as “contemptuous” in his Order and had himself assigned as the judge on the Malpractice case, the latter a serious conflict under the Rules. Judge Acosta had advised Jordan that he would “act as a fact witness against you” and adjudicate the Malpractice case in an “Ex Parte” meeting initiated by discharged attorney Laurence Lebowitz, a threat he carried out and a blatant violation of the Rules of Judicial Conduct. Jordan believes that a deal went down for the $1,300,000 legal fee during that closed door Ex Parte meeting between Judge Acosta and Mr. Lebowitz.  When Jordan got in the way of that deal, and the Lippman-Acosta promotion deal, she was attacked as "contemptuous" to discredit her reports.  Judge Acosta then recused himself from the malpractice case long enough for Judge Friedman to appear and dispose of it prior to discovery. Once the case was on appeal, Judge Catterson, a principle appellate jurist in the underlying Jordan v. Bates case fixing scheme, made an appearance which was contested by Jordan for conflict reasons. Then Jordan formally petitioned for his recusal and for an Enlargement of Time to file the appeal given the severely delayed Record by the County Clerk and the absence of a bona fide Attorney Statement. Jordan is disabled and made the request under the Americans with Disability Act. Judge Acosta was again noticed on that Panel, perpetuating his threat to obstruct Jordan’s efforts to have her cases heard. Jordan objected again but received no response. This week the Appellate Division, under a “new” panel, denied Jordan’s right to argue her appeal of the dismissal of all three malpractice cases ,without explanation. 

In dismissing the appeals, the activist First Department deviated from the Rules of Appellate Procedure, which require a Certified Record and signed Attorney Statement, prior to Brief filing, and also demand that Jurists disclose Conflicts, which neither Judge Catterson nor Judge Acosta did. Jordan has repeatedly argued that the Lippman-Catterson paneled “fixed” her case, reversing a bona fide jury verdict without meeting the statutory requirements for the same, to do a favor for defendant employer Bates Advertising, a former unit of WPP GROUP , who lost the case and had to post a $3.3M bond. WPP refused to settle, instead demanding that Jordan endure a decade long litigation, and ultimately lost the case. After losing, instead of simply paying the bond, they filed a frivolous appeal, knowing their clients had admitted their guilt under oath and agreed on the record to the jury instructions. Judges Acosta and Lippman, who were both being vetted for promotions at this time, saw an opportunity to ingratiate themselves with a large employer like WPP GROUP and its lawyers at Drinker Biddle, who might return the favor in the future. Consequently, Judge Acosta concocted a scheme to ‘sanction” Jordan for reporting his and Lebowitz’ misconduct, attacking her as “contemptuous” to discredit her allegations, serving up to Judge Lippman a new pretext to challenge the otherwise iron clad case. Lippman eagerly accepted the unsworn attack on Jordan as fact, and used it to discredit her otherwise credible and consistent testimony over four days of instense grilling by DBR. Bates executives admitted under oath to knowing about a viscious hazing campaign and taking no remedial action during the Federal Case that originally went before Judge Rakoff. Rakoff, like many federal judges reluctant to take on discrimination cases, declined to hear the perceived disability case, and issued an erroneous Opinion that misapplied discrimination law to the facts, accepting the unproven pretext of “financial problems” by the employer as dispositive of the allegations of discrimination and setting into motion Jordan’s 14 year ordeal in her pursuit of justice.
It was a matter of record that the employer fired the disabled executive after hazing her and replaced her with “several” non disabled executives claiming “financial problems”. It was also proven that Bates was embarked on a major hiring campaign for Planners during the identical period of the alleged “financial crisis”. The jury rightfully saw through this pretext.

The First Department essentially accepted WPP’s legal arguments that the “financial problems” were a legitimate reason to fire the visibly disabled Jordan. However the Supreme Court in the precedent McDonnell Douglas case required that all discrimination cases be subjected to a tripartite analysis to ascertain the employers motivations or “real reason” for the adverse employment action. The latter is the standard adopted by most Courts around the country. Having accepted the “financial reasons” pretext at face value (it was never proven), the Lippman panel then discounted all the evidence of admissions of wrongdoing and attacked Jordan’s credibility, embarking on a quest for “facts” to patch together to support the employer’s pretext, a highly improper practice for an appellate court. The Lippman-Catterson panel then reversed the jury verdict. Because the remedy for the alleged defects would have been remand for retrial, Judge Lippman effectively fixed the case for WPP GROUP. It was also later revealed in a case filed by then Chief Judge Kaye against the Governor that Judges Lippman and Kaye were envious of the salaries paid private sector executives like Jordan, who held a $250K base salary position at the agency.

In the Decision dismissing the case Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman cited negligent handling of evidence and certain legal issues as “fatal” to the case, placing blame squarely on the attorneys representing Ms. Jordan. However, when the Malpractice case came to trial, Supreme Court Judge Marcy Friedman dismissed all three malpractice cases prior to discovery. She also excused Jordan’s attorney, Andrew Lavoot Bluestone leaving Jordan to argue the cases Pro Se. Judge Friedman threw out all of the cases, despite numerous triable issues of fact and law. Jordan appealed to the First Department. 

The Appellant, a disabled woman with MS,. had filed for an extension of time to file her appellate brief after the County Clerk took over a year to certify the file and after there were serious issues of evidence tampering in the trial court. The Appellate Division instead of providing the extension used Jordan’s failure to meet the arbitrary deadline as a pretext to deny all three appeals. Jordan had argued that without a Certified Record or signed Attorney Affirmation, she could not even begin her Brief.
The issue of “case fixing” has become very high profile on the legal scene after the New York State Senate Judiciary Committee under Senate Majority Leader John Sampson held public hearings and heard countless citizens attest to corruption in the Courts ranging from evidence tampering to censorship and abuse of discretion to outright fixing of the outcome of cases.

“The Jordan v. Bates case is a microcosm of what ails the Judiciary in New York today: power plays, cronyism, favor dispensation, abuse of authority and “deal” making instead of justice administration. Once the Lippman panel fixed the Bates case so that the jury nullification would appear to be justifiable, they then reversed the verdict, instead of remanding the alleged defects for retrial, to allow for the statutory exhaustion of remedies. The First Department felt entitled to use its judicial discretion to alter the laws on proving discrimination cases making it even harder to prove discrimination than before the Bates case. This act of “legislating from the bench” new law is illegal, and the decision the hear the frivolous appeal a fraud upon the tax payers”, Jordan stated. “The denial of the Malpractice cases was “tying up loose ends” by the First Department, who has refused to take the issue of attorney malpractice seriously but who recognizes the important role that attorneys play in these “armslength” case fixing deals;.

CHIEF JUDGE LIPPMAN ORDERS “BACK DOOR” PAY RAISE SCHEME TO CIRCUMVENT LEGISLATURE 2009-11-01   

CHIEF JUDGE JONATHAN LIPPMAN HAS ORDERED JUDICIAL "INCIDENTIALS" ALLOWANCES AS HIDDEN PAY RAISES AS LEGISLATURE STRUGGLES TO CLOSE $3B BUDGET GAP.

END STUDY FINDS DISCRIMINATION MORE PERVASIVE & SUBTLE;

JUDGES NOT EQUIPPED TO RECOGNIZE or ADJUDICATE

New York, NY, October 26th, 2009:  END announced today that it has conducted a study that has revealed that as discrimination has become "more subtle"and difficult to prove, high level jurists in the Supreme and Appellate Courts have proven to be unqualified and ill equipped to adjudicate more complex discrimination cases.    As recently revealed on Monster,com, the largest workplace website in the US, discriminators have become more skilled at their craft while judges have proven to be unable to keep up.  "They are in a fog", END President Jordan stated, "Judges in NY simply do not have the skills to even recognize the signs of discrimination, much less to apply state of the art social models to discrimination cases".  And Federal judges who might possess those skills prefer to try "more interesting" criminal and SEC cases. The end result is that the issue of discrimiantion is being ignored. Most discrimination claims are subject to Federal Statutes prohibiting the same.   "It's as if the problem did not exist or were as extensive as we know it to be.  Denial is a wonderful thing", END stated.

"You're left with this feeling of ‘is this discrimination, or is it me, or is it them?'" says Murrell, associate professor of business administration and psychology at the University of Pittsburgh's Joseph M. Katz Graduate School of Business. "You know it's them, [but] it's just harder to prove, because it's not obvious discrimination."

New York Senator John Sampson Demands Bi-Partisan Investigation into Monserrate

Domestic Violence Assault v. Senate "Fit"; Expulsion Option

New York, N.Y. 2009-10-2018:32:51:  Senate Democratic Leader John Sampson has appointed a bi-partisan panel to investigate whether Senator        Hirmam Monserrate, recently found guilty of Misdemeanor Assault by a New York Criminal Court, should be removed from the Senate.   Senate        Conference Leader Sampson stated that he was infuriated over the actions of his colleague in the Senate, who was caught on video tape dragging     his bloodied abused girlfriend who he had cut with a knive through a lobby.   "Violence against women is unacceptable and will not be tolerated",     

Senator Sampson was quoted as saying.  Proving himself a Leader of the People once again, Senator Sampson has appointed a bi partisan panel of 5 Democrats and 4 Republicans to examine whether Monserrate should be expelled from the Senate and whether sanctions should be considered.   E.N.D. has expressed outrage over the judge's incredible decision to downgrade the charges against the Senator when the evidence was               indisputable.  "It's obviously "blame the victim time"again in Court America.   These judges who pander to criminals should be removed from          office, not afforded special treatment".  E.N.D. cites stats from the D.O.J. (Dept of Justice) that "Around the world at least one woman in every  three has been beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused in her lifetime.  Most often the abuser is a member of her own family.  Nearly one in  three adult women experiences at least one physical assault by a partner during adulthood.  4 Million Women experienced an assault  by an           intimate partner during a 12 month period."    E.N.D. President Kathryn Jordan has stated: "This is a hidden pandemic.   Violence against women is on the rise and abusers are being treated with kid gloves instead of being put in jail for their crimes.    "Jail time is much more effective than         NYCAAP programs where the incidence of relapse is 95%.  Abusers are cowards. If they spend time in jail, they will learn what is it like to be a     victim",   E.N.D. President Kathryn Jordan affirmed.                                                                                                                                       

E.N.D. appauded the Senator's decisiveness and leadership on this issue.  "Women across the state applaud Senator Sampson for taking such a      brave stance on a controversial issue." E.N.D. President Kathyn Jordan was quoted.                                                                                           

Violence against women is on the rise and is a social problem that is not taken seriously by the Courts.  The fact that the trial judge in this case      gave Monserrate a minor charge and penalty is testimony to that.  Domestic violence is a serious crime and the      Senator also committed assault.  He should be in jail, not on the Senate floor", E.N.D. President Jordan stated.   E.N.D. said they were looking forward to the Investigatory Report by  the Sampson Panel.   E.N.D. advocates vigorously against DV in any form, especially in public figures who are role models for young men.                                                                                                                                                                                                  

         E.N.D. Finds "Culture of Amateurs", Unchecked Power & Greed Source of Problem In Judicary              New York, N.Y.  October 22nd, 2009: E.N.D. President Kathryn Jordan, who testified in July before the New York State Senate Judiciary Committee overseen by Senator John Sampson, has prepared a Report on the Hearings that will incorporate new statisitical updates on the effectiveness of the Judiciary and the Commission which monitors the same, for presentation to the Sampson Committee.  Key findings are the following:                                                                                                                                                                                      

1. There has been a steady decline in the quality of both judges and lawyers over the last decade, and both the Judiciary and Legal profession have attracted the wrong kind of people for the profession.  "The focus should be on administration of Justice and scholarship", Jordan said, "But the emphasis is on attracting jurists who are more concerned about monetary compensation.   Judge Kaye and Judge Lippman are two glaring examples of jurists who simply don't get it.  While Judge Kaye recognizes that the Judiciary is "not attracting the best and brightest" she attributes that fact to monetary discrepancies between private sector compensation and the Judiciary.   "In fact, people who are motivated by money would be least likely to stay in the Judiciary, even if the sector could attract them in the first place."   E.N.D. believes that the wrong criteria have been deployed to surface and vett candidates.  "Qualities like wisdom and dedication to justice are underemphasized while ambition and charm are overemphasized", END said.  Moreoever, there has been a rise in "faux specialization" amonst attorneys, where any generalist attorney can essentially hang a shingle out and say their are a specialist in a particular area.   "Just imagine", Jordan laughed "if doctors who were trained in internal medicine could promote themsleves as specialists in brain surgery.   The profession would be overwhelmed by malpractice lawsuits".   In  fact, END has found that because of the lack of regulation over both the Legal profession and the Judiciary, there are "alot of pretenders and amateurs out there" who are taking risks with their clients funds and futures that they are not quaified to make.  Jordan realized this when she retained "expert" Gary Phelan to conduct discovery on her case of disabilty discrimination.   "His 'analysis" read like a 10th grader wrote it. I was beyond shocked.   The guy positions himself as THE disability attorney and his knowledge and skills were embarassingly poor."  Moreoever, END has concluded that there is a tremendous amount of incompetence in the Judiciary.   "When the Chief Judge has never tried a case, and has failed to establish a reputation as a "scholar", and mistates and misinterprets Federal and State Anti Discrimiation Laws, then there is something seriously wrong with the system".  If you reward people who are greedy and ambitious, while ignoring the hard working jurist, it is inevitable that money will become the currency of the profession, END concluded.  "Year after year I have heard about how complex discrimination law is," Jordan said, "but I somehow figured it out.  And I simply do not understand how the most senior law firms continue to get it wrong".   

2.  Unchecked Power of the Judiciary has resulted in an anarchist state, where the most corrupt elistist jurist have held litigants, attorneys and their peers hostage.   "These are the real troublemakers" Jordan stated, "the people who propound and practice judicial activism". END noted that the Surpreme Court of the US has repeatedly warned about activist judges who get creative with the law and who use their positions to propound a particular bias or advance new law.   Moreoever judicial elitism, where judges believe they are inherently superior to litigants, lawyers and lower court peers,  has fomented a culture of conformity where judges are always worrying what their colleagues or corporate attorneys will think about their decisions.   The latter has been fostered by a judicial nomination system whereby corporate attorneys hold incredible power and clout. Judges require "referrals" from corporate attorneys under the current nomination system.  Most critically, the JCC, Judicial Conduct Commission has repeatedly failed to censor judges how have abused the rules, while complaints rise year after year.  "What's the point of having a regulatory body if they do not regulate", END posited.  

3. Greed and Envy are the motivators for decisions.   "At the hearings we heard time and again about this or that judge taking a bribe or doing a favor.  We heard nothing about the pride in judging.  People are completely disillusioned, and openly angry, with a system where the power of judges is completely arbitrary." END found.   Jordan, who attended all of the hearings, was impressed with the dedication and passion of the deponents "These were not all day laborers," Jordan said "Many were extremely educated people who had witnessed the corruption of our judicial system with their own eyes.  They talked about judges not practicising "the Rule of Law", "ignoring the Rules of Evidence"  and making arbitrary personal decisions that flaunted their abuse of power."   Jordan herself witnessed this abuse as she has had two cases fixed by judges.  "But it's encouraging that the deponents were so articulate.  It will be virutally impossible to dismiss their testimony as a consequence".   The biggest topic this year by far has been the lawsuit instigated by troublemakers Jonathan Lippman and Judith Kaye against Govenor Patterson for higher compensation where they could not control their rabid lust for the "private sector " compensation but failed to appreciate the value of their esteemed profession. Judges like Judge Scheindlin in Southern District are at the other end of the spectrum, Jordan said.  "Judge Scheindlin is not unintelligent but she is hardly scholarly.  She a manipulator of the Rules who believes the ends justify the means.  She cherry picks cases and uses "ex parte" scuttle butt to vett cases.  For someone in two protected classses to feel entitled to trample on the civil rights of litigants is just mind boggling", Jordan said. END has also criticized the "Second Circus" (a favorite description by deponent E. Bernstein) for enabling these deceptions and not holding these judges responsible for what amounts to criminal acts.   

END will produce a full report on its website in December but decided to release top line findings to "get the ball rolling".                                     Jordan has said that END believes Judicial Reform is necessary to change a "broken system", but believes hard working judges who publish scholarly articles and manage their caseloads should be rewarded.                                              

VERIZON ANNOUNCES NEW "ZERO TOLERANCE" EEO POLICY, AFTER PRESSURE FROM E.N.D. 

New York, N.Y. October 20, 2009:  E.N.D. End Discrimination Now, announced today that Verizon had amended its Code Of Conduct for 2008-9 to strengthen its diversity mandate and to include the Disabled in its EEO guidelines,  a change that should re-position Verizon again as a model of ethical propriety and mitigate the problems that arose from past policies and Codes which  specifically  omitted the Disabled and which failed to address retaliation.  Verizon had been omitting the Disabled from their EEO policy for years.  Verizon also did not have "fail safe" mechanisms in place to monitor EEO risks in the workplace.   The new policy is a strongly affirmative document which defines a "zero tolerance" policy that other Fortune 100 companies will likely emulate.  

E.N.D. President Kathryn Jordan, a former disabled executive at Verizon, has fought a seven year campaign to persuade Verizon to address defects in its EEO policies that allowed and enabled unlawful discriminatory acts at the company.    Prior to the 2008 Amendment Verizon had  intentionally omitted the word "Disabled" from it's EEO policy and did not hire or promote disabled or visibly disabled workers consistent with EEO guidelines.  Further,the company had virtually no enforcement or monitoring mechanisms in place.

  Verizon's new Code of Conduct explicitly states:     

 Verizon has a policy of zero tolerance for discrimination, sexual harassment or other unlawful harassment based on age, race, color national origin, religion,  gender, sexual orientation, DISABILITY, or other legally protected category under federal , state, or local law.   Harassment includes but is not limited to, racist, sexist, or ethnic comments, jokes, gestures, or any action or statement creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.      

"It's definitely progress", E.N.D. President Kathryn Jordan stated.   "The new policy shows that Verizon is now taking the issue of discrimination seriously.   We commend them for making these much needed changes. "   The policy also advocates for an "inclusive, fair, and healthy environment,  integrity and fairness in the workplace, and maintaining integrity and  fairness in the marketplace."  It also specifically precludes retaliation for reporting complaints of misconduct, discrimination, or ethical breaches.  These policies would all serve to "protect Verizon's assets and reputation".

  "There is a direct correlation between perceptions about corporate responsibility and brand value", Jordan stated.  "Verizon has now openly recognized that and is taking a more proactive and tougher stance on workplace discrimination.   We only hope that they follow this with much needed ERISA policy changes to protect employee and  manager's rights to their entitled benefits as well".     E.N.D. has fought behind the scenes for  these changes for seven years.    "We encourage other companies to follow Verizon's initiative on this issue.   We also hope that Verizon institutes necessary enforcement and monitoring mechanisms.  We also would expect that they will now honor their ERISA contacts with employees and managers, and take responsibility for any violations and the consequences arising from the same".

"Verizon should be commended for this initiative.   Their New Code of Conduct is a model for all Fortune 100 companies and should be adopted as such"., Jordan stated.

Jordan observed that all people in protected classes would benefit from this new policy.  However, she said that corporate America must still maintain the discretion to hire the best in class.    "Workers and Managers still need to be qualified for the jobs that they apply for," Jordan emphasized.  "Companies are not required to hire people who are not qualified to perform certain jobs, even if they are in a protected class.  The burden on the corporation is to ensure that bias is not the underlying motivation for the "hire or no hire" "promote or not promote" "fire or no fire" decision.  This requires a certain level of skill that the average HR person does not possess, and most HR managers are still not equipped today to deal with the issue of discrimination in the workplace.  An unskilled HR executive who does not recognize the signs of discrimination or retaliation or fails to report the same for "political" reasons can do great harm", Jordan affirmed. "Unfortunately, many violators motivated by bias will manipulate company guidelines for ulterior reasons.  If the HR exec is ot trained to recognized this, there will be trouble down the line".                 

E.N.D. has been very critical of the Judiciary which has failed to enforce discrimination laws.   "Judges simply are not doing their tax payer funded, mandated jobs," Jordan observed. "They are not enforcing the federal and state anti-discrimination laws. Without their commitment, the Codes of Conduct will be toothless tigers.   Judges in general lack understanding of the social models that underpin how discrimination manifests itself in the workplace.  They often substitute their person biases for facts, and misapply and misinterpret the laws on discrimination".   Judges need to be held to the Rules of Conduct but also need to be monitored for their "discretion" in interpreting the law, an area where much of the abuses occur.   "Corporate America can avoid many problems by ensuring that outside counsel shares the corporate values and is not motivated to keep the clock running at the expense of conflict resolution.  Moreoever, internal resolution efforts should be the priority, which will avoid costly trips to 60 Centre Street or 500 Pearl.   There is no reason why discrimination violation should not be managed by the corporation internally.  However, companies have to cease with "blame the victims" tactics and proactively address situations before they become high risk for either the employer or employee.   The Courts should be a last resort.   And given the extent of corruption in the Court system today, Corporate America should seek self regulation as the policy.  "Self regulation is the antidote to litigation risk".

E.N.D. is a non profit organization founded by former Verizon executive Kathryn Jordan which monitors corporate compliance with EEO policies and judicial compliance with enforcement of the laws of the State by the Federal and State Judges charged with the same.  

 To view Verizon's New Code of Conduct, visit https://www22.verizon.com/about/careers/codeofconduct.html

For Immediate Release: October 19th, 2009:

WHISTLEBLOWER CASE GOES BEFORE JUDGE SCHEINDLIN in FEDERAL COURT THIS WEEK   

  The case of Christine Anderson, a former investigator at the D.D.C. (Departmental Disciplinary Commission), begins her trial for retaliation and other causes of action against New York State and the Court of Administration, before Southern District Judge Shira Sheindlin.  The case is being closely watched by E.N.D. and various watchdog groups including JudgeWatch.com as well as the New York Senate Judicial Conduct Commission.  Over the last several months the Senate Judiciary Committee has heard testimony from all over the state that verifies a broad and deep malaise that has stricken the judicial system and rendered it corrupt and incapable of effecting it's primary function: to enforce the laws and to administer justice acting as impartial triers of fact.   Testimony heard at the hearings has confirmed widespread abuses by jurists, ranging from open threats, case fixing, kick backs, influence peddling, disregard for the Rule of Law and rules of evidence, and enablement of misconduct.  The latter was revealed to be a direct consequence of the complete failure of the Judicial Conduct Commission headed by Robert Tembeckjian.   The annual report shows complaints at an all time high at all levels of the judicial system and virtually minimal oversight.

Judge Scheindlin has been recognized by E.N.D. as a case fixer who relies heavily upon allegedly "connected" corporate law firms for "ex parte" advice about the vetting of cases.   The jurist oversaw the most important disability discrimination case in the history of New York, Kathryn Jordan v. Verizon Communications, in 2004.  Jordan, a disabled female who, after being harassed about her disability and put on probation for two years, despite excellent reviews, was coerced into "settlement" of her claims and ERISA rights at a time when she was ill and without counsel.   Jordan provided evidence in her Appeal to the Second Circuit that the jurist knew that Jordan was not represented at the time of the execution of the settlement and that she repeatedly told Verizon she did not want to go forward with the same, having been subjected to repeated threats of "litigation and sanctions" by Paul Hastings, Verizon's outside counsel.  These actions were all threshold requirements for duress/coercion under New York Law as Judge Scheindlin had to have known.   Jordan also proved that Verizon's General Counsel was aware of her desire not to go forward with execution of the agreement and that the only reason it was in their possession was that Ken Gage stole the document from an adjacent building after she was promised its return.   Jordan repeatedly stated that she did not understand the nuances of the legalese filled "agreement" that she was forced to execute.   Judge Scheindlin, who admitted on the record that she knew Jordan was "ill" and "confused about the purpose" of the surprise "status conference" where she was asked to "agree" on the Record or face "a nightmare of litigation", refused to rescind the agreement during the statutory rescision period.  Scheindlin's strong arm tactics might appeal to frustrated judges burdened by large caseloads, or employers who do not feel obligated to honor their ethical codes,  but it was an act of defiance of established law for voluntary releases.   Jordan was provided a token settlement, which went directly to the very attorneys who arranged the "deal", including Outten & Golden partner Gary Phelan, who had refused to meet any of the discovery deadlines, putting Jordan in a position where she had no choice but to concede to the scheme.  In fact, Jordan received no benefit herself and actually lost millions in benefits rights. "I was duped", Jordan said, "Just like in the Ally Bank commercial".  Under the "settlement", Judge Scheindlin allowed Verizon to avoid compliance with Jordan's federal ERISA claims as to the disability benefit plan she elected, and the company was exempted from having to defend any of the discrimination charges despite a plethora of evidence.   Jordan was outraged by the calculated deception and pursued a 7 year appeal process only to find that the Second Circuit was more than willing to participate in the frauds and cover up.    Jordan stated that Scheindlin refused to consider any of her petitions for help during a highly coercive "settlement" process where the jurist was formally put on notice of the threats Verizon deployed to secure her "accedance".    Moreover, Jordan was not allowed to conduct any discovery that would allow her to know what the "benefit of the bargain" was.   Jordan believes Scheindlin had a deal with Verizon and that this "favor" would be returned at some future point in the form of support for advancement in the court system.  "It's not about cash kick-backs at the Federal level", Jordan has said, "It's a system of favors.  A judge does a favor for an employer and the employer pays it back with support through the corporate lawyers come promotion time".   Obviously, this is also how Judge Scheindlin vetts her cases.   Jordan subsequently has stated that she believes the attorneys on both sides enabled the scheme, which allowed them to take a quick profit without incurring any serious litigation risk.   The deception came back to haunt Verizon however when it was learned that the "Settlement" agreement was never page-signed, something that legal representation could have avoided.   "Judge Scheindlin never once asked me what I wanted, what my case was about, nor was she remotely interested in the merit of my discrimination case", Jordan stated.   Jordan hypothecated that the jurist was "overly concerned about the scuttlebutt of the trial attorney population" and "not particularly concerned with enforcement of the federal and state anti discrimination laws".    Jordan, founder of End Discrimination Now, says the experience "almost killed me...I'm not sure which was worse the harassment I faced at work for needing accommodations or the betrayal by the very attorneys I paid to protect me".    E.N.D. has proven that discrimination is still a serious problem in the workplace and has predictably risen with the bad economy.  Jordan has observed that employers do not have adequate anti-discrimination policies in place and generally refuse to attempt to resolve the matters internally, instead rushing them into litigation.   "Then they 'blame the victim' for exercising their constitutional and statutory rights to a discrimination free workplace with a zero tolerance policy".   Verizon, one of the largest employers in New York with 250,000 employees, did not even mention disabled workers in their Code of Conduct during Jordan's employment or for years after, and rarely employed the disabled except for a token few technicians.   "Complaints of discrimination are at historic highs, yet 95% of complaints are rejected by the EEOC as "no probably cause", Jordan revealed, "So you can either conclude that the complainants are all deluded, a common defense attorney fiction, or you can conclude that discrimination is pervasive and that high risk populations like disabled females are at much greater risk of victimization.  "That's not a word I like to use," Jordan said, "I am not a "victim", but if forcing someone to go through 7 years of litigation to get what they should have been provided to start with, and deploying fraud to mask the same, is not a form of victimization, I am not sure what is".  Ironically, Judge Scheindlin herself is a member of two protected classes.  "Judges do not have a clue about discrimination.  They work in protected government jobs where discrimination law is usually enforced.  They have no concept of the pressures of the "for profit" world, just envy of the higher compensation.   Many ad agencies and employers worry "what will my client think" if I hire a disabled executive.   "It's not like "House" (the TV program that broke disability barriers)", Jordan said. "If they perceive you as disabled, you will not get hired, promoted or paid equally.  And eventually they will find a pretext to fire you, usually a financial one".

  E.N.D. said they would closely follow the Anderson case to see that "Judge Scheindlin plays by the rules".   Jordan is best known as the Plaintiff who won the largest disability discrimination case in New York history, Jordan v. Bates Advertising 118785-99 (now WPP who made the decision to file the frivolous appeal after refusing to settle and losing the jury trial), in NY Supreme Court after a decade of litigation, only to face 4 more years of appeals (14 years in total), and ultimately reversal of the verdict by Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman and an all male panel of the activist First Department in what was indisputably a "fixed case". "Part of the problem is that the top judges do not know discrimination law, and impose their preconceived biases in lieu of facts", Jordan stated.  Lippman, who has never tried a case in his career much less a discrimination case, criticized Jordan for not reporting the harassment at the time her supervisors were openly ridiculing her as "a cripple", and ignored the sworn admissions by Bates management that they knew of the hazing but took no remedial action. (Evidence does not get better than this, Jordan observed).  Jordan was an EVP at the time and the highest paid disabled executive in history. She was replaced by several non disabled execs.  "This was a milestone the employers did not want to meet", Jordan said.   She has repeatedly advocted for judicial reform of the courts, which are "broken" and a new system for resolving employment disputes.   "No one should ever have to go through what I did to secure their right to equality", Jordan said.     Jordan said she plans to "try" her two cases on YouTube as her legal remedies have largely been exhausted. She has promised to provide indisputable evidence to document all of her claims.

"There will always be people who will operate from bias, fear and ignorance, but we, the people, have no chance if the judges are in on the game".

For more information about these cases, watch for You Tube broadasts.     

Breaking Story: FIRST DEPARTMENT APPELLATE PANEL,

LED BY CATTERSON & ACOSTA ,  FIX LEBOWITZ AND 

OUTTEN & GOLDEN MALPRACTICE CASES AS PART OF

LIPPMAN-GONZALES-CATTERSON CASE FIXING SCHEME;

CRIMINAL CHARGES  CALLING FOR IMPEACHMENT EXPECTED

 New York, N.Y. September 28th, 2009:  In the latest saga of what is widely recognized as "The Lippman Scandal", a First Department panel led by Judge Rolando T. Acosta, issued an Opinion on September 22nd, 2009, "dismissing" the appeal of FOUR malpractice cases filed by Plaintiff Kathryn Jordan after being dismissed by Judge Marcy Friedman of New York Supreme Court, despite bona fide Complaints of gross negligence, malpractice, case fixing and corruption against the attorneys in the related, underlying Jordan v. Bates case.    Judge Friedman, who mistated the record and relied upon erroneous legal standards, dismissed all four cases prior to any discovery or argument, as part of an elaborate case fixing scheme involving then jurists Chief Judge of the First Department Jonathan Lippman and Supreme Court Judge Rolando Acosta,  as the last phase of the largest case fixing scheme in New York Supreme Court.   Judge Friedman's role was apparently to close any "loose ends" that might allow the cases to be tried, and to preserve the corrupt status quo system where Judges frequently deploy corporate attorneys to perform "armslength" coercive and corrupt acts, or worse faciliate "Ex Parte" case fixing deals.  Friedman issued her Decision in mid 2008, long after the 4th DCA upheld a precedent setting Opinion in mid 2007 on attorney malpractice in the Gannett Newspaper (heirs) v. Gunster Yoakley case where it was found that the Trial Court was correct in determining that conflicts of interest between the client's lawfirm and it's appointed fiduciary caused the client to incur extraordinary expenses just to protect it's interests.  T]he concern on appeal must be whether, after all conflicts in the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom have been resolved in favor of the verdict on appeal, there is substantial, competent evidence to support the verdict and judgment.”); see also Lane v. Cold, 882 So.2d 436, 438 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (holding action for breach of fiduciary duty may be maintained where, “A relationship exist[s] with respect to the acts or omissions upon which the malpractice claim is based,”

In a short Decision signed by an anonymous clerk, Judges Mazzarelli, Moskowitz, Acosta, Freedman, and Richter DENIED Jordan's appeal without explanation.  Moreoever, the Decision was tantamount to a legal sandbag as Jordan had several outstanding motions objecting to Catterson's appearance on the panel, and the lack of a Certified Record, both clear obstacles to perfecting the appeal.  Jordan had requested an Enlargement of Time after Certification of the Record was "still defective" after a year of obstruction by the County Clerk's Office.   While the Appellant was afforded two short extensions, she did not have, and still does not have, a bona fide Record making it impossible for her to file an appellate brief as the Rules require. "For Judge Acosta to dismiss a case that has no Certified Record and where a clear conflict existed with a Panel jurist existed was a complete abuse of process and constitutes a continuation of the Violation of the Rules that he first demonstrated in April 3rd, 2006. For Judge Acosta to secretly substitute himself as a replacment for Judge Catterson, was simply Fraud", Jordan stated.  Moreover, there was no signed Attorney Affidavit attesting to the basic record, much less the amended record.  This nuance escaped the panel's attention in their eagerness to do another favor for the more senior jurists like Chief Judge Lippman and Gonzales, who made a name for themselves after fixing the Jordan v. Bates case, which Acosta had upheld in the trial court, but then reversed after political pressure and a back door deal between Lippman, Acosta and DBR, counsel for Appellee WPP.  Judge Acosta, who famously attacked Jordan in his Final Judgment as "contemptuous" for objecting to his misconduct during the Legal Fee part of the litigation, "papered the record" with misstatements and unsworn denials slandering Jordan after she filed a Misconduct complaint with the JCC (which was denied as 95% of complaints are).   Moreoever, Jordan, who had contended that the jurist threatened to "act as a fact witness" and "be assigned (as trial judge) to the case", proved that Acosta carried out that threat after he had himself assigned as the jurist for her case against discharged counsel Laurence Lebowitz.  The jurist eventually recused himself.  However, by that point his "pretext" that it was Jordan's "faxes" to his chambers that were the problem (hiding behind the bias against female self represented litigants), not his "exparte" deal with Lebowitz for a $1,300,000 legal fee, that was the problem.  Jordan claimed Judge Acosta encouraged the fired attorney to file "pleadings" when it was known she had retained new legal advisors.   His Honor's appearance on the instant Appeal of the Jordan v. Lebowitz case came without notice and was buffeted by four female jurists (who are now implicated) to rebut the gender bias claims that accompanied the underlying matter.  Nonetheless, Judge Acosta had an ingoing conflict of interest which precluded his appearance on the Lebowitz appeal and his failure to disclose the same was not just an abuse of the Rules but a willful act of fraud.   "If there was any doubt about Judge Acosta's motivations or character, this latest act of deception should dispel any reservations.   He simply does not believe the Rules or Law apply to him.  He has no problem holding litigants to higher standards that those he practices", Jordan was quoted as saying.  Judge Acosta, who will be named as one of the defendants in a case of fraud on the underlying matter, Jordan v. Bates (WPP Group), along with Lippman-Catterson-Gonzales who effectively performed a favor for Judge Lippman and WPP when he reversed his own decision by attacking Jordan de post facto.   That favor was returned when he was promoted to the First Department after being nominated by Elliot "hookergate" Spitzer.   Now the troubled jurist feels

he has to return two favors, one to Judge Marcy Friedman for dismissing the Malpractice cases at the MTD pre-discovery phase, and one to Judge Lippman, who assured Judge Acosta's safe passage by adopting his unsworn denials of misconduct as fact and deemed Jordan's allegations of misconduct with Lebowitz "baseless" without any investigation by an impartial trier of fact.   "No one can call the First Department a bona fide Court with a straight face anymore.  It is a system of disposition of favors" Jordan stated, "And as in most criminal acts it requires more and more favors to maintain the original lie". Judge Acosta never came out and denied the fact that he had threatened Jordan, instead leaking libelous stories to the legal press and "sanctioning" her to censure her allegations.

Jordan also requested the removal of Judge Catterson from the O&G and Lebowitz malpractice cases (and case fixing claims) after he was  assigned to the appeal of the Friedman decision, despite an "obvious conflict of interest" (with the Jordan v. Bates case he ruled on in December 27th, 2007). Jordan also advised the panel that she required more time as a Pro Se disabled litigant to perform the necessary legal research.  She received no responses.  "The audacity of the deception was breathtakingly outrageous", Jordan stated.   The First Department had given Jordan two short extensions but never responded to or addressed fundamental obstacles of the absence of a Record and obstruction by the other Appellees Gary Phelan and Outten & Golden in agreeing to the Record on appeal as well.  No Appeal can proceed if there are Record issues or conflicts with jurists.   The (Judge Acosta) Panel simply ignored Jordan's requests and "ran the clock" to mislead her into believe they were reviewing her motions about the Defective Record and Enlargement of Time.   Jordan indicated that the Decision was actually "a breakthrough" legally as it was additional evidence of ongoing case fixing, and that it provided a solid legal platform to resurrect the issue with the New York Court of Appeals.  The Decision was signed by none other than Judge Rolando T. Acosta, the jurist who, along with Judges Lippman, Catterson, Gonzales and others, fixed Jordan's case by reversing a bona fide jury verdict on December 27th, 2007, claiming it was "legally defective", a finding that should have sent the case back to the trial court on Remand de minimus.   Instead the case was fixed to avoid any "complications" that might interfere with Judge Acosta's, Judge Gonzales and Judge Lippman's promotions.    Acosta set this up for Judge Lippman in his "Final Judgment" of the Jordan v. Bates case, where the personal attack of her as "contemptuous", and the highly improper and self serving unsworn denials were dismissed as "baseless", adopting verbatim the flawed legal arguments and unchecked facts of opposing counsel DBR.   The Lippman panel should have, as a matter of law, dismissed the frivolous appeal (the legal arguments had already been dismissed by the trial court in post trial motions, and the jury instructions not objected to), instead adopting as fact, without any independent investigation or fact checking, the conclusory findings of DBR and the unsworn denials of Judge Acosta.   Jordan had just won the largest disability discrimination case in New York after employer WPP-Bates USA executives admitted under oath that they knew she was hazed as "a cripple", paid her half as much as other EVP's, and took no remedial action of any kind.  Jordan, EVP Planning, was replaced by "several" non-disabled execs during a massive hiring binge of Planners. She was also passed over for the top EVP job at Bates USA, which was given to a non-disabled male manager who had been fired from his last position.   DBR claimed that Bates fired Jordan because the company had "financial problems" (an omnipresent condition in advertising) and claimed, but never proved, that it was more cost effective to fire Jordan and replace her with several non disabled execs.  Decision maker and supervisor Doug Fidoten admitted he "could not say" if it were more cost effective or not.  The jury reasonably and rationally concluded that Bates was lying and motivated by discrimination.  (Ad agencies in particular do not hire the disabled).

Jordan testified that she was asked to fire another disabled manager, and repeatedly interrogated about her need to use a cane for ambulation.  No evidence was ever produced of any performance issues with Jordan.  In fact, she was highly regarded by most of her clients and supervisors. 

 Jordan's allegations of misconduct against Judge Acosta, and her voluntary polygraph (which was removed from the appellate record), came at an inconvenient time for the jurist, who after being nominated by Elliot Spitzer, was being vetted for the opening created by Judge Lippman's anticipated promotion to Chief of NYCOA, all orchestrated by Chief Judge Judith Kaye.  By attacking the Plaintiff he had just affirmed as credible, along with the Jury in his Opinion, it is believed that he was signalling to the more conservative First Department his switching of allegiances.  Judge Acosta had built his reputation in the more liberal Human Rights Division.  Instead of following the Rules of Judicial Conduct, and recusing himself sua sponte, and ordering an independent investigation, Judge Acosta demonstrated his tremendous judicial restraint by viciously attacking Jordan, who is disabled with MS, as "contemptuous" and slandering her in his Final Judgment calling into question her integrity and veracity after just condemning WPP for its discrimination hazing.   The politics of this nuance did not escape the Lippman-Catterson-Gonazles panel who were assigned the appeal filed by Drinker Biddle Reath on behalf of WPP GROUP.   Judge Lippman, who was obligated under the Rules to report Judge Acosta's numerous violations to the JCC for investigation, instead adopted verbatim the attacks of the lower court as well as the poorly constructed legal arguments of DBR, which had been previously rejected by Judge Acosta himself in Post Trial pleadings.   Judge Lippman realized that there was abundant evidence of discrimination and that Jordan had clearly established her prima facie case.   So his first step in fixing the case for reversal was to attack Jordan personally, adopting the "baseless" allegations claim without any evidentiary basis.  (By Law, Judges are not allowed to determine their own credibility upon complaints, and Lippman should have immediately rejected this self serving unsworn denial by Judge Acosta).  Instead, the Lippman panel then criticized Jordan for "not telling anyone (about her disability) at the time" and for "admitting" in an unrelated litigation that she knew Bates "had financial problems, they lost big accounts".    Jordan has repeatedly mocked the Decision as a glaring example of how ignorant the Judiciary is about discrmination law and how discrimination manifests itself in the workplace.

  "First, it is illegal to ask someone if they have a disability or why they need an ambulation device.   Second, there was no one to complain to.  My harassers were my supervisors and there was no EEO Department.  Third, the pretext of "financial problems" was "true" but not the "true reason".  All ad agencies have financial problems and lose big accounts all the time.   In this instance they admitted to hiring numerous Planners to fill my open position.  How big could the financial problems have been?" Jordan posited.  "The Lippman panel simply interpreted the Law incorrectly, and given their declared bias did so intentionally.  This is where the JCC should have come down hard (Jordan filed dozens of complaints that were never even investigated) and found them all guilty of several violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct.  Most judges get away with these frauds because the average person does not know the difference between judicial discretion and judicial indiscretion".  Jordan stated that it is this alleged "grey" area where most abuses fall through the cracks.  "I don't believe Mr. Tembeckjian is legally literate enough to know when there is a legal issue or not.  Or if he is, he is pretending not to know. It is moot.  He simply is not doing the job that tax payers retained him to do and must be removed from office".   Jordan also alluded to Tembeckjian's role as a "double agent", protecting the privacy of jurists but leaking facts about Complaints upon demand.

  Jordan has also chastized the First Department for accepting the appeal by DBR in the first place.  "It was a frivolous appeal.  The Defendants, who refused to settle and insisted on trying the case in front of a jury, agreed to the jury instructions or the "law of the case".  They lost the jury verdict on the termination claim and it was "game over".  Jordan has maintained that if she were a male nondisabled exec the case would have been thrown out and the lawyers sanctioned for filing a frivolous appeal.

Neither Federal nor State Law allows a party to try a case on one set of laws and then change the legal standards after they've lost.   It's like going to a prizefight, shaking hands on the Rules, and then crying to the Referee that the rules were unfair after you've lost.  WPP, via DBR, also lost all the Post Trial Motions on the same legal issues.    The Jury was smart enough to see through this ruse.  However, the First Department, which routinely "fixes" cases from lower courts that it harbors biases about, decided to throw out all the rules and Jordan's case as well.   The latter itself was another violation, as the remedy for an alleged defect by a trial judge in administrating the law is Remand for Retrial, not Reversal.   "The Supreme Court has regularly warned about Judicial Activism, or legislating from the bench, yet ambitious jurists like Lippman abuse their discretion to re-write the laws.  Judge Lippman effectively saw an opportunity to do two things with my case: do a favor for a judge who would be indebted to him, and reverse all the civil rights advances of the last 40 years for all persons in protected classes", Jordan said.   All discrimination cases are governed by a tripartite legal standard first established under McDonnell Douglas, where the Plaintiff has to establish a "prima facie case", the employer has the obligation to put forth, but not prove, a "legitimate reason", and the plaintiff then is allowed to prove that the "legitimate reason" was not the "real reason" and that the employer was motivated by discrimination.  The Lippman panel concluded that all an employer has to do is proffer a "legitimate reason".  

The Malpractice case against Outten & Golden partner Gary Phelan was based upon Phelan's role in the fixing of both this case and the Verizon case (with Paul Hastings) which Jordan said were "very similar in terms of the discrimination fact pattern".   Jordan believes the all male First Department panel misapplied discrimination law and mistated her testimony with the sole intention of reversing the jury verdict. "These jurists have no idea what discrimination is and they substitute their lack of knowledge and due diligence with their ingoing biases.  But the December 27th, 2007 Lippman Decision was particularly embarrassing as it revealed an ignorance of many levels of the law including the standards for disturbing jury verdicts".  Outten & Golden refused to conduct discovery on the case and demanded a $100,000 retainer, only to drop the case prior to trial. Successor counsel Robert Ottinger did the same thing. And trial counsel Laurence Lebowitz failed to properly prepare the case for trial, a fact that was proven by the First Department's own decision that a "fatal" error was committed when trial counsel failed to enter a key piece of evidence into the Record.  Jordan said that the  "corruption has come full circle".   Now the Lippman panel who blamed Plaintiff for a "fatal" defect in not entering evidence into the Record, placing blame squarely on Jordan's attorney Lebowitz, is now prepared to ensure that Judge Friedman wholesale dismissals are also fixed and upheld on appeal. "The message is very clear: They are admitting there is no accountability in the system anymore.  When a disabled woman is blamed for the negligence of her attorney and the misconduct of the trial judge, the Appeals Courts are disregarding all legal precedent and rules "for this exception".  Appellant believes that the Lippman panel rationalized their abuses, clearly rooted in strong expressed biases against women and the disabled, because she is not surprisingly a friend of the corrupt attorney community that greatly influences judicial opinion.   Jordan said she was not surprised by the Decision, as Judge Lippman and Judge Acosta have signalled to their peers that the fast track to higher office is to disregard the Rules and Law.   Moreover, New York Courts do not take Malpractice seriously, Jordan said, and the decision by Judge Friedman to dismiss FOUR malpractice cases proves that.   In fact, the corrupt system could not continue if there were not corrupt lawyers to execute the secret directives of these corrupts judges.  Jordan cautioned, on a more serious note, jurists who are contemplating "copycat justice".  "I have been at a complete disadvantage every time I attempt to assert my rights now because of the ignorance and dated biases of six male judges, and one misguided female jurist".  The day of reckoning is approaching, Jordan said.  Every corrupt system has a "tipping point" when it falls apart.   "I believe that my case, because of the duration and the multiple parties involved, will be

the judicial equivalent of Enron", Jordan said.

 Ironically, Jordan considers the latest Judge Acosta-Catterson Decision a "breakthrough" because Judge Acosta could not resist retaliating against Jordan, instead of attempting to rectify his prior abuses of discretion, and tolled the action from the 2006 Final Judgment.   "An honest judge would have used this opportunity for introspection and to make amends, not more abuse of power.   There has been a long pattern of criminal conduct by these judges," Jordan asserted "And now, beause of the Senate Hearings, we have the ammunition to file criminal complaints against Lippman and Acosta and all of the co-conspirators."  Jordan admitted that she continues to fight discrimination in the courts where "a white male with a long and serious criminal record is found more credible than a disabled female who has led a life of dedicated public service anyday". Part of the problem, Jordan says, is the media who portray women as mindless mendacious manipulators.  This is completely contrary to the reality of countless social surveys.  "But the media is still dominated by male fantasies about women".

Case fixing is illegal.  It may be pervasive and an accepted practice in legal circles but it is illegal.   "Outten & Golden's role in this case was to obstruct discovery and allow critical deadlines to "lapse" so that I could not secure the documents I needed to ensure that I could prove what the corporate relationships were between the "sister" companies at the time, fully prove my damages, and provide expert testimony", Jordan said.  Jordan attested to the fact that WPP's counsel DBR illegally withheld and misrepresented the existence of critical documents, a fact only now coming to light. "They claimed victory but there is hard evidence that they cheated and lied to the discovery judge (York)".  Jordan said she has evidence from the federal case that conflicts with the Bond that was filed. "They lied about the corporate relationships to suppress discovery and refused to produce documents demanded, and York did nothing".  However, despite WPP's evidence suppression, Jordan had enough evidence from the Federal depositions to convict the employer which is how she won the jury verdict on the Termination cause of action.

O&Gs role on the Verizon case was apparently to fix the case for Judge Scheindlin so that it would never be tried, a source said. It was a "pay the attorneys" settlement, where Jordan was denied the right to counsel, and after refusing to agree to the "deal" was threatened with litigation by Paul Hastings and with "permanent litigation" by Judge Shira Scheindlin.  Apparently, according to the source, the Settlement was not even "page signed" and the real document never entered into the Record on appeal. "'The Second Circus' was so eager to help Scheindlin with this cover up they did not even notice the Agreement was defective", Jordan said.  Jordan refused to comment on the Verizon case other than to admit she was represented by O$G's Gary Phelan, who abandoned the case after the Deal to "settle" and left Jordan to scramble for an attorney.  She then retained David Fish "SuperAttorney" at the time of the "settlement", who also enabled the case fixing,  and Jordan was forced to sign away millions in benefits under threats by the District Court and her adversary of "permanent litigation...nightmares..and sanctions".   These firms committed gross malpractice and FRAUD, Jordan affirmed, and vows to "try" the cases on YOUTUBE with the evidence that supports her claims in the only non corrupt court left:  The Court of Public Opinion.   

Jordan has said that the Legal Community is very threatened by her call for Judicial Reform, as they have profited from the corruption and chaos for decades.  The "hired guns" have repeatedly slandered her with gender biased epithets such as "delusional" and "troublemaker" to justify their criminal enterprises.  "Anyone who meets me knows I am one of the most rational, honorable and intelligent people to come through the halls of justice.  Elliot Ness did not set out to win popularity contests, nor did Guiliani when he embarked on the crack down on crime in New York," Jordan said.  "Name calling, misrepresentations of my legal actions, "Ex Parte" conspiracies or pay off deals to judges or other fact finders are not going to stop me".

 Jordan stated that "because discrimination is pervasive and rising in all protected classes, especially Minorities and the Disabled, it should be expected that litigants are going to have repeat or multiple experiences of discrimination and retaliation with employers who have strong entrenched biases."  Judges who lack knowledge about discrimination fall back on "blame the victim" biases. Jordan believes that the existing regime of judges simply do not have a clue as to how discrimination manifests itself in the workplace, are relying on 1950's discrimination social models, and fail to comprehend how difficult it is for a disabled woman to even get hired, much less secure a $250,000 a year position directing Planning for a large ad agency.  She also firmly believes that there is tremendous jealousy and resentment about private sector compensation behind all of this. "Just look at all of the lawsuits filed by Judge Kaye and Judge Lippman on the issue of Judicial Compensation. They pull no punches in stating that they believe they should be compensated on par with partners in private law firms and business execs.  The problem with that argument, among many of the fallacies propounded, is that Judges are not held accountable for their performance like the private sector.  They are given lifetime job security and unparalleled benefits.  But they think they should be compensated like Hedge Fund managers or Marketing execs.  They are especially resentful of women who achieve these compensation categories, the disabled and minorities.  It's a clear Elitist view of the World and the reversal of my jury verdict was their opportunity to retract the advances of the last 40 years of Civil Rights.  And Judge Acosta handed it to them on a silver platter".

She was quoted as saying she was most disappointed in Martin Sorrell, CEO of Defendant WPP Group, "who knows better" and who travels the world attending conferences like DAVOS, positioning WPP as a forward thinking knowledge driven organization.   "Sir Sorrell and his GC made the call to file this knowingly frivolous appeal.  They knew what they were doing. They knew they had lost the case. They knew the case was tried clean.  They knew at that time that they had already taken a decade of my life.  But instead of following their own Code of Conduct, they filed an "appeal". These are the same corporate hypocrits who call people who assert their civil rights "litigious".  Sir Sorrell knows that Discrimination Laws that are not enforced are toothless tigers, window dressing on the website to make the shareholders feel at ease.  Moreoever, if anyone had any idea how painful a 14 year litigation is, they would have said "Enough" before the trial attorney clock started to run.   

WPP apparently believes that they can hide behind this corrupt decision and gross travesty of justice.  Both companies, Verizon and WPP, are very litigious when it comes to protecting their rights and intellectual properties. It is apparent that their Counsel would go ballistic if these same double standards were applied to them.    What WPP did was tantamount to conversion, Jordan was quoted as saying, and Judge Lippman aided in that conversion.

"Sir Sorrell could learn something from President Obama", Jordan said. "Obama walks the talk.  And he knows how to say "I screwed up" and apologize, especially if he has caused an innocent person an enormous unfathomable hardship or cost millions of people in protected classes their constitutional rights."

As for Judge Lippman, Judge Kaye (see story below) and Judge Acosta, E.N.D. and other citizen groups consider them "criminals" who systematically exploit the public trust, and whom must be removed from office.  "I don't care how embarrassing it is for public officials to admit they made a mistake in appointing these jurists, these judges must be held accountable for their acts which have disgraced and degraded the entire credibility of the Judiciary", Jordan concluded.  Finally, Jordan stated that the deferential treatment in dismissing the appeal of the fixing of the O&G case was "outrageous".  "It's a rigged game, and the entire system is broken.  It's all about favors now, not justice".

                                                    *** 

E.N.D. President Calls for bi-partisan"Judicial Reform" as top priorty NY Court System.  "Reward competent ethical jurists and fund "pay raises" from removal of corrupt/inefficient jurists", Jordan recommends. See News Page for Full Story and Detailed Judicial Reform action plan.

Impeachment of Corrupt Judges in N.Y.S. Case Fixing Scam; Disbandment of JCC as "incompetent enablers" cited as Phase I with reinvention of Judiciary as law enforcement arm in mind.

Jordan to publish "revelatory" VIDEO on YOUTUBE next month.  Promises to reveal identities of violators in explosive Case Fixing Scam. "Everyone, including the judicial community will be shocked by what has been going on behind the scenes in the name of "Justice".

  Highlights of video:

          E.N.D. will post evidence from litigations and Senate hearings, including case fixing evidence, on END website and on YouTube, Twitter, MySpace and various Cause sites.  "This will not be another power down "he said/she said" "Judge always wins" play", Jordan promised "This will be well documented legal evaluations and admissable evidence and it will be apparent what has been going on".    Importantly, Jordan will also prove how supposedly senior level jurists have been misapplying the law in major cases.  "Whether it is intentional fixing of cases or incompetence by jurists is secondary to the fact that it will be hard, documented proof of our laws not being enforced".  Jordan said she would begin with her own experience with the judicial system, Jordan v. Bates (WPP) and Jordan v. Verizon, and feature a new case each month,  " until they get that we are serious about discrimination".  E.N.D. has proven that "discrimination is pervasive" and on the rise in most protected classes.  Consequently, it is to be expected that people in multiple categories will encounter discrimination more frequently and have to seek recourse more often, especially with blatant violators.  Further categories of protected classes like the Disabled will be repeatedly abused.  Ill informed or biased judges have imposed "blame the victim" interpretations of the law, instead of holding employers responsible who have repeatedly flaunted their violations of the law.  Well capitalized corporate employers have access to better legal counsel, funded through tax deductible insurance funds, always have the advantage over individuals. But corporate attorneys have actually exacerbated the problem by enabling judicial manipulations and acting as arms length case fixers.  "This has to change legislatively", Jordan said.

For now, it is up to the judges to "level the playing field", enforce laws and make individuals whole, not "do favors" for corporate friends or judicial colleagues.  The latter practice is a fraud upon tax payers, government and investors in the corporations who are led to believe that EEO and Code Of Conduct policies are being enforced, when in reality they are flaunted."Companies have a fiduciary duty to honor their EEO obigations to employees, especially if judges try to do "deals".

E.N.D. has stated that they are "in it for the long haul" and are committed to real Judicial Reform.  "that's going to scare alot of people who have been profiting from the current exploitative model, but it's necessary to bring these abuses that have brought justice to its knees under a spotlight if we are to see real Change".   

 Update:  END has learned that a certain recently promoted/appointed jurist continues to abuse his/her authority, affixing "sanctions" to censor complaints and manipulation of evidence and law to affix outcomes, and blacklisting of litigants on Court Central and legal press, as well as "Ex Parte" chats with other jurists.  END will reveal all on YOUTUBE interview of President Jordan.

 "There used to be a price for discrimination", Jordan said.  "Now corrupt, lazy and incompetent jurists who fail to enforce Anti Discrimination statutes have completely undermined this enforcement tool.  Companies now rightfully see the Judiciary as a "toothless tiger" consumed by internal power plays and undermined by a general lack of knowledge of the real world dynamics and state of art expert interpretations of the same.   "The Judiciary is operating like it did in the 1950's.  It's as if an entire lifetime of advances disappeared".    

 Next Month: Preview into world of Domestic Violence and discrimination by law enforcement.  WHY VIOLENT CRIMES AGAINST WOMEN ARE RISING and HOW UNCONTROLLED GENDER BIAS EVENTUALLY LEADS TO VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN.

The Jordan Report:  E.N.D has announced that the release of the Video "The Challenge of Judicial Reform" which encapsulates evidence of the case fixing scams of the Acosta-Friedman-Gonazales-Lippman-Kaye scandal, has been moved up.   The short film attests to the linkage between the rise of judicial activism and the absence of judicial regulation, and the predictable consequence of the increase in discrimination and other law violations.   This will be the first in a series of videos exposing judicial and attorney corruption.   At the NYS Senate Judicary Commission hearings, in July and again in September 2009, spearheaded by Senator John Sampson, angry and frustrated New Yorkers from the halls of Utica to the heart of Manhattan continued to relay their experiences with "Lippman Justice".  E.N.D. has described Judge Lippman as an unfit leader of the Judiciary of New York, who was not properly vetted by the Nomination Commission, the latter of which is dominated by the Corporate Law firms that control the judges.  Judge Lippman was appointed by Governor Patterson who clearly did not vett Judge Lippman before appointing him for 13 years to this critical position, controlling the civil rights and futures of New Yorkers. The malaise of corruption described by deponents is so widespread that it has now pervaded the entire judicial system.  This occurred under Judge Lippman's regime in the First Dept Appellate Division.   Now jurists like Judge Acosta, appointed by Elliot "just shut up" Spitzer, who are his successors are classic examples of jurists who manipulate the Rules to perpetuate their power, not to ensure judicial integrity.  Judge Rolando T. Acosta systematically circumvents the Rules, and uses the same to silence free speech and punish litigants, especially those who report misconduct about judges and case fixing.  These same judges who abuse their authority on a regular basis to propound their agendas and receive and dispense favors, are corrupting our judicial system.   Many,like Judge Acosta, who complain about "Ex Parte" submissions by Pro Se litigants  have no problem with "Ex Parte" phone calls with attorney "friends" who impart valuable information, reckless gossip and invitations.  These judges should be on notice: There are extremist elements out there who are calling up judges, taping the conversations, and leaking these conversations to the press, or worse.  END will never endorse these types of activities and will carefully vett out extremist factions.  Nonetheless, it is apparent that major Change in the Judiciary is necessary as part of the pent up rage by the Public is the double standard that jurists like Judge Acosta continue to deploy.  These Elitists believe they are above the Rules and the Rules are there for them to use against the Public that pays their salaries.  These jurists are poor communicators and negotiators and only know the power of the gavel.  We have entered a New World where people will no longer tolerate favoritism, bullying, disrespect, manipulation of evidence and law, or judicial indiscretion.  Judges who cannot grasp this simply principle should quietly step down before being forced to in Impeachment hearings.

Disillusioned New Yorkers came from all parts of the State to testify at the latest hearings, where they related story after story of judicial abuse of power. Participants universally described Lippman Justice as a sinister figure who manipulated justice from behind the scenes.  While the testimony varied in terms of specifics, all agreed that the hand of Judge Lippman is now the metaphor for a broken system, characterized by gregious widespread judicial abuses and flaunting of double standards.  The Hearings in Albany and New York have changed that.    From Surrogates to Districts, litigants continue to describe first hand experiences with judicial corruption that have an almost Chaplin-esque quality.  This "Movement" is part of a major societal trend and backlash against the greedy and power mongers.  Michael Moore's new film "Capitalism: A Love Story", has captured this "zeitgeist" and the mood of the country, as evidenced by the millions of people travelling across the US to the screening of Moore's tale of governmental and financial betrayal, with protagonists almost as fated as characters in a Shakespean play. 

E.N.D. is now calling for Senator Sampson to assume this role in the New York Senate Judiciary.   He is called upon to ignore the empty promises of the judges who really wanted to be hedge fund managers and simply lack the courage and character to make the hard choices that Justice and its calling requires all judges to make.  The deponents of the NY Senate hearings who testified were a diverse but highly educated group and shared a common petition: Clean up the Judiciary.  

For Immediate Release:

August 30th, 2009

TOP APPELATE JUDGES’ SUIT AGAINST NEW YORK STATE BASED UPON FRAUD: E.N.D. finds “Gross Misrepresentations”  in Litigation Filed by Judges Lippmann/Kaye against New York Tax Payers & GOVERNER

New York, N.Y. August 26^th, 2009:  End Discrimination Now (E.N.D.), a non-profit judicial monitoring organization, has discovered that former Chief Judge Judith Kaye, and current Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman of the New York Court of Appeals, deployed “gross misrepresentations” and specious arguments in their litigation against New York Tax Payers and Governor Patterson for higher judicial compensation for New York judges, which is up for appeal to the First Department in the November term.  

On August 10th, 2009, Judge Jonathon Lippman publicly announced that his "greatest priority" as the new Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals will be to increase compensation of judges to the tune of $125 to $147 Million per annum in New York State at a time when the Legislature is grapping with a $2B budget deficit.  Chief Judge Lippman, appointed by Governor Patterson, and “Retired” Judge Judith Kaye, recently appointed by the Governor to Director of the Judicial Commission for Judicial Nomination, announced their intent to “escalate” the decade long scheme to force the New York Legislature to effect 20% "retroactive" pay increases for 1300 judges at a time when the State is faced with closing a $2 billion budget deficit.  E.N.D. conducted an analysis of their various appellate briefs and "news" publications, including "advertising" the lawsuit on the government webiste, and found “innumerable inaccurate or outright misleading “facts” and misapplication of the Rule Of Necessity. 

    Judge Kaye, now a practicing private attorney at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, and simultaneously Director of Judicial Nomination Commission, has spearheaded the campaign and has been the chief facilitator and contributor to two lawsuits Matter of Edwin Maron v. Sheldon Silver and Honorable Susan Larabee v. Governor of New York State, New York State Senate et al, against the tax payers of New York and Governor Patterson.  The cases were dealt a set back when the Appellate Division Third Department and the First  Department respectively dismissed most of the cases based on inaccurate or misapplied facts and unfounded arguments of “ravaging inflation”  and the attempt to use “linkage” with Legislative salaries in order  to exert coercive pressure on the Senate and Assembly, and gross exaggerations in the facts and arguments, including claims that a “constitutional crisis” so severe that it allegedly “impaired the Judiciary’s ability to function” would be created if the Legislature resisted these demands.    The Appellate Division also rejected Kaye’s alarmist argument that New York Supreme Court was “no longer able to attract the best and brightest” to the judicial profession because of the alleged compensation crisis, citing “no evidence…that the proper functioning (of the judicial system) has thereby been impaired”. The Appellate Panel dismissed “petitioner’s claim of a retaliatory motive” by the Legislature as “highly speculative in the absence of  any affirmative acts of the Legislature—such as enactment of a statute—from which we could discern an intent to react to the referenced decisions regarding separation of powers disputes between the Legislature and Governor”.   The Maron Third Department panel also concluded that there was no “equal protection” argument to be made either as there was no “diminution” of effective judicial compensation.

 The Appeal of the First Department decision that was effected against the Judge Kaye and the Maron/Larabee judges goes before the New York Court of Appeals, headed by Judge Lippman, sometime this fall.  Respondents’ briefs are due October 31^st 2009.  Although Judge Lippman  has officially recused himself from hearing the appeal, because he is the plaintiff in a third case, Chief Judge v. Governor, 400763/08, launched by his predecessor Judge Kaye, who admitted this cause has been her “priority for the last decade”, affirmed before her “retirement”, that she would recuse as well. However, she has signaled to the state’s highest court which she previously oversaw that the “Rule of Necessity” “could be invoked”.    This rule is rarely deployed except when “the case cannot be heard otherwise” and the circumstances “extraordinary”.   The last time the Rule of deployed of consequence, Matter of Morgenthau v. Cooke (1982) was when the DA challenged a judicial practice of temporarily assigning Judges to Supreme Court benches.   An in a “per curium ruling” the six associate jurists found “chief judge had acted without constitutional or statutory authority”.  It is not suprising that the First Department found the Maron and Larabee arguments not “on point”.

E.N.D. President Kathryn Jordan, a former Fortune 100 businesses executive and management consultant, has provided a third perspective from the view of the taxpayer.

 “First, the foundation of their argument is based upon the erosion of judicial salaries due to the “ravages of inflation”, which is simply wrong as a matter of fact.  The CPI-U fell 0.2 percent in July before seasonal adjustment, due to a 28% decline in the energy index.   So there is no “ravages of inflation” eroding the six figure incomes of these judges.  Second, as far as their comparisons of judges’ salaries to the private sector, and the alleged loss of “the best and brightest”, it is unimaginable that anyone would want to hire judges that would just as soon be employed as  high powered corporate attorneys or hedge fund managers than administers of justice.   You want people with a calling to justice”, Kathryn Jordan, President of END stated.    “Third,” Jordan elaborated “We’ve read the now decade old “Report of the Commission to Review the Compensation of New York State Judges March 1998 upon which the original litigation now on appeal was based.  The comparisons used to justify the arguments are beyond ludicrous and extremely transparent about the motives of the authors”  They compare the salaries of New York State Judges to “Federal Judges”, citing a 21% premium, and complaining that Federal judges “earn 6% more than the Chief Judge (of New York State)”.  “There should be a large differential between Federal and State judges’, Jordan attested. “One can only assume that Federal judges are more experienced and skilled, with a higher and broader command of the Laws”.

“With a few obvious exceptions, overall federal judges are more skilled than supreme courts judges” Jordan stated. 

The Kaye campaign has  made  unfavorable comparisons of judicial compensation to attorneys in the private sector, citing “law firm  partners in the 50^th percentile earn a total cash compensation package of more than $260,000”, and Federal Magistrates and arbitrators, whom it cites as "making more that the Chief Judge of the Supreme Court".

“These are ridiculous arguments”, Jordan asserted. “ It would be comparable to a marketing executive in a small town claiming to be entitled to a CEO ‘s salary.”   Jordan also cited “the gross misstating of the “fact” of inflation’s impact upon judicial pay only reinforce two glaring conclusions:

     ·     The Judiciary is jealous of the private sector compensation.

         Supreme Court judges feel that they are more equal to Federal judges than the pay differential reflects.

·        Judicial Leaders Judge Lippman and Kaye are completely out of sync with the  profession or "calling" of the Judiciary, and are more concerned with bolstering their private coffers and “friends” than enforcing the laws of New York.”

      Ms. Jordan has been an activist for Judicial Reform, which she deems the “only intelligent solution to the burgeoning overload of cases, the complete failure of the JCC, the willful disregard of the judicial mandate to enforce the Laws, the need to reward good judges while punishing or removing the bad ones, and the failure of the Governor to pick the right leaders for the Judiciary”.    Jordan believes that a complete overhaul of the Judiciary is needed to deal with the crisis of admittedly overwhelming caseloads, but that extortionary demands for “increasing judicial compensation at time when unemployment in New York is over 10% and rising at a real rate of 16% and sick people cannot get medical care is just disgraceful”.  Jordan  also stated that Judges receive “many lucrative benefits that people in the private sector do not receive, including free heath care benefits, guaranteed Pensions, and essentially guaranteed lifetime employment”.   The value of these non tangible benefits, have not been considered in the salary comparisons, Jordan said. 

Most critically, E.N.D. found judges, unlike executives or corporate attorneys, are not held accountable for their performance, so there is no basis for comparison to the private sector compensation structure.  Corporate attorneys and business executives are held to very high standards of performance, which is linked to profit generation, while the Judiciary has virtually no performance monitoring whatsoever.  Further, strong evidence suggests that judges have failed to meet even the minimum requirements of their jobs (see story below).

"The argument that lawyers in the private sector make more almost twice what Supreme Court judges do is very revealing", END President Kathryn Jordan stated. "The Judiciary has been obsessed with what they perceive as an inequity in compensation between government and the private sector ironically at a time when they have been found to have failed to perform their primary function: enforce the laws on the books, and when they have been found to be systematically disregarding the Rules of Judicial Conduct, the Rules of Evidence and the Rule of Law".

 “Obviously, they did not secure a forensic economic expert”.  E.N.D.  found.  The E.N.D. study criticized Judge Kaye's specious arguments and disregard of the facts.   It also found that one very good benchmark for fairness of New York Supreme Court judicial compensation is that United States Supreme Court Judges  who make around $202,000.   

E. N. D. has criticized both Lippman and Kaye for neglecting their duties both as appellate judges obligated to enforce the laws and as judicial administrators.   “Lippman has repeatedly abused his discretion as a judge to dole out favors to employers who violate Federal and State Anti Discrimination laws” Jordan said “He has reversed verdicts and ruled against people in protected classes.  That is why the unemployment rate among “Black/African American” population is up to 15% (unadjusted) v. Whites of less than 9%”.   Jordan says that the unemployment of the Disabled is not even published by the Bureau of Labor & Statistics  but is estimated to be between 20-30%.   The same judges who have ruled against the Disabled being made whole in the private sector now want private sector compensation, E.N.D found. "Judges in the New York Courts are not "admired around the country as the gold standard" as Judge Lippman has touted", Jordan stated.  Jordan said the study revealed that judges were completely disconnected from the realities of discrimination in the for profit sector , and the growing inequity in protected classes on compenstation, and yet increasingly disturbed jury verdicts to impose their prejudices. New York State could save tens of millions of dollars simply by curbing judicial power plays, Jordan stated. 

  “Further, one out of five or 20% of young people are unemployed”, Jordan asserted.  “That’s a recipe for a real crisis in the future”. 

At the June 2009 hearings held by Senator John Sampson , head of the Senate Judicial Committee, many complaints were surfaced about Judge Lippmann’s abuse of the Rules and Law.  Judge Kaye’s actions’ to “lobby” for judicial pay increases have only served to fan voter outrage and her tactics of issuing ultimatums and threats to the New York State Senate, falsifying or exaggerating “facts” in her reports, inciting litigation by other jurists against the Governor, posting “ads" on the Supreme Court website, attempting to extort a “deal” from the New York State Legislature by blurring “separation of powers”, and abusing her power as Chief Justice, have completely damaged her credibility and that of the Judiciary.   Many believe she will be removed as head of the Commission for Judicial Nomination before year end, as will the widely criticized Judge Lippman.

 “After the disastrous report by the Commission on Judicial Conduct for 2008, and it’s admitted failure to act as a disciplinary mechanism for bad judges”, Jordan said, “it was apparent that the appointment of the Chief Judge was critical.   The Governor has made a series of disastrous appointments, including Judge Lippman and Kaye, whom he obviously did not vett.”   E.N.D. president Jordan predicts that the widespread misconduct especially at the top will result in impeachments.  “These jurists have not played by the rules and have been totally absorbed in their own power plays, while the pain has been endured by the Minority and Middle Income Tax Payers has been incalculable. While the Legislature is trying to trim $2B off the State budget and President Obama is trying to get a compromise health care bill passed, these self serving jurists have consumed millions of tax payer funds on their own interests and greed”.

 Jordan plans to publish a full and formal report of the misconduct of Judges Lippman and Kaye and the failure of the Commission on Judicial Conduct to enforce the Rules before year end and will be seeking impeachment of the two trouble making jurists.   E.N.D.'s Video "Discrimination News and Judicial Reform" will present the links for the various damning evidentiary documents.  Judge Watch has been posting these links and will continue to post decisions of critical importance.

“The average person does not understand the consequences of judicial decisions and how these judicial power plays affect them”, Jordan said. “So it is critical that the New York Senate resist these transparent powers grabs”.    Jordan predicts that complaints of discrimination will rise dramatically in the years to come because of the damage inflicted by jurists like Judge Lippman and Kaye. Apparently, this latest sordid chapter in New York’s Judiciary began with disgraced ex governor Elliot Spitzer who not only recommended Judge Lippman and Kaye for promotion, but backed Kaye’s litigation against Governor Patterson.

E.N.D. predicts a tax payer backlash and a shift away from the Judiciary for conflict resolution to more skilled mediators and arbitrators who can expedite decision making if trained in “structured settlements” without the wasteful power plays.  

                              ****

 Ironic Note by Editor:  As judges clamor for higher pay, more cost effective  Surrogates like Mediators and Arbitrators erode their "market share" at half the price: in other words job obsolence will weed out the incompetent and unethical.

Stats below are median.  Top judges in 10-20% (most of NYC) are significantly above this pay level.     

****

 Ironic Note by Editor:  As judges clamor for higher pay, more cost effective  Surrogates like Mediators and Arbitrators erode their "market share" at half the price: in other words job obsolence will weed out the incompetent and unethical.

Stats below are median.  Top judges in 10-20% (most of NYC) are significantly

above this pay.

Supreme Court Nominee Honorable Sonya Sotomayer CONFIRMED and SWORN IN as first hispanic in Supreme Court.  E.N.D. predicts Sotomayor will not be a "left wing" jurist but more of a moderate aka Sandra Day OConnor.

THE JORDAN REPORT: New! sardonic commentary on world of business,law & justice...

     GROUP DELUSION DISORDER GRIPS ALBANY AS ESPADA CREATES JOB FOR SON & LIPPMAN PUSHES FOR CORRUPT JUDGE PAY RAISES

   August 11th, 2009, New York, N.Y. : Pedro Espada, Emperor of the Senate, announced today that he was creating a $120,000 per year job for his son.  This edict was created shortly after his staging of a coup to take over the Senate,    first as a Democrat turned Republican, then as a Republican turned Democrat.   And of course he was rewarded for his disruptive costly behavior with a raise, a new bigger office and perks.  Then we heard from Judge Lippman, Chief Case Fixer for New York, that substantial pay raises totalling $147,000, 000 Per Year are being demanded.   His Honor considers himself a masterful administrator.  All of this at a time when angry residents are throwing tomatoes at the President for having to cut back on health care to meet the burgeoning budget crisis.  It's obvious that Albany has been gripped by a mass delusion disorder.  Perhaps it's the water.  

   This goes way beyond "bad judgment".  This is institutionalized corruption and it starts at the top.   Unfortunately, President Obama was handed a crisis beyond the scope of any modern day leader and he left his Superman cape at the Whitehouse  but he must start to move his agenda out on the domestic front before we start having riots in the streets.  People are very angry with our leadership.  They are attacking senators at press conferences,  and calling them out on unfulfilled promises.   

    Fortunately AG Andrew Cuomo has begun massive investigations and he is both smart and very determined.  You go Andrew!

    Meanwhile hardworking Senators like John Sampson continue to keep the channels open so that there isn't a real coup d'etats, with the taxpayers ramming the Bastille and throwing the bums out.  With unemployment rising over 10%, foreclosures about to go to round two, companies in bankruptcy, schools closing, disabled and elderly going without healthcare, discrimination on the rise, and banks    unable to make loans, it is unimaginably bad judgment that these officials would even consider bringing these "special interests" up.  And then we have the stats that show complaints against judges are way back.  But we should fork out more of our tax payer dollars to reward them for this.  As one famous politico said: Pay back is a bitch. 

    Governor Patterson continues to prove he has a talent besides telling unfunny "jokes" at awkward moments:  He's a wiz at picking bad leaders to fill open positions.   Perhaps he has been hanging with Elliot Spitzer for too long.  Spitzer is like many of the judges that Chief Judge Lippman wants to reward:  He cannot practice what he preaches, but expects to lead.  Spitzer recently was quoted as telling NY residents to "just shut up" when faced with police brutality.  

    We guess it's fairly obvious who should "shut up".

    Maybe it's all these power hungry double dealing hypocritical judges who "want in" on "private sector pay".  Hmmmm.

    So that's why they sanction anyone who has a brain and questions the insanity?  They don't want us to be "made whole",

    they want the whole pie.                        

    We do want to thank Senator Leahy for his persistent quiet dignified and incredible efforts to secure the appointment of Judge Sotomayor.  He has set an example for all political leaders.   President Obama continues to maitain a level head and deploy common sense.   Even Bill O Reilly speaks of him in a reverent tone (slightly).   Then there is the evil Karl Rove.  Heir Karl is now blogging against medical care for people with pre-existing conditions.  Let's face it, the disabled are a drain on assets.  They're more productive and who needs that now?    And with Heir Karl around Jewish NY'rs might want to beef up those anti discrimination and hate crime laws. Or put a spell on Karl so he stops thinking he's Himmler Redux.

     And what CEO has just offloaded assets that all went down in value immediately after sale.  Isn't that called fraud?  Here's a clue: The CEO, who makes $20,000,000 per year while he lay offs his overworked and underpaid staff, secured at least part of his booty by stealing ERISA benefits from workers, including disabled workers.  Still can't guess?   Let's say big investors are not happy with the co's long term non-performance.  This slow co does not have much imagination,  so he did what any captain of a sinking ship would do, he threw everything overboard.  Let's leave him to the SEC and regulators.   Or Andrew.  Psst: What federal judge helped this CEO dispose of a major discrimination complaint by fixing the case for "settlement".  Clue #2: She might be married to the Mob. 

Multiple studies show "Gender Bias" pervasive in Court system.  Discrimination against Disabled at all    time high as competition for jobs re-ignites biases. White male judges especially unable to empathize    with discrimination in workplace and frequently make errors in judgment and assumptions based on      media-based myths and biases about people in protected classess rather than real world facts, state of art journal studies or expert testimony.  Perpetuation of stereotypes as appellate judges overturn more jury victories to conform and manipulate the record with their sexist opinions. A return to "blame the     victim" seen.   

STUDIES SHOW JUDGES NO BETTER THAN “AVERAGE PERSON” AT

LIE DETECTION AND DEMONSTRATE “SYSTEMATIC BIAS IN CREDIBIITY ASSESSSMENTS.

“BLAME THE VICTIM” BIASES OFTEN SUBSTITUED FOR RIGOROUS

SKILLED VERACITY ASSESSMENTS

Countless studies by credible organizations have now shown that judges and law enforcement are no better at lie detectionthan the average person, E.N.D. has found.  "This is partly due to lack of training in the lie detection, and partly due to a systematic bias that is often substituted for facts or real world experience by judges in credibility assessments that is “self perpetuating”.   Male judges more likely to “disbelieve” female than male litigants, despite numerous studies that show women are more honest and more likely (90%) to be victimized by men than vice versa.  Urgent need for funding for training especially when male judges insist on putting themselves in role of victim without knowledge of victim-abuser-discriminator state of the art models of behavior.

Judges also do not "get" discrimination, the studies found.   Disabled women are five times more likely to be both victimized and disbelieved making this a highly vulnerable population, and more likely to encounter discrimination and need to access the legal system for remedy.  However, male able bodied judges have no concept of the challenges of the disabled or females in the for profit workplace, and instead of engaging experts, interpose their self perpetuating gender and disability biases.

If one has undergone lie detection training, there are certain signs that, taken as a whole, can enable the assessment of lie detection.   However, many judges allow personal feelings about a litigant to affect judgment, or allow "ex parte" information from adversaries

to affect judgment, often with disastrous consequences.  People who are telling the truth will a) look you in the eye; b) testify consistently (not to be confused with victims being manipulated by artificially staged "impeachment" or biased lines of questioning);

c) demonstration of honest emotion; d) not abusing the "I don't recall" defense (exclusive of trama victims); details and chronology (again exclusive of trauma victims who often have great difficulty remembering details).   

See sites: 

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/documents/bias.pdf

http://www.blifaloo.com/info/lies.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2005/12/dont-just-blame-victim-prosecute-her.html

http://www.ahrq.gov/RESEARCH/domviolria/domviolria.htm

http://www.abanet.org/domviol/statistics.html#fmi

http://books.google.com/books?id=CAcFU-TO18wC&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=judges+not+trained+in+lie+detection&source=bl&ots=21r4b5qeJH&sig=OdDGvXkjcNjrEzdE9edfIzitlbA&hl=en&ei=JHeHSpHzE86ptgfw79TnDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Visit our BLOG EndDiscriminationNow.WordPress.com   

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

August 3, 2009

CHIEF JUDGE LIPPMAN DEMANDS $148,000,000 IN PAY INCREASES FOR JUDGES DESPITE RISE IN COMPLAINTS ABOUT JUDICIAL CORRUPTION & MISCONDUCT,BUDGET CRISIS.  

Scandal Cited as Judges Lippman and Kaye finally disclose Secret Plan to bring judicial compensation up to "private sector" level in middle of worst financial crisis in New York State.   Pay off to judges who supported Lippman's led by Judge Kaye.  Demanding Legislature to pony up $148M PER YEAR for 1300 judges around New York State.   Lippman finally "delivers" on campaign deals.    Lobbying Assembly for support and NY Senate.   

"Bad Judgment, Bad Timing, Lack of Appreciation for Backlash against Judiciary"  "Unemployment above 10% (real) and these guys wants raises--once again gross insensitivity and a complete detachment from reality".

"Let's fire the corrupt and incompetent judges and use that money to fund raises for the performers"

  "Now we know why they won't make us (protected classes) "whole" They're jealous of the profit sector."  

See END President Press Release on News Page on this site for insights into why incompetent and corrupt judges are now demanding 20% increases OVER $165,000 plus salaries while tax payers lose homes.

E.N.D. PETITIONS LEGISLATURE TO "VETO"JUDGE PAY INCREASES 

Chief Judge Lippman declares judicial pay "highest priority" as confidence in judicial system at all time low and complaints at high.   Judge Gonzalez agrees and puts "working down caseload" as second priority.     E.N.D. Preisdent calls for broadscale  JUDICIAL REFORM, severe sanctioning of judges who violate laws especially those in positions of leadership, digitization of evidence, clarity and consistency in laws and stronger enforcement of the same.  "The Judiciary is not taken seriously, because it has been plagued by scandal", Jordan said.  "To ask for raises at a time when all New Yorkers are suffering is incomprehensibly bad judgment".

 This site is for professionals interested in the subject of discrimination.  E.N.D. vigorously lobbies against discrimination and for the punishment of violators of the federal and state laws, as well as the outting of bad judges.   However. E.N.D. does not subscribe to any extremist groups or individuals who subscribe to violent solutions to problem resolution.  We vett all partnerships very carefully. If you know of anyone who holds such views, please contact law enforcement immediately.  

                                                                                                          see Discrimination News page for story.