I know why the Bates case was Fixed. It was because WPP Group is a major donor to the Democratic party. Thats why there was no bona fide investigation. So the logic is this: We are going to sacrifice all of our principles of Equal Protection under the laws and punishing violators of Discrimination laws IF they happen to be big donors to our side. Lippman did this for the Democrats. The timing was key. Case was won in April 2005. Judge sustains Jury Verdict in February 2006. In June 2006, the STAGED Legal Fee drama erupts and Acosta is disqualified, but he waits until November 2006 to enter Judgment, using it to lay up a reversal. In January 2007, WPP files its frivolous appeal. SOMETIME between January 2007 and December 27, 2007, Lippman panel decide to REVERSE verdict against WPP Group. Four days after Lippman decision or December 30th 2007, Acosta is PROMOTED to the First Department. Six months later Judge Gonzales (also on the Bates panel) is promoted to Chief Justice First Dpt. In November 2008 Barack Obama is elected President. WPP donated between $2-3M to the 2012 election, precisely the amount of funds held in escrow at that time for the WPP Bates Judgment. WPP also donated to the 2008 election and made other donations. In early 2009, the bonded funds are formally released and REFUNDED TO WPP by unknown jurist, Judge Gische, who is subsequently promoted. Lippman promoted again (after only one year as CJ of 1st D) in February 2009 ( announced Sept 2008). Whether WPP donated the funds using the Bond or on the expectation that the Bond would be released (insider knowledge), is not known. It is only known that several judges abused their discretion and authority to go to great lengths to do this favor for WPP-Bates. The timing of the release of bonded funds is secondary to the expectation that those funds would be REFUNDED. Either way, WPP was able to UNLAWFULLY use funds earmarked by a jury for the Plaintiff who WON the jury trial for other purposes after using shareholder funds to obstruct the case going to trial for a decade, and then delaying it another nine years after they clearly LOST. Lippman and Gonzales were handsomely rewarded, as was Acosta, for this conspiracy. The only question remains is Who else stood to benefit or did benefit?. The release of the Bond in 2009 allowed WPP to access these funds for the 2012 election where we KNOW they used an identical amount for donations. Those funds belonged to me, not WPP. Lippman facilitated, via myriad misapplications of fact and law, and exceeding his authority, the REFUND of those funds back to WPP in time for WPP to make that donation. This is not about loyalty. This is about Honesty. And not exceeding authority to gain your ends. But the lesson is painfully clear: Its OK to break the law if you are on the right side. I suspect someone got to Lippman in 2007 and asked for one of his famous favors. End Discrimination Now
Posted on: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 09:54:34 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015