Sunday, May 10, 2015

Amex May 11 2015 Annual Shareholder meeting

Peter Lindner proposes that the Amex Board members examine the truth (or falsity) of Lindner's allegations that Qing sexually harassed Lindner and retaliated in 2005, which was known to Amex VP Jason Brown, Esq.  Moreover, that Amex VP Brown conspired to hide that from the Amex Secretary of the Corporation in violation of the Amex Code of Conduct ("Code") and that Amex CEO Ken Chenault had enough information to have triggered an investigation as per the Code, and thus violated Sarbanes Oxley (SOX) provisions by reporting that no such violations occurred.
On page 2 of document is the handwritten proof by Jason Brown, Esq. that Qing lied and violated the contract signed  by both Amex Risk Management President Ash Gupta and by Lindner means that CEO Chenault violated SOX, and Ash Gupta violated Amex's Code and the contract Gupta signed.
Peter Lindner wrote Carol Schwartz & Ken Chenault on April 13 and May 6, 2015 to confirm that unlike what Ken Chenault claimed at the 2013 shareholder meeting to avoid responding to Lindner, Lindner has no litigation against Amex, and Amex should show the docket number of such litigation if it exists.

Sunday, April 28, 2013

Is it legal for Amex to give an Amex Card to my boyfriend for negative information about me?

I wish also to ask a question, since I'm not currently in the Amex credit card business:

My boyfriend (who has bad credit history) was told to call Jean Park, Esq. if he could give bad / negative information about me, and would get an Amex Card.

Question: Isn't it illegal to provide an Amex credit card to a person that is not based upon a uniform methodology? (e.g. all credit card offers must conform to Amex's FICO score for the person and Amex's credit algorithm, as long as it is not a randomized test for "Tuition" as Ash Gupta used to say)?

He was told it would be worth several thousand dollars, and thus was a form of payment.

Does Amex know of this, and has Jean Park, Esq. of Kelley Drye authorized her name and phone number to be used in this manner?

Or is that akin to GM (General Motors) paying private investigators money to find dirt on Ralph Nader, back in the 1960's when Nader published "Unsafe at Any Speed"?  Because back in 1965 there was this criticism of GM:

"Industry response
 Nader claims that GM responded to Nader's criticism of the Corvair by trying to destroy Nader's image and to silence him. It "(1) conducted a series of interviews with acquaintances of the plaintiff, "questioning them about, and casting aspersions upon [his] political, social, racial and religious views; his integrity; his sexual proclivities and inclinations; and his personal habits"; (2) kept him under surveillance in public places for an unreasonable length of time; (3) caused him to be accosted by girls for the purpose of entrapping him into illicit relationships (4) made threatening, harassing and obnoxious telephone calls to him; (5) tapped his telephone and eavesdropped, by means of mechanical and electronic equipment, on his private conversations with others; and (6) conducted a "continuing" and harassing investigation of him."[5]" 

Shareholders: Ask CEO for truth and PWC to act as CPA's. Update for 9am Mon Apr 29, 2013 Amex Shareholder Meeting

I, Peter Lindner, wrote a 2 page summary that shows that:
  1. CEO Ken Chenault falsely certified to the SEC that Amex complied with SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley)
  2. Qing denied in July/Aug 2005 that Qing violated the June 2000 Amex-Lindner Contract paragraph 13, which stops Qing from giving "any information" to prospective employers of Lindner and to also refer all such requests to HR (Human Resources)
  3. Amex General Counsel Jason Brown, Esq. in Feb 2006 told me (Peter Lindner) that "all Qing said is I don't think Peter Lindner can work here", but denied it via email the next day
  4. In January 2009, Lindner got Qing Lin to admit under oath that
    • Qing gave "any information" to Boaz Salik about a job for Peter at Fischer Jordan Consulting
    • Qing did not refer Boaz Salik to Human Resources.
  5. In January 2009, Lindner got American Express General Counsel Vice President Jason  Brown, Esq. to admit that his handwritten notes (Amex Exhibit DEF (for "DEFendant") 0370 did have a phone conversation with Qing, where Qing admitted
    • (starting with a double quote ) "Peter is a technical guy.
    • Note that just giving the information that "Peter is a technical guy" is a violation of paragraph 13 on the  June 2000 Amex-Lindner Contract prohibition about giving "any information"
    • I'm not sure whether he can be used on at AXP [ where AXP is the stock exchange symbol for American Express]
  6. I include the  June 2000 Amex-Lindner Contract paragraph 13 on the 2nd page, and below it is the signature dated 6/23/2000 /signed/ Ashwini Gupta , Ash Gupta [typed below]
  7. I went to Price Waterhouse Coopers in person to tell them that Amex violated GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Practices] by falsely signing compliance with SOX, to wit, the Amex Code of Conduct, which exempts no one (although under SEC rules it can) from telling the truth, and not violating a law nor a contract.  They refused to meet with me or even set up an appointment.  Thus PWC should be removed as an auditor accepted by the SEC
  8. I told Amex's General Counsel Vice President Jason Brown, Esq. in Feb 2006 that Qing violated the June 2000 Amex-Lindner Contract by saying "Peter Lindner can't work here" which is "any information," but Brown denied it, only to admit it under oath some 3 years later in Federal Court case 06cv3834 Lindner v  American Express and Qing Lin.  This shows that VP Brown violated the Amex Code of Conduct by not informing his manager (Amex's General Counsel) and also the Amex Secretary of the Corporation Stephen Norman, Esq.
  9. I spoke of that at the April 2009 Amex Shareholder Meeting, and was not responded to, but two weeks later, Qing was let go from Amex, but Jason Brown remained, and does so through today.
  10. That would mean:  Ken Chenault should have noted in the 2010 SOX compliance that in 2009, Ken noted that VP Qing reporting to Amex Banking President Ash Gupta had been let go for violating the Amex Code of Conduct, the June 2000 Amex-Lindner Contract, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for retaliation.  Ken instead pretended as if none of that happened.
  11. Also, Amex hired Joe Sacca, Esq. of Skadden, Arps who lied to USDJ Koeltl in federal Court that prior to 2009, Amex did not stop Lindner from contacting the SEC.  So, I include the quote from Amex VP Jason Brown, Esq. of March 29, 2007 where Brown says that "That Mr. Lindner, acting alone or in concert, directly or indirectly, will not submit any shareholder proposal under Rule 14(a)(8) under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934", which is to say: the SEC.  Please note that 3 lawyers were sitting at the desk in the Courtroom when Sacca made that false statement: Sacca, Amex VP General Counsel Jason Brown Esq, and Jean Park, Esq (Partner at Kelley Drye).  This is a violation of NY Judiciary §487 on “intent to deceive” any Court in NY State, a criminal misdemeanor, so that all 3 could (and should) lose their right to practice law in NY State, and allow me to collect treble damages in a separate Court action.
  12. Amex's Qing got Fischer Jordan's owners Boaz Salik and Trevor Barran to submit false affidavits (perjury) to the Court denying they talked to me about Qing's comments to them.  Qing spells out B-o-a-z S-a-l-i-k in the Jan2009 sworn deposition conducted by me, so there's no doubt that Qing told Boaz, since I swore that Trevor told me that Qing told Boaz.  Both Trevor and Boaz were hoping that Qing would lie to cover their lies, but Qing told the truth (for once).

Therefore, I Peter Lindner ask Amex Shareholders and the Amex Board of Directors to demand the truth from CEO & from PWC accountants.  

Unlike the Catholic Church denying pedophilia by priests and Penn State allowing a sick coach to fondle boys in the locker room, Amex should not let Qing and VP Jason Brown, Esq. get away with covering up Qing sexually harassing me in 1998 and retaliating in 2005 by giving me bad references to FischerJordan and other firms, such as Citibank's David Lin [I don't know if David Lin is related to Qing Lin, or if they know each other from working at Amex -- Amex refuses to confirm with which other firms Qing violated the June 2000 Amex Lindner contract. ]

Friday, April 16, 2010

Peter Lindner's AmexEthics Shareholder Proposal Video


I'm Peter Lindner. For 4 years, I've tried to get Amex to enforce their non-discrimination policies and their Code of Conduct.

I've created a ad on my American Express Shareholder Proposal for either the:

If you do nothing else, please watch this video.

And for SEC reasons, here's what I say:

"I was sexually harassed by my supervisor Qing Lin at American Express.
When I complained to HR, Qing arranged to have me fired.
I feel that one way to help fight discrimination is to have a Truth Commission at American Express where it looks into what people have done and if they tell the truth, Amex won’t punish them.
I’m fighting for my case, but I’m also fighting for all the other people at American Express whoever have been sexually harassed in the last 15 years or have been discriminated against.

I’m trying to look out for your interests in my shareholder proposal"

Amex has gone to great lengths to stop me from even putting on the proxy for a vote this Proposal against discrimination. Amex went so far as to lie before a federal judge (which in NY State is a criminal misdemeanor under NY Judiciary 487 "intent to deceive" the Court by an attorney). Amex's two law firms (a)Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and (b)Kelley Drye & Warren LLP told US District Judge Koeltl that Amex did not try to stop me from communicating with the SEC prior to 2009. In fact, Amex stopped me from communicating with the SEC and from attending the Amex April 2007 Shareholder Meeting, under pain of Contempt of Court if I did so. Ms. Park of KDW enforced an alleged oral agreement (which Amex got Magistrate Judge Katz to keep sealed) while refusing to write it down, so that I could sign it and then revoke it in up to 7 days.

I tried to convince Joe Sacca, Esq. of Skadden to tell the Judge that Joe misspoke, but Joe would not admit error, even when I sent him an 11-page document that shows what he said and what Amex did.

Finally, this week I tried to get CEO Ken Chenault, Esq. to explain how he wrongly stopped my proposal and misled Amex Shareholders at the April 27 2009 meeting, but Ken refused to address the more than 20 points in what I consider to be materially false statements. In fact, Amex sought to stop me from even getting the April 2009 written transcript for 10 months, even though I asked for it on the day of the April 2009 Meeting and did not get it until March 5, 2010.

In the Amex Code of Conduct, CEO Ken says that all Amex people are subject to its rules, yet Ken and Secretary of the Corporation Carol Schwartz, Esq.are not living up to their obligations to respectively cooperate with investigations into violations by Ken, and Ms. Schwartz's obligation to investigate.

To sum up:

  1. Amex lied to a federal judge last year (April 2009) to stop my Shareholder Proposal
  2. I have a 40 second video on YouTube (key word: Peter10003) on that proposal
  3. CEO Ken Chenault may have made misleading statements to the April 2009 Shareholders when he replied to my Proposal about the "integrity and values of our employees" - clearly Qing Lin who admitted only after 4 years a coverup and breach of a June 2000 contract is not a model of integrity nor values.
  4. Ms. Schwartz will not investigate, and Mr. Chenault will not comment in advance on the inconsistencies or perhaps misleading statements he made to the Amex Shareholders in the April 2009 meeting.
  5. Amex needs a Truth Commission to get the scope of the problem of discrimination which happened to me, and took 4 years and tens of thousands of my dollars to just get Amex to admit they lied and that Qing breached paragraphs 12 and 13 the June 2000 contract signed by me and by Ash Gupta, now the President of Banking at Amex
  6. I requested the videos from the Court, but they denied that proof to me. I wanted to show Amex Shareholders and the SEC that Amex's VP Jason Brown Esq. admitted that Qing told him in February 2006 that “I don’t think Peter Lindner can work at American Express” and that Qing admitted he violated paragraph 13 on not giving "any information" to prospective employers and did not refer them to HR.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

The Week from Heck

A week ago, I pushed an OSC (Order to Show Cause) to stop American Express (Amex) from sending out their proxy without my shareholder proposal on stopping discrimination in Amex by having a "Truth Commission" study the problem of Amex's Code of Conduct.

Amex opposed it, and it went before USDJ Koeltl in SDNY (Southern District of New York) federal court. The lead Amex attorney, Ms. Jean Park of Kelley Drye Warren, asked the Judge if she could bring in a "securities lawyer" since her knowledge of securities was "rudimentary." She brought in two partners from Skadden, Arps and Flom. My lead attorney is myself, and I represented my OSC against Joe Sacca of Skadden, who said (words to the effect of -- I have yet to get the transcript) "Amex has never stopped Peter Lindner from communicating with the SEC." To which I replied: "In 2007, Amex got a federal court order from a judge to ask me to withdraw my SEC filing, to take down my website, to not communicate with the SEC, and not attend the Amex April 2007 annual meeting."

So, Amex was probably not prepared.

The judge said I did not prove I had a likelihood of winning the OSC, and that I should have come before him in January 2009. The federal judge then set 3 deadlines for us:

  1. Fri, Apr 17: Amex must respond to the OSC (Order to Show Cause) why they should not be compelled to put in my shareholder proposal in their proxy statement
  2. Tue, Apr 21: Peter Lindner (that's me) has to reply to Amex's response
  3. Thu, Apr 23 at 4:30 pm: Amex and Lindner appear before him at the US SDNY Courthouse at 500 Pearl Street, NY, NY to argue their case. The Courtroom is open if you want to attend: it's 3 blocks from the City Hall subway exit on the 4/5/6 subway line.
Amex said they wanted a slight delay, and the Judge admonished Ms. Park that he was not going to let them "moot" my OSC by having my motion argued after the Mon, Apr 27, shareholder meeting. He gave Amex a half hour to decide if they wanted to speed up the schedule, and they could confer with me. Of course, Amex refused to confer with me, and a half hour later told The Court that they would keep to his proposed schedule.

By the way, did I mention I have a day job (9-5) too?

Then I had to get out 130 copies of my Amex proxy and shareholder proposal to Broadridge, for mailing to shareholders. Broadridge informed me I had to bring it to them personally, since for insurgent shareholders, they do not print versions. I went to the Post Office with a 15 pound box of proxies/voting forms for overnight delivery (Good job, USPS: they have tracking on packages).

On Friday, April 17 was the deadline for Amex to respond to the OSC, which they did with a "memo of law" that had 17 attachments and was about 1-2 inches thick. It mentioned 34 cases, which I know, since I had to go to the Baruch College library to look them up, and email them to myself. (PS: Baruch College has a "friends of the library" plan for $500 that gives you access to their PCs for Lexis/Nexis among other databases.)

Monday, April 21, I had to prepare for my Tuesday reply to Amex's April 17 brief.

The Judge also said I should ask the lower judge (Magistrate Judge who is handling "discovery" of documents for the trial of Lindner v Amex) if I could get documents released from confidentiality so I could present them to the SEC. The Judge issued an Order that said I could on Monday, so Amex did two things:

  1. They asked that the Judge not allow me to use transcripts to the SEC which show that Amex did breach my June 2000 agreement with Amex, and that they admitted it.
  2. Amex wrote a letter (as opposed to a motion) to sanction me $7,000 for filing a frivolous motion to have Ash Gupta answer all 15 of the questions I was allowed by the Judge to ask him. Mr. Gupta, President of Banking at Amex, is Qing's direct boss. I asked him if he knew of Qing's actions in violation of the June 2000 agreement which Mr. Gupta signed, and what did he do with that knowledge. Mr. Gupta only answered 1 of the 15 questions. Amex further said I filed that motion in bad faith. Strategy: Amex wrote that as a letter instead of as a motion, so it would not appear on the record, in case I appealed to the higher court. And the Judge can ignore it. However, if he decides to agree with Amex, I could get fined $7,000, and that is surely distracting to me while I am preparing for Amex's Apr 27 shareholder meeting in North Carolina and my Apr 23 appearance before the Judge in NYC.

Sunday, March 29, 2009

I read in "Judiciary Law 487 Targets Attorneys in Legal Malpractice (March 9, 2009) that NY Judiciary 487 to NY cases. There's a great case Feb2009 where this law prohibits a lawyer from presenting information with intent to deceive the court, whether it's successful or unsuccessful. This case was certified by the 2nd Circuit (Federal Court) overseeing NY, e.g. SDNY (Southern District of NY). Apparently the law dates back 740 years (not a typo: since is the original law was in 1275). What gets me is how readable the words are, and how they are almost identical.

"[a]n attorney or counselor who: . . . is guilty of any deceit or collusion,or consents to any deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive the court or any party . . . [i]s guilty of a misdemeanor, and in addition to the punishment prescribed therefor by the penal law, he forfeits to the party injured treble damages, to be recovered in a civil action."

Instead, as the Amalfitanos point out, section 487 descends from the first Statute of Westminster, which was adopted by the Parliament summoned by King Edward I of England in 1275. The relevant provision of that statute
specified that

"if any Serjeant, Pleader, or other, do any manner of Deceit or Collusion in the King's Court, or consent [unto it,] in deceit of the Court [or] to beguile the Court, or the Party, and thereof be attainted, he shall be imprisoned for a Year and a Day, [*3]and from thenceforth shall not be heard to plead in [that] Court for any Man; and if he be no Pleader, he shall be imprisoned in like manner by the Space of a Year and a Day at least; and if the Trespass require greater Punishment, it shall be at the King's Pleasure"

(3 Edw, c 29; see generally Thomas Pitt Taswell-Langmead, English Constitutional History 153-154 [Theodore F.T. Plucknett ed, Sweet & Maxwell, 10th ed 1946]).

My question is: does this ancient law, which was reviewed and updated in 1965 in NY, apply to Federal Cases that are tried in NY?

I'd appreciate hearing an answer.

This also raises the question whether the lawyer needs warned 21 days in advance (as per the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 11), something the NY law does not require. It's almost as if NY had better, tougher laws on lying to the court than the Federal Government.

This is not an academic point: my case 06cv3834 in SDNY was initially filed in NY State, and Amex moved it to SDNY. Should moving it to federal court allow the lawyer to have a 21 day safe harbor?

Saturday, February 14, 2009

Truth Commission -- for the USA; Can Amex be far behind?

In an article by Kate Phillips in the NY Times, there's a call for a Truth Commission in the US Senate. This is the type of "thing" I'd like for American Express, so that it can clean up its past transgressions. In South Africa, the Truth Commission helped bring together (what I thought was) a hopeless country. In the less extreme, the US can resolve when and if we Americans should use torture, but only by knowing what has happened in the past. Similarly, and again in a much less extreme way, Amex could see if they/we can resolve its past transgressions and stop it from happening in the future.

The concept is that 'Senator Patrick Leahy, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman and one of several Democratic senators who challenged Bush administration policies over the last eight years, called today for a truth commission to conduct inquiries into legal oversight at the Justice Department and various other decisions about interrogation procedures and other practices. ... Senator Leahy suggested the formation of a truth commission as a compromise between those Bush critics who want to prosecute former administration officials and Bush loyalists who are opposed to any inquiries: '

"There is another option that we might also consider, a middle ground. A middle ground to find the truth. We need to get to the bottom of what happened — and why — so we make sure it never happens again.One path to that goal would be a reconciliation process and truth commission. We could develop and authorize a person or group of people universally recognized as fair minded, and without axes to grind. Their straightforward mission would be to find the truth. People would be invited to come forward and share their knowledge and experiences, not for purposes of constructing criminal indictments, but to assemble the facts.

If needed, such a process could involve subpoena powers, and even the authority to obtain immunity from prosecutions in order to get to the whole truth. Congress has already granted immunity, over my objection, to those who facilitated warrantless wiretaps and those who conducted cruel interrogations. It would be far better to use that authority to learn the truth.
There is another option that we might also consider, a middle ground. A middle ground to find the truth. We need to get to the bottom of what happened — and why — so we make sure it never happens again.One path to that goal would be a reconciliation process and truth commission. We could develop and authorize a person or group of people universally recognized as fair minded, and without axes to grind. Their straightforward mission would be to find the truth. People would be invited to come forward and share their knowledge and experiences, not for purposes of constructing criminal indictments, but to assemble the facts.

If needed, such a process could involve subpoena powers, and even the authority to obtain immunity from prosecutions in order to get to the whole truth. Congress has already granted immunity, over my objection, to those who facilitated warrantless wiretaps and those who conducted cruel interrogations. It would be far better to use that authority to learn the truth. "

(February 9, 2009, 5:30 pm) Judiciary Chairman Calls for Commission to Delve into Bush Practices