Sunday, May 10, 2015
On page 2 of document tinyurl.com/amexethics01 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
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:
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.""
Shareholders: Ask CEO for truth and PWC to act as CPA's. Update for 9am Mon Apr 29, 2013 Amex Shareholder Meeting
- CEO Ken Chenault falsely certified to the SEC that Amex complied with SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley)
- 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)
- 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
- 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.
- (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]
Therefore, I Peter Lindner ask Amex Shareholders and the Amex Board of Directors to demand the truth from CEO & from PWC accountants.
Friday, April 16, 2010
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 YouTube.com 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.
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:
- Amex lied to a federal judge last year (April 2009) to stop my Shareholder Proposal
- I have a 40 second video on YouTube (key word: Peter10003) on that proposal
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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
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:
- 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
- Tue, Apr 21: Peter Lindner (that's me) has to reply to Amex's response
- 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.
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:
- 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.
- 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
"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
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