Rule 3.3 Ethics Complaint against New York Attorney Sam S. Shaulson.

Rule_3.3_Ethics_Complaint_on_Sam_Shaulson He brought the bullshit, I'll bring the pain. But hey, it's not so bad, no doubt he will bill his clients for the time it takes to respond.

Sam Shaulson has the look of a liar because he is a liar in defending racist pigs at Boston Citibank.

I wonder if the other Partners at Morgan Lewis & Bocklus condone the sort of lies that have led me to file the Motion to Compel the relevant Video and Audio that his scumbag client threatened my lawyer with. He-heh, now that Attorney Shaulson knows that the first Citibank lawyer (Benjamin Velella) was just blowing smoke, Shaulson doesn't even address the damning video and audio that will show his client to be an absolute liar. The Motion to Compel will flush it out, and flush out all of his crap at the same time.

Read the Sam Shaulson Morgan Lewis blog for the full story on this clown, thinking he can throw his big bad corporate law firm weight around to intimidate me or to fool the folks at MCAD.

Landmark screens wasn't fooled either, they sued Morgan Lewis for legal malpractice. You can read the Complaint at Wall Street Journal Law Blog.

It's not going to work here, either buddy. Moreover I'm going to file an ethics complaint on you relative to your willful misrepresentations that the decision maker was black and that your client has no idea who the "unidentified woman" was, considering her name is on your own Exhibit C that you filed with MCAD. Now I understand why Landmark sued you for Fraudulent Concealment at 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102579.

And JP Morgan Chase brokers smoked Attorney Shaulson too.

Anyway, of course mediation is always an option.

Citibank_MTC

KingCast says "Now Citibank can't claim I never approached for Mediation."

Blam!

Citibank_Mediation

KingCast files a Motion to Compel Video, Audio and "Unidentified Woman" info.

Dear Attorney Shaulson:

Don't believe everything you read about my background when the government claimed I didn't know how to practice law, or that I was involved in criminal activity. I wasn't but to me you and your client's lies are most definitely criminal. I look forward to seeing your responses to today's Motion to Strike and this Motion to Compel.

Rule 9A awaits.


Citibank_MTC

KingCast Red Herring Motion to Strike immaterial after acquired evidence.

Nice Try guys.

See you at Mediation.

Citibank_MTS

KingCast finishes Citibank Position Statement Rebuttal: Who's swearing now?

Actually I love this part below the window from my Rebuttal: http://www.scribd.com/doc/22412219
MCAD 09BPA02502 KingCast Rebuttal to Citibank Position Statement

IV. I have a blog, I say and email negative things about Citibank, I posted fliers and “sped away” while wearing a hat in disguise.

I will address these points in no particular order:

First of all, I always wear a hat. It’s called a Fedora and it is not a disguise, in fact it’s almost like a trademark that helps people identify who I am more than it camouflages. The only time outside of my house where I’m not wearing a hat is when I’m wearing a motorcycle helmet or playing tennis, even then I often wear a cap, whatever. Plus, in the police call on 24 March Citibank noted that I was wearing a hat so that probably wouldn’t be too effective of a disguise now, would it?

Next, I have a blog and I also have a radio segment at 5:30 p.m. every Wednesday at TOUCH 106.1 FM -- http://TOUCHFM.org; I write their blog too, at http://touchfmbloston.blogspot.com. I have been, and will continue to be mentioning this case on air and anywhere else I deem appropriate. That would be called lawful exercise of the First Amendment, hence the name of my personal blog, “Chris King’s 1st Amendment Page.” If Defendant has a problem with any of my First Amendment activities there are tribunals for them to approach if they deem I have committed any Defamatory acts. If so I would encourage them to file the appropriate civil or criminal complaints so that I can defend them.

I will not post any more blog fliers on the door, but I most certainly did not “speed away” because had I wanted to be incognito I would have ridden the motorcycle with a helmet, parked around the corner and jetted. No, I was in plain view, looked these people right in the eye and just went out to turn my car around as I was late to an appointment. On leaving the agents for Respondent called me a “motherf*cker” and said “f*ck you" and raised their middle fingers at me – all of which should be preserved where? On the video of the day, date and time in question, of course. Whereby I respectfully ask that this Tribunal compel production of same and issue Default Judgment if these materials are not produced.

KingCast note to Citibank: The teller was not the decision maker, proof of that is in the video you liars.

I just caught another lie in the Citibank Position Statement. They claim that because the teller was black there could be no discrimination because the teller was the decision maker.

That's horse puckey because the teller was NOT the decision maker. The video (that these scumbags have failed to produce despite threatening my lawyer with it) would show that Carlo Caramanna was the decision maker who flat out told me he would not open an account for me. Carlo Caramanna, last time I checked, is not black.