New blog: Citibankblog. On or about 23 March 2009 Carlo Caramanna refused to honor a check for Derrick Gillenwater, and threatened to arrest him and others when presented with a copy of Your Style v. Mid Town Bank of Chicago, 501 N.E.2d 805 (1986). It should all be on bank video.
They are no doubt pissed as hell that NY Partner Sam Shaulson has lost control of this case, and perhaps they are mad as hell that Citibank lied to Morgan, Lewis about my conduct at the bank. All I know is if they bring a lawsuit I will demand a Jury and then everybody is going to be saying
"Wow, where can I find his blogs....that guy ROCKS!!!...."
This promises to be fun because there's no legal basis for shutting down any of my blogs about Citibank or its lawyers if that's what they're after. Think: Fair Use,opinion, satire, parody guys, I've got y'all covered, think of it as a movement of the Yoots... Or maybe they too, are in search of the Holy Grail.....
PS: We all know Citibank likes to steal from its customers, they lied to Ohio State Students, California AG Brown caught them in flagrante delicto with $14M from poor, deceased customers and continuing with that theme they ganked the estate of Janina Tobolka (who had hip replacement and uterine cancer for Christ's sake) and Marie Olko for $127K until she busted them in NY Court of Appeals for $300K in 2005 hahahaaaa....
Funny how I wrote two days ago that purportedly-damaging video was on its way, but MCAD tells me this morning that it has not arrived, but that they are checking the mail and will give a holler when it arrives.
Here's the rub: Every other time these lying bigot hater-bags sent something when they thought they had me in a corner they sent it FEDEX, I wish I had saved the envelopes for a KingCast picture. I'll keep calling MCAD to see when the Moment of Truth has arrived.
Warning: There better not be any editing going on, I might bring my film maker along with me to look for any splicing. Plus, with multiple cameras there had better be the exchange between Carlo Caramanna and me, you betcha'.
Well what a difference a day makes. After the Scrooge/Dave Chappelle/Strother Martin post quoting Morgan Lewis Partner Sam Shaulson's 25 November promise to "immediately" produce a video in which I allegedly acted inappropriately, MCAD officials tell me that they believe it is en route.
If you will not show us the Grail... we will take your Castle by force!
Remember the Scrooge post in which I noted, inter alia, that Morgan Lewis is a "No Hire Factory?" And who could forget the instant classic Strother Martin "Hard-time That's the way he gets it!" post, noting that Morgan Lewis are such tightwad tools they illegally failed to indemnify one of their own attorneys in a legal malpractice case. Wow.
Well they keep on not giving the gifts, even though the NAACP has given Sam Shaulson and Morgan Lewis' infamous dirt bag scum-sucking rat pig Citibank client a big present that was re-gifted to Yours Truly, i.e. NAACP v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co., Citigroup et al., 635 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (2009).
Well now niggardly Morgan Lewis Partner Sam Shaulson is thus far failing to gift over the video that purportedly shows me acting inappropriately at the Citibank South End branch such that manager Carlo Carmanna was justified in not opening a bank account for me even as Citibank opened such an account for my Caucasian girlfriend. She and Derrick Gillenwater will be witnesses at trial. Why is Sam Shaulson being so niggardly about it when his co-counsel, Benjamin Velella tried to threaten my lawyer with the video as their first line of defense many months ago, remember the colloquy:
"Please be advised that we do have video from the South End Branch from March 24 that captures interaction between staff and your clients and have also taken statements from the affected employees." ********* "Sir, I couldn't care less about the self-serving employee statements. The proof is in the video from that day and all other days that you have maintained and that the court will compel you and your client to produce."
And remember what Sam Shaulson wrote to MCAD on 25 November 2009 -- an entire month ago:
"Citibank will immediately produce a copy of the video in question to the MCAD, but asks that the MCAD confirm that a copy of the video will not be provided to Mr. King."
Well we must have some sort of, ummmm... failure to communicate, because in point of fact I have already stipulated that I would abide by the MCAD ruling, which was that the Commission would not compel a video for my own possession, and I will simply sit in the room with them and observe and narrate what is happening, including the fact that Morgan Lewis Attorney Sam Shaulson intentionally lied to the Commission about the fact that Carlo Carmanna was the Decision Maker: It was not the black female teller, their own Position Description proves that because she is not cloaked with the ambit of authority to render such a decision, only he can "Resolve escalated customer complaints/issues promptly and effectively."
I dunno, but a non-negotiated $24,500.00 check is an "escalated customer issue" the last time I checked. So I will provide an Affidavit and Narrative to the Bar Discipline Counsel, which prematurely dismissed my Rule 3.3 Ethics Complaint against the niggardly Morgan Lewis Partner Sam Shaulson. They will probably dismiss it again to protect a powerful attorney like Sam Shaulson but that doesn't diminish the gravity of his deceit, No Sir.
Back story: As one can read in the thumbnails, in 2007 the NAACP gave Citibank poor marks on everything racial except Community Reinvestment Act work, but on further review the NAACP -- the Nation's Oldest Civil Rights Organization (of which I proudly served as Southern NH Legal Chair) -- says they have apparently failed on that as well. Get your popcorn ready for NAACP v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co., Citigroup et al., 635 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (2009), Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint DENIED.
(March 11, 2008) The NAACP and lead counsel Brian Kabateck filed papers Friday, March 7, that will fast track their federal class action lawsuit against Washington Mutual, Citi, GMAC and 15 other mortgage firms who systematically steered African American borrowers into predatory loans.
"The victims in this case had the same credit, the same income and the same qualifications as the lenders' other customers. The only difference was the color of their skin. That's why they were stuck with abusive loans," said Kabateck, Managing Partner of Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP.
"Quickly resolving this case is essential for victims who have ruined credit and who are losing their homes. This isn't just about justice for the victims. This case is about making sure that this kind of discrimination is stamped out for good," said NAACP General Counsel Angela Ciccolo.
What this proves of course inter alia, is that Discrimination need not take place all at the same time, as alleged by Morgan Lewis Partner Sam Shaulson in my case of racial discrimination where they refused to open a bank account for me but opened one for my Caucasian girlfriend. Citibank may well be the sleaziest banking operation in the World: Almost every multinational banking scam involves Citibank. I've been listing Enron, Ohio, California, Mexico, Russia and some of the others here.
See generally the Bah, humbug post from this morning about these money-laundering, student-huckstering, TARP-abusing, scum-sucking racist rat pigs that call themselves Citigroup, Citimortgage and Citibank.
UPDATE: NAACP v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co., Citigroup et al., 635 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (2009), more on this in a new post, but basically NAACP sued Citibank and others for Community Reinvestment Act violations, which effectively removes the only good score they had from the 2007 NAACP report featured below.
But now I see that they were ripping off more schools and students and settled that out for a couple million, no doubt after they already made 40 or 400 times that much through their illegal practices.
If Citibank ever tries to sell you on its commitment to racial diversity or Green investment portfolio, don't believe it because the Green America Responsible Shopper wrote:Citigroup's record proves that its desire for profits come at the expense of environmental and social sustainability.
Citigroup received a “C” grade on the 2007 NAACP Economic Reciprocity Initiative report. The grade reflects a measurement of corporate America's commitment to African Americans and other people of color. Companies were surveyed for their activity in employment, vendor development and contracting, advertising and marketing, dealerships and philanthropy.
The Corporate Library named Citigroup as "worst overall" in its listing of the Ten Worst Large US Boards in 2003....
In May 2004 Citigroup agreed to pay $2.65 billion to investors in WorldCom...
In August 2003 Citigroup Global Markets' brokerage division was fined $1 million by the New York Stock Exchange.....
And hot damn they even had to settle a claim of unlawful discrimination filed by an atheist, so Citibank will stick it to whomever is walking by, apparently. I love the "being a disturbance" line of crap; same one they used on me. This goes straight to MCAD, showing a pattern and practice of conduct by these scum-sucking money laundering rat pigs at Citibank.
And of course we need say no more about Morgan Lewis than the fact that they are considered a No Hire Factory and unlawfully failed to indemnify their own former lawyer for work he performed for Morgan Lewis, see Cassady v. Morgan Lewis, 145 Cal. App. 4th 220; 51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 527; 2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1877 (2006)
Good lord! From the level of frustration indicated on this and other law-related websites, I hope a pre-party walk though a metal detector and a pat-down is on the agenda.
I made sure to remind them of Cassady v. Morgan Lewis, 145 Cal. App. 4th 220; 51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 527; 2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1877 (2006)
"We affirm the trial court's grant of a new trial. Under section 2802, an employer must [***3] indemnify an employee for attorney's fees and costs incurred in defending a third party lawsuit, where such expenses are necessary and the lawsuit is based on the employee's conduct within the course and scope of his or her job duties."
