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.
Rev it up, boys and girls. State Debate finals, 1979 IIRC, and BLSA Second Place entire Midwest Region, 1992 and State v. Doyle, 1999. Juries tend to like me even as you and other corporate haters like American Tower imply I'm a Dangerous, Threatening Black Man. As D.S.'s Affidavit (and "American Lawyer" at KingCast.net) I emailed to Sam last night shows, they were just pissed-off because I reported underpayment of my trainees to the DOL, which fined.... err.... settled with them for $290K.
Excuse me? "The way you went about it?" With all due respect (and not much is due, actually) WTF is THAT supposed to mean? Did he threaten violence? No. Did he threaten to reveal personal secrets about either of the attorneys? No. Was there a threat to National Security? No.
Sooooo....How does Citibank stop proliferation of this video in the coming days, weeks, months and years?
Answer: Unless they settle with me, they don't. The ACLU has got my back like a MF, and any attempt to shut it down has to come before a Jury because I'll file a Jury Demand in my Answer to any complaint they could conceivably issue. Too bad I forgot to put in the sexism cases as well, here's one for $33M. What a bunch of dirty rotten scoundrels, oppression personified ('cos remember the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons now, Citizens United v. FEC 558 U.S. ____ 2010).
The Jury will be, like, "he's my hero!"
I've got law students getting ready to distribute the DVDs once I order them up, I'm not even going to bother pressing them myself, too time consuming for the volume planned.
With that, I'm firing up the 650R (it needs new skins ASAP, funny how once they start going it's a quick trip downhill LOL) and headed over to the Post Office to file this Rule 3.3/3.4 Ethics Complaint on Citibank lying lawyer Benjamin Velella. -The KingCaster.
28 April, 2010 Dear Reviewing Counsel: Please review the attached DVD and documentation with all the earnestness at your command. Benjamin D. Velella, Esq. misrepresented to licensed counsel and to an opposing party that: A. No one at Citibank Chinatown branch told Derrick Gillenwater that the branch would cash his check once he updated his State ID to go along with his current Social Security Card.
B. No one at Citibank Chinatown branch told Derrick Gillenwater when we returned to the branch that the manager was not available. With all due respect, these are bald-faced lies told in contravention of Rules 3.3 and 3.4 (and probably others) Candor toward the tribunal and opposing parties. You can hear Derrick Gillenwater say as much in the video. Equally important is the FACT that my lawyer told them to maintain the video from the Chinatown branch but they have not, and not only is that spoliation of evidence, it was a further attempt to cover up the lies because the video from both visits could be narrated and shown in order to support my contentions. Accord Kippenhan v. Chaulk, 428 Mass. 124 (1998).
Sanctions may be appropriate for the spoliation of evidence that occurs even before an action has been commenced, if a litigant or its expert knows or reasonably should know that the evidence might be relevant to a possible action. See Nally v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., supra at 197-198; Lewy v. Remington Arms Co., 836 F.2d 1104, 1112 (8th Cir. 1988); Fire Ins. Exch. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 103 Nev. 648, 651 (1987). The threat of a lawsuit must be sufficiently apparent, however, that a reasonable person in the spoliator's position would realize, at the time of spoliation, the possible importance of the evidence to the resolution of the potential dispute.
With all due respect, when you get a letter from a lawyer threatening litigation and asking for video to be maintained, I think that effectively crosses the threshold contemplated by Chaulk.
Update: Read the specific warning to Counselor Velella on 26 May 2009: PS: Dear Attorney Velella:
Don't forget the express representation from your Chinatown branch that they would honor the check when Mr. Gillenwater got his new State I.D. card.
They then reneged on that promise, all of which should be stored in your video vault.
Sooooo.... An excerpt from the Post Hearing Brief, when in doubt bring in the minority lawyer to defend discrimination cases..... Today at hearing Respondent’s counsel said that Citibank’s history of proved lies and deceit were not relevant, yet it was Citibank who started this dirty game by referencing items in my past back to 1996, and that’s a FACT. It’s their Modus Operandi, as noted by several legal bloggers. Do whatever you can to stain the victim, just ask Madison Square Garden victims Courtney Prince and Anucha Browne Sanders: Writes one lawyer at Main Street U.S.A. blog, 19 April 2007.
Kind of a come hither photo for a law firm bio, no? People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Rodriguez is a fifth year lawyer with an impressive pedigree (Yale, Columbia Law), but not a lot of experience to be the lead lawyer in a high-profile case. I wonder if she is the lead attorney on the case? Or is she just being used to put out the smear so the big name partner who is handling the case doesn't have to get his/her hands dirty? Is MSG using a woman (and a minority) as window dressing? I handled many sex discrimination cases where young female lawyers were included on the defense team for that very reason.
Today I continued to show how the teller had no credibility as well as the FACT that Manager Carlo Caramanna definitely exercised his authority to be the Decision Maker to DENY me the right to open a bank account. No matter how hard Citibank tries, they cannot make that go away.
Respondent Citibank raised Derrick Gillenwater when they wanted to, in order to say that the bank offered him to open an account. But I said hey if you bring him in penny you bring him in dollar and he clearly says that Citibank reneged on the promise to cash his check when he got updated ID. This means that local Counsel Benjamin Vellela is a complete liar too, as shown in the movie. Then they say "This is the first time we've heard that Derrick Gillenwater was reacting to another statement when he said "watch your back."
Well that's not my fault that the scumbags at the bank didn't tell their counsel what really happened. We'll get there in Superior Court if necessary.
Lastly as to the allegation that I was "sarcastic" about opening an account, I said I was snippy or somewhat sarcastic to the extent that Carlo Carmanna had already threatened to arrest me when he picked up the phone. They can't get away from that as we move toward Superior Court I will subpoena that video, and when a Jury looks at my body language they will know I was not creating the disturbance that Citibank alleges. And as noted, how sarcastic was I really being, considering:
a) all of my hard work in getting ACL/Proskauer to review the case; b) asked Carla Caramanna for the name and card of his supervisor.
Their position is so absurd, they acknowledge that I asked for the card but why on Earth would I ask for such a thing unless I meant business about opening an account? Citibank is trying to stand common sense on its head, once again. How can Morgan Lewis Attorneys keep their heads up as they try to defend this case? Melissa Rodriguez seems to be having a tough time at it, photographed in an open lobby, not in a hearing.
Sooo.....I keep remembering things that make me laugh, such as the fact that Sam Shaulson and Citibank call me unprofessional, yet the NYSE welcomed me with open arms last week while the same institution fined Citigroup $1M. When I finish this short film I'll get to work on the America SCORES short film. This final video will go up some time late tomorrow, then I'll press up scores of DVDs and send them off to all of Sam Shaulson and Morgan Lewis' opposing counsel from now until the day I die. It's a Free Country, that's an exercise of the First Amendment, and heck seeing as Sam thinks his clients and he have done no wrong they will appreciate the free publicity. Even though he clearly lied about the fact that the Decision Maker in my particular case was not a female, black, but rather a male, Caucasian, one Carlo Caramanna.
Here is the rough cut. Meanwhile you can read all about the NAACP racism lawsuit and the NYSE fines right here.
