Thursday, December 10, 2009

KingCast says hijab hijinx and Enron Fraud ruin the day at MCAD for Sam Shaulson and his dirtbag clients at Citibank.

Unbelievably, Citibank has the nerve to call me a scammer after they refused to open a bank account for me but opened one for my Caucasian girlfriend. We see who the real scammers are:

DK ACQUISITION v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO., 2003 TX Dist. Ct. Pleadings 36371 (2003) -- $1.66 Billion 2008 Fraud Settlement + $2B in shareholder settlement. SEC Fraud allegation settled for $208M. See also KingCast 25 May 2006 post, "Skillfully Layed, Enron goes down." GOTCHA!

This is but one part of the 66 page Complaint:
c. Citibank Loans Disguised as "Minority Interest" Transactions

85. The secret loans to Enron that Citibank and Enron disguised as minority interest transactions, knowing Enron would improperly [*39] report the loan proceeds as minority interests and would improperly fail to report the repayment obligations as debt, included the following:

(a) a $ 500 million secret loan from Citibank to Enron, originated in or about December 1997, as part of "Project Nighthawk;"

(b) a $ 750 million secret loan from Citibank to Enron, originated in or about December 1998, as part of "Project Rawhide;" and

(c) a $ 500 million secret loan from Citibank to Enron, originated in or about December 1999, as part of "Project Nahanni."

.....It just goes on, and on, and on. Corporate money-laundering scumbags in Mexico/Japan/Russia and huckstering young students in Columbus, OH. (That one's for you, Ditmar Kopf).

Anyway, I told you about the dark-skinned Islamic woman who was threatened with expulsion from a Chicago area Citibank branch earlier this week.

Institutions like Citibank (and in particular Citibank) are the very reason this Country is so screwed up today and that's a FACT. Foul, simply foul. Sam, the stakes are high and climbing higher. Stop supporting the Corporate Devil incarnate -- are you ready for that Omelette and a Mimosa yet? Barring that, here is today's filing.


Shaulson_Enron_hijab_Memorandum.doc.

1 comment:

  1. You had better believe this is a battle of epic proportions.

    Can you imagine the shame that Attorney Shaulson -- part of the established Blue Blood lawyer clique of America -- already feels at what I have exposed about his dirty little client and his lame purported legitimate nondiscriminatory rationales?

    No way can a suspended attorney who doesn't know the Law can do this sort of thing to his beloved, scumbag client, right out in the Open.

    But it is indeed happening, just as I said it would.

    From today's filing:

    So we see that one thing remains constant with Citibank:

    A pattern and practice of unlawful and discriminatory conduct – All throughout America and through their lavish offices in Mexico City, New York, Zurich and London and on to the Cayman Islands -- that eviscerates the last scintilla of credibility that they hoped to maintain. There may not be a case 100% on point with the exact same sort of circumstances but that should in no ways effect a determination of Probable Cause in this instance given:

    1. Respondent’s lead defense was the videos that they have destroyed or failed to produce.

    2. Respondent’s second defense was that the Decision Maker was black which of course I have proved to be a lie because the only black employee present did not have that ambit of authority.

    So there we have the proffered legitimate nondiscriminatory rationales being proved not worthy of credence, per Burdine and McDonnell-Douglas, previously-cited and that means a Jury is entitled to find the unlawful discrimination took place. It’s really quite simple:

    There is substantial evidence to support an order of the Commission that Unlawful Discrimination took place in this case. See Nathanson v. Commonwealth, 16 Mass. L. Rep. 761 (2003), Katz v. Massachusetts Comm'n. Against Discrimination, 365 Mass. 357, 365, 312 N.E.2d 182 (1974). Under G.L.c. 30A, § 1," 'substantial evidence' means such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."

    ReplyDelete