Fascism at the FED and the NY Federal District Court? I’m Shocked, Shocked . . .
Recently, Judge Ronnie Abrams (a female), issued a ruling dismissing the whistleblower case that former Goldman Sachs bank examiner Carmen M. Segarra filed against the venerable Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The case is found on Pacer, Case Number 1:13-cv-07173-RA, captioned Carmen M. Segarra vs. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, et al. Mr. TF asked me to weigh in on it, which I am most happy to oblige, because I am part of his cult . . .
Running a quick google search reveals the top story on it is, naturally, from the traditional media, here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/23/nyfed-goldman-lawsuit-idUSL2N0NF28P20140423
Basically, Ms. Segarra claimed she was fired for whistleblowing, that is, for reporting bad behavior by her employer, which in this case, happened to be the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. She wanted reinstatement, some money, and for her attorney’s fees to be paid by the defendants. She also asked for punitive damages. She filed suit in the den of thieves, the US Federal District Court for the Southern District of NY.
As an aside, why would anyone suing a bank, let alone part of the evil fiat scheme, the bank of last resort, The NY Fed, EVER in a million years think for one second that a sitting federal judge in the Southern District of NY, such judge appointed by the President, and confirmed by the Senate, who themselves are demonstrably and inexorably, hopelessly corrupted by bankers who own them, ever, ever think that a fair outcome would result? I can surmise that Carmen, probably quite intelligent, is simply unable to critically evaluate the corruption inherent in the system, since her very professional existence, grotesque as it is, is hopelessly bound up within that very system. She became, simply, an irritant to the host, who promptly expelled her.
Indeed, there are salacious details of a conflict of interest, linking the judge to banking interests, and which upon even a cursory look, reveal the rotting stench of corruption permeating this entire case. Anyway, back to the story.
According to the Complaint, Ms. Segarra set forth four claims: a violation of federal law, specifically, 12 U.S.C. § 1831, a violation of state statutory law, NY Business Law § 349, as well two claims under common law for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and breach of contract. She added two more state law claims in her First Amended Complaint. For all you Constitutionally challenged types out there, a Federal Court is limited in its jurisdiction. A plaintiff must allege a violation of federal law, or satisfy diversity requirements. Diversity did not exist, since plaintiff and defendants were both from NY. Hence, for the US Federal District Court to have jurisdiction over the case, Ms. Segarra had to allege a violation of federal law.
So, Ms. Segarra alleged the 12 U.S.C. § 1831 claim. This is a technical statute, and Ms. Segarra had to fall within its purview in order to be able to assert a claim under it.
The defense was simple: they moved to dismiss the case based on lack of federal question jurisdiction. That is, the Fed said that Ms. Segarra was not entitled to relief under federal law because the federal law did not apply in her situation. For technical reasons, too arcane, and quite frankly, too boring for me to discuss this late Wednesday night, the Fed’s lawyers successfully persuaded the corrupt District Court judge to dismiss the case. Importantly, the judge dismissed the federal law claim, but did not terminate the case in a fatal manner as to the state law claims.
Thus, Ms. Segarra’s lawsuit is not dead and buried. No, it is just going to have to be litigated in state court, or Ms. Segarra will have to appeal the judge’s ruling dismissing the federal law claim.
Remember, the federal court dismissed the case from FEDERAL COURT, finding that since the federal law cited by Ms. Segarra did not apply, then the FEDERAL COURT was without jurisdiction to adjudicate the remaining STATE LAW CLAIMS.
In the Order dismissing the case, the judge said this:
“Plaintiff invoked the Court’s jurisdiction by asserting that the FAC raised a federal
question. (FAC ¶ 10.) Because the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim
under 18 U.S.C. § 1831j—her only federal cause of action—it concludes that this is the “the
usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial” such that it should
“declin[e] to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ.
v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988); see also Kolari v. New York-Prebyterian Hosp., 455
F.3d 118, 119 (2d Cir. 2006). It therefore dismisses her state law claims without prejudice.”
The Order is filed as docket entry 51, and the docket entry says this:
“CLERK'S JUDGMENT: It is, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated April 23, 2014, Defendants' motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint is granted, Count One fails to state a claim under U.S.C. § 1831j, and the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims; Plaintiff's motion seeking leave to file a Second Amended Complaint is denied, as are the other requests made in Plaintiff's April 11, 2014 letters; accordingly, the case is closed. (Signed by Clerk of Court Ruby Krajick on 04/24/2014) (Attachments: # 1 Right to Appeal)(km) (Entered: 04/24/2014)”
See? The federal law claim is gone, but the state law claims can be refiled in state court.
For reasons known to them, Ms. Segarra’s lawyers filed a notice of appeal, on May 20, 2014.
Let’s see what happens, legally, stay tuned.
Meanwhile, let us not forget the MOPE about the story.
Look at the headline from the traditional media:
“NY Fed wins dismissal of lawsuit by examiner who faulted Goldman.” Story is here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/23/nyfed-goldman-lawsuit-idUSL2N0NF28P20140423
While true, it hardly tells the story, now does it?
I would have written the headline like this:
“Fired NY Fed bank examiner’s federal claim dismissed by Judge alleged to have conflict of interest.”
See the difference? What images come to mind based on the different headlines? See how the game is played?
Also, NOWHERE in the mainstream press article, is there a single mention of the reality of the federal judge’s ruling. NY FED did not “win” anything. It was a legal ruling on a technical ground, that is dubious, made by a corrupted federal judge with a clear, and recusal worthy compelling reason to have never sat in judgment on the case at all. The “examiner” was an employee, who sued her employer, for corruption. This use of tame language like “faulted” is laughable. The law does not use terms like “fault.” It uses terms like “failure to use reasonable care,” “fraud,” and “malice.”
Look at this headline: “Heirs of deceased Nicole Brown fault OJ Simpson.” See?
If one looks, one may find an article that delves a little deeper, like here: http://wallstreetonparade.com/2014/05/a-mangled-case-of-justice-on-wall-street/
But for real news, with no spin, told fairly, one must search out independent viewpoints.
Keep preparing everyone, and do not be afraid to seek out the truth from independent sources.