ISSUES ON APPEAL
FROM MOTION TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Plaintiff acknowledges that pro se cases are a difficult topic for the judiciary. Pro se applicants do not plead properly. Pro se complaints take more time than those complaints, which are pleaded by attorneys. Also, in many instances pro se Plaintiffs argue from a moral basis, something that attorneys do not do. Having stated that, Plaintiff must state that Judge Sandra L. Townes is biased against pro se litigants and counts upon the judicial collegiality of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to affirm her judicial orders.
But there are troubling issues. In denying Plaintiff application to pursue Plaintiff’s appeal in forma pauperis, Judge Townes in her Conclusion quotes Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438. It must there be noted that Plaintiff is pursing a civil action. Coppedge v. United States is a criminal case, which decided the right of individuals, who are convicted of a crime and who are indigent, to pursue their action at the expense of the state- in forma pauperis. The application of this case means that Plaintiff, who pursued his case in forma pauperis at the District Court, must be granted in forma pauperis status in his appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit- and must be granted counsel because Plaintiff’s legal action is not frivolous.
On page 445 of Coppedge: “”We hold instead that good faith in this context must be judged by an objective standard. We consider a defendant’s good faith in this type of case demonstrated when he seeks appellate review of any issue not frivolous.”
Thus, in Coppedge, p. 447, “unless the issues raised [by the indigent seeking leave to appeal in forma pauperis] are so frivolous that the appeal would be dismissed in the case of a nonindigent litigant, Fed. Rules Crim. Proc. 39 (a), the request of an indigent to appeal in forma pauperis must be allowed.” Ellis v. United States, 356 U.S. 674, 675.
As Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote on page 448: “It is not the burden of the petitioner to show that his appeal has merit, in the sense that he is bound, or even likely, to prevail ultimately. He is to be heard, as is any appellant in a criminal case, if he makes a rational argument on the law or facts.”
Thus, if the Court were to extrapolate the meaning of Coppedge to civil cases, Plaintiff’s right to appeal in forma pauperis would be extended automatically.
In her conclusion Judge Townes quotes another criminal case, Cruz v. Gomez, 202 F.3d 593 to show that Judge Townes properly permitted Plaintiff to amend his complaint: “we conclude that a pro se plaintiff who is proceeding in forma pauperis should be afforded the same opportunity as a pro se fee-paid plaintiff to amend his complaint prior to his complaint prior to its dismissal for failure to state a claim…” The only problem is that Plaintiff did state a claim, but that Judge Townes did not wish to preside over a pro se complaint.
Judge Townes also mistakenly has quoted Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Am. Nat’l Bank and Trust Co. of Chicago, 93 F.3d 1064, which quotes Tongkook Am., Inc. v. Shipton Sportswear Co., 14 F.3d 781. But these two decisions were contractual and business disputes where the damages were clearly determined. Plaintiff has been denied employment and has suffered great financial loss. Judge Townes has flippantly decided that Plaintiff’s losses were less than $75,000- even though Plaintiff has sworn that his losses exceed $75,000. Judge Townes does not wish to preside over a pro se case.
Having analyzed the Conclusion, Plaintiff shall now initiate an analysis of Judge Townes’ decision and, hopefully, prove that Judge Townes committed legal and reversible error. Judge Townes is unhappy with Plaintiff’s claim for compensatory damages and punitive damages of $12 million. Judge Townes thus neglected the legal precedence of Sue Scheff, who in Florida was awarded $13 million in an internet libel action. Thus, $15 million in damages is not unrealistic compensation for Plaintiff- especially when the Court and Jury consider that Yahoo actively, willingly and maliciously permitted Plaintiff to be defamed by a convicted felon and stock fraud artist, Sam E. Antar, Chief Financial Officer of the Crazy Eddie stock fraud.
Judge Townes was biased against Plaintiff and even misstated Plaintiff’s claim of damages. Thus, Judge Townes stated “he (Plaintiff) does not provide a sufficient basis for seeking these amounts, except to allege that he was prevented from obtaining a job as an investigative reporter.” See Am. Compl., pp. 15, 44.
But Plaintiff alleged far more and Plaintiff must now quote directly. Thus on page 15 Plaintiff stated:
“The above message proves that Sam E. Antar desires to cause financial ruin not only Judd Bagley, but also Plaintiff Manfredonia in their respective professions.
And it is here that it must be stated most emphatically that Plaintiff Edward Manfredonia was denied a position as a full time (paid) reporter for The Black Star News as a direct result of being labeled as an anti-Semite by Sam E. Antar on the Yahoo Internet Message Board. Furthermore, Plaintiff was denied the opportunity to sell advertising for The Black Star News- a lucrative position because Plaintiff was falsely accused of being an anti-Semite on the Yahoo Internet Message Boards.”
Thus Plaintiff did not state that he was merely prevented from obtaining a job as an investigative reporter, but was also denied the opportunity to sell advertising for The Black Star News because Plaintiff was falsely accused of being an anti-Semite. Plaintiff had written approximately 10 investigative articles, the topic of which was illegal trading on Wall Street (tens of billions of dollars), for The Black Star News. Reporters have refused to speak to Plaintiff because Plaintiff has been termed an anti-Semite as Plaintiff stated on page 14 of Plaintiff’s Complaint:
“Not one newspaper or magazine has spoken to Plaintiff Manfredonia, let alone mentioned Plaintiff Manfredonia’s articles because Plaintiff has been termed an anti-Semite- and Yahoo has given its imprimatur to this definition of Plaintiff Manfredonia as an anti-Semite. Not even the Columbia Journalism Review has responded to Plaintiff’s articles and telephone calls. Thus, Plaintiff has been harmed in his profession- and this should qualify as libel per se.”
Please note that Plaintiff has stated that “Yahoo has given its imprimatur to this defamation of Plaintiff Manfredonia as an anti-Semite.” Incidentally, the falseness of the charge of anti-Semitism was confirmed by the Anti-Defamation League, which in a letter (Exhibit 10), dated 2 July 2007, to Plaintiff, absolved Plaintiff of being an anti-Semite.
Likewise on page 44 of his amended complaint Plaintiff was more explicit concerning his damages than Judge Townes stated:
“In good faith Plaintiff Manfredonia swears that his compensatory damages exceed $75,000.
Plaintiff Manfredonia seeks $3 million in compensatory damages.
Plaintiff Manfredonia seeks $12 million in punitive damages.
Plaintiff reasonably believes that the above sums are a correct and modest estimate of the amount to which Plaintiff is entitled. Let Plaintiff remind the Court that Gary Weiss received approximately $1 million for his two disappointing and turgid books. Not only that but Gary Weiss told Plaintiff that he agreed to movie rights to his book and if the movie were produced he would reap millions. Plaintiff would have had a book printed that would have exceeded Weiss’ wildest dreams. And Plaintiff would have earned more than $75,000 as a reporter.”
Furthermore Judge Townes continued on page 2 of her Memorandum and Order stated: “Rather than address this Court’s directive regarding the diversity jurisdiction,…” But Plaintiff did address the diversity jurisdiction. So how could Judge Townes possibly deny that Plaintiff did not address the diversity issue.
Plaintiff, therefore, provided proof that he had sufficiently argued and proved that Plaintiff had met the diversity requirement of $75,000. Plaintiff had even spoken to attorneys, who frequent the law library at 80 Centre Street, and they stated that it was their belief that Plaintiff had met the diversity requirement.
Judge Townes also seems disturbed that Plaintiff submitted exhibits, some of which were already submitted in Plaintiff’s original complaint. But this is a defamation action and the exhibits do not vary- except for the addition of several exhibits that buttress Plaintiff’s statement that the individuals, who utilized Yahoo’s internet message boards to defame Plaintiff had engaged in criminal conduct- and one, Sam E. Antar of the Crazy Eddie stock fraud, was a convicted felon. Furthermore in a posting on a Yahoo internet message board, Plaintiff was threatened with physical violence by Howard Sirota, a class action attorney, who had been arrested for assaulting an 80 year old individual. Sirota always hides behind the canard of terming his opponents anti-Semites if the opponents disagree with Sirota’s sometimes illegal activities- as in permitting the Antar family to possess approximately $100 million, which sum was stolen from the American public.
Judge Townes mistakenly states on page 2: “the bulk of the amended complaint consists of plaintiff’s disputes with various individuals, including Gary Weiss, Sam E. Antar and Howard Sirota, who allegedly have posted defamatory remarks against Plaintiff on Yahoo’s internet message boards.
But Judge Townes conveniently forgets the raison d etre for the defamatory comments: Plaintiff exposed the money laundering by the Antar family and the illegal conversion of as much as $100 million, which sum the perpetrators of the Crazy Eddie stock fraud, have managed to maintain in Israeli Banks. (Note: If the Court were to read the various Federal Court and Securities and Exchange Commission proceedings pertaining to various members of the Antar family, the Court would be made aware that Bank Leumi had openly advertised itself as a money laundering entity for Americans and that the Antars laundered some of their money via Bank Leumi.) This illegal conversion of funds by the Antar family was known to Sam E. Antar, who pleaded guilty to fraud charges involving the Crazy Eddie stock fraud, and Howard Sirota, the class action attorney who sued for the shareholders but who also permitted Eddie Antar and his family to keep approximately $100 million of the money stolen. Plaintiff first posted on Yahoo message boards that Crazy Eddie was illegally laundering money into the United States circa February 24, 2007 on the InvestorVillage message board for Overstock and approximately the same date on the Yahoo internet message board for Overstock. Sam E, Antar finally admitted on his blog in June 2007 that Eddie Antar was laundering millions of dollars via an Israeli hospital- and Antar’s admission was published after consultation with Howard Sirota. Perhaps Judge Townes believes that money laundering is a personal dispute and that the defrauded shareholders of Crazy Eddie and the Securities and Exchange Commission are better financially and wiser without reclaiming the money purloined by the Antar family. Incidentally, the Court must surely realize that money laundering is a violation of federal law.
Sam E. Antar is currently laundering money via his wife. Sam E. has no assets and therefore is judgment proof. So, Sam E. is currently using his wife to launder hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments, which Sam E. then passes along to Barry Minkow, a convicted stock fraud artist of ZZZZBest infamy, and Minkow’s Fraud Discovery Unit. Minkow, who owes the federal government and his defrauded shareholders hundreds of millions of dollars, then has his Fraud Discovery Unit issue a negative report on certain stocks. Think of the rumors regarding Lehmann Brothers and the negative information concerning Bear Stearns.
Gary Weiss is a disgraced former reporter for BusinessWeek, who was forced to resign for lying in articles, especially about Plaintiff. Gary Weiss and Plaintiff collaborated for more than two years on the seminal article, Scandal On Wall Street, BusinessWeek cover story, 26 April 1999. More than one page of this article was dedicated to Plaintiff. At that time Weiss never accused Plaintiff of anti-Semitism. Gary Weiss also stole tens of thousands of dollars from BusinessWeek by submitting false expense account vouchers; participated in immigration fraud; lied about his sources; etc. But even worse Gary Weiss lied about the murders of Al Chalem and Maier Lehmann in the 20 December 1999 BusinessWeek article, A Message From The Mob. Weiss attributed the murders of Chalem and Lehmann to the Italian Mafia when Weiss knew that Chalem and Lehmann had been murdered by the Russian Mob. Seymour Zucker, Weiss’ editor at BusinessWeek belonged to a Talmud study group in which Feivel Gottlieb, a seat owner at the American Stock Exchange, belonged. Gottlieb participated in the stock frauds of Maier Lehmann and earned millions. Plaintiff knew Gottlieb from the offices of Wagner Stott, now Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corporation; and, that Gottlieb had earned millions from the stock frauds of Maier Lehmann. This was stated in the Complaint, so it appears that Judge Townes believes that the cover up of two murders is a personal dispute. Perhaps the Court should contact the families of Chalem and Lehmann and ask if they agree with Judge Townes’ characterization.
Judge Townes mistakenly ascribes a totally passive posture by Yahoo in the posting of these defamatory comments, thus attempting to cover Yahoo’s libelous actions with federal law.
But Yahoo was far from a passive participant in the posting of defamatory statements of Antar, Sirota and Weiss. Plaintiff’s postings on Yahoo internet message boards were removed by Yahoo at the request of Gary Weiss, Howard Sirota, and Sam E. Antar, not because Plaintiff’s postings were deemed anti-Semitic, but because Weiss and Antar were upset that Plaintiff had proved that Antar and Weiss had violated Jewish law- such as the Ten Commandments, viz., Thou shall not steal; Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor; etc. This was not difficult considering that Sam E. Antar pleaded guilty in the stock fraud, Crazy Eddie; and, Plaintiff had proved that Weiss had committed perjury; had stolen tens of thousands of dollars from his employer; had covered up two murders; etc. And the Court must not forget the continuing crime of Eddie Antar and the Antar family laundering money into the United States - and even Sam E. Antar laundering money. Surely, these crimes are not of a personal nature- unless the Court takes the personal view that violating the Ten Commandments is a personal affront to HaShem and Plaintiff is a devoted servant of HaShem. But HaShem did not file this legal action, Plaintiff Manfredonia did.
Plaintiff also proved that Gary Weiss had violated Jewish law by eating pig’s blood- double treyfe so to speak, in a Chinese restaurant, Sweet n’ Tart. Everyone knows that Jews are forbidden to eat pork, but Jews are also forbidden to consume blood. Plaintiff also proved that Sam E. Antar was not an Orthodox Jew because Sam E. Antar posted the messages on Shabbat and Shavuot. That is proscribed by Jewish law. In one Psalm, which is sung on Friday night, the arrival of sundown (Shabbat) is likened to the arrival of a bride. So, Sam E. Antar’s hateful postings on Shabbat are as if Sam E. were on his honeymoon and Sam E. was so consumed by hatred of Plaintiff that instead of spending time with his bride, Antar was posting hate messages on Yahoo message boards. And even on Shavuot, which commemorates HaShem’s gift of the Ten Commandments to the Israelites, Antar could not resist posting hate messages on Yahoo internet message boards. But Yahoo’s liability is just as evil. Yahoo maliciously permitted Sam E. Antar to post hate messages on Yahoo message boards and then in deference to Antar Yahoo also refused to permit Plaintiff to rebut the hateful and defamatory postings of Sam E. Antar. Thus, Yahoo actively supported, permitted and even encouraged the hate messages of Sam E. Antar.
When Plaintiff first wrote to Yahoo concerning the defamatory comments of Sam E. Antar, Yahoo deleted the posts- as well as Plaintiff’s posts, which were not anti-Semitic and were definitely not inflammatory. Yahoo even suspended Plaintiff’s e-mail account and deleted all personal messages. That is active management and support by Yahoo of the defamatory conduct of Weiss, Sirota and Antar.
Thus, when Plaintiff first wrote to Yahoo concerning defamatory postings on Yahoo internet message boards, Yahoo deleted the messages of Sam E. Antar. But later Yahoo permitted Sam E. Antar to post defamatory messages excoriating Plaintiff whenever Antar wished and to defame Plaintiff Manfredonia at will. Thus not only was Plaintiff termed an anti-Semite, but also “a delusional anti-Semite,” “delusional conspiracies,” “irrational hatred of Gary Weiss,” “you see his (Plaintiff’s) obsessive and irrational hatred of Jews,” “Edward Manfredonia’s paranoid fantasies,” etc.
The Anti-Defamation League has stated in a letter (Exhibit 10 of the Complaint) that Plaintiff was not an anti-Semite, and Antar and Weiss have read this letter, which had been posted with a link (see Complaint and Antar’s reaction). Antar even responded to the post with the link to the ADL letter and continued to defame Plaintiff. But Sam E. Antar, Howard Sirota, and Gary Weiss with the cooperation of Yahoo must smear Plaintiff’s good name so that their criminal activities (money laundering, stock manipulation, etc.) can continue. Yahoo knows this and permits this defamation.
Let us examine briefly Plaintiff’s proof that Yahoo is liable for defamation because Yahoo has actively permitted and has actively encouraged these postings. Thus on pages 19 and 20 of the Complaint, Plaintiff lists and quotes from the letters, which Plaintiff had sent via certified mail to Yahoo:
“Furthermore the defamatory statements of Antar and Weiss have been posted on other message boards on the Internet . The fact that Yahoo has banned Plaintiff from posting and has obliterated Plaintiff’s messages is prima facie proof to many that Plaintiff is an anti-Semite- and thus Yahoo is liable for Special Damages for libel per se.
As required by law, Plaintiff notified Yahoo by certified letter with a return receipt of the defamatory statements, which were posted on the Yahoo Internet Message Board for Overstock.com. Collectively these letters, which Plaintiff has listed below re collectively Exhibit 11:
1. Terry Semel, Chief Executive Officer, Yahoo, 26 January 2007, certified mail 7005 1820 0001 8055 0811. Regarding various postings, Plaintiff stated:
“I was defamed.”
“You deleted my e-mail account.”
“I fully expect an explanation for this.”
….
If this happens again, I shall initiate a defamation lawsuit against you in federal court.”
2. Terry Semel, Chief Executive Officer, Yahoo, 29 January 2007, certified mail 7005 1820 0001 8055 1689 (no return receipt). Included with this missive were four pages of defamatory statements and the sobriquets of each of these individuals. Plaintiff stated in this letter:
“I fully expect you to delete all offending messages in my name.”
“Furthermore, you have deleted my Yahoo account and I fully expect you to return my account to me.”
“The statements, which you have permitted, are defamatory. Furthermore, you have deleted my counterstatements. I believe that this is a foundation for a defamation lawsuit.”
3. Terry Semel, CEO Yahoo, 6 June 2007, certified mail 7007 0710 0005 4534 9406. This missive describes Plaintiff being stalked by someone, who utilized the sobriquet, Manfredonia_the_Crank.
4. Terry Semel, CEO, Yahoo, 8 June 2007, certified mail 7007 0710 0005 4534 9420. Plaintiff stated:
“Once again I am being stalked on Yahoo Overstock Board. This time I am being threatened with physical violence by Howard Sirota, an attorney who has been arrested for assault.”
5. Terry Semel, CEO, Yahoo, 10 June 2007, certified mail 7007 0710 0005 4534 9444. Plaintiff wrote:
“I have been threatened with physical violence on the Yahoo Overstock Message Board. The deranged individual, who threatened me, is Howard Sirota, an attorney from Queens County, New York City.”
6. Jerry Yang, President, Yahoo, 6 September 2007, certified mail 7007 0710 0005 4532 9194. In this missive Plaintiff wrote:
“You (YAHOO) have permitted a convicted felon, Sam E. Antar, to defame me and state that I am an anti-Semite.”
“As for my so called anti-Semitism, the Anti-Defamation League has stated that I am not an anti-Semite.”
“I am entitled under the laws of defamation to refute my accusers.”
7. Michael Callahan, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Yahoo, 6 September 2007, certified mail 7007 0710 0005 4532 9194. This letter is virtually identical to Plaintiff’s 6 September 2007 letter to Jerry Yang.
8. Jerry Yang, President, Yahoo, 13 September 2007, certified mail 7007 1490 0002 7365 4984. In this letter Plaintiff stated:
“not only do I want all offending comments removed,”
“Now, you can read my letter and have your attorneys read my certified letters and accompanying documents.”
“Then have one of your attorneys write to me.”
Please note that Plaintiff in his 6 September 2007 letter to Jerry Yang, has stated that “the ADL has stated that I (Plaintiff) am not an anti-Semite.” Thus, Plaintiff has proved that Yahoo actively permitted and encouraged this defamation and was not the passive player, which Judge Townes falsely alleges.
Yahoo permitted Gary Weiss, a disgraced former reporter for BusinessWeek, to post hate messages, which vilified homosexuals. (This was proved in Plaintiff’s complaint and Plaintiff referred in his complaint to the analysis of Judd Bagley.) Thus the following messages (page 25 of the Complaint) were posted by Weiss: “In case you run into any of your old cellmates (link to K-Y Jelly, Personal Lubricant);” “Child molester;” “Are you sure you don’t mean BIG BLACK D---S?;” “Both confessed pedophiles;” “So, how’s the NAMBLA small boy-action, homo?;” “favorite pedophile;” “faggot;” etc.
Or the Court can consider the free speech, which although hate speech, Yahoo deems essential for meaningful discourse (pages 34-36 of Plaintiff’s Complaint): “Ace Greenberg is a scum bag beyond Ken Lay. They should take him to the ovens.” “somebody should put Jim Cramer!! With the rest of those Jew cocksuckers in an oven!! LET HIM FRY!!!!!!!!” “cook the crooked Jews, just like they cook the market everyday.” “US CONCENTRATION CAMPS! Sweet, prepare the banana gas and the ovens.” ‘HITLER WAS RIGHT- NO DOUBT;” “JEWS AND NIGGERS!!” “Phucking Jew Cock Suckers!!!” Etc. Etc. Plaintiff begs the Court to read the postings accepted by Yahoo as essential to friendly discourse. Yet, Yahoo has banned Plaintiff’s essential discourse on money laundering and the false professions of religiosity by Sam E. Antar.
Thus, Plaintiff has proved that Yahoo took an active part in defaming Plaintiff and was not merely a passive internet board where messages could be posted.
Perhaps the Court should take note of Whitney Information Network, Inc. v. Xcentric Ventures, 199 Fed.Appx. 738, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and examine the cases, for which Whitney serves as precedence.
Plaintiff has already proved defamation and defamation per se in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. Plaintiff has cited numerous cases, which prove that Plaintiff has been defamed.
Plaintiff finally wishes to state most conclusively that Plaintiff has proved diversity between Plaintiff, a resident of New York State, and Yahoo!, Inc., a Delaware corporation which is headquartered in California. The arrogance of Yahoo and Jerry Yang are well known in the press- just examine Yang’s refusal to merge Yahoo with Microsoft- and the difference in the stock price, at which Yahoo is currently trading, and the bids in 2007 ($40) and in 2008 ($31), which were made by Microsoft.
Yahoo acted in this manner because Plaintiff is impecunious and Yahoo is a multi-billion dollar corporation.
Plaintiff would have included Rashi’s Talmudic interpretations of Justice, but unfortunately Plaintiff has misplaced this important document.
Let there be Justice!
Plaintiff requests oral arguments so that Plaintiff may expand upon Yahoo’s defamatory and hateful actions.
I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated:
Edward Manfredonia
