(Internet Photo - Credit to NYU Law)

Corrupt Judiciary

In the case of Lue v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. et al (U.S. Supreme Court: Case # 19-260)

Home  |  My Story  |  Meet Candice |  JPMC Culture of Racial Discrimination  |  Corrupt Judiciary  |  The Latest   |  Contact   

Defendants Declarations aka LIES under Penalty of Perjury  |  THE TRUTH  |  THE EVIDENCE |  SHOP CandiceLue®

Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela, Bob Marley, Marcus Garvey and so many others “paid it forward” for me.  Hopefully, I will be able to “pay it forward” for others.

Copyright © 2017 - 2025 CandiceLue.com.  All rights reserved.

Judge Alison J. Nathan - United States District Judge

Click here to read my Judicial Misconduct Complaint against Judge Nathan.

Judge Alison J. Nathan, who was appointed to the Bench by the first and only Black president, President Barack Obama is biased, corrupt and incompetent.  Just like Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein, as illustrated in the subsequent paragraphs and by way of the links provided, Judge Alison J. Nathan lacks the moral compass whereby a judge should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary (Code of Conduct for United States Judges - CANON (2) (A))

As the district judge handling dispositive matters in my lawsuit, Judge Nathan’s bias IS AS CLEAR AS DAY as is evidenced  in her August 11 and August 21, 2017 Orders. 

Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein - United States Magistrate Judge

(This sketch looks like him - credit to https://atcounseltable.com.wordpress.com)

Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein is the epitome of a biased judge.  As illustrated in the subsequent paragraphs and by way of the links provided, Judge Gorenstein, who I had to motion for his recusal due to bias lacks the moral compass whereby a judge should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary (Code of Conduct for United States Judges - CANON (2) (A))

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the Upper Court), the Lower Court (The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, County of New York - Manhattan) and JPMorgan Chase & Co. attorneys are in cahoots.

After twice filing a Motion requesting that Judge Alison J. Nathan recuse herself from this lawsuit due to bias and incompetence and she, Judge Nathan denying both Motions, I had no choice but to seek the intervention of the Second Circuit Court by way of a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to have the said Upper Court remove her from the case for the said stated reasons.

This Upper Court which is in cahoots with the Lower Court and the powerhouse, JPMorgan Chase & Co. attorneys prejudicially denied my Petition claiming that “after due consideration” (this farce has been exposed in my Letter Response to the Second Circuit Court and my Non-Motion Response to The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, County of New York), “it is hereby ORDERED that the mandamus petition is DENIED because Petitioner [Candice Lue] has not demonstrated that she lacks an adequate, alternative means of obtaining relief”.

After motioning twice for Judge Alison J. Nathan to recuse herself due to bias and incompetence and clearly articulating her favoritism for the multi-billion dollar Defendants, JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al and her antagonism against me in the Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Mandamus that I filed with the Upper Court, what other “alternative means” do I have “of obtaining relief”?

Or rather, the real question should be, how can I get justice through the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit against Judge Alison J. Nathan and Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein when Judge Gorenstein works in the said Second Circuit Court and Judge Alison J. Nathan’s Chambers is located in the said Second Circuit Court building?  Aren’t all these judges “comrades”?  Then to top it all off, as a poor Black woman, I have nothing in comparison to the leverage the main, multi-billion dollar Defendant, JPMorgan Chase & Co. has in the CORRUPT JUDICIARY.

To see Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein’s bias, deep-seated favoritism for the multi-billion dollar Defendants, JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al, his antagonism against me the poor, Black, Pro Se Plaintiff and his corruption as a United States Magistrate Judge, one really does not have to look further than how he tried to surreptitiously pawn off my lawsuit to Mediation without my consent.

As is articulated in Judge Alison J. Nathan’s section below, pawning off my lawsuit to mediation is in and of itself a favor for the multi-billion dollar Defendants that could severely limit my case and/or limit me as a Black, Pro Se Plaintiff with a quest to ensure that JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s present and future Black employees will never have to be subjected to or continue to be subjected to, while suffering in silence, the Employment Racial Discrimination and Retaliation that I experienced working at the said company.

Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein is also the said judge who, in a sua sponte move, pretty much made up excuses about defective service of process (Court docket for Lue v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al (1:16-CV-03207) entry # 17) for the favored, multi-billion dollar Defendants to avoid rendering the Judgment of Default I had filed against the said Defendants for not filing an Answer within the 21 days that the law mandates to do so - Bearing in mind that usually judges are not the ones to raise the issue of “defective service of process” especially when the attorneys for the Defendants, being seasoned attorneys, never raised such issue prior because there was no need to do so.  Then, he, Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein denied my said Motion for a Default Judgment against the Defendants when as a Magistrate Judge, HE DID NOT EVEN HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO  BE HANDLING DISPOSITIVE MATTERS whereby a default judgment is a dispositive matter.

This judge even went as far as to ignore his own Order, break the rules of his own Individual Practices, convene a conference for an unconstitutional matter, made a ruling on a Response to a Court’s Order that had not yet been filed with the Court based on a fax sent to him by the favored Defendants’ attorney, etc. all in the name of being biased and appeasing to the favored multi-billion dollar Defendants, JPMorgan Chase and Co., et al.

Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein is such a biased and unconscionable judge that even when I explained to the Court that providing the name of a JPMorgan Chase Black employee to the Defendants, JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al would be exposing the said Black employee to the same unlawful retaliation I experienced at the hands of the said alleged perpetrators/tortfeasors, he still ruled in his April 4, 2017 Order that I provide the name of this said Black employee to the Defendants or my statement, based on what she told me of her being a Black employee whose career was stagnated and regressed by her JPMorgan Chase manager, would be precluded from my lawsuit.

Read my Response to Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein’s, a biased, corrupt, unconscionable and intellectually dishonest judge, Order of April 4, 2017.

Judge Alison J. Nathan has STRICKEN my Opposition/Responses to the  Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment to dismiss my lawsuit with prejudice from the Court’s docket not because my said Opposition/Responses for NINE DEFENDANTS are “overly burdensome” as the alleged perpetrators/tortfeasors attorneys and biased and corrupt judge claim but because my said Opposition/Responses to the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment to dismiss my lawsuit with prejudice MAKES IT AS CLEAR AS DAY that the Defendants LIED UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY and that my Claims of Employment Racial Discrimination and Retaliation against the multi-billion dollar Defendants, JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al are valid.

This biased judge has stricken from the Court’s docket ALL my SWORN Affidavits which provided proof that the Defendants lied under Penalty of Perjury and my almost 500 pages of Evidence to back up my arguments and has ordered that I redo and resubmit in approximately 10 days my said Opposition/Responses to the NINE Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment to dismiss my lawsuit with prejudice, which through ailments caused from the mental, emotional and physical stress of being racially discriminated and retaliated against by JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al then having to suffer through the mental TORTURE of reading all the LIES contained in their Motion for Summary Judgment to dismiss my lawsuit with prejudice, took me two and a half months to complete, while limiting my page submission for NINE (9) Defendants to that of one (1) Defendant.  When I articulated in my Addendum to my Response to Judge Alison J. Nathan’s August 11, 2017 Order that her said Order would be overly inhumanely and financially burdensome for me to execute, as the Court’s docket # 125 shows, Judge Nathan outright denied my request for her reconsideration of her August 11, 2017 Order but upheld that it was “OVERLY BURDENSOME” for the Defendants’ attorneys to read and reply to my Opposition/Responses to the NINE Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment to dismiss my lawsuit with prejudice.

This biased and corrupt judge who is also incompetent prejudicially updated her “Special Rules of Practice in Civil Pro Se Cases” TEN (10) DAYS AFTER I submitted my Opposition/Response to the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment to put page limits on Pro Se Cases which as my Response to her August 11, 2017 Order articulates, was not as such prior to me submitting my Opposition/Responses to the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment to dismiss my lawsuit with prejudice.  Anyone of reasonable mind can see that Judge Alison J. Nathan only updated her said “Special Rules of Practice in Civil Pro Se Cases” (wave the mouse over the comment icon in the PDF document) so that she could prejudicially rule against me and in favor of the multi-billion dollar Defendants, JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al.  The most prejudicial thing of all about this “update/ruling” is that Judge Nathan has Ordered the new submission for my Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) and my Response/Opposition to the Defendants’ “Undisputed” Material Facts for NINE (9) Defendants’ be subjected to the same page limits as that of one (1) Defendant.  How can that be sensible or FAIR as is articulated in my Response to her August 21, 2017 Order?

Judge Alison J. Nathan’s prejudice against me and her unethical favor for the multi-billion dollar Defendants, JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al have been evident from the early stages of this lawsuit as is outlined below:

· Judge Alison J. Nathan has denied each and every one of my Motions and/or Requests while being disingenuous and forgiving about the Defendants’ blatant disrespect for the law as subsequently noted.

· To prevent a judgment of default against the favored multi-billion dollar Defendants, JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al or to deter and/or prevent my request for a judgment of default against the said multi-billion dollar Defendants, which was forthcoming, Judge Alison J. Nathan pawned off my case to the court’s mediation program 23 days after the Summons and Complaint were served instead of ordering a default judgment against the said Defendants for not answering to the Summons and Complaint in the 21 days the law mandates to do so which would have been the case if the situations were reversed and poor, Black, pro se Plaintiff, me had not filed an answer, a motion to dismiss and/or a request for an extension of time in the said 21 days.  This act by Judge Nathan was meant to swindle me out of my legal right to request a judgment of default against the Defendants.  Pawning off my lawsuit to mediation in and of itself is a favor for the multi-billion dollar Defendants.  First off, mediation is a cover for multi-billion dollar corporations like JPMorgan Chase & Co. to conceal misconduct from the public and regulators because documents and hearings are not made public.  A “successful” mediation would mean that the lawsuit would immediately be dismissed, I Pro Se Plaintiff, Candice Lue would have severely limited/waived my right to an appeal, JPMorgan Chase would not have to admit guilt, the case would set no precedent to help other victims of Employment Racial Discrimination and Retaliation perpetrated by JPMorgan Chase’s managers and the said multi-billion dollar corporation would not be punished enough to deter its managers from perpetrating such unlawful acts as the settlement agreement would boil down to pittance - maybe less than it would cost for lunch for JPMorgan Chase & Co.’s Board of Directors.

· After my objection to Judge Alison J. Nathan pawning off my case to mediation, she granted an extension of time to the multi-billion dollar Defendants, JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al without the said Defendants following proper Court procedural rules as it relates to requesting an extension of time while totally ignoring my request for a default judgment and my motion to deny the said Defendants their request for an extension of time for not following the Court’s procedural rules to do so by once again pawning off my case, this time to Magistrate Judge, Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein for “scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement”.  This action by Judge Alison J. Nathan shows deep-seated favoritism for the said multi-billon dollar Defendants and bias and antagonism against me as again, if the situations were reversed, poor, Black, pro se Plaintiff, me would have never been allowed such benefit.  My case would have been dismissed.  As a matter of fact, even my motion to deny the Defendants’ request for extension of time FOR NOT FOLLOWING THE COURT’S PROCEDURAL RULES was denied. 

· In contravention of federal laws, Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein who did not have the legal authority to handle dispositive matters, such as a request for a Judgment of Default, illegally took it upon himself to deny my Motion for a Default Judgment against the favored Defendants and Judge Nathan “legitimized” this illegal act of Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein by ruling that “...if Judge Gorenstein’s denial of Lue’s request for a default judgment is taken to be a ruling on dispositive motion, then the Court (Judge Nathan) construes his order to be a report and recommendation”.  This ruling/distortion of justice by Judge Alison J. Nathan was done with prejudice as it unfairly benefited the favored multi-billion dollar Defendants and again, robbed me of my legal right to obtain a default judgment against the said Defendants.