"The world would be a nicer place if we could all keep our ducks in a row," Ochis had written, "but if the job were that easy, anyone could do it!"

Morisseau replied the next day that she found the last part of Ochis' message "extremely unnecessary." Ochis said she went to Morisseau's office to explain that she had not meant anything offensive by her e-mail.

According to the firm, Morisseau initially refused an assignment relating to the Victim Compensation Fund by Rappaport and later raised her voice at him in a hallway confrontation over that assignment. Morisseau was also allegedly rude to partner Heidi Levine, her designated mentor. In one instance, the firm said, Morisseau did not respond to a hello by Levine and, when the partner began to ask a question, the associate put her hand up in a stopping motion and said, "Heidi, goodbye."

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=728288&forum_id=2#8996670)

------

And then DLA Piper argues that these claims were true (and therefore not discriminatory) and she fails to even deny it on time? Given her pro se performance in this case, DLA should also have mentioned incompetence.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=728288&forum_id=2#8994574)

Awesome. Way to show that your work is adequate.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=728288&forum_id=2#8994588)

dude 4 fucking years?

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=728288&forum_id=2#8994647)

Sorry--in relevant part:

"After graduating from Harvard Law, Morisseau initially worked for the Southern Center for Human Rights, the group led by well-known death penalty appellate lawyer Stephen B. Bright.

"In an affidavit Bright submitted for Morisseau's New York Bar application, he said she 'appears unable to separate reality and fantasy' and detailed 'vicious attacks' and 'false allegations of outrageous conduct' she had made against many of the Center's lawyers and staff, all while 'making virtually no contribution to the Center's work in the eight months she was here.'"

Ouch.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=728288&forum_id=2#8996720)

"She has no claim to any further indulgence," Kaplan wrote in his order in Morisseau v. DLA Piper, 06 Civ. 13255.

Morisseau did not return a call seeking comment, but she responded to the judge's Monday decision by electronically filing an opposition to DLA Piper's summary judgment motion Tuesday, stating in it that she had sent a hard copy to Kaplan along with the three volumes of documents. The opposition's caption also indicated the forum as the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, rather than the Southern District. "

------------------------------------------------------

LOL. i think you got fired becoz you don't know how to do law.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=728288&forum_id=2#8994601)

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1196935479196

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=728288&forum_id=2#8994642)

Hugger + Ebola

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=728288&forum_id=2#8996705)

SonicYouth *LOVES* to talk about penis.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=728288&forum_id=2#8996599)

he never worked in corporate law again.

i doubt she'll even be able to work in the legal field again.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=728288&forum_id=2#8994804)

Come on, nigger! Don't you have something to say in defense of this bitch? Please entertain us with your crazy rantings.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=728288&forum_id=2#8994707)

People v. Charlene Morisseau, 2005KN067427

Decided: August 25, 2006

KINGS COUNTY

Criminal Court

For the Defense: Pro se

Judge Sciarrino

Click here to see Judicial Profile

The defendant, Charlene Morisseau, is charged with Obstructing Governmental Administration in violation of New York Penal Law (PL) §195.05. Ms. Morisseau has moved to dismiss the charge on the grounds of the facial insufficiency of the accusatory instrument. In the alternative, Ms. Morisseau has submitted a motion to remove the case from Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County, to Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County, in the First Department. The People oppose these motions in all respects.

As a procedural matter, this court first holds that it must determine the removal prong of the motion first, because if there are grounds for removal, then this court should not consider the merits of the defendant's motion.

The defendant's motion for removal is based simply on the fact that the alleged incidents occurred in the offices of the Appellate Division Second Department. There are no allegations made as to why this court and this judge should be removed from the case. The Criminal Court of the City of New York, is not under the "administrative jurisdiction" of the Second Department. It is a city-wide court, headed by the Hon. Junita Bing Newton from 100 Centre Street in New York County. While the defendant would have a clear case for removal if this decision was appealed and that appeal worked its way to the Appellate Division, Second Department, the motion to remove the case is at this time without merit and is denied. The Criminal Court Judges of Kings County and in the rest of our city strive to fairly examine every case under the laws of our State and to not see justice in terms of black, white or any of the other colors of the rainbow that is New York.1

Upon consideration of the motion to dismiss, this court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

Facts

On October 18, 2005, at approximately 4:30 P.M., Charlene Morisseau entered the Clerk's Office of the Appellate Division Second Department with the intention of retrieving a copy of a file. She had already paid the $394.50 the fee that was required for the copying. The file concerned the Character and Fitness Committee of the Second Department's finding that the defendant, who is a Harvard Law School graduate who passed the New York State Bar Exam was unfit to practice law.2 The following facts are in dispute. The defendant claims that while in a discussion with the court's clerk, Mr. Pelzer, stated that the defendant was to pick up the file the day before. Ms. Morisseau claims that when she "peacefully" questioned the clerk's refusal to hand over the documents, she was placed under arrest by court personnel and charged with obstructing governmental administration and disorderly conduct. It should be noted that the defendant had apparently been trying to retrieve her file again after numerous visits to the office. It must also be noted that the defendant was a plaintiff in a civil action in federal court against the Second Department of the Appellate Division..

In opposition, the prosecution claims that while in a discussion between the clerk and the defendant, the court employee attempted to explain the necessary procedures to the defendant. Ms. Morisseau proceeded to become agitated and yelled in a loud voice that she wanted her "fucking file." The Chief Clerk claims that Ms. Morisseau began to scream highly offensive, derogatory names, specifically "cracker" and "white nigger." The clerk claims that the actions of Ms. Morisseau caused the court office to come to a standstill. The clerk notes that when the defendant's described behavior did not cease, several court officers responded, asking the defendant to calm down. When the defendant repeatedly refused to leave without her file, she was placed under arrest. The defendant was ultimately charged with Obstructing Governmental Administration in the Second Degree (§195.05) and two counts of Disorderly Conduct (PL §240.20[2]) & [3]).

The defendant was arraigned on October 18, 2005, in the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Kings County. During her arraignment, Judge Richard Allman dismissed the two counts of disorderly conduct for facial insufficiency.

Discussion

(PL) 195.05 reads:

A person is guilty of obstructing governmental administration when he intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function, or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from performing an official function by means of intimidation, physical force or interference, or by means of any independently unlawful act.

Under PL §195.05, a public servant must be engaged in a "specific action at the time of the physical interference, and not just on duty" (People v. Joseph, 156 Misc 2d 192, 194 [Crim Ct, Kings County 1992]). In Joseph, the court held that a defendant cannot be convicted of section 195.05, "unless it is established that the police were engaged in authorized conduct" (id at 193). The reason for this is "the mens rea of this crime is an intent to frustrate a public servant in the performance of a specific function" (Joseph, 156 Misc 2d at 193). The evidence is facially insufficient to determine whether the public servant, Mr. Pelzer, was in the midst of an official government function or simply in a disagreement with Ms Morisseau over a personal issue, specifically the action filed in federal court by Ms. Moriseau, with Mr. Pelzer as a named respondent.

In addition, PL §195.05 notes that a defendant can obstruct governmental administration in three ways: intimidation, physical force or interference, or any independently unlawful act. The affidavit notes that Ms. Morisseau never moved her body, did not gesture with her hands, did not lean across the counter, and did not move toward the clerk or his officers. The only discrepancy in the facts seems to stem from whether Ms. Morrisseau was shouting racial epithets and the level of noise.

Although the assistant district attorney argues that it was Ms. Morisseau's clear intention was to interfere with an authorized function of the clerk's office, the facts alleged are facially insufficient to make this determination as a matter of law. In People v. Vargas, the named defendant was charged with obstructing governmental administration for throwing a marijuana cigarette into a sewer in front of a police officer (People v. Vargas, 179 Misc.2d 236 [Crim Ct. Kings Co., 1998]). Although the defendant did eliminate crucial evidence toward the case, Vargas did not throw away the cigarette in response to an official police order. The court found the facts to be insufficient to determine whether Vargas was acting with intent or simply innocuously. Similarly, the nature of the conduct and interaction between Mr. Pelzer and Ms. Morisseau remain far too ambiguous to make out the crime alleged.

This court does not condone inappropriate conduct by citizens who come to our courts. People who need assistance from the courts must treat the employees of the court with respect. The clerks in the court system are the backbone of the court system. However, the court and its employees must also treat the people who come before it with respect. While it is easy to understand "short fuses" in an overworked and overburdened court system, we must all strive to maintain our temperament, which is no easy feat.

As a graduate of Harvard Law School, on the cusp of what this court hopes is a magnificent career, Ms. Morisseau obviously has many potential talents. It remains to be seen how she intends to use them. This court can only hope that Ms. Morisseau will use her unbridled passion for good works and worthy causes and not remain bogged down in the quagmire of seeing every injustice as racially motivated.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of PL §195.05 is hereby granted.

This opinion shall constitute the Decision and Order of the court.

1. In her motion to dismiss the case, Ms. Morisseau mentions components of race numerous times (See Notice of Motion to Dismiss). Every "character" in the facts of her motion is identified not only by position, but by race. Despite what Ms. Morisseau may believe, this case does not stand on a question of race, but on the law.

2. She has since been admitted to the bar of the state of New York, and is representing herself in this action.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=728288&forum_id=2#8994810)

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=728288&forum_id=2#8996313)

university of baltimore JD, holy shit

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=728288&forum_id=2#8994884)

that dumb bitch had it coming. you never tell a superior "goodbye, XXXXX" and cut them off midsentence. she did herself in with her own ego.

and so it is.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=728288&forum_id=2#8994974)

Top five or so of the class at UBalt would get considered at Piper Marbury, and she was one of the top five.

The fluke of law is that every TTT law school has one or two students who will succeed in BigLaw.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=728288&forum_id=2#8995100)

I didn't even have to read through the thread to know it'd be a bunch of whiny inbred cunts talking shit about how there was certainly no racism at the same time being a bunch of snide cracker faggots talking shit about blacks. Thank you for not disappointing me. I like how you small-dicked faggots like to pounce on anything race-related by:

1) asserting there's no racism

2) making snide racist remarks

3) not realizing the unintentional comedy of your irony

You cracker faggots really take the cake. You guys could probably say shit like "faggots are such insensitive bigots" with a straight face. I find it funny that to a insecure white faggot, the accusation of racism is more offensive than actual racism.

This lawsuit was probably more offensive to you faggots than what Trent Lott said, or Don Imus said, or what the white faggots in Jena did. You guys are a joke.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=728288&forum_id=2#8996588)

P.S. She was so incompetent she couldn't even timely respond in her own law suit or with the right fucking caption.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=728288&forum_id=2#8996600)

funny you jump to Imus and not Jena. Did you even read the entire transcript concerning Imus you fucking cunt? It wasn't just that he called them nappy headed hos it's that he was making comments based on race:

"IMUS: That’s some nappy-headed hos there.

I’m gonna tell you that now, man, that’s some — woo. And the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know, so, like — kinda like — I don’t know.

McGUIRK: A Spike Lee thing.

IMUS: Yeah.

McGUIRK: The Jigaboos vs. the Wannabes — that movie that he had."

Ugly rough black girls against pretty cute little white crackers. And seriously, Jigaboo? Are you fucking kidding me you dumb faggot?

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=728288&forum_id=2#8996703)

Let's be real--you're an ineffectual failure at life devoted to obnoxious postings on an anon board--the lowest form of troll. This forum is a blast for you--you get to act as if you have some real relevance in some way, that's cool, but don't let the fantasy get too real.

It might distract you from ever actually achieving anything and moving out of your folks' house.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=728288&forum_id=2#8996718)

GIVE ME YOUR PHONE NUMBER AND ADDRESS MR. BIG SHOT.

UNLESS OF COURSE YOU'RE JUST ANOTHER FUCKING PUSSY LIKE EVERYONE ELSE WHO PRETENDS THEY'RE TOUGH.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=728288&forum_id=2#8996767)

lulz...

Start with your city, and then we'll figure out if we can have a chat.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=728288&forum_id=2#8996784)

didn't try to hide behind a pseudonym. he put his name and picture in every posting he made on a message board similar to xoxo. he would troll the shit out of conservatives (or people he perceived to be such, which was everyone to the right of chomsky).

his main arguments, not that dissimilar from some of the posters here, were based on empty-headed speculation and one-sided, unqualified assertions. he called the people who disagreed with him "fascists" and "shitheads" brainwashed by neo-conservatives. sometimes he actually threatening to come over and kick their asses. he threatened, publicly, to punch a prominent conservative pundit in the mouth if they came to speak at his school. just one of many bits of hyperbole. he is in his mid-fifties.

and funnily, even though he thought (or acted like) this full disclosure would be good for his reputation, absolutely no person respected him for doing any of this wacky shit.

that's kind of how i picture SonicYouth if he were to start using his real identity.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=728288&forum_id=2#8996812)

He can't even name his city for fear of being found out for what a life failure he is.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=728288&forum_id=2#8997166)

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1024/p09s01-coop.html

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=728288&forum_id=2#8997164)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science_Monitor

whokebe will love this: "Aldus Huxley's dystopian novel "Brave New World" - depicting a future world in which Christianity in all its varieties has been suppressed in favor of a cult in which Henry Ford is worshiped as a demi-god - mentions a daily newspaper called "The Fordian Science Monitor".

"The Monitor was originally published in broadsheet form but today it is published in tabloid format."

"Started in 1908 by Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of the Church of Christ, Scientist,"

LOL you're such a faggot

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=728288&forum_id=2#8997224)

granted, Christian Science is about as credible as AA in terms of logic, but then again most religion is an argument over who has a better imaginary friend anyways

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=728288&forum_id=2#8997238)

do you work for the Bush whitehouse per chance?

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=728288&forum_id=2#8997268)

Of course, the msm certainly doesn't have any racial agenda. The duke case taught us that.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=728288&forum_id=2#8997288)

Of course, a guy living in a town that's become synonymous with racism certainly doesn't have any racial agenda.

after all:

"Myth 11: Jena Is One of the Most Racist Towns in America. Actually, Jena is a wonderful place to live for both whites and blacks. The media's distortion and outright lies concerning the case have given this rural Louisiana town a label it doesn't deserve."

It's just the vast left wing media conspiracy. It's a shame there's no mainstream conservative media out there to challenge people on race. All you're left with is unknowns like Fox News, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Buchanan, O'Reilly, Imus, Novak, Keyes, etc. Everyone's in on the conspiracy.

http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/myths.html

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=728288&forum_id=2#8997324)

to be somewhat reasonable: blacks face horrible discrimination from police, however, using the Jena criminals as the poster children for this is only something someone as dumb as Jesse Jackson could come up with

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=728288&forum_id=2#8997292)

Do you want me to fly down to Jena and talk to his sources?

I also like how he's a part-time lawyer. "Myth 3: Nooses Were a Hate Crime. Although many believe the three white students should have been prosecuted for a hate crime for hanging the nooses, the incident did not meet the legal criteria for a federal hate crime. It also did not meet the standard for Louisiana's hate-crime statute, and though widely condemned by all officials, there was no crime to charge the youths with."

He doesn't cite what legal expert he consulted to reach this astounding conclusion. Shocking.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=728288&forum_id=2#8997335)

But I do think the Biglaw environment is something young associates struggle with, particularly those who are used to success (in her case, HLS, law review). All of a sudden, instead of being rewarded for leadership and initiative, you're rewarded for keeping your mouth shut and doing your work, only speaking when it's necessary to kiss partner ass.

It's easy to tell yourself, "Everyone has to start at the bottom" going in, but it gets a lot harder to get up for work every day knowing no one gives a shit about you or your credentials after you're hired.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=728288&forum_id=2#8997127)

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1196935479196

>>>>

A Manhattan federal judge has thrown out a race discrimination suit brought against DLA Piper by a former associate who claimed the firm's New York office was a hostile work environment.

Charlene Morisseau, a 2001 graduate of Harvard Law School, where she was a law review editor, joined DLA Piper as a litigation associate in April 2003 but was asked to leave less than a year later. In a lawsuit filed last year, Morisseau, who is black, claimed her firing was retaliation for complaints she had made about discriminatory treatment.

She requested almost $250 million in damages from the firm and the 11 partners she individually named in the suit.

But Southern District of New York Judge Lewis Kaplan granted summary judgment to the firm Monday, finding that DLA Piper had put forth a "legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for plaintiff's termination."

"Here, the uncontradicted evidence demonstrates that plaintiff did not perform in a manner satisfactory to Piper notwithstanding her academic credentials," the judge wrote. "She was a confrontational, stubborn, and insubordinate employee in an environment in which professional personal relations, flexibility and a willingness to accept supervision were essential."

The judge deemed DLA Piper's account of events admitted because Morisseau, proceeding pro se after firing her lawyers in April, did not timely file a declaration opposing the firm's summary judgment motion, though she had been granted a number of extensions. Instead, Kaplan said he had only belatedly received from Morisseau via Federal Express "three volumes of purported exhibits" that he said were not authenticated and lacked exhibit tabs or a table of contents.

The judge said he would not consider any further submissions from Morisseau, who he said had previously "defied court orders, ignored schedules, failed to show up for or obstructed her deposition, and filed frivolous applications."

"She has no claim to any further indulgence," Kaplan wrote in his order in Morisseau v. DLA Piper, 06 Civ. 13255.

Morisseau did not return a call seeking comment, but she responded to the judge's Monday decision by electronically filing an opposition to DLA Piper's summary judgment motion Tuesday, stating in it that she had sent a hard copy to Kaplan along with the three volumes of documents. The opposition's caption also indicated the forum as the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, rather than the Southern District.

DLA Piper's lawyer, Bettina B. Plevan of Proskauer Rose, praised the decision. "We are very gratified by the decision and, in particular, by the court's conclusion that the firm's partners and staff were totally justified in their decision to terminate Ms. Morisseau and did not discriminate or retaliate against her," said Plevan.

Morisseau claimed partners at the firm discriminated against her by treating her differently than they treated white associates. In particular, she claimed partner Douglas Rappaport tried to blame her for a mistake he allegedly made in the course of representing a widow in a proceeding before the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund. She also accused former partner Aaron Katz of giving her writing skills subpar rankings on a performance review and then refusing to provide feedback justifiying his review of her work. She said both partners also disparaged her in hallway conversations as "too aggressive" and "not right for a law firm."

Morisseau claims she complained to the firm's human resources department in March 2004 about what she perceived to be a hostile work environment. She said she believed Katz's review of her writing skills showed that the firm was holding black associates to a higher standard than white associates.

The following month, Morisseau was allegedly summoned to a meeting with Joseph Finnerty III, the firm's New York litigation head, where she was given a choice of correcting her insubordinate behavior or resigning from the firm. She refused to resign, demanding an investigation of her discrimination complaints, and was subsequently terminated.

PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR

But in court filings, DLA Piper denied treating Morisseau differently and said the firm had taken action because the ex-associate had exhibited a pattern of unacceptable behavior, including yelling at partners and throwing one out of her office.

The firm said Morisseau ordered former partner Marilla Ochis to "back up" out of her office after Ochis had come to discuss an e-mail exchange Morisseau had apparently taken offense to. In that exchange Ochis had told Morisseau not to be overly concerned with providing constant updates on ongoing matters but recognize that new matters might take precedence.

"The world would be a nicer place if we could all keep our ducks in a row," Ochis had written, "but if the job were that easy, anyone could do it!"

Morisseau replied the next day that she found the last part of Ochis' message "extremely unnecessary." Ochis said she went to Morisseau's office to explain that she had not meant anything offensive by her e-mail.

According to the firm, Morisseau initially refused an assignment relating to the Victim Compensation Fund by Rappaport and later raised her voice at him in a hallway confrontation over that assignment. Morisseau was also allegedly rude to partner Heidi Levine, her designated mentor. In one instance, the firm said, Morisseau did not respond to a hello by Levine and, when the partner began to ask a question, the associate put her hand up in a stopping motion and said, "Heidi, goodbye."

The firm also said the review of her writing ability by Katz was largely positive and complimentary, ranking her abilities at the second-highest level in most categories and the highest in a few. The firm also noted that several other associates received the same overall score on the review as Morisseau and that a white associate was among those who scored lower. The firm also denied Morisseau's claim that she was the only black associate in the firm's New York office at the time.

Plevan said Thursday the firm now has 40 minority associates in New York, 18 of whom are black. She said the firm had made every effort to improve diversity in all of its office.

BAR ADMISSION

Morisseau had also accused the firm of interfering with her subsequent efforts to be admitted to the New York Bar. Though she had taken and passed the bar exam in 2001, she was not admitted until 2005, a delay she claimed was caused by further retaliatory action by the firm.

The delay to her bar admission is also at issue in a discrimination and retaliation suit Morisseau has brought in federal court in Atlanta against the employer she worked for prior to joining DLA Piper. After graduating from Harvard Law, Morisseau initially worked for the Southern Center for Human Rights, the group led by well-known death penalty appellate lawyer Stephen B. Bright.

In an affidavit Bright submitted for Morisseau's New York Bar application, he said she "appears unable to separate reality and fantasy" and detailed "vicious attacks" and "false allegations of outrageous conduct" she had made against many of the Center's lawyers and staff, all while "making virtually no contribution to the Center's work in the eight months she was here."

"All this reflects very poorly on the professional qualifications of Morisseau to practice law," Bright wrote in his September 2004 affidavit. The Southern Center is also seeking summary judgment against Morisseau.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=728288&forum_id=2#9017183)