Affirmation of Leonard Rowe to Vacate Judgment Based on Evidence of Fraud Upon the Court
Mr. Rowe's affirmation filed on March 2, 2012, describes how his attorneys, in order to enrich themselves, conspired with attorneys representing The William Morris Agency and other defendants to prevent the defendants from being held accountable for their systemic discrimination and to maintain the status quo. Their actions, which included lying to the court and concealing and destroying evidence, constitute fraud upon the court for which there is no statute of limitations.
The affirmation in part states:
When this case was initially brought before this court, I was not aware of the depth and extent of the corruption and collusion that my own attorneys were a party to in this case.
Specifically, I was only informed on Tuesday, February 7, 2012, that my own attorney had committed a series of crimes and gross attorney ethical violations in this case...
Two years after oral argument, and after extensive discovery and pretrial motion practice, this Honorable Court granted summary judgment to the defendants. The Court's Order failed to include any mention of the derogatory utilization of the term "niggers" (which was found in the defendants William Morris Agency and CAA's e-mail records some 349 times), "coons" and other blatant evidence of racial discrimination by defendants that has been and continues to be directed toward plaintiff and others similarly situated. Additionally, the Court Order did not mention substantive documentary evidence, consisting of over 2000 contracts which showed the systemic disparities in contracting between plaintiffs, who are all African-American and members of a protected class, versus "white" concert promoters in terms of favorable terms extended to "white" concert promoters and said terms and conditions are wholly denied African-American concert promoters in clear violation of the terms of 42 USC 1981.
It is of extreme importance and concern to note that while the Court weighed certain evidence during the summary judgment phase of the case, the Court could not have considered the actual e-mail records because of the improper actions and misconduct by certain involved attorneys. In short, the evidence e-mails were improperly kept from the Court.
Plaintiff brings this motion as he has only recently learned that the acts of misconduct that transpired in this case were required by law to be reported to federal officials by involved attorneys...