Toggle SGML Header (+)


Section 1: PREC14A (LINDNER FILING OF MAR 31 2009)


PRELIMINARY COPY, SUBJECT TO COMPLETION  
DATED MARCH 30, 2009  
PROXY  STATEMENT OF  PETER LINDNER  
IN CONNECTION WITH THE  
2009 ANNUAL MEETING OF  STOCKHOLDERS  OF  
AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY   

INTRODUCTION   

 This Proxy Statement (the "Proxy Statement") and the accompanying form 
of Proxy are being furnished by Peter Lindner ("Mr. Lindner") to the 
stockholders (the "Stockholders") of American Express Company (the 
"Company" or "Amex") in connection with his solicitation of proxies to 
be voted at the Company's 2009 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (the 
"Annual Meeting"). The Company has announced that the Annual Meeting 
will be held on Monday, April 27, 2009, at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time 
local time at:  

American Express Company  
200 Vesey Street, 26th floor  
New York, New York 10285  

This Proxy Statement and form of Proxy are being mailed to Stockholders 
on or about April 10, 2009.  

 REASON FOR SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL AND MR. LINDNER'S RUN FOR DIRECTOR 

 Mr. Lindner is soliciting proxies from fellow Stockholders and fellow 
former Employees to elect Mr. Lindner to the Board of Directors of the 
Company (the "Board") at the Annual Meeting.  Mr. Lindner is asking 
Stockholders to enact a Shareholder Proposal (the "Proposal") on 
revising Amex's Code of Conduct (the "Code"). Sometimes (and Mr. 
Lindner has been wrong about this in the past), there is a new wave 
sweeping across the country for a revision of ethics. Mr. Lindner 
wishes Amex to lead the country in having a good code of conduct, 
rather than have incidents occur periodically that cause pain, 
embarrassment, and social/financial disorder - which has happened in 
the US Congress and in companies such as Enron.  

Please note that Amex told the SEC that this proposal is "ordinary 
business" and thus should not be voted on by the Shareholders. This is 
quite untrue, since it is a rarity for any body (government or 
corporation) to ask for the Truth and give a blanket amnesty for 
telling it. And then firing those who do not tell the truth.  Well, 
lesser forms of punishment for lesser infractions.  

In order to make this document acceptable to challenges from the SEC 
and from Amex, this proxy has too much additional information, for 
which Mr. Lindner apologizes. 


THE TEXT OF THE SHAREHOLDER ETHICS PROPOSAL 

Amend Amex's Employee Code of Conduct ("Code") to include mandatory 
penalties for non-compliance, the precise scope of which shall be 
determined after an independent outside compliance review of the Code 
conducted by outside experts and representatives of Amex's board, 
management, employees and shareholders. This shall include a Truth 
Commission, patterned after the Truth Commissions used in South Africa 
to end Apartheid, for instance (which runs 70 pages). 


REASONS FOR BRINGING SUCH BUSINESS TO THE ANNUAL MEETING 

Personal experience and anecdotal evidence show that the Code has been 
breached and not enforced. Rather, management (VP and above) regard the 
Code as nothing more than mere Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) compliance (see 
paragraph below on quotes about SOX; Amex has filed its Code with the 
Securities and Exchange Commission SEC for many years.) This lack of 
adherence to basic principles of conduct erodes confidence in the 
Company, has affected or will affect the market price of the Company's 
shares, and warrants attention from the shareholders.  Also below 
(after quotes) is the chronology of Amex's (in varying degrees of 
successfulness) of preventing this issue from being discussed with the 
Shareholders. 


 QUOTES FROM OTHER SOURCES ON SOX AND ETHICS AND SEC 

"Sarbanes-Oxley and businesses work together to increase the overall 
integrity and ethics in business. The act came in the wake of a series 
of corporate financial scandals, including those affecting Enron, Tyco 
International, and WorldCom (now MCI). The law is named after sponsors 
Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) and Representative Michael G. Oxley (R-
OH). It was approved by the House by a vote of 423-3 and by the Senate 
99-0." 
http://www.globalethicsuniversity.com/sarbanes-oxley-compliance.php 



 "The following is a brief list of selected cooperate governance 
rulemaking by the SEC, NYSE and NASDAQ. Companies covered by these 
regulatory bodies are required to:  

* Adopt a Code of Ethics applicable to specific officers  

* Adopt a Code of Conduct applicable to all directors, officers and 
employees  

* Create an environment that encourages employees to report violations  

* Adopt procedures that allow employees a confidential and anonymous 
process  for submitting   concerns  

* Adopt procedures that facilitate the effective operation of the code 

*  Protect individuals from retaliation who report violations of the 
code of  conduct " 
http://www.kenexa.com/Solutions/Survey/SarbanesOxleyCompliance.aspx  




DETAILS ON AMEX ATTEMPTS TO STOP COMMUNICATIONS TO SHAREHOLDERS  

American Express ("Amex") went to Federal Court to stop Mr. Lindner 
from communicating with shareholders by doing the following: 

1.	Amex got a Federal Judge (a Magistrate Judge) in the Southern 
District of New York (SDNY) to prohibit Mr. Lindner from attending the 
Amex April 2007 Shareholder Meeting. 

2.	Amex got the same SDNY Judge to prevent Mr. Lindner from 
communicating with the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission). 

3.	Amex tried to get Mr. Lindner to get the SEC to withdraw his 
March 2007 SEC preliminary filing (#0001394849-07-000002) to have a 
Shareholder Proposal and for running for the Amex Board. The SEC said 
that any filing made cannot be retracted, as it is instantaneously 
place on computers all over the world. 

4.	Amex got the Judge to stop Mr. Lindner from communicating with 
the SEC. 

5.	Amex got the Judge to have Mr. Lindner remove his April 2007 
website completely, via an ex parte conference call with the Judge, Mr. 
Lindner, and Mr. Lindner's lawyer (and without Amex). 

6.	Amex gave a promise in open court to make a written contract 
outlining these restrictions, but then got the Judge to allow Amex to 
not make the contract in writing, and then enforce the "verbal" 
contract. This is noteworthy, since the written contract would have 
included the terms of the June 2000 Amex-Lindner contract [attached as 
PDF - see page 14 of 16, paragraph 20 - in PACER (a public access to 
the Court system) as Document 17 Filed 12/20/2006], which gave Mr. 
Lindner 21 days to show the terms of the contract to a lawyer, and 7 
days after signing the contract to revoke it. However, by not putting 
the contract in writing, Amex was able to enforce the contract without 
allowing Mr. Lindner to revoke it or "sign and revoke" the contract. 
Amex was (and still is) represented by the law firm of Kelley Drye & 
Warren LLP. 

7.	Amex got the Magistrate Judge to prohibit Mr. Lindner from asking 
questions at the 2007 Meeting. 

8.	The April 2007 Meeting passed without Mr. Lindner's being able to 
attend, since it would have been in Contempt of Court if Mr. Lindner 
went to the Meeting. 

9.	Mr. Lindner spent $20,000 in legal fees to get a higher federal 
SDNY Judge (a US District Judge) to invalidate the restrictions on Mr. 
Lindner, with one major exception: The Court kept the restriction that 
Mr. Lindner can not reveal the contents of the Contract, nor can Mr. 
Lindner reveal the transcript of the "open Court" session where the 
alleged oral agreement is discussed. That transcript 
"LindnervAmEx032907.pdf" has been sealed by the Magistrate Judge at 
Amex's request, and remains sealed. 

10.	For the record, the US District Judge ruled that Amex "failed to 
establish ... the existence of a binding oral settlement agreement." 
This is in his 24 page decision of May 31 2007, which is publicly 
available on PACER (included here as a PDF, Document 51 Filed 
06/05/2007) and should be on the website mentioned in this Proxy and 
Shareholder Proposal statement. In other words, Amex had no right in 
April 2007 to stop Mr. Lindner from filing with the SEC nor from 
attending the April 2007 Shareholders' Meeting.

11.	Amex also attempted (but did not succeed) to stop Mr. Lindner 
from speaking at the upcoming Amex April 2009 Shareholder Meeting. 
Amex's reasoning was "American Express CEO, Kenneth Chenault, presides 
over the shareholders meetings and ... Mr. Lindner may ... either 
directly or indirectly, discuss his claims against Defendants [Amex] 
with Mr. Chenault." 

12.	But the SDNY Magistrate Judge ruled "The Court will not place 
restrictions on Mr. Lindner's speech at a shareholders' meeting. 
Counsel can be present and can adverse her client [Mr. Kenneth 
Chenault] at that time. Any communications with the Board of Directors 
must be in writing and sent through Defendants' counsel. So Ordered. 
3/12/09." 

13. 	Interestingly enough, Amex claimed in 2007 that Amex had an oral 
agreement to settle Mr. Lindner's suit and thus Mr. Lindner had 
willingly agreed to these restrictions. However, two years later now in 
2009 when there clearly was and is no agreement between Amex and Mr. 
Lindner, Amex again attempted to stop Mr. Lindner from communicating 
with the SEC. This time, the SDNY Magistrate Judge ruled "The Court has 
placed no restrictions on Plaintiff's [Mr. Lindner's] communications 
with the SEC. So Ordered.".(attached as Document 143 Filed 03/23/2009) 
This proxy filing is written in the spirit of that Magistrate Judge's 
order that there are "no restrictions" on communication with the SEC. 

14. It is a tough job to bring a shareholder's proposal. Mr. Lindner is 
single (not married) and has no children, but if either of these 
conditions were not true (e.g. married with children) then Mr. Lindner 
would have been discouraged by his spouse or the needs of his children 
from continuing this (4 years and counting) battle against a 
multinational firm, such is Amex.  This previous statement is 
hypothetical, but still within the realm of reality.

15. Moreover, Mr. Lindner submitted his 500-word Shareholder Proposal 
prior to Jan 1 2009 (see PDF of letter to Secretary of the Corporation 
Stephen Norman of December 30 2009) where Mr. Lindner states that he 
wishes "to cooperate with the Board in making any changes to the 
proposal that would make it amenable to them" (cover letter, paragraph 
1), yet Amex wrote the SEC that the vagueness (see page 8 of 37 page 
letter of Jan 22 2009) of the 500 word Proposal:

"The Proposal at hand is inherently vague and indefinite because 
it fails to define critical terms or otherwise provide guidance 
as to how it should be implemented. No definition of "outside 
experts" is provided, for example, and no explanation is given as 
to how such experts would be selected. Likewise, the Proposal 
contains no elaboration of the process whereby "representatives 
of Amex's board, management, employees and shareholders" will be 
chosen, nor does it make clear how the distinction between these 
overlapping groups will be drawn." 

Mr. Lindner was constrained by Amex's bylaws to 500 words, and Mr. 
Lindner noted he would make changes.  For the record, this proxy is 
5,000 words long (without attachments).

16. 	Amex also states to the SEC that this Shareholder Proposal is a 
redress of a personal claim. Actually, it is comparable to saying the 
Civil Rights Act of 1964 gives redress of person's right (e.g. Rosa 
Parks) to sit on a bus. The issue is true: Mr. Lindner was wronged, 
however, it was not for a mere violation of Federal Law, but also for 
breach of a written contract. The case with Mr. Lindner is clear-cut in 
that if the Amex participants had written a memo, this alone would have 
solved the matter. It took Mr. Lindner 3 years to get the handwritten 
note DEF00370 from Amex's investigating attorney. (Amex has declined to 
release that document.) If the Code of Conduct can not solve such a 
clear case, then it is likely that a non-contract case would be harder 
to prove. So, Mr. Lindner decided that it was worth his personal 
aggravation and a substantial part of his money to fight the good 
fight, which hopefully would uncover other Amex people who have been 
wronged in the past, and in the future stop others from having to fight 
and possibly lose this same battle (and possibly losing for lack of 
resources: money, psychological support, ability to write, to use the 
PC and fear of being ostracized).

For the record, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was designed to help 
African-Americans, but was changed to help women and whites, too (see 
Wikipedia).   Mr. Lindner is white, but that law was used to help him, 
since title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 says "employee" covers 
former employees also, as ruled by a unanimous 1997 Supreme Court 
ruling.   Mr. Lindner notes for the record that  Mr. Lindner can walk 
unassisted, yet slots cut into sidewalks to allow wheelchairs may yet 
one day help me.  Doing the right thing for a small class of people, 
can sometimes help a much larger class of people in the future.  Or to 
use the more eloquent phrasing of Cardinal Roger Mahony in 1998 
[original source perhaps Gandhi?] 

"Any society, any nation, is judged on the basis of how it treats 
its weakest members -- the last, the least, the littlest."

17. Amex complained to the Court that Mr. Lindner was speaking to the 
Secretary of the Corporation Stephen Norman about being on the Board, 
and got the Magistrate Judge to threaten to dismiss Mr. Lindner's suit 
(attached Pacer Document 133 Filed 03/05/2009) if this happens again. 
The Judge refers to an order of Nov 21 2008 (attached Document 93 Filed 
11/21/2008), which bars Mr. Lindner from contacting Ms. Park's client, 
which has now expanded from Qing Lin and Amex, to any employee of 
American Express.

18. Look at all the documentation this proxy references just to make a 
point: that Amex breached a written agreement, as well as violating a 
federal law (EEOC), and fought against admitting it for several years 
and tens of thousands of dollars, with 30 page letters and a hundred 
court exhibits (yes, there are more).  This proxy is technical and 13 
pages long, and has approximately ten attachments of varying complexity 
and subtlety. 

19. Conclusion: Thus, the Amex Code ought to be revised to make it 
easier for someone to correct an injustice, rather than expend all this 
energy to win a matter that the Amex employees themselves have admitted 
breaches of the June 2000 Amex-Lindner contract. 
 

WHY YOU SHOULD ADD LINDNER TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS 

* In Mr. Lindner's opinion, the current Code is beautiful to look at, 
but not worth much in operational terms. Mr. Lindner believes there is 
no stronger message that can be sent to The Company's Board and 
management this year than dual approval of a shareholder resolution to 
fix the Code and to install Mr. Lindner to ensure that this task is 
done.  

 

WHY YOU SHOULD VOTE FOR THE LINDNER SHAREHOLDER ETHICS PROPOSAL  

* Sometimes transparency in words and deeds can have unexpected morale 
and financial benefits. Your clear message in this election will 
directly assist Mr. Lindner in convincing the directors that a change 
in the Code is long overdue. Mr. Lindner believes this will be the 
shortest path to the restoration of shareholder value and the 
realization of The Company's promise of ethical behavior. Amex trusts 
its customers to give their word and stand by it, and billions of 
dollars are made on that premise. It would be hypocrisy at best for 
Amex to give its word, yet not carry it out.  

*Mr. Lindner has first hand knowledge of The Company's technology and 
of its operations and its culture. Mr. Lindner has spent nine years 
working at American Express, Travel Related Services (TRS), and Amex 
Bank. His resume (and much more detail) is on the website:  

www.AmexTruth.com  

(It stands for Amex Truth commission - the shareholder proposal to 
investigate whether Amex has a few or has many incidents of where the 
Amex Code of Conduct has been violated.) 

Mr. Lindner has handled mailings, reviewed credit histories of the 
millions of cardmembers, and potential c/m's, as well as work with 
mathematical modeling, risk management, securitization of our 
portfolio, modernization of the Banking system, and has even helped 
(with his manager/director) save a key product line by showing its 
viability/profitability.    

 

*  

*  

THIS SOLICITATION IS BEING MADE BY MR. LINDNER AND NOT ON BEHALF OF THE 
BOARD  

Mr. Lindner is a former Senior Manager of the Company. He is an 
experienced computer programmer, modeler, database marking specialist - 
and is literate.  

PLEASE DISREGARD ANY PROXY CARD YOU RECEIVE FROM THE COMPANY.  MR. 
LINDNER ENCOURAGES YOU TO RETURN ONLY THE ENCLOSED [Tan? COLOR??] PROXY 
CARD.  

RECOMMENDATIONS IF LINDNER IS ELECTED  

If elected, Mr. Lindner plans to make the following recommendations to 
the Board, which Mr. Lindner believes are in the best interests of the 
Company and its Stockholders:  

* Work closely with the various stakeholders at Amex - the 
shareholders, the employees, the customers and the vendors - to get 
reasonable solutions to the ethical demands in a modern business. 
Ethics is the fancy way of saying doing right when personal gains may 
say to choose a different path. Lies,  pandering, obfuscation, 
hypocrisy - why these are the very things that the Securities and 
Exchange Acts sought to get rid of in the 1930's, and from those 
beginnings, a strong NY Stock Exchange was created, to the envy of the 
world. We can make money and not lose our morality or ethics. Mr. 
Lindner is actually saying that perhaps we will make more money with 
ethical conduct than by not having ethics.  

* Thoroughly investigate all instances of ethical quandaries faced by 
Amex over the last fifteen years. Some people say there is nothing to 
be done, but Mr. Lindner says that others have faced greater problems 
than dealing with the ethics of an already pretty good company. Getting 
rid of slavery for one (okay, that was 150 years ago), resolving death 
squads and apartheid by having Truth Commissions, handling sexual 
improprieties in the US Congress, balancing the rights of poor and 
wealthy citizens.  

Let us go the extra distance and make American Express's Code of 
Conduct a document to be proud of, which reflects the honest 
aspirations of its best employees, its worthy management and directors, 
and of course its shareholders who care for these concerns and more. 
Mr. Lindner asks for your vote for Director in Amex's Board and for the 
Shareholder Proposal to revise the Code of Conduct in the coming year 
in an open and honest fashion, using the best minds of not just Amex's 
constituents, but also of scholars, academics, business leaders and 
politicians.  

This will be a Code of Conduct that can work in the 21st century. No 
more will the powerful Amex fight just people who are racist and who do 
not pay their bills, but also chide and penalize those who break the 
honest standards set by the Company. This will not be like Enron, where 
Ken Lay allowed a transgression by a "top performer," thus abandoning 
his supposed ethics. The film "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room 
[2005]" details how this path led to Enron's ruin, and that of its 
hardworking employees, the community, and many hapless investors.  

EVEN AFTER YOU HAVE SUBMITTED YOUR PROXY, YOU MAY CHANGE YOUR VOTE AT 
ANY TIME BEFORE THE MEETING BY SENDING A DULY EXECUTED PROXY WITH A 
LATER DATE TO _____________________ AT THE ADDRESS ON THE BACK COVER.  

NOMINEE FOR DIRECTOR GENERAL  

 The by-laws of the Company provide that the exact number of directors 
shall be fixed by resolution of the Board. According to public 
information, the Board currently consists of ten members having one-
year terms.  

THE LINDNER NOMINEE  

 The information below concerning age and principal occupation has been 
furnished by Peter Lindner  

NAME     	AGE 	PRINCIPAL OCCUPATION  
Peter Lindner   59      Computer Programmer  

Mr. Lindner is currently an employee of Time Warner Cable Company in 
NYC, and has been at TWC since 2007. (This month, March 2009, TWC 
became a separate company from Time Warner.) He programs in SAS (a 
Statistical Analysis System used among many companies, including 
American Express and IBM), and Excel, among other computer languages. 
Mr. Lindner has been a professional computer person for over 35 years, 
a SAS programmer for 25 years, and an Excel programmer/user for 15 
years. 

In between 2003 and 2007, Mr. Lindner worked as an independent 
consultant, after being laid off from IBM in 2003. In the past fifteen 
years, Mr. Lindner's specialty has been statistical programming, risk 
management, direct mail, and systems analysis. 

Mr. Lindner joined The Company (American Express) in 1990, worked in 
American Express Travel Related Services, then American Express Bank 
Headquarters in NYC, and then back to TRS for Risk Management. Mr. 
Lindner helped with various models, including working with his manager 
to create Amex's first Bankruptcy Model, which became operational even 
at its early stages, and was later productionized with a team of 
consultants into its current form. Mr. Lindner used Continuous Process 
Improvement (CPI) to build a small reporting system into a quickly 
responsive production system of 90+ measures of credit card performance 
- this latter lead to saving the Optima card which was to have been 
killed by conventional average losses. The reporting system showed that 
the losses were less each year, and were now positive with its learning 
curve (a slight reference to this was made in Amex's Annual Report). 
Mr. Lindner has two degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology (MIT), both undergraduate and from their business school, 
with a concentration in both finance and management information 
systems. 

Peter Lindner 

DATE OF TRANSACTION AMOUNT OF COMMON SHARES PURCHASED (P) / SOLD (S) 
1990- 1998 800* (P) 

*approximately 

PETER LINDNER RECOMMENDS THAT STOCKHOLDERS VOTE IN FAVOR OF 

PETER LINDNER 

LISTED BELOW AND IN FAVOR OF 

THE ETHICS PROPOSAL 

AND NOT RETURN THE COMPANY'S PROXY CARD TO THE COMPANY AND NOT VOTE IN 
FAVOR OF THE NOMINEES OF THE COMPANY. 

QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS PROXY STATEMENT OR THE ENCLOSED [COLOR??] 
PROXY CARD SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO: 
_______________________ 
________________________, 
______________________ 
CALL 1-212-979-9647 ____________ 

VOTING Based on public information, the Board has fixed the close of 
business on Febuary 27, 2009 as the record date for the determination 
of the Stockholders entitled to notice of and to vote at the Annual 
Meeting. Based the latest available public information, there were 
approximately 1,160 million shares of common stock outstanding on March 
2009. The holders of a majority of such shares, represented in person 
or by proxy, shall constitute a quorum at the Annual Meeting. A quorum 
is necessary before business may be transacted at the Annual Meeting 
except that, even if a quorum is not present, the Stockholders present 
in person or by proxy shall have the power to adjourn the meeting from 
time to time until a quorum is present. Each Stockholder entitled to 
vote shall have the right to one vote for each share of common stock 
outstanding in such Stockholder's name. Directors are to be elected by 
a plurality of the votes cast at the Annual Meeting. With respect to 
any other matter that may properly be brought before the Annual 
Meeting, the affirmative vote of a majority of the votes cast by 
Stockholders entitled to vote thereon is required to take action, 
unless a greater percentage is required either by law or by the 
Company's certificate of incorporation or by-laws. In determining the 
number of votes cast with respect to any voting matter, only those cast 
"for" or "withhold authority" are included. Abstentions will be 
considered present and entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting but will 
not be counted as votes cast. Accordingly, abstentions will have no 
effect on the vote. Similarly, where brokers submit proxies but are 
prohibited and thus refrain from exercising discretionary authority in 
voting shares on certain matters for beneficial owners who have not 
provided voting instructions with respect to such matters (commonly 
referred to as "broker non-votes"), those shares will be considered 
present and entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting but will not be 
counted as votes cast as to such matters and thus will have no effect 
on the vote. Execution and return of the enclosed [COLOR??] Proxy Card 
will not affect a Stockholder's right to attend the Annual Meeting and 
vote in person. Any Stockholder that executes and returns a Proxy Card 
has the right to revoke it by giving notice of revocation to the 
Secretary of the Company at any time before the Proxy is voted. 

Unless contrary instructions are indicated on the enclosed [COLOR??] 
Proxy Card, all shares of common stock represented by valid Proxies 
received pursuant to this solicitation (which have not been revoked as 
described above) will be voted 

(a) FOR the election of Peter Lindner, and 
(b) in favor of the Lindner 
shareholder proposal to revise the Amex Code of Conduct and 
(c) to vote against a director at the discretion of the Proxy holder(s), 
on such other business as may properly come before the Annual Meeting, 
including any adjournment(s) or postponements(s) thereof. 

 IF YOU WISH TO VOTE FOR PETER LINDNER, YOU MUST EXECUTE AND RETURN THE 
ENCLOSED [COLOR??] PROXY CARD AND SHOULD NOT EXECUTE OR RETURN THE 
COMPANY'S PROXY CARD. 

 DO NOT RETURN ANY PROXY CARD OTHER THAN THE [COLOR??] PROXY CARD. IF 
YOU RETURN MORE THAN ONE PROXY CARD THERE IS A RISK THAT YOUR SHARES 
WILL NOT BE VOTED AS YOU DESIRE, BECAUSE ONLY THE LATEST DATED PROXY 
CARD YOU SUBMIT COUNTS. 

 EVEN AFTER YOU HAVE SUBMITTED YOUR PROXY, YOU MAY CHANGE YOUR VOTE AT 
ANY TIME BEFORE THE MEETING BY SENDING A DULY EXECUTED PROXY WITH A 
LATER DATE TO ______________________ AT THE ADDRESS ON THE BACK COVER. 
IF YOUR SHARES ARE HELD IN THE NAME OF A BROKERAGE FIRM, BANK OR 
NOMINEE ON THE RECORD DATE, ONLY IT CAN VOTE YOUR SHARES AND ONLY UPON 
RECEIPT OF YOUR SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS. 

PLEASE CONTACT THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR ACCOUNT AND GIVE 
INSTRUCTIONS FOR YOUR SHARES TO BE VOTED ON THE [COLOR??] PROXY CARD 
FOR PETER LINDNER. 

YOUR VOTE AT THIS YEAR'S ANNUAL MEETING IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT. 

PLEASE SIGN AND DATE THE ENCLOSED [COLOR??] PROXY CARD AND RETURN IT IN 
THE ENCLOSED POSTAGE-PAID ENVELOPE PROMPTLY. 

INFORMATION CONCERNING PERSONS WHO MAY SOLICIT PROXIES Under the 
applicable regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Mr. 
Lindner is deemed to be a "participant" in our solicitation of proxies. 
The name, business address and principal occupation of each of Mr. 
Lindner appears earlier in this Proxy Statement. 

Except as described in this Proxy Statement, neither the Participant 
nor any of his respective affiliates or associates (together, the 
"Participant Affiliates"), (i) directly or indirectly beneficially owns 
any securities of the Company or of any subsidiary of the Company or 
(ii) has had any relationship with the Company in any capacity other 
than as a Stockholder, with the exception of the lawsuit filed in 
Federal Court mentioned in the Shareholder Proposal. Furthermore, 
except as described in this Proxy Statement, neither the Participant 
nor any Participant Affiliate is a party to any transaction or series 
of transactions since January 1, 2006, or has knowledge of any 
currently proposed transaction or series of transactions, (i) to which 
the Company or any of its subsidiaries was or is to be a party, (ii) in 
which the amount involved exceeds $60,000, and (iii) in which the 
Participant or Participant Affiliate had or will have, a direct or 
indirect material interest. Except as described in this Proxy 
Statement, neither the Participant nor any Participant Affiliate has 
entered into any agreement or understanding with any person respecting 
any (i) future employment by the Company or its affiliates or (ii) any 
transactions to which the Company or any of its affiliates will or may 
be a party. Except as described in this Proxy Statement, there are no 
contracts, arrangements or understandings by the Participant or 
Participant Affiliates within the past year with any person with 
respect to any capital stock of the Company. 

COST AND METHOD OF SOLICITATION 

 Mr. Lindner will bear the cost of this solicitation. While no precise 
estimate of this cost can be made at the present time, we currently 
estimate that we collectively will spend a total of approximately 
$5,000 for our solicitation of proxies, including expenditures for 
attorneys, solicitors and advertising, printing, transportation and 
related expenses. As of April 1 2009, we have incurred proxy 
solicitation expenses and legal expenses of approximately $10,000. 

We expect to seek reimbursement from the Company for our expenses in 
connection with this solicitation. In addition to soliciting proxies by 
mail, proxies may be solicited in person or by telephone, telecopy, e-
mail or the Internet. We will also reimburse brokers, fiduciaries, 
custodians and other nominees, as well as persons holding stock for 
others who have the right to give voting instructions, for out-of-
pocket expenses incurred in forwarding this Proxy Statement and related 
materials to, and obtaining instructions or authorizations relating to 
such materials from, beneficial owners of Company capital stock. We 
will pay for the cost of these solicitations, but these individuals 
will receive no additional compensation for these solicitation 
services. We have retained the proxy solicitation firm of ADP at 
customary fees, plus reasonable out-of-pocket expenses, to participate 
in the solicitation of proxies and revocations, up to $1,000. We also 
have agreed to indemnify _________________ against certain liabilities 
and expenses. 

We estimate that no employees of American Express will be involved in 
the solicitation of proxies on my behalf, since American Express has 
successfully filed in Federal Court to stop communication between Mr. 
Lindner and any employee of American Express, and has further required 
that there be no oral communication but if there is written 
communication, it must be censored and passed through American 
Express's attorney (the firm of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP). 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 

Certain information regarding common stock held by the Company's 
directors, nominees, management and 5% stockholders is contained in the 
Company's proxy statement and is incorporated herein by reference. 

Information concerning the date by which proposals of security holders 
intended to be presented at the next annual meeting of stockholders of 
the Company must be received by the Company for inclusion in the 
Company's proxy statement and form of proxy for that meeting is also 
contained in the Company's proxy statement and is incorporated herein 
by reference. We assume no responsibility for the accuracy or 
completeness of any information contained herein which is based on, or 
incorporated by reference to, the Company's proxy statement. 

PETER LINDNER 

[revised March 30, 2009] 

IMPORTANT 

PLEASE REVIEW THIS DOCUMENT AND THE ENCLOSED MATERIALS CAREFULLY. YOUR 
VOTE IS VERY IMPORTANT, NO MATTER HOW MANY OR HOW FEW SHARES OF COMMON 
STOCK YOU OWN. 

1. If your shares are registered in your own name, please sign, date 
and mail the enclosed [COLOR??] Proxy Card to _____________________. in 
the postage- paid envelope provided today. 

2. If you have previously signed and returned a proxy card to American 
Express., you have every right to change your vote. Only your latest 
dated card will count. You may revoke any proxy card already sent to 
American Express Inc. by signing, dating and mailing the enclosed 
[COLOR??] Proxy Card in the postage-paid envelope provided. 

Any proxy may be revoked at any time prior to the 2009 Annual Meeting 
by sending a new proxy card to ________________________ or the 
Secretary of American Express, Inc., or by voting in person at the 2009 
Annual Meeting. 

3. If your shares are held in the name of a brokerage firm, bank 
nominee or Other institution, only it can sign a [COLOR??] Proxy Card 
with respect to your shares and only after receiving your specific 
instructions. Accordingly, please sign, date and mail the enclosed 
[COLOR??] Proxy Card in the postage- paid envelope provided, and to 
ensure that your shares are voted, you should also contact the person 
responsible for your account and give instructions for a [COLOR??] 
Proxy Card to be issued representing your shares. 

4. After signing the enclosed [COLOR??] Proxy Card do not sign or 
return the Company's proxy card unless you intend to change your vote, 
because only your latest dated proxy card will be counted. 

If you have any questions about giving your proxy or require 
assistance, please call Mr. Lindner at 

____________________________ 1-212-979-9647 

Moreover, the website mentioned above: www.AmexTruth.com 

will have additional documents, evidence, transcripts, etc, subject 
only to what Amex can get the Court to disallow, as Amex has tried in 
the past (and succeeded in April 2007) to stop Mr. Lindner from both 
attending and speaking at the Shareholder Meeting despite Mr. Lindner 
owning about $80,000 of Amex voting shares, and has tried again this 
year as late as March 2009 to stop Mr. Lindner from speaking at the 
April 2009 Annual Shareholders Meeting in NYC(details above and upon 
request). 

 IN OPPOSITION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY 
PROXY FOR THE 2009 ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS THIS PROXY IS 
SOLICITED ON BEHALF OF PETER LINDNER 

The undersigned hereby appoints Peter Lindner as proxy for the 
undersigned with full power of substitution, to vote all shares of 
beneficial interest of American Express, Inc. (the "Company") which the 
undersigned is entitled to vote at the Company's 2009 Annual Meeting of 
Stockholders, and any postponements or adjournments thereof, hereby 
revoking all prior proxies, on the matters set forth below as follows: 

  

 PETER LINDNER RECOMMENDS A VOTE FOR SHAREHOLDER ETHICS PROPOSAL 
[perhaps? shareholder proposal number 5]. THIS PROXY WHEN PROPERLY 
EXECUTED WILL BE VOTED IN THE MANNER DIRECTED. IF A CHOICE IS NOT 
SPECIFIED, THE PROXY WILL BE VOTED FOR THE NOMINEE LISTED BELOW. 

[X] Please mark your votes with X as in this example. 

1. Election of Peter Lindner as Director whose term expires in 2008: 

[ ]FOR nominee (except as marked below) [ ]FOR Shareholder Ethics 
Proposal (except as marked below) 

* WITHHOLD AUTHORITY for all nominees * FOR AUTHORITY for CERTAIN 
nominees 

(INSTRUCTION: To withhold authority to vote for one or more nominees, 
mark FOR above and print the name(s) of the person(s) with respect to 
whom you wish to withhold authority OR for other nominees in the space 
provided below.) 


____________________________________________________ 


____________________________________________________ 

2. To act upon any other matters that may properly come before the 
meeting. 

 PLEASE MARK YOUR VOTES (ON REVERSE SIDE), SIGN, DATE AND RETURN THE 
PROXY CARD PROMPTLY USING THE ENCLOSED POSTAGE-PAID ENVELOPE. Please 
sign exactly as your name appears on this Proxy. When shares are held 
by joint tenants, both should sign. When signing as attorney, executor, 
administrator, trustee or guardian, please give your full title. If a 
corporation, please sign in full corporate name by President or other 
authorized officer. If a partnership, please sign in partnership name 
by the authorized person. Date: April ________, 2009 


______________________________ 

Signature of Stockholder 


_______________________________ 

Signature of Stockholder 

Dates Referenced Herein and Documents Incorporated By Reference This 
PREC14A Filing 

This is version 2, with major changes denoted by  changed text .
Minor changes have not been marked, for clarity.

Date March 30, 2009
(Back To Top)

Section 2: EX-1 (LINDNER AMENDED COMPLAINT DOCUMENT 17 TEXT VERSION)


SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK 
 -- - - - - - - PETER W. LINDNER, 

                        Plaintiff, 

               -against- 

AMERICAN EXPRESS CORPORATION and  QING LIN, 

                        Defendants. 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  

----------NOTE:  This is a .txt file that is a prelim version-----
----------       The filed  version is in pdf format as number 17-

Index No. 

VERIFIED COMPLAINT 

 


            Plaintiff Peter W. Lindner, by his attorneys, Pearce & Luz 
LLP, as and for  his complaint against defendants alleges as follows: 

Nature of the Action             

1.	This is an action for breach of a settlement agreement, 
retaliation  in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 
defamation and tortious  interference with  Plaintiff's contractual 
relations. 

Parties    
         
2.	Plaintiff Peter W. Lindner ("Lindner") is an individual residing 
in  New York County.             
3.	Defendant American Express Corporation ("Amex") is a NY  
corporation with a place of business at 200 Vesey Street, New York, New 
York.             
4.	Defendant Qing Lin ("Lin") is a Senior Vice President of Amex. 

Facts  
           
5.	Lindner is a computer programmer who was employed in that  
capacity by Amex from 1990 to November 1998.             
6.	Lin was Lindner's supervisor during his employment at Amex.             
7.	In 2000 or 1999, Lindner filed a sex-discrimination claim against  
Amex with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC").  The 
EEOC  gave Lindner a right-to-sue letter and he commenced an action 
against Amex in Civil  Court, New York County in early 2000.  In that 
action, Lindner alleged, among other  wrongs, sex discrimination in 
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.              
8.	In June 2000, Amex and Lindner settled their lawsuit and executed  
a Settlement Agreement and General Release (the "Settlement 
Agreement"), a copy of  which is annexed as Exhibit 1.              
9.	In the Settlement Agreement, Amex agreed that it would "disclose  
only Mr. Lindner's dates of employment, positions held and final salary 
in response to  any inquiries or requests for references regarding Mr. 
Lindner."             
10.	In the Settlement Agreement, Amex agreed "to instruct and direct  
the following Company employees not to disclose any information 
regarding Mr.  Lindner's employment or termination of employment from 
the Company to any person  outside the Company and to direct all 
requests for references or inquiries received by  such employees 
regarding Mr. Lindner to the appropriate human resources individual(s):  
... Qing Lin...."             
11.	On or about April 20, 2005, Lindner applied for a position at  
Fischer Jordan, Inc., a consulting firm.  On information and belief, 
one of Fischer  Jordan's clients was Amex.             
12.	Trevor Barran and Boaz Salik of Fischer Jordan asked Lindner the  
names of his supervisors at Amex, which Lindner supplied.             
13.	Within days after the interview, Mr. Salik spoke with Lin about  
Lindner.               
14.	Lin told Salik that, among other things, Lindner, who had worked  
at Amex for over nine years, "did not have the right [work] ethic" to 
work at Amex and  "did not fit into the culture" at Amex.  Lin asked 
Salik to keep the conversation  confidential.             
15.	Almost immediately after this conversation between Salik and Lin,  
Amex cancelled a project that Fischer Jordan was to have worked on.  On 
information  and belief, in retaliation for Lindner's having brought a 
sex-harassment suit against  Amex, Amex and Lin caused the project to 
be cancelled because Fischer Jordan was  contemplating the hiring of 
Lindner.             
16.	On information and belief, Fischer Jordan declined to hire 
Lindner  based on this information from Lin.             
17.	In June 2005, Fischer Jordan hired Lindner as a part-time  
consultant.  Lindner asked Barran whether Fischer Jordan would hire him 
as a full-time  employee.             
18.	In July 2005, Barran told Lindner that, based on the information  
from Lin, Fischer Jordan would not hire Lindner full-time. FIRST CAUSE 
OF ACTION             
19.	Amex has breached the Settlement Agreement by revealing to third  
persons negative employment information about Lindner without 
authorization.             
20.	Lindner has been damaged by Amex's breach in an amount to be  
determined at trial, but not less than $100,000.             
21.	Amex is liable to Lindner for breach of contract in an amount to 
be  determined at trial, but not less than $100,000. SECOND CAUSE OF 
ACTION             
22.	Plaintiffs repeat the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 20.             
23.	Lin's statements to Salik, that Lindner "does not have the right  
[work] ethic," and "does not fit into the culture," were false, 
defamatory, and injurious to  Lindner.             
24.	Lin's false, defamatory, and injurious statements damaged Lindner  
in his trade in an amount to be determined at trial, but not less than 
$100,000.             
25.	Amex and Lin are liable to Lindner for slander in an amount to be  
determined at trial, but not less than $100,000. 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION   
          
26.	Plaintiffs repeat paragraphs 1 through 24.             
27.	On information and belief, Amex and Lin disseminated false  
information about Lindner's employment with Amex in retaliation for his 
having brought  a sex-harassment suit against Amex and Lin's 
supervisor, Ash Gupta.             
28.	Amex and Lin's retaliatory actions against Lindner constitute an  
unlawful employment practice under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 
1964, 42 U.S.C.  section 2000e et seq.             
29.	Lindner has satisfied all statutory preconditions to suit, 
including  obtaining a "right-to-sue" letter from the EEOC.             
30.	Lindner has been damaged by Amex's and Lin's Title VII  
violations in an amount to be determined at trial, but not less than 
$250,000.             
31.	Amex and Lin are liable to Lindner for violations of Title VII of  
the Civil Right Act of 1964, including front pay, back pay, interest, 
costs, attorney's fees  and consequential damages, in an amount to be 
determined at trial, but not less than  $250,000. FOURTH CAUSE OF 

ACTION             

32.	Plaintiffs repeat paragraphs 1 through 31.             
33.	Amex and Lin deliberately and maliciously disseminated false,  
defamatory, and injurious information about Lindner with the intention 
of causing a  prospective employer not to hire Lindner.             
34.	On information and belief, Lin and Amex deliberately and  
maliciously cancelled a project that was to be awarded to Fischer, 
Jordan with the  intention of causing a prospective employer not to 
hire Lindner.             
35.	But for Amex's and Lin's malicious interference with Lindner's  
business relations with Fischer Jordan, Lindner would have been hired 
by Fischer Jordan.             
36.	Lin and Amex are liable to Lindner for tortious interference with  
business relations in an amount to be determined at trial but not less 
than $100,000.             

WHEREFORE, Lindner demands judgment:             

On the First, Second, and Fourth, Causes of Action, in favor of Lindner  
and against Amex and Lin, in an amount to be determined at trial, but 
not less than  $100,000 plus interest;             
On the Third Cause of Action, in favor of Lindner and against Amex and  
Lin in an amount to be determined at trial, but not less than $250,000 
plus interest, costs,  and attorney's fees;             
The costs and disbursements of this Action; and              
Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.  

April 10, 2006                                     

PEARCE & LUZ LLP           
By: _________________________                                     
	Thomas J. Luz   
Attorneys for Plaintiff     
1500 Broadway, 21st Floor                                     
New York, New York 10036                                     
(212) 221-8733 TO: 

American Express Corporation 
200 Vesey Street, 49th Floor 
New York, New York 10285 

Qing Lin 
American Express Corporation 
200 Vesey Street, 49th Floor 
New York, New York 10285 

 

VERIFICATION 

 STATE OF NEW YORK	) 				
ss.: COUNTY OF NEW YORK	) 

            Peter Lindner, being duly sworn, says:             
I am the Plaintiff in this action.  I have read the foregoing Complaint 
and it  is true to my knowledge, except as to matters pleaded on 
information and belief and as to  those matters I believe it to be 
true.  The source of my knowledge is personal.  
_________________________                                           
	Peter W. Lindner 

Sworn to before me this  ____ day of May, 2006 

 _________________________ 	Notary Public
(Back To Top)

Section 3: EX-1 (LINDNER AMENDED COMPLAINT DOCUMENT 17 PDF VERSION)

Click here to view PDF

Note: This PDF document represents an unofficial copy of information contained within this document, as allowed by the recent EDGAR system modernization.
SNL Interactive cannot take responsibility for the integrity of this file or its appearance, layout, or legibility. It is provided as is by the filer of this document.

(Back To Top)

Section 4: EX-2 (500 WORD SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL ON TRUTH COMMISSION)


This proposal was submitted by Mr. Peter Lindner, 1 Irving 
Place, #G-23-C, NY,  NY 10003 

 STUDY AND REWRITE OF CURRENT AMERICAN  EXPRESS CODE OF 
CONDUCT 

RESOLVED: An effort must be made to address significant 
social policy issues  unrecognized by American Express, in 
its existing Code of Conduct. 

THE PROBLEM: While the code has proven to be effective in 
part, it breaks  down in the implementation of effective 
enforcement procedures, leaving  affected employees 
suffering.  Needless to say, when a set of rules and laws  
exist, but are not conscientiously enforced, they become 
merely window  dressing. 

ISSUE I: How easy it is for management to state that, 
'ordinary business  problems should be confined to 
resolution by management.'  But, if it feels like  
harassment to the employee, for whom is it an 'ordinary 
business problem?'  The  affected employee often views what 
appears 'ordinary' to management, quite  differently.  
Management can often be part of the problem and sometimes 
are the  perpetrators thereof. 

ISSUE II: The decision, as to what constitutes 'ordinary 
business' and what  constitutes  'significant 
discrimination' and/or 'significant harassment' in the  
corporate setting, requires an objective study by an 
objective body.  With regard  to employee verses management 
disputes, won't management always have the  edge? 

ISSUE III: When company policies and policy issues are in 
question, why  shouldn't we turn to the votes of the 
shareholders...those most deeply affected by  the results of 
these issues?   

ISSUE IV: Can any one person having the clarity of vision 
and totally objective  grasp of the laws, to be able to 
assemble all of the facts and pass down a truly  unbiased 
decision. 

PROPOSED SOLUTION: The appointment of a  'Justice 
Committee,' or 'Truth  Committee,' created to act as an 
investigative body, with the sole purpose of  facilitating 
the enforcement of, what is otherwise, an excellently 
designed Code  of Conduct.  The ultimate goal and outcome 
of these investigations would be  justice.  The guidelines 
would be designed to be equally fair to management and  
employees.  This committee might be modeled after the 
successful 'Truth  Commissions,' in South Africa, designed 
to undo apartheid.  

This committee would be comprised of stakeholders; i.e., 
experts, shareholders  and lawyers, who would look into 
past cases, as far back as ten years, in order to  analyze 
the fairness of present resolution methodology.     Using 
these models, the committee would put into place a system 
of punishments  and rewards, effective in the admission, or 
non-admission, of questionable events  witnessed.  Such a 
system is the only way to allay the fears, which obstruct  
admission of truth.  Whether a monetary remuneration or the 
assurance of not  being fired, the witness must be 
respected, even honored, and the perpetrator,  punished by 
firing.  Additional details on: www.AmexTruth.com 

CONCLUSION: The expectation is that such a committee, 
supported by the  shareholders, will be in within one year 
of acceptance, offering quarterly public  reports.  For, a 
lack of adherence to basic principles of conduct erodes 
confidence  in the company and has affected, or will 
affect, the market price of the  company's shares.  Even 
worse, it erodes the human spirit, its willingness to trust  
and its ability to perform.
(Back To Top)

Section 5: EX-3 (EXHIBIT 3 TXT TRANSCRIPTS CORROBORATING LINDNERS SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL)



EXHIBIT 3: THE TRANSCRIPTS CORROBORATING LINDNER'S SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL

Written Wednesday, May 13, 2009

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

Note: This document is CENSORED at the demand of American 
Express (Amex), which was accepted by Magistrate Judge Katz 
in the Southern District of New York (SDNY) and so ordered.  
Peter Lindner feels that Amex has misled the public with 
its statements in Courtroom filings that such Peter 
Lindner's allegations were 

1)	imagined (to use Amex's phrase: "auditory 
hallucinations" May 8, 2008 transcript of Deposition of 
Peter Lindner, #179174) or 
2)	never happened or 
3)	positive statements that had no negative connotations.

It contains three deletions or censored portions:

1)	B.5.2. Exhibit DEF00370, which is the handwritten 
quote of Qing taken by Mr. Brown over the phone  This 
document will be introduced at trial and specifically Amex 
asked that it cannot be shown beforehand by the request of 
Amex.  This proves that Qing admitted to Amex's Vice 
President that Qing breached the June 2000 Amex-Lindner 
contract by giving    any information" about Peter Lindner 
to a prospective employer (Boaz Salik of FischerJordan).  
This also showed that Qing had given negative information 
to  that prospective employer, specifically Qing said "I 
don't think he can work here."  

2)	C.6.  An excerpt from the still sealed, thus secret, 
transcript Amex has requested that this transcript never be 
unsealed.  It disproves the contention by Amex made to a US 
Federal Judge (US District Judge John Koeltl) that Mr. 
Lindner was never stopped from communicating with the SEC. 
In both examples, Amex convinced Magistrate Judge Katz 
(SDNY) to seal the entire transcript, which Mr. Lindner 
seeks to unseal.

a.	This is a two-sentence excerpt, page 4, lines 2-6, and 
lines 12-14.  

b.	A full page screen print of page 4
----------------------------------------------------------------

A. Why Transcripts are Provided: To show that Amex misrepresented 
itself

This entire Shareholder Proposal is based upon American Express' 
(Amex's) failure  to obey the Code of Conduct ("Code") that Amex has 
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in compliance 
with Sarbanes-Oxley.

B.1.  Amex's 3 Objections

In other words, had Amex followed the rules that its own Code given to 
the SEC, then this Shareholder Proposal would not be necessary.  Amex 
has asserted to the SEC
1. that there is no factual basis for Mr. Lindner's Shareholder 
Proposal
2. that this Shareholder Proposal is not a matter of discrimination or 
of a socially important policy, but is instead,  "ordinary business"
3. that it is a personal grievance

You can see these reasons in Amex's 34 page submission to the SEC of 
December 17, 2008:

http://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/cf-noaction/14a-
8/2008/peterlindner121708-14a8-incoming.pdf

B.2.  Did Qing breach Paragraph 13 of the June 2000 Amex-Lindner 
contract?

Mr. Lindner alleges that Qing Lin sexually harassed Peter Lindner in 
1998 as an Amex employee, and then engineered to fire Mr. Lindner and 
then retaliated and provided a bad reference to Mr. Lindner who had 
applied for a job at General Electric.  After an out-of-court June 2000 
Amex-Lindner contract settlement which terms were secret1, peace 
reigned for 5 years until Qing "allegedly" gave "any information" to a 
prospective employer FischerJordan.  Amex investigated this issue 
twice, the second time at the behest of the Secretary of the 
Corporation Stephen Norman, Esq., and found that indeed Qing told 
Fischer Jordan that "I don't think Peter Lindner can work here".  This 
violates paragraph 13 of the June 2000 Amex-Lindner contract, since 7 
people could not give "any information" about Peter Lindner and should 
direct all requests to Human Resources.  Amex proceeded to tell the 
Court in June2008 that actually, Mr. Lindner alleged that Qing provided 
"negative" information; well, that is true to an extent, but the breach 
of contract is for "any information" good/bad/indifferent.   So, 


"4        Q[Mr. Lindner:]    Did they tell you not to disclose any
 5   information?
 6        A [Qing:]    Yes.
 7        Q    Did you disclose any information?
 8        A    Yes.
 9        Q    To whom did you disclose it?
10        A    Boaz Salik."
[page 175, lines 4-10, See Appendix C for Jan 15, 2009 excerpt of Qing 
Lin's sworn testimony]

"16        Q [Mr. Lindner:]   I'd like to ask you one more thing, and
17   then we will break for lunch.  It says, "And to
18   direct all requests for references or inquiries
19   received by such employees regarding Mr. Lindner,
20   to the appropriate Human Resources individuals."
21   Did you direct Mr. Boaz to the appropriate HR,
22   Human Resource individual?
23        A  [Qing:]      No.
24             MR. LINDNER:  Thank you very much.  "
      [page 177]
      
      
The June 2000 Amex-Lindner contract is in the Amended Complaint filed 
in SDNY, and paragraph 13 appears as:

"13. The Company agrees to instruct and direct the following Company 
employees not to disclose any information regarding Mr. Lindner's 
employment or termination of employment from the Company to any person 
outside of the Company and to direct all requests for references or 
inquiries received by such employees regarding Mr. Lindner to the 
appropriate human resources individual(s): Ash Gupta, Qing Lin, Daniel 
Almenara, Raymond Joabar, Wei Chen, Claudia Rose and Richad Tambor."
[Case 1:06-cv-03834-JGK-THK Document 17 Filed 12/20/2006 Page 13 of 16]

This secret document was signed on page 15 by Mr. Lindner, as well as 
Qing's boss, Ash Gupta, who as of May 13, 2009 is Amex's President of 
Banking.


B.3.  Instruct and Direct

	For the record, the General Counsel's office assigned Ash Gupta 
to be the person who would "instruct and direct" the 7 employees, 
including Ash Gupta and Qing Lin according to Amex and to Qing Lin.  
However, this can not be proven, since Amex refused to allow Ash to be 
deposed, and somehow had no documentation of that happening, and then 
refused to allow a search of its archives or personnel folders for that 
proof.  In fact, Amex considered it over broad to produce Mr. Lindner's 
or Qing's personnel file in this EEOC case regarding the violation of 
Title VII of the US Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the violation of the 
NY State and NYC laws on discrimination in employment.  The Judge not 
only agreed with Amex, but felt it would be wrong to compel Amex to 
produce the personnel files of any of these 2-3 people.

	The Magistrate Judge Katz did however compel Ash Gupta to answer 
15 questions, however, Ash only answered one of them, and MJ Katz 
agreed with Amex that Mr. Gupta did not need to answer any of the other 
questions, including whether he found out about what Qing did in March 
2005 and what he did with that information.  Mr. Gupta did answer one 
question, and here it is in full|:


"3. Identify and describe in detail any and all discussions you had 
concerning the 2000 Settlement Agreement with any American Express 
employee.

I do recall the June 2000 Settlement Agreement itself and can confirm 
that I reviewed and signed the Agreement.

I cannot recall any specific discussion I had with Qing Lin dating back 
to 2000 about the requirements of the June 2000 Settlement Agreement.  
However, this does not mean that I did not speak with Mr. Lin about 
these issues.  Mr. Lin was reporting to me in or around June 2000 and 
he is referenced in the June 2000 Settlement Agreement.  It would not 
have been unusual for me to inform Mr. Lin about the June 2000 
Settlement Agreement and to advise him to not disclose any information 
about Mr. Lindner to anyone outside of the Company and to direct any 
inquiries about Mr. Lindner to Human Resources."



Among the 14 of the 15 questions Ash did not answer were these 3 which 
would establish if Ash was ever told by Qing or if Ash was blissfully 
unaware of what Qing did and in fact agreed with Qing's conduct or 
perhaps even did not agree with Qing.  Thus, Mr. Gupta is a wily 
fellow, who can avoid answering such simple questions as to whether his 
direct employee Qing breached in 2005 the document which Mr. Gupta 
signed because of Qing's actions in 1998:

* "Do you agree that Qing Lin's conduct with regard to FJ concerning 
Peter Lindner violated the terms of the 2000 Settlement Agreement?
* If your answer to Question No. 5 is in the affirmative, state with 
particularity what you have done with regard to your having such 
knowledge.
* If your answer to Question No. 5 is in the negative, state with 
particularity the reasons why."

B.4.  Who is Mr. Lindner suing: American Express or TRS?

According to papers filed in NY State to the SDNY, Amex says Mr. 
Lindner is using the wrong name, or perhaps even the wrong firm, in his 
lawsuit:

"PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants, ''. ("American Express or the 
"Company"), erroneously denominated "American Express Corporation,""

Qing Lin has 100 people working for him, or at least he did as of 
January 15, 2009 when he was deposed.  As of Monday, May 11, 2009, Qing 
is no longer working for Amex, and supposedly is now working for Chase 
in Wilmington, Delaware, but Amex refuses to confirm this.  Qing 
reports directly to Ash Gupta, the President of Banking at Amex.  Amex 
is a Bank Holding company:

"AMERICAN EXPRESS GRANTED BANK HOLDING COMPANY STATUS

NEW YORK, November 10, 2008 -- American Express announced today that 
the U.S. Federal Reserve has approved its application to become 
licensed as a bank holding company and to be regulated by the Federal 
Reserve."
http://home3.americanexpress.com/corp/pc/2008/bhc.asp

So, one would have to trust the Bank President's second in command to 
know who he works for: either 
* the 'erroneously denominated "American Express Corporation,"  ' or 
* 'American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc'  (aka TRS)

As it turns out, Qing knows he works for the American Express 
Corporation (lines 15-16), but is unsure about what TRS is (lines 2-3).

"11        Q [Lindner:]   It says, Lindner versus American
12   Express; right?
13             MS. PARK:  We stipulate your
14        Complaint --
15        Q    American Express Corporation?
16        A [Qing:}   Yes.
17        Q    That is the corporation you work for;
18   right?
19        A    Yes.
20        Q    If it said, Lindner versus American
21   Express Travel Related Services, is that the
22   company you work for?
23        A    I do not know the legal structure.  Yes,
24   it could be.
0398
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    Do you work for Travel Related Services?
 3        A    I do not know.  At this moment Travel
 4   Related Services we don't go by the business unit
 5   internally.  So, I do not know the legal
 6   structures.
 7        Q    You work for American Express, yes or
 8   no?
 9        A    Yes."
[See Appendix D: Qing is not sure if he works for TRS, but knows he 
works for American Express]


B.5.  Jason Brown testifies that Qing told him that "I don't think 
Peter can work here"

Here are 3 documents which show that Jason Brown, Esq, an Amex Vice 
President investigating whether Qing breached paragraph 13 of the June 
2000 Amex-Lindner contract against giving "any information" about Mr. 
Lindner.

They are:
1. Jason Brown tells that to Peter on Feb 28, 2006, which Peter Lindner 
writes back to Mr. Brown to confirm (Mr. Brown denies it)
2. Exhibit DEF00370, which is the handwritten quote of Qing taken by 
Mr. Brown over the phone
3. Jason Brown testifies under oath that indeed Qing said that Peter 
Lindner can't work at AXP (the stock symbol for American Express)


B.5.1.  Letter confirming what Brown told Peter Lindner face-to-face 
during the "second investigation"



The above figure shows the email.  Here it is in text:  Mr. Lindner 
wrote to Jason Brown, Amex VP and General Counsel's Office on 
Wednesday, March 01, 2006 2:02 AM, that Qing said to Boaz of 
FischerJordan:  "I don't think he can work here."  This is flagrant 
violation of paragraph 13 of the June 2000 Amex-Lindner contract in 
that it not only gives "any information", it is also negative, and 
quite possibly not even true. :

"Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Jason:

	This memo summarizes our conversation today from 6-7pm at the 
Amex HQ in NYC.  For the record, you had a physically imposing guard (I 
don't know if he was armed or not) asking to stay in the room while we 
talked, but you told him that he could wait outside.  I'm sorry that 
you feel that I am violent.  I am not.  But I am determined.  So let me 
* summarize our talk and 
* point out how Qing admitted to you (an officer of the court) of him 
violating the Amex Lindner Agreement of June 2000, and 
* suggest what you should do next to conclude this matter.

	I appreciate that you told me that during your investigation so 
far that Qing Lin admitted to talking about me to Boaz Salik.  
Specifically, you said that Qing told you that when Boaz mentioned to 
Qing that Boaz was thinking of hiring me, that Qing said "I don't think 
he can work here."  

	Well, it's not what Boaz told me about that conversation, "

And Jason replied in a terse, lawyer-esque way that he does not agree:

"Mr. Lindner, 

Rather than respond point by point to your email, I write to inform you 
that I do not agree with much of what is raised below including, but 
not limited to, your memorialization of our conversation. 

I will call you after I have spoken to Boaz. 
Thanks, 
Jason"
[Wednesday, March 01, 2006 8:08 PM]





B.5.2. Exhibit DEF00370, which is the handwritten quote of Qing taken 
by Mr. Brown over the phone



B.5.3.  Jason Brown testifies under oath that indeed Qing said that 
Peter Lindner can't work at AXP (the stock symbol for American Express)

Under oath on January 22, 2009, Jason Brown declares that Qing said to 
FischerJordan:
* "Peter is technical"
* "I'm not sure whether he can be used on at AXP."

Paragraph 13 of the June 2000 Amex-Lindner contract said Qing should 
not give "any information".

"      MR. LINDNER:  We're back to
        plaintiff 11.  DEF00370.
               MS. PARK:  And what section are you
        referring to?
        A. [Mr. Brown, Esq, Amex VP]    Where are we?
        Q. [Mr. Lindner:]   You see where your quote marks are?
        A.     "Peter is technical," yeah.
        Q.     Two lines below that.
        A.     "I'm not sure whether he can be used
  on an AXP."
        Q.     What's AXP?
        A.     I think it was cut off.  I didn't
  write project or --
        Q.     What's AXP? 
                     J.K. Brown
        A.     Oh, I'm sorry.  American Express.
        Q.     Okay.  So Qing is saying that he's
  not sure whether Peter Lindner, me, whether I can
  be used at American Express; is that correct?"

[Transcript of Jason K. Brown, Esq., January 22, 2009,  10:34 a.m., 
pages 216, line 11, to page 217 line 5]

B.6. The Cover-up: Mr. Brown, Esq. omits from his summary of his second 
"investigation" the statement Qing made in breach of the agreement

In Appendix F, the sworn deposition of Jason Brown, Esq., Amex VP  
shows that:
1. Jason Brown first "investigated" in July/August 2005 upon Peter 
Lindner's complaint (letters omitted)
2. Peter Lindner asked Secretary of the Corporation Stephen Norman to 
investigate if Qing violated the Amex Code of Conduct, which Amex filed 
with the SEC under the Sarbanes-Oxley law, and which requires employees 
who have an ethical problem in the past or a potential problem to ask 
their "leader" (manager), who in this case would be Ash Gupta, and the 
"leader" would consult with the Amex Secretary of the Corporation.  Mr. 
Norman then asked Jason Brown to investigate again.  (letter omitted 
from Mr. Lindner, and Amex refused to allow Mr. Norman's letters or 
emails to be turned over, and the Judge agreed with Amex and refused to 
allow Mr. Norman to be deposed.  Ms. Park convinced Magistrate Judge 
Katz that neither Mr. Gupta, nor Mr. Norman should be deposed, and Ms. 
Park misrepresented that neither had a connection with the instant 
case, yet the Judge believed Ms. Park:

"     16    [Ms. Park:]  Mr. Norman has nothing
       15    to do with the settlement agreement, has nothing to do 
with the
       16    alleged breach of that agreement and we see no basis for 
his
       17    production as a witness.  Mr. Gupta similarly.
[...]
       23             THE COURT:  Okay.  As of now, I'm going to grant 
your
       24    request to depose Mr. Lin and Mr. Brown.  I'm going to 
deny the
       25    request to depose Mr. Norman and Mr. Gupta, two high-level
                            SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
                                      (212) 805-0300
                                                                           
21
             86BFLINC
        1    officers or supervisors at American Express who were -- 
there's
        2    no, at least basis other than speculation to suggest that 
they
        3    had any involvement in the allegations underlying the 
complaint
        4    or have any knowledge relevant to that.  If you learn 
something
        5    different from Mr. Lin or Mr. Brown, we can revisit the 
issue.
        6             Okay.  Now --
        7             MR. LINDNER:  Peter Lindner.  Can I say 
something?
        8             THE COURT:  Briefly.  Just briefly.
        9             MR. LINDNER:  Pardon?
       10             THE COURT:  Yes, briefly.
       11             MR. LINDNER:  Okay, thank you.  If some of the
       12    statements that Ms. Park made were incorrect, would that 
change
       13    your mind?
       14             THE COURT:  Just, I've heard from you.  I don't 
really
       15    want to have another back and forth about this.
       16             MR. LINDNER:  I think she misstated the case.  I 
think
       17    Ash Gupta did not find out a year later or several months
       18    later.  He found out within one week of me finding out, so 
I
       19    think she misrepresented that while my case was active 
with the
       20    lawyer that I wrote him.  And, Ms. Park, do you still 
maintain
       21    that's an issue?
       22             THE COURT:  Let's move on."
[June 11, 2008 Teleconference, page 20, 86BFLINC]

3. Jason Brown informed Peter Lindner that Qing said "I don't think 
Peter can work here" in February 2006, but then refused to confirm that 
in writing.
4. Jason Brown summarized his findings to Peter Lindner, but omitted 
that "I don't think Peter can work here"
5. Jason Brown did not remember if he sent a copy of this coverup to 
the person who asked the he investigate.

C.  Amex's misstatement to a Federal Judge in NY State: did MJ Katz 
ever stop Mr. Lindner from communicating with the SEC?

Moreover, Amex's lead attorney Jean Park has indicated to a Federal 
Judge that Amex has not stopped Peter Lindner from filing with the SEC, 
and repeated that falsehood a week later even after it was pointed out 
to them in Open Court and in writing.

So, let's start with the last thing first:

Peter Lindner here tells US District Judge John Koeltl of the SDNY 
(Southern District of NY) a week before the Amex Annual Shareholder 
Meeting on April 27, 2009:

"                                                                           
3
             94n3linc                 Motion
        1   [Mr. Lindner:] And when I wanted to go to the shareholders 
meeting in
        2    2007, again this time I filed on the SEC Web site, AmEx 
got a
        3    court order to stop me from communicating with the SEC, to 
ask
        4    me to withdraw my filing from the SEC, to take down my Web
        5    site, to not attend the shareholders meeting, to not ask 
my
        6    questions.
        7             And what's more amazing is that in the last 
week's
        8    April 14 meeting in front of your Honor, Joe Sacca said 
AmEx
        9    has never tried to stop communication with the SEC.  I 
stood up
       10    and corrected his misimpression.  So I was quite surprised 
to
       11    see in his brief that Ms. Park said that American Express 
never
       12    tried to stop me from communicating with the Securities 
and
       13    Exchange Commission.  I don't know why they keep saying 
that.
       14    And in fact it's even in their own exhibit where they 
quote
       15    from my filing with the SEC.  I note that AmEx, on 
Defendant's
       16    Exhibit 17, that I think it's 17.  I'm sorry.  Anyhow, 
they
       17    note that I was stopped from communicating with the SEC."
[Transcript, April 23, 2009, 6:30 p.m., page 3 ; emphasis added]

So, Peter Lindner says above that Amex falsely asserts that Amex has 
never stopped Mr. Lindner from communicating with the SEC.  Jean Park's 
hired gun Joe Sacca for the "securities law" portion of the case writes 
a joint brief with Ms. Park (who is a partner in Kelley Drye & Warren 
LLP2, a large international law firm, with a NY Office), and then 

      "                                                                   
10
             94n3linc                 Motion
        9             MR. SACCA:  Good afternoon, your Honor.  I will 
be
       10    very brief.  I don't intend to repeat anything that was in 
our
       11    papers, unless your Honor would like clarification.
       12             I would like to address just a couple points.  
One is
       13    the accusation that we've made misrepresentations to the 
Court
       14    about Mr. Lindner's ability to communicate with the SEC.  
There
       15    is in fact no evidence in the record that Mr. Lindner was 
under
       16    any prohibition from responding to the SEC in response to
       17    American Express' request for no action."
[emphasis added; same document]

C.2. Lindner is forced to take down his website and not communicate to 
the SEC

And here's where Peter Lindner is forced to take down his website and 
stop communicating to the SEC as per Amex's stipulation in their 
settlement which Amex was forcing upon Mr. Lindner, despite the 
document allowing Peter Lindner to sign it and withdraw from it within 
7 days.  Here Mr. Lindner is forced to take down his website, and that 
is followed by the quote from the original agreement that gave Mr. 
Lindner the ability to sign the document and then revoke it within 7 
days:

"Friday, April 06, 2007
...
Dear Judge Koeltl,

	Upon further reflection and in consultation with another 
attorney, I have decided to abide by the terms of settlement set forth 
before Judge Katz on Mar 29, 2007.

	I repeat my advice to all parties that I have closed my website 
and have notified the SEC verbally that I wished to withdraw my filing 
for the directorship and for the shareholder proposal, although the SEC 
has advised me that such withdrawal can NOT be done.  I am awaiting 
further advice from the SEC.

	As I have continued to do, I will abide by the confidentiality 
agreement.

Sincerely,
 
Peter W. Lindner"
[Pacer Document 37-7, Filed 04/17/2007, Page 2 of 2; emphasis added]

C.3. Mr. Lindner was previously given the right to sign an agreement 
with Amex and withdraw within 7 days - this document was subsumed by 
the alleged oral agreement:

"20. Mr. Lindner acknowledges that he has been represented by an 
attorney of his
choice, and that he has been given 21 days to review this agreement 
from the time he received it. Mr. Lindner is further advised that he 
has 7 days after he signs this agreement to revoke it by notifying the 
company's Employment Law Group in writing."



C.4.  Amex points out 3 of the many restrictions upon Mr. Lindner are 
lifted

And here Amex's Ms. Jean Park of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP says that the 
3 items of the [as of May 12, 2009 it is still] secret agreement 
imposed upon Peter Lindner, which Mr. Lindner spent $20,000 in legal 
fees to overturn by September 2007.   The three items Mr. Lindner 
mentions in lines 9-12 are:

* Peter Lindner was not allowed to 
1. to speak at a shareholder meeting,  
2. to communicate with the SEC
3. to have a website, or a blog.

Perhaps Mr. Sacca, Esq. was ignorant of the secret agreement which Ms. 
Park wrote, but Ms. Park was not; perhaps Mr. Sacca wanted to say that 
the prior restraint by Amex was not entered into the record because 
Amex got the Judge to withhold it from the record, but I believe this 
is profiting from one's own wrongdoing.


"                       SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
                                      (212) 805-0300
                                                                           
6
             794FLINC
        1             MS. PARK:  Very good.
        2             MR. LINDNER:  Yes, well, there's one thing I'd 
like a
        3    clarification on, if I may, on the discovery process.  
It's
        4    actually, it's not on discovery, but on the Magistrate 
Judge
        5    Katz.  The magistrate had made some rulings restraining 
me, and
        6    in light of your Honor's decision that there was no 
settlement
        7    agreement reached, I'd like clarification here that the
        8    magistrate's interim rulings should no longer restrain me.  
I
        9    have three examples.  One, was I was not allowed to speak 
at a
       10    shareholder meeting, I was not allowed to communicate with 
the
       11    Securities and Exchange Commission and I was not allowed 
to
       12    have a website, among other restrictions.
       13             THE COURT:  Ms. Park?  Do you have a position?
       14             MS. PARK:  Yes.  I believe Mr. Lindner has
       15    misapprehended Magistrate Judge Katz' rulings.  Magistrate
       16    Judge Katz had simply -- the three terms or items that
       17    Mr. Lindner rattled off I believe pertained to the terms 
of
       18    your Honor's settlement.  So per force your Honor's
       19    determination ruling there is no enforceable settlement,
       20    Mr. Lindner would not be bound by any restrictions 
pursuant to
       21    a settlement agreement that was deemed not to be a 
settlement
       22    agreement.
       23             THE COURT:  So the three items you mentioned the
       24    defendant agrees were terms of the purported settlement
       25    agreement that I found were not enforceable, so they're 
not
                                                                           
7
             794FLINC
1 binding"
[USDJ Koeltl, September 4, 2007,  5:15 p.m.]

C.5.  Who do you believe:  a 60,000 employee firm represented by a top 
law firm, or a former employee?

Well, that's pretty credible, right?  I mean, who do you believe: 
American Express or Peter Lindner?  Or look at their lawyers:

* Amex has both 
o Kelley Drye & Warren LLP and 	
o (for its securities): Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP & 
Affiliates3
* Mr. Lindner has, uh, well, Mr. Lindner.

Okay, you got me.  Judging from appearances, clearly Amex is right, and 
Mr. Lindner is wrong, since Amex would not file a false statement with 
a Federal Judge nor would they repeat a false statement to that Judge 
when challenged, nor would they file a false statement with the SEC.  
These are serious charges.  Surely Amex would not make such a statement 
if it were not true. And, by the way, Ms. Park only has rudimentary 
Securities knowledge, so Amex and she asked The Court for permission to 
bring in specialists in Securities' law.  And, I don't mean to lecture 
the SEC or the banking analysts, but:

* if you can't believe a law firm that specializes in securities for 
telling the truth to a Federal Judge in their home federal district, 
SDNY, well, then,  whom can you believe?  
* Both of these fine lawyers  (Park and Sacca)
o are Officers of the Court, and 
o are forbidden under Federal Rules from making an untrue statement to 
the Court, and 
o maybe even intending to deceive the Court if NY State Law is to be 
used for a case originally filed in NY (rather than Federal) Court, and
* Amex is bound by SEC regulations not to misled 
o either the SEC 
o or the investing public.

 	And, as Ms. Park would have Magistrate Judge Katz believe, merely 
proving a document in secret to the SEC is sufficient.  However, I 
(Peter Lindner) tried to inform MJ Katz that Amex wished to hide the 
evidence, and that merely filing a document is insufficient to show 
that the document is true.  Well, if that were the case that telling 
the SEC something must make it true, we would not have Enron or any 
other stock swindle. (See Appendix B for Transcript of Amex trying to 
convince Judge to censor Mr. Lindner's submissions to the SEC, since 
the SEC alone needs to judge a stock, not the public, nor the bank and 
stock analysts.)

C.6.  An excerpt from the still sealed, thus secret, transcript

So, having said all that, I feel I am forced to show the still sealed 
transcript of March 29, 2007.  While the transcript is secret, 
Magistrate Judge Katz explicitly permitted in two of his orders of 
3/23/2009 and 4/21/2009 that allow transcripts to be used in submission 
to the SEC in public and that no restrictions on Mr. Lindner's 
communications with the SEC (see Appendix D for :

"That Mr. Lindner, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;"
[page 4 of 13, Thursday, March 29, 2007, "Transcript Of Settlement 
Conference Before The Honorable Theodore H. Katz United States District 
Judge".  This document is still under seal by MJ Katz, and this portion 
is specifically released in order to prove that Amex lied to a Federal 
Judge, and made a false statement in furtherance of preventing Mr. 
Lindner's Shareholder Proposal of April 2009.]

The above excerpt from the alleged oral agreement that Amex tried to 
force Mr. Lindner into accepting








Thus (arguably?) Amex actually lied to the SEC when Amex said in their 
brief to the SEC that Mr. Lindner could not prove  my allegations, when 
what they meant was that as long as they controlled the Judge who 
controlled the documents, Mr. Lindner could not prove he was right.  
However, Amex did not say: if we allowed our documents to be public, 
Mr. Lindner could prove his allegations, however, we managed to 
convince a Judge to let him keep those documents under seal, and 
instead make it look like Amex is right and fighting a lying person who 
has a grudge (oh wait, they use the word "disgruntled").  Here's what 
Amex said about Mr. Lindner's claims being not only false, but not 
provable:

[Page. 4 of 34, Amex to SEC, December 17, 2008, with omissions of some 
sentences]
http://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/cf-noaction/14a-
8/2008/peterlindner121708-14a8-incoming.pdf




Appendix A:  Excerpts of Amex April 17 2009 Brief on Mr. Lindner 
Shareholder Proposal

The document below shows two things:
1 Ms. Park and Joe Sacca co-wrote the brief to USDJ Koeltl
2 They say "Magistrate Judge Katz never imposed any order to prevent 
Mr. Lindner from making a submission to the SEC".  
Ms. Park got MJ Katz specifically to stop Mr. Lindner from 
communicating to the SEC in April 2007, and got that transcript sealed.  
Some interested analyst should ask Amex to unseal the transcript of the 
Thursday, March 29, 2007.
Mr. Lindner wishes it were true that NY Judiciary 487 were applicable4 
(it may be), since Ms. Park specifically got MJ Katz to prohibit Mr. 
Lindner from communicating with the SEC, so Ms. Park and Mr. Sacca are 
intending to deceive the Court in a NY location. 



 Appendix B Transcript of Amex trying to convince Judge to censor 
Lindner's submissions to the SEC

April 21, 2009, 10 a.m. with
* Hon. Theodore h. Katz, Magistrate Judge
* Peter Lindner (Pro Se)
* Jean Y. Park of Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

Ms. Park wants documents submitted to the SEC 6 days before the Amex 
Annual Shareholder Meeting to be censored by Ms. Park and also 
submitted in secrecy.  Mr. Lindner instead wants the documents to be 
freely available.  

On pages 2-3, Mr. Lindner explains to Judge Katz that a submission to 
the SEC should be open, available to all, and not done in a secret 
"supplemental submission". (lines 10-13)




"                                                                    2
             94LSLINDNER
        1             (Telephone conference)
        2             THE COURT:  Good morning, this is Judge Katz.
        3             I have reporter here so identify yourself when 
you
        4    speak and give me a chance to speak as well because you 
can't
        5    hear me if you don't stop.  There is only one person who 
can be
        6    heard on the telephone.
        7             I wanted to resolve the open issues about your 
request
        8    for these documents.  You know, I issued an order 
yesterday
        9    permitting you to submit certain documents to the SEC.
       10             Ms. Park has asked that you provide those to the 
SEC
       11    as a supplemental submission.
       12             Do you have a problem with that, Mr. Lindner?
       13             MR. LINDNER:  Yes, I do.
       14             THE COURT:  What is your problem?
       15             MR. LINDNER:  The problem is the purpose of the 
SEC is
       16    to provide information to shareholders and to provide that 
the
       17    information is true and just because she posted it doesn't 
mean
       18    it's true.  So people should be able to evaluate that
       19    information on their own.  We know that we had Enron which 
was
       20    a stock company and didn't play well and a lot of people 
were
       21    watching it.  So just posting on the SEC site is not good.  
SEC
       22    approval is not good.  What you need is people to evaluate 
it.
       23    Even then it might not be, good but at least it's better 
than
       24    not having information at all.
       25             THE COURT:  Well, first back up a little bit.  I
                            SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
                                      (212) 805-0300
                                                                           
3
             94LSLINDNER
        1    thought the whole basis of your request is that you said 
that
        2    the SEC was soliciting additional information from you in
        3    respect to your application and you wanted to respond to 
their
        4    request, did you not?
        5             MR. LINDNER:  Right.
        6             THE COURT:  So why don't you focus on that.
        7             MR. LINDNER:  I am.
        8             THE COURT:  So why can't you respond to their 
request
        9    through a supplemental submission?
       10             MR. LINDNER:  Well, I can do that and if American
       11    Express got their way I wouldn't submit it at all, which 
is
       12    what they tried to do 2 years ago and what they are trying 
to
       13    do now.
       14             So American Express in short released parts of 
the
       15    transcript in whole without any editing at all, without 
asking
       16    me, and now they want to impose a standard that I can't do
       17    that.  In fact, I have to not only do that but I have to 
meet
       18    some vague editing standard of their own and can I show it 
to
       19    other people.  So I think basically they are inconsistent.  
And
       20    another thing, and I think this is a broader question, is 
why
       21    are they asking that?  When the Pentagon papers --
       22             THE COURT:  Don't get into the Pentagon papers.
       23             MR. LINDNER:  It's freedom of speech.  What are 
they
       24    protecting?  I would like to know from American Express."
[...]


On page 23-24, Mr. Lindner explains that Ms. Park wants the documents 
to not be available in a searchable format, in order to hide 
information from the public, which the SEC is protecting and giving 
information to. (lines  5-20 )


       "24             THE COURT:  -- if you submit them you can deal 
with
       25    that by submitting it to the SEC as a supplemental 
submission
                            SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
                                      (212) 805-0300
                                                                           
24
             94LSLINDNER
        1    and then we don't have to deal with the issue today of
        2    confidentiality.
        3             MR. LINDNER:  I am not going to submit it.  She 
also
        4    said it's not electronic form and a whole bunch of things.
        5    There is a standard way to do it, your Honor.  But what I 
am
        6    saying, and I think Jean Park missed the point on this, 
the
        7    material for the SEC is not for the SEC, any more than 
when a
        8    drug company submits something to the FDA it's for the 
FDA.
        9    The FDA checks if it's reasonable, but you know who reads 
that?
       10    All the patients and all the doctors who take the 
medicine.
       11    That is what the FDA does.  And the SEC -- and I have
       12    rudimentary knowledge too.  The SEC does not check out the
       13    claims but they make a rudimentary check and then people 
all
       14    over the world see for themselves.  So that is why when 
the
       15    woman in the FDA case, the drug company said that she lost 
her
       16    arm because she was doing something and the FDA already
       17    approved it and the court said, no, that the FDA is like a
       18    minimum standard.  The drug company can go to a higher 
standard
       19    so that her arm wouldn't get agitated and that was decided 
by
       20    the Supreme Court."


[94LSLINDNER]



Appendix C: Qing Lin's sworn deposition of January 15, 2009



"20        Q    Qing, have you ever been instructed and
21   directed, as you understand it, as you read
22   paragraph 13?  Yes or no?
23        A    About paragraph 13?
24        Q    What it says, yes.  Have you ever been
0176
 1                            Lin
 2   instructed and directed?
 3        A    Yes.
 4        Q    Did they tell you not to disclose any
 5   information?
 6        A    Yes.
 7        Q    Did you disclose any information?
 8        A    Yes.
 9        Q    To whom did you disclose it?
10        A    Boaz Salik.
11        Q    B-o-a-z S-a-l-i-k?
12        A    Yes.
13        Q    Did you do that after I was hired by
14   them or before I was hired by them?
15             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  You
16        haven't even established that he knows if
17        you were hired.
18        Q    Do you know if I was hired by them?
19        A    No.
20        Q    Do you know if they talked to you before
21   I was hired by them?
22             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  He has
23        already testified he doesn't even know if
24        you were hired.
0177
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    Did they ask you for a reference?
 3        A    Yes.
 4        Q    Did you provide them information?
 5             MS. PARK:  Objection to form.  Who is
 6        "Them?"
 7        Q    Did you provide "Any information," to
 8   Boaz Salik?
 9             MS. PARK:  Objection.  Asked and
10        answered.
11        Q    I'm asking you to please answer it
12   again.
13        A    Yes.
14             MR. LINDNER:  Yes, you did.  Okay,
15        thank you.
16        Q    I'd like to ask you one more thing, and
17   then we will break for lunch.  It says, "And to
18   direct all requests for references or inquiries
19   received by such employees regarding Mr. Lindner,
20   to the appropriate Human Resources individuals."
21   Did you direct Mr. Boaz to the appropriate HR,
22   Human Resource individual?
23        A    No.
24             MR. LINDNER:  Thank you very much.  We
0178
 1                            Lin
 2        can break for lunch.
 3             MS. PARK:  Could you note the time?
 4             THE STENOGRAPHER:  2:05."




Appendix D: Qing is not sure if he works for TRS, but knows he works 
for American Express


"16        Q [Mr. Lindner:]   Is American Express a subsidiary of
17   another corporation?
18        A  [Qing:]  No.
19        Q    And you work for American Express?
20        A    Yes.
21        Q    The title of the suit is Lindner versus
22   American Express.  Do you feel --
23             MS. PARK:  Asked and answered.
24        Q    Do you feel that's an accurate --
0397
 1                            Lin
 2        A    I do not know.
 3        Q    So, if it said, Lindner versus General
 4   Electric, you would feel you wouldn't known that
 5   either?
 6        A    That is your decision who to sue.
 7        Q    No, no, the statement says American
 8   Express.
 9             MS. PARK:  Mr. Lindner --
10             MR. LINDNER:  Please --
11        Q    It says, Lindner versus American
12   Express; right?
13             MS. PARK:  We stipulate your
14        Complaint --
15        Q    American Express Corporation?
16        A    Yes.
17        Q    That is the corporation you work for;
18   right?
19        A    Yes.
20        Q    If it said, Lindner versus American
21   Express Travel Related Services, is that the
22   company you work for?
23        A    I do not know the legal structure.  Yes,
24   it could be.
0398
 1                            Lin
 2        Q    Do you work for Travel Related Services?
 3        A    I do not know.  At this moment Travel
 4   Related Services we don't go by the business unit
 5   internally.  So, I do not know the legal
 6   structures.
 7        Q    You work for American Express, yes or
 8   no?
 9        A    Yes.
10        Q    Do you work for American Express Travel
11   Related Services?
12             MS. PARK:  Objection, asked and
13        answered.
14             MR. LINDNER:  I'm asking him a
15        question.
16             THE VIDEOGRAPHER:  I'm going to run
17        out of tape.
18             MR. LINDNER:  Okay, I understand,
19        please.
20        A    I do not know at this moment.
21        Q    You don't know if work with Travel
22   Related Services?
23        A    I do not know.
24        Q    Do you work for American Express?
0399
 1                            Lin
 2        A    Yes.
 3        Q    Do you work for American Express,
 4   Corporation?
 5        A    Yes.
 6             MR. LINDNER:  Thank you very much.
 7        End of the deposition."




Appendix E:  In March and April 2009, the Magistrate Judge orders no 
restrictions upon Mr. Lindner communicating with the SEC and 
specifically allows transcripts to be used

By the way, there are both audio tapes and some videotapes of the 
admissions made by Amex, however Amex said that they might be used on 
the Web, and the Judge agreed with Amex and confiscated those tapes.  
As MJ Katz's Pacer Document #120 stated his view that "no other 
legitimate use of video outside of trial"

This is despite MJ Katz's previous order of December 23, 2008 which 
allowed videos:

"Plaintiff seeks leave to videotape the upcoming depositions he has 
notice of Defendant's employees, over Defendant's objection.  The court 
is advised that Plaintiff also intends to audiotape the depositions.  
Yet, Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, does not intent to have any 
third-party assistance for either method of recording.  Under these 
circumstances, Plaintiff's request is denied.
The Court has an interest in ensuring that the depositions proceed in 
an orderly and efficient manner.  Indeed, it is in Plaintiff's, as well 
as Defendant's interest, that this occurs.  Based upon the Court's 
extensive involvement in pretrial matters in this action, there is 
reason to be concerned that Plaintiff will have substantial difficulty 
in simply conducting the questioning of the witnesses in an efficient 
and appropriate manner.  The Court will permit Plaintiff to audiotape 
the depositions, with the understanding that copies of the tapes and a 
certified transcript must be produced.  However, Plaintiff's operating 
the tape device and questioning the witnesses will present enough of a 
challenge; adding the operation of a video recorder to Plaintiff's 
responsibilities will inevitably result in disruptions and lack of 
coherence to the proceedings.
Accordingly, unless Plaintiff is prepared to employ independent 
videotaping personnel, Plaintiff is precluded from videotaping the 
depositions.
So Ordered."
[Pacer Document 106 Filed 12/23/2008]"

Mr. Lindner notes here that Amex is preventing public knowledge of its 
employees' actions by asking the Judge to rule against video tapes, 
(well, Amex also wanted supplementary submissions that could be buried 
and hard to find, if not impossible).  This is despite the SEC's 
willingness to use YouTube, MySpace, etc, and that this should not 
limit documents to being "printer friendly ... unless other rules 
explicitly require it", as SEC Chairman Christopher Cox said:

"Web sites such as MySpace, YouTube, LinkedIn, and Facebook didn't even 
exist. The idea of creating a social network where shareholders could 
meet and exchange views was barely imaginable. "Blogs" hadn't really 
entered the public lexicon. And syndication technologies - such as Atom 
and RSS - were still in development. But as each of these technological 
developments has taken hold in the marketplace, that in turn has raised 
new securities law issues for public companies to consider.

Technological advances, and the reduced costs associated with the 
implementation of technologies over time, now allow the inclusion of 
more interactive and current information on company web sites than was 
the case previously. That has moved web sites beyond just being filing 
cabinets for electronic documents. Today, company web sites are being 
shaped by the market's desire for highly current and interactive 
information. We recognize that allowing companies to present data in 
formats different from those dictated by our forms, or more 
technologically advanced than EDGAR, can be a significant help to 
investors.
...
Fourth and finally, recognizing the significant developments in web 
site design to incorporate interactive and dynamic design features, the 
guidance would clarify that information need not be presented to 
satisfy a "printer-friendly" standard, unless other rules explicitly 
require it."
["Open Meeting on the Use of Company Web Sites," by SEC Chairman 
Christopher Cox, Washington, D.C., July 30, 2008]
http://sec.gov/news/speech/2008/spch073008cc_web.htm

"The Court has placed no restrictions on Plaintiff's communications 
with the SEC.
So ordered.
3/23/2009 Theodore H. Katz, USMJ"
[Case 1:06-cv-03834-JGK-THK Document 143 Filed 03/23/2009 Page 1 of 1]



Here in the last 2 pages of the 4/21/2009 telephone conference 
requested by Ms. Park to stop Mr. Lindner from filing transcripts with 
the SEC.  In lines 13-22, MJ Katz allows large portions of the 
transcripts to be used, but not the entire transcript, and The Judge 
declares he will not write an order, but that Mr. Lindner should just 
order the transcript and include it.  This is done as follows: 

"      8             THE COURT:  Mr. Lindner, look, I don't have all 
day to
        9    spend on the conference.  Every time you get something you
       10    asked for you then decide that is not good enough and you 
have
       11    to inject a lot of other material.
       12             MR. LINDNER:  What other material?
       13             THE COURT:  You asked to submit to the SEC 
evidence of
       14    your position that there were admissions made about 
violating
       15    the agreement with you.
       16             MR. LINDNER:  Yes.
       17             THE COURT:  I said that is not confidential.  You 
can
       18    submit that.  Ms. Park has agreed to your submitting it.  
You
       19    can post whatever you want about that.  That is what we 
were
       20    addressing and that is what has been ruled on.
       21             Okay?
       22             MR. LINDNER:  Yes.
       23             THE COURT:  And --
       24             MR. LINDNER:  You are going to make an order out 
of
       25    this, right?  I can use that and post that too so that 
it's
                            SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
                                      (212) 805-0300
                                                                           
30
             94LSLINDNER
        1    clear that I am following your order.
        2             THE COURT:  Mr. Lindner, you have my direction.
        3             Do you understand that?
        4             MR. LINDNER:  I understand but, you know, I would 
like
        5    the transcript.
        6             THE COURT:  So order the transcript.  You can 
order
        7    the transcript.  That is fine.
        8             MR. LINDNER:  Okay.
        9             But you are not going to write an order on that.
       10             THE COURT:  I have issued an order on the record.  
Do
       11    you have any questions about what it means?
       12             MR. LINDNER:  In other words, your prior order on 
no
       13    restriction on the SEC and 1 through 5 are released.
       14             THE COURT:  Mr. Lindner, I issued an order on the
       15    record today.
       16             MR. LINDNER:  Which is I cannot release the 
entire
       17    document but I can release excerpts to the SEC in open 
format.
       18             THE COURT:  The excerpts you said you wanted to 
submit
       19    which has to do with whether there was a breach of the
       20    agreement, yes.  Okay?
       21             MR. LINDNER:  Yes.
       22             Thank you very much.
       23             THE COURT:  You are welcome.  Thank you.
       24             MS. PARK:  Thank you, your Honor.
       25             THE COURT:  You are welcome."
[April 21, 2009, 10am, Transcript #94LSLINDNER]



Appendix F:  Jason Brown's 3rd coverup by omitting Qing's violation 
remark from an investigation, and not indicating whether he copied the 
investigation summary also to the person who asked him to investigate, 
Secretary of the Corporation Stephen Norman


The dialogue goes from page 339 line 18 to  343 line 7.

Jason admits that he did not include the quote "I'm not sure whether he 
can be used on an AXP"  in the summary letter, even though Mr. Lindner 
pointed out that very sentence as proof of a breach by Qing of 
paragraph 13 of the June 2000 Amex-Lindner contract.

Mr. Brown not only omits that sentence, but also does not indicate 
whether that document was given to the person who asked Mr. Brown to do 
a second investigation of Qing, with the first one being in July/August 
2005, and the second in January - April 2006, requested by Secretary of 
the Corporation Stephen Norman, Esq.

"        Q.[Lindner:]     And that there is no evidence of a
  code of conduct violation; correct?
        A. [Brown:]    That's what it says.
        Q.     And you omitted -- now, if they got
  that -- that letter, you omitted one of Qing's
  statements, namely, that I don't know whether
  Peter can work here at American Express."

Here's the too lengthy questioning:

"Q.    .[Lindner:]   You have the part which is indented
  where it has a quote.  I'm talking about
  Plaintiff's Exhibit 11.  Can you read that
  sentence?
        A.   [Brown:]      "I'm not sure whether he can be used
  on an AXP."
        Q.     Why did you not include that in your 
                     J.K. Brown
  letter?
        A.     Why did I not include this in my
  letter to you?  Is that what you're asking me?
        Q.     Yes.
        A.     There was no reason for me to
  include it.
        Q.     Do you think anybody still has a
  copy of this letter?
        A.     I don't know who you would have sent
  it to.
        Q.     Would you have sent it to anyone
  else?
        A.     I don't think so.  Well, you've
  shown me the e-mail that you said attached it.
  And it was only to you.
        Q.     Could you have bcc'd it?
        A.     I could have.  I don't recall doing
  it.
        Q.     What does bcc mean?
        A.     Blind copy.
        Q.     And would that show up on a
  document?
        A.     I don't know.  If it was -- no.  I 
                     J.K. Brown
  don't think it would show up on a document.
        Q.     That's why it's called blind?
        A.     Okay.  Thank you for that
  enlightenment.
        Q.     Not at all.
        A.     But if you're asking me, do I
  believe bcc'ing anyone on it --
        Q.     Yes.
        A.     -- the answer is no.
        Q.     But one way to tell if it was bcc'd
  is by searching, for instance, Steven Norman's
  files, and Qing's files, and Ash Gupta's files to
  see if they got a copy of it.  And if they got a
  copy, it would show up as a letter from you to me
  without their names attached; correct?
        A.     I don't know how it would appear.
        Q.     If it's a bcc?
        A.     Right.
        Q.     If you bcc'd Steven Norman, would
  Steven Norman have it on his e-mail?
        A.     He would have received it on his
  e-mail, yes.
        Q.     And that's what I'm requesting, that 
                     J.K. Brown
  we get that e-mail.  We search Steven Norman's
  e-mails and Ash Gupta's e-mails to determine if
  they were informed by Jason Brown, the
  investigator of a complaint, for both the
  violation of the code of conduct, which you
  reference in the next-to-last sentence, and of
  the settlement agreement, which you mention in
  the first paragraph, and see if they ever got
  this summary, which states that there is no
  violation of said agreement.  There is no
  violation agreement, correct, of the settlement
  agreement?
               MS. PARK:  Objection to form.
        A.     Yes.
        Q.     And that there is no evidence of a
  code of conduct violation; correct?
        A.     That's what it says.
        Q.     And you omitted -- now, if they got
  that -- that letter, you omitted one of Qing's
  statements, namely, that I don't know whether
  Peter can work here at American Express.
        A.     Did I include any of his statements
  in here? 
                     J.K. Brown
        Q.     Yes, you did.
        A.     Oh, I didn't realize.
        Q.     Yes, you did.  You said in the
  second paragraph that he denies making statements
  regarding work ethic or fit into the culture or
  whether you worked well with your group."
1 The Amended Complaint has a secrecy clause in paragraph 11, but that 
secrecy disappeared when Qing breached the June 2000 Amex-Lindner 
contract in March2005.  Here's the secrecy paragraph excerpt:

"11. Mr. Lindner represents and agrees that he will keep the terms and 
the amount of this Agreement completely confidential, that he has not 
disclosed and will not hereafter disclose any information concerning 
this Agreement to anyone, including, but not limited to, any past, 
present or prospective employees of the Company, except as required by 
law and to secure advice from a legal or tax advisor."
2 For the record, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP claims on their website:

"Founded in 1836, Kelley Drye is proud to represent some of the world's 
most accomplished businesses and organizations. The Firm has more than 
375 attorneys and professionals throughout our offices in New York; 
Washington, DC; Chicago; Stamford; Parsippany; and Brussels, and an 
affiliate office in Mumbai."
3 Skadden is the 6th largest US law firm, but has only been retained by 
Amex in the Lindner v Amex case for securities law; it has 1,790 
attorneys with  393 partners. Kelley Drye & Warren LLP is #131; it has 
321 attorneys, and Ms. Jean Park is one of its 100 partners.

[source: "America's Largest 250 Law Firms", Internet Legal Research 
Group]
http://www.ilrg.com/nlj250

4 The law applies to intent to deceive, even if the deceit fails.  
Secondly, it is (from my non-legal perspective) a criminal misdemeanor, 
which could result in the loss of the license to practice law:

"[NY State] Section 487 of New York's Judiciary law prohibits all New 
York attorneys from engaging in deceit that deceives any party or the 
Court in a pending Court proceeding. The statute also provides treble 
damages for violations of the statute. The Statute provide that an 
attorney who "[I]s guilty of any deceit or collusion, or consents to 
any deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive the court or any 
party...is guilty of a misdemeanor, and in addition to the punishment 
prescribed therefore by the penal law, he forfeits to the party injured 
treble damages, to be recovered in a civil action.""
[Non-Client Lawsuits Against Attorneys, Daniel L. Abrams]
http://www.lawyerquality.com/article_non-client_suits.html
(Back To Top)

Section 6: EX-3 (EXHIBIT 3 PDF TRANSCRIPTS CORROBORATING LINDNERS SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL)

Click here to view PDF

Note: This PDF document represents an unofficial copy of information contained within this document, as allowed by the recent EDGAR system modernization.
SNL Interactive cannot take responsibility for the integrity of this file or its appearance, layout, or legibility. It is provided as is by the filer of this document.

(Back To Top)