Toggle SGML Header (+)


Section 1: PRRN14A (APR 20 2010 REVISION OF APR 2009 SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL FILING)


PRELIMINARY COPY, SUBJECT TO COMPLETION  
DATED APRIL 21, 2010
REVISED PROXY STATEMENT OF PETER LINDNER  
IN CONNECTION WITH THE  
2010 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 2010 Annual Meeting of Stockholders (the 
"Annual Meeting"). The Company has announced that the Annual Meeting 
will be held on Monday, April 26, 2010, 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 was to be mailed to Stockholders 
on or about April 10, 2010.  However, this was defeated in the SDNY Southern 
District of New York (SDNY) Court on April 2, 2010, and was / is being 
appealed by Mr. Lindner that same day (4/2/2010) for the US Court of Appeals 
for the Second Circuit.  Its docket number is ______________ (presumably 
available on Wednesday, April 21, 2010).


AMERICAN EXPRESS DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES

This filing references both a video and a website for deep background.  

The 40-second long video is on YouTube and has closed captions:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1XmxONWPEM

And the website is, which has the full transcript of the video, plus many of 
the background documents (about 15 documents) to this Shareholder Proposal to 
create an Amex Truth Commission to deal with EEOC ("Equal Employment 
Opportunities Commission") matters, that is to say, significant matters 
regarding discrimination:

www.amexethics.blogspot.com


This Shareholder Proposal is about discrimination against gay employees by 
predatory managers, presumably closeted gays.  Moreover, while the public may  
be outraged at a woman being sexual harassed by a male manager, there is less  
outrage when a male is sexual harassed by a male manager, as was the 
situation with Mr. Lindner in American Express in 1998.  However, this 
Shareholder  Proposal is NOT about that discrimination and sexual harassment, 
important  though it may be, but about 

1)	Amex's 4 year cover-up of the retaliation by  Amex's Senior Vice 
President Qing Lin who reported to Ash Gupta, now the President of 
Banking at Amex, not only in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964, but 

2)	also Qing's breach of the Amex Code of Conduct, and additionally the 
June 2000 Amex-Lindner Contract. 
 
The June 2000 Amex-Lindner Contract was to have ended the sexual harassment 
incident for both sides some 10 years ago, only to have Qing breach the  
agreement's paragraph 12 and paragraph 13 (text below) by telling a 
prospective 
employer  several statements about Mr. Lindner, including one of which was 
admitted  under oath in January 2009 with documentary backup that "I don't 
think 
Peter  Lindner can work at American Express".  Paragraph 13 of the June 2000 
Amex- Lindner Contract names 7 people, including Qing and Ash, from giving 
"any  
information" to prospective employers and referring questions by them to  
Human 
Resources.  Amex was informed in July 2005, and that key phrase was  
uncovered 
in a February 2006 investigation initiated by Secretary of the  Corporation 
Stephen Norman, Esq.  Yet, despite the investigator Jason Brown,  Esq. of 
Amex's 
General Counsel's Office being alerted by Mr. Lindner, Mr.  Brown did not 
include that quote in his second and supposedly final report,  nor did Mr. 
Brown 
notify his superiors and Qing's manager (Ash Gupta, now the  President of 
Banking at Amex) that Qing breached the written June 2000 Amex- Lindner 
Contract; by not informing their superiors, Jason Brown and Qing Lin  both 
violated the Amex Code of Conduct.

To have CEO Ken Chenault, Esq. say at the April 2009 Amex Shareholder meeting 
in response to Mr. Lindner's Shareholder Proposal on revising the Code of 
Conduct so that it works, Mr. Chenault (again in Mr. Lindner's layman's 
opinion) misled the Amex Shareholders, which is a violation of the rules of 
the SEC, possibly:

"Rule 14a-8(i)(3)	
The proposal or supporting statement is contrary to any of the Commission's 
proxy rules, including rule 14a-9, which prohibits materially false or 
misleading statements in proxy soliciting materials."

Mr. Lindner has written to CEO Ken Chenault, Esq. a month in advance of the 
Shareholder's April 26, 2010 meeting to allow him to investigate and respond 
to 
these matters which have been dragging on for now 5 years.  Mr. Chenault, 
through his lawyer refused to respond, terming it a "special treatment" (by 
Secretary of the Corporation Carol Schwartz, Esq.) and also "preferential 
treatment":

"You are seeking preferential treatment and, as you previously have been 
advised in writing, you will not be furnished with responses (either 
directly or via the Company's website) prior to the Annual Meeting."
[April 14, 2010 and Apr 20, 2010, at 2:07 PM, email by Daniel E Stoller, 
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP]

FULL TEXT OF PARAGRAPHS 12-13 OF THE JUNE 2000 AMEX-LINDNER CONTRACT

The following is the full text of the two paragraphs numbered 12 and 13 of 
the 
June 2000 Amex-Lindner Contract signed by Mr. Lindner and Ash Gupta, now the 
President of Banking at Amex.  Please note that 
a)	in Paragraph 12, no one in Amex should give information about Peter 
Lindner to prospective employers except for Mr. Lindner's "dates of 
employment, positions held and final salary"
b)	in Paragraph 13, a tighter restriction is made upon 7 Amex employees 
including Qing Lin and Ash Gupta in that they can not give "any 
information" and must "direct all requests for references" to Human 
Resources ("HR"):

"12.	The Company, Ash Gupta and Richard Tambor represent and agree not to 
disclose to any party outside of the Company any of the facts and 
circumstances leading up to Mr. Lindner's termination; or leading up to 
this Agreement, except on a need to know basis for a legitimate business 
purpose.  Further, the Company, Gupta and Tambor agree to keep the terms 
and facts of this Agreement confidential except that they may disclose the 
terms of this Agreement and the facts of this Agreement on a need to know 
basis for a legitimate business purpose.  The Company further agrees that 
it will disclose only Mr. Linder's dates of employment, positions held and 
final salary in response to any inquiries or requests for references 
regarding Mr. Lindner.

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."

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

 Mr. Lindner was to have been 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 in 2009, 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.  


This year Amex fought Mr. Lindner's Shareholder Proposal by claiming it was  
too  late, even though last year in 2009, Amex's lawyers had an intent to 
deceive  the  Court in NY State, which is a criminal misdemeanor.  Mr. 
Lindner makes that  statement without the assurance of being a lawyer, since 
Mr. Lindner is a  computer programmer.  However, if you read pages 9-10 of 
"Request by Plaintiff  ver f for release of DVDs and.pdf" which was written 
on April 4, 2010, it will  give the legal basis why under NY Judiciary Law 
section 487, an attorney  cannot  make a false statement to a judge in any 
court in NY State, and that is  included  in the Local Rules of the Southern 
District of New York, 1.5(b)(5) which  applies  the NY Laws to the SDNY.  An 
"intent to deceive the Court" is a criminal  misdemeanor, which Mr. Lindner 
as a non-lawyer assumes to mean conviction  would  entail the loss of a 
license to practice of the offending lawyer(s).  In the  case of Peter 
Lindner versus American Express and Qing Lin 06cv3834, Amex's  two  lawyers 
informed USDJ Koeltl on 3 separate days that Amex did not stop Mr.  Lindner 
from communicating with the SEC prior to 2009, when in fact Amex tried  and 
succeeded in April 2007 to get SDNY Magistrate Judge Katz to compel Mr.  
Lindner under pain of Contempt of Court to "withdraw" Mr. Lindner's filings  
from  the SEC and to not communicate with the SEC (among other restrictions,  
including  stopping Mr. Lindner from attending the April 2007 Amex 
Shareholder meeting in  NYC).  Those two lawyers were Mr. Joe Sacca, Esq. of 
Skadden, Arps, Slate,  Meagher & Flom LLP and Ms. Jean Park, Esq. of Kelley 
Drye & Warren LLP.  Some  people say there is no such thing as bad publicity; 
however, perhaps having an  attorney lie to a court and not retract their 
statements even after repeatedly  informing them of the errors may count as 
bad publicity.


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 on its provisions, especially with regard to 
discrimination against employees, 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). 



REQUIRED INFORMATION PURSUANT TO AMERICAN EXPRESS CO. BY-LAW 2.9:

(i)	(a)  Brief description of business proposal.

Amend Amex's Employee Code of Conduct ("Code") to include mandatory penalties  
for non-compliance, the precise scope of which shall be determined by a 
"Truth  Commission" after an independent outside compliance review of the 
Code  conducted  by outside experts and representatives of Amex's board, 
management, employees  and shareholders.  This is especially with regard to 
EEOC (Equal Employment  Opportunity Commission) cases and alleged 
discrimination by Amex.

	(b)  Reasons for bringing such business to the annual meeting.

Personal experience by Mr. Lindner of discrimination in violation of Title 
VII  of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and anecdotal evidence show that the 
Code is  breached and not enforced.  Rather, management regards the Code as 
nothing  more than window-dressing for Sarbanes-Oxley compliance. Especially: 
In January  2009, Amex's employees admitted under oath a breach in March 2007 
of an out- of-court settlement regarding gay discrimination against Mr. 
Lindner.  Yet even  with this knowledge, Amex CEO Ken Chenault told the April 
2009 Shareholder  meeting that he has "full confidence in the Company's code 
of conduct and the  integrity and values of our employees, for Steve who 
handled this from an  administrative channel." [Steve is Secretary of the 
Corporation Stephen 
Norman] 

	Some two weeks later, the Amex employee who admitted (in January 2009)  
breaching the code (in March 2007) left Amex for a competitor, and that  
employee reported directly to Amex's President of Banking.  Clearly someone 
one  step down from the President who not only breached an agreement signed 
by that  same President and covered it up for 4 years, well, that's a sign 
that the Code  of Conduct is not working, and that at least two of the 
employees lacked  integrity.

	Moreover, Amex fought putting this Shareholder Proposal on the Proxy 
from 2007 through 2009, indicating that the Proposal only dealt with ordinary 
"business matters", when it was clear to Amex that it involved "significant 
social policy issues (e.g., significant discrimination matters)" [see 
paragraph below from SEC Rules]

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.  In other words, this 
matter  affects Shareholders as well as being socially significant, as is 
indicated in  SEC Rule 14(a)(8) on Shareholder Proposals:

"proposals relating to such matters but focusing on sufficiently significant  
social policy issues (e.g., significant discrimination matters) generally  
would not be considered to be excludable, because the proposals would 
transcend  the day-to-day business matters and raise policy issues so 
significant that it  would be appropriate for a shareholder vote."
http://sec.gov/rules/final/34-40018.htm



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 2010 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 in 
2010 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 stated 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 -NOW PROBABLY MOOT

*Unfortunately, for Mr. Lindner, Amex has won in April 2009 and April 2010 
from  keeping Mr. Lindner's proxy for the Board of Directors and for Mr. 
Lindner's  Shareholder Proposal from being seen by the Amex Shareholders and 
even the Amex  employees who own Amex stock via their retirement plans at 
Amex.  However, should the Courts stop Amex from conducting the voting, Mr. 
Lindner possibly may  be allowed to run this year, which is unlikely.  This 
matter was dealt with in  April 2010 in the SDNY lawsuit Lindner v American 
Express 10cv2267, which would have had an Order to Show Cause (OSC) and a 
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to have Mr. Lindner's Shareholder Proposal 
on the proxy, mainly because the  previous year (April 2009) Amex allegedly 
violated NY State Law (NY Judiciary  Law section 487) and SDNY Local Rules in 
intending to deceive the Court.

* 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. Much more detail is on the website:  

www.AmexEthics.blogspot.com  

(It stands for having an Amex Code of Conduct, relating to the ethics of its 
employees, be established via an 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.) 


*  

WHY THIS DOCUMENT A "PRRN14A' REVISION RATHER THAN A 'PREC14A" INITIAL FILING

This document was originally filed 2009-05-14 and is only being amended now 
in  2010.  That is the subject of the Amex Court case 10cv2267, which is 
described  elsewhere in this document.  Here is the definition of the form 
PRRN14A.

According to Forbes' Investopedia: 

"What Does SEC Form PRRN14A Mean?
A filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that must be 
filed    by or on behalf of a registrant when non-management preliminary 
proxy   soliciting   materials are revised and a shareholder vote is 
required. SEC Form PRRN14A   should provide security holders with 
sufficient information  about the issue at   hand to allow them to make an 
informed vote at an  upcoming security holders'   meeting or to authorize 
a proxy to vote on their  behalf. It includes information   about the 
date, time and place of the meeting of security holders;  revocability   
of proxy; dissenter's right of  appraisal; persons making the 
solicitation;   direct or indirect interest of  certain persons in matters 
to be acted upon;   modification or exchange of  securities; financial 
statements; voting  procedures;   and other details. " 

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/SEC-Form-PRRN14A.asp


*  

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.  


LETTER TO KEN CHENAULT ASKING FOR AN EXPLANATION

Please see Exhibit 4 for the full text.

TEXT OF VIDEO, OF LENGTH 40 SECONDS

The video is entitled "Peter Lindner on Amex Ethics (for iPhone)", has closed 
captioning, can be watched on an iPhone or on a Personal Computere and is 
located on the web at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1XmxONWPEM


"I was sexually harassed by my supervisor Qing Lin at American Express.
When I complained to HR, Qing arranged to have me fired.
I feel that one way to help fight discrimination is to have a truth commission 
at American Express where it looks into what people have done and if they tell 
the truth, Amex won't punish them.
I'm fighting for my case, but I'm also fighting for all the other people at 
American Express whoever have been sexually harassed in the last 15 years or 
have been discriminated against.

I'm trying to look out for your interests in my shareholder proposal.


[Text Screen 1 (at 0:06 - 0:13) : ]
In 2000, American Express paid Peter Lindner a settlement for sexual harassment.

Now he wants its Code of Conduct enforced for all employees.

[Text Screen 2 (0:35):]

For more information, please visit:

www.amexethics.blogspot.com

or email

AmexEthics@gmail.com
"




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.  


Peter Lindner 

DATE OF TRANSACTION AMOUNT OF COMMON SHARES PURCHASED (P) / SOLD (S) 
1990- 1998 800* (P) 
2010 1,621	shares worth $66,477.21 (the entire amount from 1990-1998) was 
transferred from Amex to a different brokerage.

*approximately 

PETER LINDNER RECOMMENDS THAT STOCKHOLDERS VOTE IN FAVOR OF 

PETER LINDNER'S Shareholder Proposal (ALSO KNOWN AS THE ETHICS PROPOSAL) 

LISTED BELOW 

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 __, 2010 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) in favor of the Lindner shareholder proposal to revise the Amex Code of 
Conduct and 
(b) 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'S SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL, 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. 


MR. LINDNER ESTIMATES WITHOUT VERIFICATION FROM AMEX THAT APPROXIMATELY A 
HALF 
BILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF AMEX STOCK IS HELD BY AMEX IN TRUST FOR THEIR 
EMPLOYEES, AND MR. LINDNER HAS BEEN UNABLE TO IDENTIFY IF AMEX'S PROXY IN THE 
PERSON OF SECRETARY OF THE CORPORATION CAROL SCHWARTZ, ESQ. WILL VOTE THOSE 
SHARES AGAINST MR. LINDNER'S PROPOSAL WHICH WOULD OSTENSIBLY BENEFIT THOSE 
EMPLOYEES AGAINST DISCRIMINATION BY AMEX.


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 2010, 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, 2010] 

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 2010 Annual Meeting 
by sending a new proxy card to ________________________ or the 
Secretary of American Express, Inc., or by voting in person at the 2010 
Annual Meeting.   Mr. Lindner notes that last year's (April 2009) Amex 
Shareholder meeting recorded a vote in excess of 900million against Mr. 
Lindner's Shareholder Proposal to about 2,000 or 3,000 votes in favor.

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.AmexEthics.blogspot.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 $60,000 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 2010 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 2010 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. 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 ________, 2010 


______________________________ 

Signature of Stockholder 


_______________________________ 

Signature of Stockholder 

Dates Referenced Herein and Documents Incorporated By Reference This 
PREC14A Filing 

This is version 3, with major changes denoted by  changed text .
Minor changes have not been marked, for clarity.
This is an update of the filing of 2009-05-14on sec.gov

Date April 21, 2010 

 

(Back To Top)

Section 2: EX-4 (LETTERS SENT TO CEO CHENAULT AND CORP SECR SCHWARTZ)

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 3: EX-4 (LETTERS SENT TO CEO CHENAULT AND CORP SECR SCHWARTZ)


                          Wednesday, April 14, 2010
CEO Ken Chenault, Esq.
American Express
200 Vesey St
NYC, NY  10281
Subject: You violated SEC rules on misleading statements to 
Shareholder  Proposals in reply to my Shareholder Proposal of April 
27, 2009.
Dear Ken,

	I seek written permission to attend the April 26, 2010 American Express 
Shareholder  meeting in NYC, since Amex stopped me under court order from 
attending the 2007 meeting,  and with it, also filing with the SEC.

	Since this matter has been coming up since 2007, can we have a colloquy 
on  the subject?    I wish Secretary of the Corporation Carol Schwartz, Esq. 
to  investigate and compel you to reply.   I intend to file this as a 
complaint to  the SEC.  At the bottom of the letter, I list the applicable  
Code of Conduct  pages which state that Ken and others are subject to 
investigation for making a   misleading statement in reply to 

	Here's what I said to you in the April 2009 Shareholder meeting

"Let me put it simply. I was a nine year employee of American Express working  
for a new manager who in 1998 sexually harassed me. Then and seven years 
later  you violated Amex's code of conduct by retaliating and cost me a new 
job. The  Amex code of conduct is not working for me and chances are it's not 
working for  a lot of people."
[AXP-Transcript-2009-04-27T14_00.pdf]

	You opposed my Shareholder Proposal by saying to me (in essence) that 
the  Code works,  and that the integrity and values of the employees at Amex 
are  good, and that Steve Norman did  one heck of a job. That is true, if you 
ignore  the facts.  I was not speaking of the 60,000 Amex  employees in 
general, but  rather the group of 5-10 employees in particular involved in my 
case  where Qing  breached the June 2000 Amex-Lindner Contract, lied about 
doing so for 4 years,  got  paid salary and bonuses for covering it up 
instead of reporting it to his  manager Ash Gupta, now  the President of 
Banking at Amex, and Jason Brown, Esq.  who informed me face-to-face in  
February 2006 that Qing admitted to Jason that  Qing said "I don't think 
Peter Lindner can work  at American Express" and Jason  promptly denied 
saying that to me via responding to my email  that night, and 
then both Jason and Qing admitted those facts under oath in January 2009.

	I asked Amex on 4/27/2009 for the transcript and video of your remarks 
of  the April 27  2009 meeting and did not get them for 9 months.  But now I 
have  the transcript, and you, sir,  have violated the rules of the 
Securities and  Exchange Commission 14a-8 on making misleading  statements on 
Shareholder  Proposals.  You have also violated the Amex Code of Conduct 
which  holds every  employee including you responsible for fixing a problem 
and reporting the  ethical  dilemma to the Secretary of the Corporation (in 
this case, Carol  Schwartz, Esq.).  

CAROL SCHWARTZ:  Please compel Ken to answer these questions, as the Code of  
Conduct says  you are empowered to investigate and that all such requests 
must  be cooperated with.  The Code  of Conduct says on page 1 that there are 
no  exceptions for anyone including Ken, you [Carol],  Jason, Ash working for 
Amex,  regardless of your function, and earlier it says you [Ken, Carol]  are  
"personally accountable for delivering on [Amex's] commitments":
 
"We must uphold these standards in all of our dealings with each other and 
our  stakeholders-including our customers, shareholders, vendors, other 
business  partners and government regulators. ... No waivers or exceptions 
to the Code will be made under any circumstances for  anyone working on 
American Express's behalf, regardless of job function."

	Finally, I have prepared the topics on which I wish to speak, as a 
courtesy so that you and  your staff can research the matter and be prepared 
to 
give an educated response, and perhaps post  these answers on the web in 
advance, so that we can have Amex's Shareholders know what the  issues are.

	The topics are in detail:

1.	Why not revise the Amex Code of Conduct ("Code")

2.	Did Qing Lin, who reported to Ash Gupta, now the President of Banking 
at  Amex,  violate the Code in March 2005 by breaching the June 2000 Amex-
Lindner  Contract  signed by his manager Ash, and not report his possible 
conflict of  interest in hating me  and wanting to give "any information" to 
FischerJordan  and also in not telling  FischerJordan to contact Human 
Resources (HR), as  required by 13 of the June 2000  Amex-Lindner Contract?

3.	What did you know and when did you know it about this matter, 
considering  that both  Qing and Jason Brown, Esq. (Amex's Sr. VP in Amex's 
General Counsel  Office) said  under oath in January 2009 that Qing gave "any 
information" to  FischerJordan in 2005,  and that Qing explained it to Jason 
by saying that he  told FischerJordan "I don't think  Peter Lindner can work 
at American Express"?  

4.	Were you aware that I asked Secretary of the Corporation Stephen 
Norman,  Esq. in  December 2005 to look into these possible Code violations, 
and that he  assigned Jason to  look into it?  

5.	Were you aware that I asked FischerJordan's Boaz Salik (who had spoken 
to  Qing)  whether Boaz would reveal all details if someone high up in Amex 
would  directly ask  him?  And that Boaz said that Secretary of the 
Corporation Stephen  Norman, Esq. would  be sufficiently high up?  And that 
Mr. Norman refused to do  so, and instead said that  Jason would? 

6.	Were the managers of Jason, Qing, and Mr. Norman aware of these 
possible  Code  violations?   

7.	Were you aware at the April 2009 Shareholder meeting where I told you 
that  I informed  Mr. Gupta and Mr. Norman in 2005, and they did nothing to 
ask Qing -  even as minimal  as ask Qing to sit down for 1 hour in a room by 
himself and  write a memo to Jason as to  what Qing said or did not say to 
FischerJordan?:    "Well Mr. Ken Chenault Esquire -- you know that the Amex 
code of conduct  is  not working. So does Ash Gupta, the president of banking 
at Amex. In  1998 and  in 2005 and still in 2009, Amex violated its code of 
conduct  that applies to all  employees, including Mr. Gupta and you, Mr. 
Chenault.     Let me put it simply. I was a nine year employee of American 
Express  working  for a new manager who in 1998 sexually harassed me. Then 
and  seven years later  you violated Amex's code of conduct by retaliating 
and  cost me a new job. The  Amex code of conduct is not working for me and  
chances are it's not working for  a lot of people."  [AXP-Transcript-2009-04-
27T14_00.pdf]    

8.	Did you authorized your attorneys to deceive the Southern District of 
New  York Court in  April 2009 by telling USDJ Koeltl that Amex did not stop 
me from  communicating with  the Securities and Exchange Commission prior to 
2009, when  in fact Amex did so in  April 2007?  Did you ask your attorneys 
to check if this  is true or not?  Hint: Ms. Jean  Park, Esq. of Kelley Drye 
& Warren LLP did ask  that of Magistrate Judge Katz in April  2007.   

9.	Did you know that NY Judiciary Law  section 487 makes it a (criminal) 
misdemeanor  for an  attorney to intend to deceive a Court in NY State, 
subject to treble  damages in civil  court?  Do you feel that, under 
attorney's advice, such a law  does not apply to Amex's  attorneys' 
statements in Federal Court, and thus they  do not need to comply with it?   

10.	Do you feel that Qing and Ash Gupta, now the President of Banking at 
Amex,  did not  ever discuss this matter prior to the April 2009 Shareholder 
meeting?   On what do you  base that knowledge?   

11.	According to the Code, since Amex offered me $75,000, which I accepted 
in  the June  2000 Amex-Lindner Contract, do you feel that it's okay for the 
VP (who  caused the  problem in 1998 by alleged sexual harassment of me) 
should be  allowed to breach this  contract signed by Amex and then cover it 
up?  Do you  feel that Ash has any  responsibility to look into it, after he 
was informed by  certified letter in 2005 and 2006?   

12.	Do you feel that it is good Shareholder and Securities and Exchange  
Commission  practice to videotape and audiotape Shareholder meetings, but  
against the standards of  fair play and openness, refuse to allow me to get 
the  DVD (which I paid for) of Qing's  and Jason's admission?   

13.	Given that you are a lawyer and CEO in NY State, do you feel that you  
either  intentionally or unintentionally lied to Amex's Shareholders when you  
said that the Code  works, instead of saying you're not familiar with the 
issue,  or that the Code did not work  for me and for Qing and for Jason?  
Here's what  you said:    "Thank you, Mr. Lindner. Let me say I have full 
confidence in the  Company's  code of conduct and the integrity and values of 
our employees,  for Steve who  handled this from an administrative channel." 
[Ibid.]    

14.	Do you feel that employee Shareholders who own about $500million 
dollars  of Amex  stock should not be forewarned of my Shareholder Proposal, 
so that they  can think about  it, and perhaps vote for it, instead of having 
Secretary of the  Corporation Carol Schwartz,  Esq. announce in the Amex 
preliminary filing of  March 2, 2010 that she plans to vote  those shares 
"AGAINST" my proposal?   

15.	Do you feel there's a parallel between the Catholic Church's cover-up 
of  the alleged  sexual harassment by Priests of 200 deaf children in 
Wisconsin and  Amex's protection  and cover-up of Qing for his actions which 
violate the Amex  Code and the June 2000  Amex-Lindner Contract signed by Ash 
and Amex?   

16.	Given that the Code applies to future, present and past possible 
ethical  conflicts, have  Jason, Ash, Carol Schwartz, Mr. Norman, and you 
consulted with  their managers about  this matter of a conflict of interest 
and possible  violation of law and of Amex's June 2000  Amex-Lindner 
Contract?   

17.	Given that Amex's Risk Management Group headed by Ash believe in data  
based  decision making, did Amex look at the data?   

18.	Given that Amex took several billions of dollars of TARP money from the  
USA, did  Amex not only possibly violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of  
1964, but also Title  VI for Government vendors?   

19.	In June 2009, I had a problem with my PC which was covered by Amex's  
Double  Warranty, and Amex did not stand behind the warranty after twice 
trying  to fix the fatally  flawed PC - was this retaliation against me?   

20.	Given that last year the vote was 900million to 2,000, wouldn't it be  
appropriate to allow  shareholders sufficient time to vote after hearing my  
speech, especially since web voting  stops 3 days before the meeting?   

21.	Can we put all this information on the web and/or file it with the SEC 
so  that the  Shareholders can decide?

Looking forward to your prompt response (at least on the contours of how you 
plan to  respond), 

      Sincerely yours,

Peter W. Lindner
1 Irving Place, #G-23-C
NYC, NY 10003
Home/Fax: 212-979-9647
Cell:     917-207-4962
Email:    nyc10003@nyc.rr.com



MEMO OF LAW, SO TO SPEAK, FOR SECRETARY OF THE CORPORATION CAROL SCHWARTZ, 
ESQ.

Ms. Schwartz:

Here are the sections of the Amex Code of Conduct which I say authorizes you 
to  investigate  Ken's violations, as well as the cover-up by Qing and by 
Jason  Brown for 4 years.  I also list for  Ken and you, since you are both 
lawyers,  the SEC excerpt on misleading statements on  Shareholder Proposals.


Sincerely yours,


Peter W. Lindner
1 Irving Place, #G-23-C
NYC, NY 10003
Home/Fax: 212-979-9647
Cell:     917-207-4962
Email:    nyc10003@nyc.rr.com



LIST OF CODE OF CONDUCT EXCERPTS:

Ms. Schwartz, there are several places in the code that compel Ken to answer,  
specifically page 5  "You [Ken Chenault and Jason Brown] are expected to  
participate, when asked, in any  investigations of misconduct."  If Jason 
Brown  is still an Amex VP in Amex's  General  Counsel's Office, he must 
reconcile why  he denied Qing's statement to me "I don't think Peter  Lindner 
can work at  American Express" in March 2006's email to me, but then did not 
include it  in  his report to Secretary of the Corporation Stephen Norman, 
and did not report it  to his  manager, and then acknowledged it under oath 
in January 2009.  And Ken  has to account for  making a misleading statement 
to the Shareholders in April  2009 that Steve did a good  investigative job, 
and that the employees (e.g.  Qing, Jason, and Ash) did have integrity and  
values as per the Code of Conduct.

1.	Page 49 of the Amex Code of Conduct on "Where To Seek Help And Report  
Concerns" "To disclose potential conflicts of interest or other Code matters,  
contact the  Corporate Secretary's Office."   

2.	page 48:  "-How would I feel if it were broadcast on the nightly news? 
-Could it be viewed or interpreted as inappropriate or unethical?"   

3.	page 40: "INTEGRITY We uphold the highest standards of integrity in all 
of  our actions."   

4.	page 24: "Communicating with the Public about American Express To 
protect  our Company's information and ensure it is released to the public  
accurately  and consistently, only designated spokespersons  may communicate  
with the  public on behalf of American Express. ... In addition, only members 
of the  Communications Department within CA&C, or  individuals they 
designate, are  authorized to represent or publicly discuss our  Company on 
the Internet. You  may not post information about or participate in  
conversations regarding our  Company on external websites-including blogs,  
discussion boards, social media  sites or any other publicly available online 
resources-without prior approval  from CA&C. For more information, please see  
our External Communications and  Investor Relations Policy."   

5.	page 16: "A: Most likely, yes, but Bill should disclose this potential  
conflict of interest to  the Corporate Secretary"   

6.	page 14: "Conf licts of Interest We must avoid all real or potential  
conflicts between our personal interests and  those of American Express. ...  
conflict between our personal interests and the interests of our Company. ... 
If  a conflict or potential conflict arises, you must disclose it immediately 
to  your  leader or the Corporate Secretary."   

7.	page 9: "Our Commitment To Each Other Freedom from Harassment We are  
expected to promote a work environment free from harassment ... "Harassment"  
includes offensive behavior ... intimidating or hostile work  environment.  
Conduct ... verbally, whether it's done in person or by other means (such as  
harassing notes or emails),"   

8.	page 8: "Diversity and Equal Employment Opportunity We must support our  
Company's commitment to diversity and equal employment  opportunity.  
...[including] sexual orientation"   

9.	page 5: which includes your vendor Jean Park, Esq. of Kelley Drye & 
Warren  LLP who  tried to stop me from attending the April 2009 Amex 
Shareholder meeting  after  Secretary of the Corporation Stephen Norman gave 
permission for me to  attend: "Where To Seek Help And Report Concerns Making 
Reports If you have  reason to believe that any American Express employee, or 
anyone  working on our  Company's behalf, may have engaged in ethical or 
legal misconduct, you  have a  duty to your colleagues and our Company to 
report your concerns. Doing so helps   our Company to address issues and 
prevent future misconduct. ... You are  expected to participate, when asked, 
in any investigations of  misconduct."   

10.	page 4: "Where To Seek Help And Report Concerns ... *	The Corporate  
Secretary"   

11.	page 2: "Our Shared Responsibilities ...If we find ourselves in a  
situation where customary conduct is at odds with the  Code, Company policy  
and/or local laws or regulations, we must comply with the  more stringent  
standard. If you're unsure which rule to follow, seek guidance  from your  
leader, your Compliance Officer or the General Counsel's Office. ... Our  
Leaders' Responsibilities Leaders must also be alert to any situations or  
actions that may violate the letter or  spirit of the Code or Company policy, 
or  may damage our Company's reputation.  It is important that they take 
immediate  action to address such situations. When  leaders receive reports 
of a situation  that is unethical or potentially damaging to  our Company's 
reputation, or  suspect that one exists, they must promptly notify  their 
Compliance Officer and  work to resolve the issue. Resolution of the issue  
may also involve  consultation with the appropriate subject matter expert."   

12.	Page 1: "We must uphold these standards in all of our dealings with 
each  other and our  stakeholders-including our customers, shareholders, 
vendors,  other business  partners and government regulators. ... No waivers 
or exceptions  to the Code will be made under any circumstances for  anyone 
working on American  Express's behalf, regardless of job function."   

13.	Page iii: "Integrity We uphold the highest standards of integrity in 
all  of our actions. ... Personal Accountability We are personally 
accountable for  delivering on our commitments."   

14.  Page i, Ken writes and signs his name that increased scrutiny requires 
you  to resolve and  correct violations.  Moreover, Ms. Jean Park knew in 
March 2008  when she turned over  in evidence discovery that Jason Brown 
recorded that Qing  said "I don't think Peter  Lindner can work at American 
Express" and yet she  asked me if I were using drugs and  perhaps had an 
auditory hallucination to  make me think that Qing violated the June 2000  
Amex-Lindner Contract.  This  question by Ms. Park is a form of retaliation 
against my  good faith effort in  July 2005 and February 2006 to report what 
Qing said, and Ms. Park  retaliated  to have it look like I hallucinated 
Qing's actions and words:   

"This is more important now than ever before, as corporate business  
practices are increasingly scrutinized and regulation of our  industry 
intensifies.  ... [The Code of Conduct is] to assist you in  resolving 
potentially troublesome issues and contact information to  help you 
seek advice. ... The principles of the Code apply to  everyone at 
American Express, regardless of job function or  seniority. Each of us 
must do our part to prevent or correct   violations. ... Our Company 
will treat reports of violations  confidentially, and no one who 
reports a suspected violation in good  faith will be subject to 
retaliation for making such a report."

All of these page numbers are in the Amex Code of Conduct, which is found on:

http://phx.corporate-
ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTI1MDJ8Q2hpbGRJRD0tMXxUeXBlPTM=&t=1



LINDNER SUMMARY TO KEN ON SEC BASIS FOR MISLEADING STATEMENTS ON MY 
SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Dear Ken,

I believe you made a misleading statement in the April 2009 Shareholder's  
Meeting in response  to my Shareholder Proposal on a Truth Commission 
regarding  Amex's Code of Conduct, with  regard to EEOC.  You basically said 
it was good,  the people were good, and Secretary of the  Corporation Steve 
(Stephen Norman)  was good.  All 3 are incorrect, if you were referring to 
the  same incidents I  was talking about.  Of course, if you were just 
engaged in puffery, like saying   "Amex is the best in the world" or 'this is 
the best hamburger,' then you might 
be forgiven.  

	But the SEC and the Amex Code of Conduct both have higher standards.   
Given that  Qing Lin resigned or was fired some two weeks after I raised that  
fact in the meeting that Qing  violated the June 2000 Amex-Lindner Contract 
in  March/April 2005, and covered it up with the  aid of Amex VP Jason Brown, 
Esq.,  surely the Code was not working.  Both should have  admitted their 
quandary, and  risked forfeiting their jobs, instead of keeping their jobs 
and  bonuses for 4  years and not telling the truth to me or to their bosses.

"(2) However, if you believe that the company's opposition to 
your  proposal contains materially  false or misleading 
statements that may  violate our anti-fraud rule,  section 240.14a-9, you 
should  promptly send to the  Commission staff and the company a 
letter explaining the reasons for your   view, along with a copy 
of the company's statements opposing your  proposal. To the 
extent  possible, your letter should include specific  factual 
information demonstrating the inaccuracy of  the company's 
claims.  Time permitting, you may wish to try to work out your 
differences with the   company by yourself before contacting the 
Commission staff.  

(3) We require the company to send you a copy of its statements 
opposing  your proposal before it  sends its proxy materials, so 
that you may bring  to our attention any materially false or 
misleading  statements, under the  following timeframes:  

(i)	If our no-action response requires that you make revisions 
to  your proposal or  supporting statement as a condition 
to requiring  the company to include it in its proxy  
materials, then the company  must provide you with a copy 
of its opposition statements no  later  than 5 calendar 
days after the company receives a copy of your  revised 
proposal; or  
(ii)	In all other cases, the company must provide you with a 
copy of  its opposition  statements no later than 30 
calendar days before its  files definitive copies of its 
proxy  statement and form of proxy  under  section 240.14a-6."

[Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 14a-8   Shareholder 
proposals] http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text- 
idx?c=ecfr&sid=6cdfaad0270f56d99488287357545cfc&rgn=div8&view=tex
t&node=17 : 3.0.1.1.1.2.78.198&idno=17

  I asked these questions via email on Sat 3/27/2010 4:27 PM to Joe Sacca. 

 
 
 
 


9


(Back To Top)

Section 4: EX-5 (LETTER FROM LINDNER TO SACCA OF SKADDEN TO SHOW SACCAS INTENT TO DECEIVE COURT IN NY STATE)


EXHIBIT 5 FOR THE SEC OF APRIL 21, 2010 9:04PM

FILENAME:  exh5saccalind201004219pm.txt


[EDITOR'S NOTE:  Below is a letter written by email from Peter Lindner to Joe 
Sacca, Esq. of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

The pdf version of this file entitled "exh5saccalind201004219pm.pdf" is more 
readable, since it contains pictures of transcripts and highlighting which 
can 
not be done in text format.]

From: Peter Lindner [mailto:nyc10003@nyc.rr.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 6:17 PM
To: 'Sacca, Joseph N'
Subject: RE: Lindner v. American Express, 10 Civ. 2262 (SDNY)


Tuesday, March 16, 2010  5:47:40 PM
Joe:

	Are you weaseling out of this, just like you wanted to hang up when I 
say  that Amex  deceived the Court?  "Weasel" means that you understand the 
intent,  but are trying to get out of it  on a technicality, like "Joe Sacca 
did not  deceive the Court, because he did not know it at the time"  but Amex 
did know  it, and was co-counsel, and Amex chose not to tell Sacca.

	Are you saying you did not deceive the court?  Well, I can understand 
you  saying that, but  let's put it a different way:

		Did Amex try to stop me from communicating with the SEC? 

	E.g.:

 
[p.11 of 13    , Number 36 April 17 2007 Jean Park ask for protective order 
.pdf]

	One of those "respects" is to stop me from communicating with the SEC ; 
another is  attending the Shareholder meeting in April 2007.

	And Ms. Park refers that in her affidavit:

  
 
[[age 3-4, Number 37-1 April 17 2007.pdf]

And then Ms. Park continues to say how Magistrate Judge Katz did an ex parte  
phone call to me  threatening me with contempt of court unless I withdraw my 
SEC  filing and take down my website,  which I said I could do the latter, 
but the  former may not be possible:

 

      So,  paragraph number 21 said I wanted to vacate the restriction on me 
filing on the SEC,  but was forced by Magistrate Judge Katz.
      
       

Ms. Park moved to put the documents under seal:

 
So, then Ms. Park showed the Judge my filing as Exhibit C:

 
 
 
My SEC filing document goes on for several pages.

 Jean Park then includes my letter to Magistrate Judge Katz that I complied 
with  Amex's request to  His Honor, in which Magistrate Judge Katz ORDERed me 
to take  down my website and pull my  listing from the SEC-in other words, 
Amex not only  tried to stop my communication, they wanted  to have me 
retract the  communication to the SEC (the filing), which the SEC said can 
not be done:

 
So in case you say, well, Amex didn't do that, you volunteered, let me say I  
told Amex I repudiated  the signed agreement, but Amex refused to accept that 
-  even when USDJ Koeltl said all Amex had  to do was accept that I did not 
agree  with their settlement and move on.  Here's where Jean Park  swears she 
tried  (and succeeded) to stop me from communicating with the SEC, via a 
"motion to   enforce settlement":

 
 


I then asked Magistrate Judge Katz to be freed from the restrictions, so I 
could  communicate with  the SEC and go to the Shareholder meeting in April 
2007, and  His Honor rejects it.  MJ Katz even  states that I wanted to 
reject the  agreement and Amex sought to enforce it:
 
 


 
 

	I then appealed to USDJ Koeltl on April 23, 2007 to get out of the 
agreement, but His  Honor says I'm bound by an existing agreement.  

 
[Pacer #193]

	Two months later, on June 6, 2007, USDJ Koeltl reverses His Honor's 
earlier ORDER and  on May 31, 2007 says I'm not bound because there is not 
existing agreement:

 
 
Just in case you don't believe that, then in Court I ask permission to now 
contact the SEC, and Ms. 
Park says of course I can now, since I say "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."

And Ms. Park agrees that I can now communicate with the SEC, since the May 
31,  2007 ruling of  USDJ Koeltl found that alleged agreement to be non-
existent:

"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
                            SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
                                      (212) 805-0300
                                                                           7
             794FLINC
        1    binding,"


Here's the transcripts intact:



                                                                           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
                            SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
                                      (212) 805-0300
                                                                           7
             794FLINC
        1    binding, and the defendant says they were not independent
        2    orders of the magistrate judge.  If there were independent
        3    orders of the magistrate judge, whatever they were, I would
        4    tell you to go back to the magistrate judge to take up those
        5    orders with the magistrate judge and if you had a problem with
        6    the ruling of the magistrate judge, you could take an appeal to
        7    me from the rulings of the magistrate judge.  But the three
        8    items that you mentioned the defendant agrees were not
        9    independent orders of the magistrate judge.

In short, I had the right to reject the alleged oral agreement that stopped 
me  from going to the SEC,  and I repudiated it, but Amex refused to accept 
that in  April, and Amex got MJ Katz to force me to  comply with the alleged 
oral  agreement.  But Amex sought to bind it to me, and refused to give it to  
me in  writing as they had promised the Court (if I had it in writing, I'd 
have 7 days  to reject it after  signing it), and forced me under Magistrate 
Judge Katz's  control to abide by the restrictions on not  contacting the 
SEC. Amex got MJ  Katz to stop my filing with the SEC, even though Amex 
wanted  it to be retracted  as if it never existed.  But months later, Amex 
could not prove that the  agreement  existed, since it ran afoul of 4 of the 
4 criteria for an alleged  oral agreement to be valid in SDNY.   But, it was 
too late for me attend the  April 2007 Amex Shareholder meeting.

What part of that do you not believe?

Because I think that shows that Amex tried and succeeded in April 2007 to 
stop  me from  communicating with the SEC, and you (Joe) told USDJ Koeltl in 
April 23,  2009:

  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.  In fact, although

So, the Pacer numbers show that there is "evidence on the record" that Amex 
via  Ms. Park did get a  court order from Magistrate Judge Katz to stop me 
from being  able to  "communicate with the  SEC".  


Sincerely yours,


Peter W. Lindner
1 Irving Place, #G-23-C
NYC, NY 10003
Home/Fax: 212-979-9647
Cell:     917-207-4962
Email:    nyc10003@nyc.rr.com


(Back To Top)

Section 5: EX-5 (COMPLETE PDF LETTER FROM LINDNER TO SACCA OF SKADDEN TO SHOW SACCAS INTENT TO DECEIVE COURT IN NY STATE)

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)