Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1.
PAGE
TUCKER ACT3.
2.
3.
NO IMMUNITY5.
Judicial Conference Meets; Committee Action5.
4.
THE TAKING8.
5.
6.
JURISDICTION30.
7.
PRELIMINARY31.
8.
PARTIES32.
9.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE.33.
10.
STANDING..38.
Page 2 of 103
11.
12.
13.
PROOF101.
EXHIBITS.103.
Page 3 of 103
LAUREN PAULSON
Plaintiff
No._____________
v.
THE UNITED STATES
Defendant
Page 4 of 103
Plaintiff. The federal judiciary has failed to comply with their own
Judicial Conference Policy on Mandatory Conflict Screening in effect
since 2008. That failure has resulted in wholesale illegal foreclosures
across the United States because federal judges are ruling on cases
when they have undisclosed, but patent conflicts of interest.
The Tucker Act gives the U.S. Court of Federal Claims
jurisdiction
to render judgment upon any claim against the United States founded either
upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive
department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or
for liquidated or unliquidated damages.
2. JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
Federal judges, magistrate judges and bankruptcy judges are
engaging in grotesque judicial misconduct and favoritism to the
nations financial industry on consumer foreclosure cases when the
innocent homeowner desperately needs the protections afforded by
The Rule of Law.
A complete account of the judicial misconduct here is to be found
in the sixty-three (63) page document filed in the Ninth Circuit by
Paulson in 2013.1 It was not acted upon by the Chief Judge until
https://www.scribd.com/doc/182748927/JUDICIAL-MISCONDUCT-IN-FORECLOSURELITIGATION
1
Page 5 of 103
JUDICIAL ETHICS
In response to a request from the Executive Committee (see
supra Judicial Ethics, p. 5), and after consultation with several
other Conference committees, the Committee on Codes of Conduct
recommended that the Judicial Conference adopt a conflict-screening
policy that mandates checking for financial conflicts of interest with
the aid of computer software. The policy would be administered and
directed by the circuit councils under the authority set forth in 28
U.S.C. 332(d)(1) .. The Committee also discussed recent
Page 6 of 103
Page 7 of 103
Because Judge Randall Dunn, Attorney Leonard and Trustee have engaged in criminal acts in
their Takings from Paulson last week , Paulson is filing an immediate truncated claim on those
most recent matters in addition to this comprehensive instant claim.
2
Page 8 of 103
Page 9 of 103
Page 10 of 103
Page 11 of 103
Page 12 of 103
Page 13 of 103
Danger notice.On or before the date the trustee serves or mails the notice of sale, the trustee
must mail whats called a danger notice to the borrower. This notice warns the borrower that he
or she is in danger of losing the property to foreclosure and includes information about what the
borrower can do to try to save the home. Or. Rev. Stat. 86.756.
5
Washington County Circuit Court of the State of Oregon Case No. C122215EV (2012)
Page 14 of 103
Page 15 of 103
Page 16 of 103
Note now how different the Federal Judiciary Dispatches the Class of
Homeowners in Foreclosure to Oblivion with massive conflicts of
interest: )
Reports
Utilities
Logout
PARTCONS,TERMINATED
Page 17 of 103
V.
Defendant
Fairway America Corporation
fka Fairway Commercial Mortgage Corporation, Oregon corporations
Defendant
Matthew W. Burk
Matt Burk
also known as
Matt Burk
Defendant
John Doe Savings Bank
a Washington corporation
Defendant
Wells Fargo Foothills
a California corporation
Defendant
Bank of America
Defendant
GMAC
Defendant
U.S. Bank Joan Doe
a mortgage broker
Defendant
James Doe
lendor
Page 18 of 103
Defendant
Jane Doe
lendor
Defendant
JP Morgan Chase & Co.
Defendant
Ally Financial
Defendant
Goldman Sachs
Defendant
Citi-Group
Defendant
CitiMortgage
Defendant
HSBC Bank
Defendant
National City
Defendant
Deutsche Bank
Defendant
Bank of New York
Defendant
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems
Page 19 of 103
Defendant
Skylands Investment Corporation
an Oregon corporation Manager
Defendant
FHLF, LLC
Defendant
Craig Russillo
Defendant
Joel Parker
Defendant
Anne Helton
Defendant
Amy Mitchell
Defendant
Rob Levy
Defendant
Lanny Doe
Defendant
Greg Blair
Defendant
The Schwabe Williamson and Wyatt Law Firm
Defendant
John and Jane 1-12 Does
Page 20 of 103
Defendant
John Doe
Lender 1-12
Defendant
Jane Doe
Lender 1-12
Defendant
John Doe
Servicer 1-2
Defendant
Jane Doe
Servicer 1-12
Defendant
John Doe
Mortgage Co.
Defendant
Jane Doe
Mortgage Co.
Defendant
Hon. Paul Papak
Defendant
Hon. Ancer Haggerty
Defendant
Hon. Ann Aiken
Page 21 of 103
Defendant
Hon. Michael Mosman
Defendant
Hon. Anna Brown
Defendant
Hon. Jim Pappas
Defendant
Hon. Bruce Markell
Defendant
Hon. Eileen Hollowell
Defendant
Randall Dunn
Judge Jury
Defendant
Richard Clifton
Judge Jury
Defendant
Sandra Ikuta
Judge Jury
Defendant
Ed Leavy
Judge Jury
Defendant
William Canby
Judge Jury
Page 22 of 103
Defendant
Ronald Gould
Judge Jury
Defendant
Richard Tallman
Judge Jury
Defendant
Jay Memo Bybee
Judge Jury
Defendant
Alex Kozinski
Judge Jury
Defendant
WM Fletcher
Judge Jury
Defendant
C.M. Callahan
Judge Jury
Defendant
Unknown Robinson
Judge Jury
Defendant
Bea Murgia
Judge Jury
Defendant
Page 23 of 103
Date Filed
#
Docket Text
09/26/2014
1
Complaint. Jury Trial Requested: Yes. Filed by Lauren Paulson against
All Defendants (Attachments: # 1 Part 2 of 4, # 2 Part 3 of 4, # 3 Part 4
of 4, # 4 Civil Cover Sheet). (jkm) (Entered: 10/01/2014)
09/26/2014
2
Application for Leave to Proceed IFP. Filed by Lauren Paulson. (jkm)
(Entered: 10/01/2014)
09/26/2014
3
Page 24 of 103
Page 25 of 103
Page 26 of 103
16
Motion for Status. Filed by Lauren Paulson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
Request) (jkm) (Entered: 01/14/2015)
02/11/2015
17
ORDER: Denying Motion to Vacate 12 ; Denying Motion 16 ; Denying
Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis 2 ; Denying Motion for
Appointment of Counsel 3 . ; Denying 6 Application for CM/ECF
Registration as a Self-Represented Party ; Adopting Findings and
Recommendation 8 . The complaint (#1) is dismissed with prejudice.
(See attached PDF for complete details) Signed on 2/11/2015 by Judge
Owen M. Panner. (jkm) (Entered: 02/11/2015)
02/11/2015
18
Judgment. Based on the record, this action is dismissed. Plaintiff's 380page complaint is meritless. Plaintiff is ordered to submit any further
proposed filings in this action, other than a notice of appeal, to this court
for pre-filing approval. Plaintiff is subject to sanctions if he violates the
pre-filing requirement. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed on 2/11/2015 by
Judge Owen M. Panner. (jkm) Modified on 2/17/2015 (rsm) to correct
typos. (Entered: 02/11/2015)
02/11/2015
Page 27 of 103
Page 28 of 103
Page 29 of 103
their rights to a judge free of bias and failing to provide redress of the
excess perpetrated by predatory lenders near and far.
These judges are ruling without reading what is in front of them
nor the entire record in what is in front of them. See the Murguia
cavalcade below. These judges do not even see who they have to judge
on judicial misconduct linear litigation.
Note that no judge had the record before them in this case, yet
four judges ruled anyway: Clarke, Panner, McKeown and Schroeder.
These judges are ignoring the Judicial Conference of the United States
policy on mandatory financial conflict screening. These judges are
ignoring the Certificate of Necessity to accomplish exactly what has
happened here. Bias in the workplace of federal judges against the
consumer Plaintiff here and against the consumer foreclosure victims
across the nation. A Certificate of Necessity is intended to be the
process by which a litigant can ask for an unbiased judge when the
extant judge is conflicted doing what is so obvious above. To that hated
Pro Se litigant. At the last Ninth Circuit Court Conference in 2015 at the
Page 30 of 103
Marriott Hotel in San Diego it was ruefully mentioned that 55% of their
cases are Pro Se. The hated Pro Se foreclosure litigant. With
homeownership at a fifty (50) year low. The naked former homeowner.
6. JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction is pursuant 28 USC Section 1331, 1346(a) and 1491
for this non-contractual claim for payment by the government for,
inter alia, an unlawful taking of said property without payment of
compensation in violation of the First, Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Section 1361 of Title 28 confers on the district courts
jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel a
federal officer, employee, or agency to perform a duty owed to the
plaintiff. The mandamus jurisdiction conferred by this provision is
available only if the plaintiff has a clear right to relief, the duty
breached is a clear non-discretionary duty, and no other remedy is
available. If a federal official, however, goes far beyond any rational
exercise of discretion, mandamus may lie even when the action is
within the statutory authority granted.
Page 31 of 103
Page 32 of 103
Page 33 of 103
9. PROCEDURAL POSTURE
This matter has been before more than twenty-eight (28) judges in
six (6) separate judicial forums involving eight (8) lawyers since it began in
August, 2008. It presently pends or has been in the Washington County
Circuit Court, the Oregon Supreme Court, the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate
Panel for the Ninth Circuit, the U. S. Oregon Federal District Court, Portland
Division and the U.S Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit as follows:
Page 34 of 103
Page 35 of 103
Page 36 of 103
peace of their own home. And it is EIGHT years after the 2008
economic meltdown. Eight years after Paulson filed a predatory
lending case in U.S. District Court of Oregon.
This event began the tortured process outlined above which had
a signal result: Judge Mosmans ruling ensured that Paulson could
never get a jury trial. Why? Because of the signal failure of the
judiciary to follow The Rule of Law following that 2010 seminal
event by Judge Mosman and for the next eight (8) years.
Judge Papak was required in 2008 to engage the Judicial
Conference of the United States Mandatory Policy for conflict
screening. He didnt. Nor did Judge Mosman in 2010. Nor did any
other judge for the following six years. If they had, they would have
discovered that the primary attorney for the banks was Craig
Russillo. Further, they would have discovered that the case was
mysteriously taken away from Magistrate Judge Janice Stewart and
given to U.S. District Court Judge Ancer Haggertywho used to
work for the same law firm as Craig RussilloPortland downtown
law firm Schwabe Williamson. Only Paulson didnt know that then.
Required disclosures would have educated Paulson on the potential
Page 37 of 103
Page 38 of 103
Page 39 of 103
Page 40 of 103
Page 41 of 103
(Fairway held the promissory Notes and FHLF, LLC held the deeds of
trust). The Rinegard [Rinegard-Guirma v. Bank of America, et al U.S.
District Court, District of Oregon, Portland Division Civil Case No 10-1065PK, 2010 WL 3945476 (D. Or. Oct. 6, 2010)] case and the law across the
United States says that when the security instrument is separated from the
debt obligation, (the promissory Notes) the security instruments become
ineffective. The debt obligation is no longer secured.
NATACHES CASE
The Issue of Standing
Many debtors/foreclosure litigants took heart in 2010 when U.S.
District of Oregon Judge Garr King took the time to really listen to a
pro se party and really analyze the facts and the law, including taking
judicial notice; in rendering his October 6, 2010 decision in Nataches
case. Natache D. Rinegard-Guirma v. Bank of America in United
States District Court in Oregon, Civil Case No. 10-1065-PK.7
Many debtors/foreclosure victims saw an end to their malaise
because it is abundantly clear that most, if not all lenders had made
http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/OREGON-DISTRICT-COURTISSUES-A-TRO-AGAINST-MERS-BofA-and-LITTON.pdf
7
Page 42 of 103
the fatal mistake of splitting the note from the trust deed without a
valid assignment of the note. This means they did not have Standing
Unfortunately, many debtors were compelled to enter a litigation
tsunami as federal judge after federal judge decided, through rampant
and persistent judicial misconduct; to ignore the issue of standing.
But, it got worse than that. Mimicking Judge Mosmans decision and
ignoring original federal court jurisdiction, local state courts decided
they had jurisdiction for the eviction proceedings and to try out their
local illegal impromptu unpublished rules of the road on
foreclosure.8
Page 43 of 103
Page 44 of 103
Page 45 of 103
https://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/pdf/McKeown091210.pdf
Page 46 of 103
Page 47 of 103
Page 48 of 103
Not to be confused with her older brother Carlos Murguia, a U.S. District Court judge in
Kansas.
12
Page 49 of 103
Page 50 of 103
Page 51 of 103
Page 52 of 103
Page 53 of 103
Page 54 of 103
Page 55 of 103
considered by any judge here, not the Chief Judge nor the Judicial
Council here; having been lost in the Ninth Circuit clerks realm. Lost
even though the document is clearly stamped by Ninth Circuit Clerk
Molly C. Dwyer, as RECEIVED on May 07, 2012. (See Exhibit B
and C) One wonders how many other filed documents are
subsequently misplaced in the Ninth Circuit and particularly the
Ninth Circuit clerks office. It is appalling that these lost documents
are never noticed to be missing. That never happens because the
judges are not reading what is provided to them by consumer
litigants. Think of it in juxtaposition to Due Process and The Rule of
Law.
(As Paulson has pointed out before; the longer a case pends in
the Ninth Circuit, the more likely it will be subject to lost documents.
That problem is compounded, as here, when a partys CM/ECF/
PACER privileges are arbitrarily revoked and a case is sandwiched
between electronic filings and snail mail filings.)
Page 56 of 103
But, there is a
Page 57 of 103
because no one, repeat no-one caught the fact that Judge Murguia had
these four roles here. Her multiple roles encompassing a two year
period began with her being identified in the original sixty-three (63)
page Judicial Misconduct complaint in 2013, but none of the aboveidentified Judicial Council members noticed. It can be proved that noone read anything pertinent here because one of the purported members of
the pertinent decision-making Judicial Council members here is none other
than: Judge Mary H. Murguia. She is listed as a participating
member in rendering the October 15, 2015 decision of the Judicial
Council. This 10/15/15 decision FALSELY represents to the public
that all read the record and the authorities in Chief Judge Thomass
Order of August 27, 2015. What escaped their attention is the fact that
Judge Murguia is one of the subject judges of the complaint of judicial
misconduct dated November 7, 2013 and is a subject on the Barbaric
tome (Exhibit B). (See page 37 and the Table of Contents at page 63)
where her judicial misconduct forms part of the sixty-three [63] page
submission. This means Hon. Murguia also could not have read the
Page 58 of 103
Page 59 of 103
Page 60 of 103
-can not be explained away; this time, by The Judicial Guild. The
Judicial Guild here has trapped themselves in deceit, sloth, corruption
and miscarriage of the lawful and fair administration of justice. Due
Process and the Rule of Law is completely missing in action.
CONCLUSION
This direct evidence of unmistakable and unexplainable judicial
misconduct by the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council , inter alia, is patent.
The Complainant and consumers across the waterfront have
objectively sought investigation of the most reversed Court in the
United States for years.17 But no one on the federal judiciary cares.
This sad tale of woe goes back at least fifteen (15) years and
involves the identical cast of judicial leadership in the Ninth Circuit;
past and present, namely, Judge Schroeder, Judge Kozinski and now,
Chief Judge Thomas. The then-Director of the Administrative Office
of the Judicial Conference of the United States was Leonidas Ralph
Mecham. He reported on the entire antecedent to the current 9th
See In Re Judicial Misconduct 623 F3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2010) Also See The Center for Public
Integrity, Federal Judges Plead Guilty, August 7, 2014
17
Page 61 of 103
APPENDIX to #12-A
MISSION STATEMENT
United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit
The Mission of the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit is to support the
effective and expeditious administration of justice and the safeguarding of
fairness in the administration of the courts within the circuit. To do so, it
will promote the fair and prompt resolution of disputes, ensure the effective
discharge of court business, prevent any form of invidious discrimination,
and enhance public understanding of, and confidence in, the judiciary.
28 USC 354
(b) Referral to Judicial Conference.
(1)In general.
In addition to the authority granted under subsection (a), the judicial
council may, in its discretion, refer any complaint under section 351,
together with the record of any associated proceedings and its
Page 62 of 103
18
Page 63 of 103
http://search.uscourts.gov/search?affiliate=uscourts.gov&locale=en&query=mandatory
%20conflict%20screening
20
Page 64 of 103
Page 65 of 103
Page 66 of 103
The Sharpe case stands for everything that is going wrong in the U.S.
District Court of Oregon and in the Ninth Circuit when judges do not
comply with the mandatory conflict screening policy.
WELLS FARGO
http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/owen-m-panner-2011/
Page 67 of 103
Page 68 of 103
Page 69 of 103
Page 70 of 103
Page 71 of 103
Page 72 of 103
Page 73 of 103
Page 74 of 103
TRUTHINESS
Ninth Circuit Court Judge M. McKeown presented testimony
before the House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on
Courts, on December 10, 2009 on the subject of mandatory conflict
screening among other things. She served as the chair of the
Committee on Codes of Conduct of the Judicial Conference of the
United States. She specifically represented to the Committee that the
Courts are using the mandatory conflict screening policy:
Page 75 of 103
Page 76 of 103
Page 77 of 103
=========================================
APPENDIX to 12-B
Page 78 of 103
Lauren Paulson
Lauren Paulson
541-412-1390
laurenjpaulson@gmail.com
bulletinsfromaloha.org
Thank you,
Les
PACER Service Center
Page 79 of 103
Phone: 210-301-6440
Toll Free: 800-676-6856
For Frequently Asked Questions: http://www.pacer.gov/
psc/hfaq.html
For Account Information: https://www.pacer.gov/psco/cgibin/psclogin.pl
========================================
Judge Manuel Real of the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles was appointed to the
bench in 1966.
Page 80 of 103
A federal judge has issued three key rulings over a four-year period that favored
companies in which he owned stock, a California Watch analysis has found.
Measures are in place to prevent judges from violating federal conflict-of-interest
laws. But Judge Manuel Real, a 46-year veteran of the bench appointed by
President Lyndon B. Johnson, appears to have skirted those safeguards, records
and interviews show.
Judges are supposed to disclose everything from their investments to their
attendance at expenses-paid seminars. When a financial conflict arises, no
matter how small, they are required to step aside, by federal law and the Code of
Conduct for United States Judges.
This is what we call a bright line rule, meaning that it gives clear and
unambiguous guidance to judges and the public, said Steven Lubet, a
Northwestern University law professor who specializes in judicial ethics.
But in at least three cases before the federal District Court for the Central District
of California in Los Angeles, Real did not recuse himself:
The following year, Real dismissed a lawsuit against Verizon. After the
plaintiff in the case appealed the decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals, Real bought Verizon stock worth $15,001 to $50,000. The
appeals court upheld Reals dismissal, but returned the case to Real for
further deliberation. The parties reached an agreement in February 2011,
and Real dismissed the case.
In all three cases, the companys stock rose at least a dollar per share during the
two months following Reals ruling or dismissal.
When there is money involved, it is human nature to protect your own interests,
said John Schneider, a plaintiff in the Verizon case and a retired electrical
contractor. I would say he looked out for his financial interests before he looked
out for mine. Judges should be above reproach.
Real, previously reprimanded for poor conduct on the bench, did not respond to
repeated interview requests made via email or messages left with his courtroom
clerk.
Page 81 of 103
There is no indication that Real had a financial incentive in making his decisions,
and many factors affect stock prices. But legal experts consulted by California
Watch indicated that Reals rulings were, at a minimum, good news for the
companies. California Watch asked law professor Laurie Levenson, who holds
the David W. Burcham Chair in Ethical Advocacy at Loyola Law School in Los
Angeles, to review the cases.
A judge who repeatedly fails to withdraw from cases can face sanctions ranging
from a private reprimand to suspension from hearing cases. Beyond that, a judge
can be referred to Congress for an impeachment hearing.
If a judge is willfully disregarding the disqualification rules, there is precedent for
saying he should be disciplined, said Charles Geyh, an expert in judicial ethics
who teaches law at Indiana University. In addition, where judges are not diligent
in keeping track of their financial conflicts, where there is a pattern of
incompetence, they could also be sanctioned.
But Geyh acknowledged that such sanctions are rare, typically occurring only in
extreme situations. One recent case involved a federal district judge from New
Orleans, impeached and removed from office by the U.S. Senate in 2010 for
failing to disqualify himself from cases in which he accepted cash and favors
from lawyers and a bail bonds company.
Potential ethics violations fall to the Judicial Council of the 9th Circuit to
investigate. Chief Judge Alex Kozinksi, chairman of the council, did not return
calls seeking comment.
Federal judges are required to report not only their financial holdings, but also
those of their spouses to the federal court system. Since September 2006, they
are supposed to use special conflict-checking software, which cross-references
their stock holdings against their courtroom dockets, automatically flagging
potential problems.
But technology is no panacea. Courts generally afford judges autonomy in
who does the checks and how often. Some judges run checks before every
case, while others do so intermittently, according to Central District of
California communications specialist Gary Horimoto. The district is the
largest of the 94 federal judicial districts, serving a population of more than 18
million people in Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Orange,
Riverside and San Bernardino counties.
It is up to each judge to actually run these reports, said Molly Dwyer, clerk of
court of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. We are not policing the judges.
We are accepting them at their word.
Public scrutiny of the financial disclosures is complicated by logistical hurdles.
While anyone can request judges annual financial disclosures through the
federal courts administrative office in Washington, the process of obtaining these
documents and cross-checking them against court rulings is cumbersome and
expensive. Judges file annual financial disclosures by May 15.
In the courtroom
Page 82 of 103
Real, 88, was first appointed to the bench in 1966. He earns $174,000 a year
and like other federal trial court judges enjoys what has effectively become life
tenure, a benefit engineered by authors of the Constitution to protect the courts
independence. A graduate of the University of Southern California, Real earned a
law degree from Loyola Law School before becoming assistant U.S. attorney for
the Southern District of California and, in 1964, the districts U.S. attorney.
One of Reals more notable decisions was a 1970 order to use mandatory busing
to desegregate Pasadena schools.
Among judicial ethicists as well as attorneys who have argued cases before him,
Real is known as an iconoclast.
On a recent day, Real rarely looked up from his desk as a string of lawyers
directed their arguments at the top of his head. Dwarfed by his burgundy leather
chair, Real commanded the cavernous courtroom with the occasional gruff
directive.
Then a mustachioed man in an orange jumpsuit and handcuffs appeared. He
was there to plead guilty to being caught in the country after being deported.
Real leaned forward and peppered the inmate with questions. Then, when a
prosecutor from the Justice Department urged Real to make sure the man
understood the facts of the crime before accepting his plea as required by
federal rules Real lashed out.
I just went through all that with him, Real responded. What do you think that
was all about? We went through the elements of the offense.
The attorney said nothing more.
Notable cases
Real is famous for a courtroom spat with Hustler magazine publisher Larry Flynt
in 1984. Flynt had refused to reveal the source of a video of a sting operation that
he had given to a television network. He appeared before Real and after
repeated outbursts, Real ordered Flynt gagged and handcuffed to his wheelchair.
Years later, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in which it
criticized Real for his accounting of $33.8 million in disputed assets of the
Philippines dictator Ferdinand Marcos. The assets had been held in a Merrill
Lynch account while the courts decided how to divide funds among various
claimants, including Filipinos who claimed to have suffered human rights abuses.
Real, the court documents indicated, declined to provide more than a brief
accounting filled with cryptic notations of the transactions involving the assets
or who authorized them.
Real faced a potential impeachment inquiry by Congress in 2006 over
misconduct allegations, congressional documents show. He was accused of
showing favoritism in a bankruptcy case toward a woman whose probation he
supervised.
In the end, Congress did not pursue the impeachment. But shortly after the
congressional hearing, the Judicial Council of the 9th Circuit publicly
Page 83 of 103
reprimanded Real for showing favoritism in the bankruptcy case and making
misleading statements to investigators.
The Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of
the United States asked the 9th Circuit to review a complaint in which Real was
accused of failing to provide the required reasons for his rulings. In April 2010,
the conference reaffirmed the conclusion of the Judicial Council of the 9th Circuit,
which had reviewed 38 of Reals cases, that there was no misconduct but
warned Real that his decisions would be closely scrutinized.
Arthur D. Hellman, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh and leading
authority on the federal courts, said few federal judges have received as much
scrutiny from the 9th Circuit as Real.
I doubt that there is any federal judge that has been taken off as many cases as
Judge Real, Hellman said.
Federal trial court judges do not have to detail their reasons for withdrawing from
cases, so it is difficult to pinpoint how many avoid financial conflicts of interest.
The Central District doesnt track how often judges withdraw from cases, said
Horimoto, the district communications specialist.
However, Real has been taken off at least 20 cases over the past 25 years by the
9th Circuit, which has criticized him for making decisions that ignore precedent,
court records show, and creating an atmosphere in which an objectively fair trial
could not be conducted.
A controversial judge
It is unclear how Reals multiple conflicts of interest could have escaped notice.
His annual financial disclosures list the companies involved in the three cases, a
connection the conflict-checking software is designed to catch. At least two of the
cases were resolved before Real was required to file his annual disclosures,
however, leaving the attorneys involved no means for evaluating his financial
interests on their own.
In one of Reals cases, Microsoft claimed that All-Valley Computer in Cathedral
City and its owner, Glenn Somervell, distributed software that infringed on
Microsofts copyrights and trademarks. All-Valley failed to respond to Microsofts
complaint by the deadline, and Microsofts lawyers urged Real to issue a
judgment against All-Valley. Real awarded Microsoft about $746,000 in
damages and fees.
Two weeks later, Real added a permanent injunction against All-Valley that
prohibited it from distributing software protected by Microsoft trademarks or
selling counterfeit Microsoft products.
Somervell, who closed All-Valley before the suit to care for his dying mother, said
Reals decisions damaged his career prospects.
I probably cant get a job for the rest of my life; it doesnt look too good on my
rsum, Somervell said. If (Reals) involved with Microsoft, he is going to take
their side. Its totally unfair.
Page 84 of 103
In the Amgen case, Atlanta Cancer Care which runs medical practices in and
around Atlanta alleged that the biotechnology company wrongfully recouped
$184,625 in rebates owed to the oncology practice for medications it purchased
for patients. Real was unmoved. Siding with Amgens lawyers, he dismissed the
suit. But the 9th Circuit disagreed, reversing Reals decision and sending the
case back to him in late 2009 for further consideration. The parties reached a
negotiated settlement in the case at the end of that year.
Leland Wahl, one of the lead attorneys representing Atlanta Cancer Care in the
lawsuit, said Real did not disclose his financial interest in Amgen during the case.
He is a controversial judge, Wahl said. If he does something unusual, many
people would not be surprised, including me.
And in the Verizon case, the communications company stood to lose millions.
Thats because Schneider, the retired electrical contractor, brought a class-action
suit on behalf of Verizon customers challenging the companys practice of billing
each of them up to $149 for canceling their Internet service before the end of
their contract.
Schneiders attorneys argued that the early termination fee was designed to lock
in customers and had little bearing on the actual costs of cancellation. Verizons
attorneys countered that the complaint lacked merit. Real dismissed the suit. On
appeal, the 9th Circuit reversed part of Reals decision and sent the rest back to
him. Verizon later settled the case with Schneider, but no money was awarded to
its other customers.
Checking for conflicts
Around the nation, attorneys and legal scholars point to judges and judicial
districts that are doing things right examples that differ from some of
Californias practices.
One federal judge who pursues conflict checking with vigor is Chief Judge David
R. Herndon of the Southern District of Illinois. He believes it is essential, he said,
to retain the publics trust.
A nominee of President Bill Clinton on the bench for 14 years, Herndon does not
rely on conflict-checking software alone. He posts a list of his stock holdings
online, updating it monthly, in the hope that litigants and lawyers will catch any
conflicts he fails to see.
Software is not infallible; humans are not infallible, Herndon said.
Herndon and a staff member cross-check his case assignments against his
financial holdings daily, he said. In addition, he said, he has instructed his broker
not to invest in large companies involved in frequent litigation.
From October 2011 through September, five federal judges in the Southern
District of Illinois recused themselves on 14 occasions, Herndon said.
In the Northern District of Iowa, the clerks office rather than judges or their
chamber staff screens for conflicts before assigning cases. The Iowa district
also posts judges stock holdings and other information on its website, including
law firms or businesses affiliated with their family members.
Page 85 of 103
It helps lawyers sort out whether judges have conflicts, said Robert Phelps, the
districts clerk of court. In creating the list and publishing it, it also puts that
consideration into the minds of judges.
In California, Dwyer, the 9th Circuit court clerk, said privacy and security
considerations keep Californias disclosures offline. Among the information
included in the filings are details such as addresses of rental properties judges
own or the name of their spouses employer.
I dont think judges want their holdings known by everyone and their mother,
Dwyer said.
Geyh, the Indiana law professor, scoffed at those objections, pointing out that the
financial disclosure is technically a public record, so the lack of online posting
merely makes it harder to get.
It is the price you pay for being a government employee, he said.
Obtaining financial filings
Without such Web access, obtaining judges financial filings is complicated. A
written request must be sent to federal officials in Washington, and judges are
warned about who is scrutinizing their disclosures. In some cases, under federal
law, judges may black out key information, if it includes revealing personal and
sensitive information (that) could endanger the judge or a family member.
For example, in mid-2008, Real transferred 19 stocks most of which were worth
between $15,001 and $100,000 each, one worth up to $500,000 to a recipient
whose name has been blacked out. The companies ranged from Adobe Systems
to UnitedHealth Group.
Another Southern California federal court judge, Percy Anderson, issued more
than two dozen rulings in a 2007 trademark infringement case involving Verizon,
including a preliminary injunction and some other rulings in favor of the
company.
Eight months into the continuing Los Angeles case, Anderson withdrew, saying
that he should not preside over this case because it was reasonably brought to
his attention that he has a financial interest in one of the parties, court records
show.
Verizon was the only publicly traded company involved in the case. Lawyers said
Anderson recused himself because he owned Verizon stock. But there is no way
to know for sure because Anderson was allowed to black out his financial
disclosures before they were released to the public.
Anderson did not respond to messages left with his courtroom clerk.
Once financial documents are obtained, they must be checked against hundreds
of cases each judge oversees, making it difficult to determine whether Real is an
anomaly or a symbol of a wider problem.
A California Watch analysis of Northern California district judges, for instance,
found that they issued at least 20 rulings involving companies in which they
owned stock between 2006 and 2010, according to court records and financial
disclosures.
Page 86 of 103
***********************
Judge Sentelle testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the
Judiciary on April 25, 2013 Subcommittee on Courts, et al., Howard Coble Chairman
25
Page 87 of 103
Page 88 of 103
Page 89 of 103
him since he has authored a blog on local judicial misconduct for eight
(8) years. Judges Leavy and Fletcher prove him right. See above.
3/09/15 Paulson writes again to Chief Judge Sidney Thomas about
the financial conflicts of interest in the Ninth Circuit judiciary.
(Exhibit F) False off-ramp: On the one hand, Ninth Circuit Judge M.
McKeown represents to the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary
that the Ninth Circuit is fully in compliance with Conflict of Interest
Policy. On the other hand Chief Judge Thomas does not respond on
Paulsons inquiry about the missing conflict of interest software in the
Ninth Circuit. This is also reported to the Ninth Circuit Judicial
Council. Note the prevarication of their response. Then compare that
response with the 2012 article above regarding the Ninth Circuit from
Clerk Molly Dwyer.
3/09/15 Paulson files a Motion to Disqualify Chief Judge Thomas
(Exhibit F) because Paulson does not think Judge Thomas can be fair
because his former law firm represents Bank of America, Wells Fargo
and U.S. Bank. False off-ramp: Judges want to derail pro se litigants.
Because they can. So Chief Judge Thomas derails Paulsons
foreclosure case anyway. Paulson requests judicial notice, but never
given. The Motion points out that Legal Aids website (probono.net)
is partially owned and run by Bank of America, his clients!
2/26/15 Ninth Circuit Court Judges Thomas and Murguia rule
against Paulson on five separate pending matters. False off-ramp:
Paulson had filed a judicial misconduct complaint against Judge
Murguia over a year earlier.
1/29/15 Judge Clifton recuses himself and withdraws an Order he
signed on 9/23/15. False off-ramp: The Clerk refused to calendar
Paulsons 10/15/14 Motion for reconsideration based on Judge
Cliftons 9/23/15 Order and subsequent recusal. It is never heard.
Page 90 of 103
Page 91 of 103
Page 92 of 103
Page 93 of 103
Page 94 of 103
The multiple requests for visiting presiding judges from outside the
Circuit have been formally made by the Complainant, but never acted
on by either Chief Judge. Accordingly, the Complainant filed multiple
Certificates of Necessity with Judge Motz and Judge Lamberth when
he could not get a response from former Chief Judge Kozinski. Even
with the changes in leadership, Chief Judge Thomas also ignores
Paulsons efforts to get an unbiased judge and ignores Paulsons
request for a Certificate of Necessity filed in the above case. Paulson
then received instruction from Judge Lamberth as to his options.
(Exhibit F) And there it sits.
5.) Plagiarism See Judge Aikens ruling and Paulsons analysis of
her plagiarism. (Exhibit E) That shocking plagiarism is specifically
sanctioned by new Chief Judge Thomas. Rampant plagiarism
without attribution is common in this jurisdictionusually taken
from the memorandum from the downtown law firm before them as
was done here by Judge Aiken. Or from stock rulings on the shelf.
6.) Pleadings Pleadings mean what they say. The Ninth Circuit
Clerk or Helpers often unilaterally determine that important filings by
Pro Se parties that ask for the En Banc process or to Reopen a case or
for a Writ of Mandamus do not mean what they say. The panels then
reacts to this signal by designating the pleading frivolous. Nothing
about foreclosure is frivolous.
7.) CM/ECF/PACER Chief Judge Ann Aiken here unilaterally
decided that Paulson no longer was eligible for electronic filing. This
results in a huge burden financial and otherwise on a pro se
party not to mention a denial of the equal protection of the law.
Consider the difference between the cost of electronic mailing v. the
cost of post office mailing. Why are the law firms able and the
consumers not able to do electronic filings of these voluminous, yet
important, pleadings?
Page 95 of 103
29
http://www.bulletinsfromaloha.org/weekly/2011/9/26/bank-america-your-law-partner.html
Page 96 of 103
Page 97 of 103
Page 98 of 103
Page 99 of 103
__________/S/______________
Lauren Paulson Pro Se
Again, consider how many consumers have lost everything due to insidious judicial
misconduct.
31
EXHIBITS
======================================
ITEM
EXHIBIT
Judge Dunn 12/7/11 Judicial Misconduct Complaint.
A.