TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
WRIT OF MANDAMUS.3
PRELIMINARY..

ISSUES 5
ANSWERS.5
DISCUSSION5
CATACLYSMIC FAILURE. 5
THE FACTS..7
CHRONOLOGY OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS.7
EXHIBIT A Reinstatement Letter ..11
ORIGINAL CIVIL COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS14

WRIT OF MANDAMUS STANDARD 31

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL CONFERENCE INVESTIGATION..36
1. Judge Garland 41
2. Judge Scirica.43
EXHIBIT B Letter to Judge Scirica..44
3. Judge McKeown47
4. Judge Sidney Thomas.47
Page 1 of 76

5. Judge Leavy.49
APPELLANTS OPENING BRIEF..55
6. Karen Garst Ex. Dir., OSB.59
7. Judge Ann Aiken 60
8. Judge Haggerty..64
9. Justice Balmer66
10. Miller Nash Law Firm.67
11. Fratricide..69
CONCLUSION..72
12. Judge Lambert.73

Page 2 of 76

Lauren Paulson, Pro Se

16131 W. Hoffeldt Ln #38
Brookings, OR 97415
541 412 1390
laurenjpaulson@gmail.com
Plaintiff
--------------------------------------------In re: LAUREN PAULSON Pro Se
--------------------------------------------U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
NINTH CIRCUIT
Case Nos. 13-35672 and 13-71718
and
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF OREGON, Portland Division
In re LAUREN PAULSON,

)
)
)
Civil Case No.:
Petitioner- Plaintiff,
)
)
6:13-cv-00175-AA
)
v.
)
)
OREGON STATE BAR,
)
)
SUPREME COURT OF OREGON
) MOTION for WRIT OF MANDAMUS
)
) for a CERTIFICATE OF NECESSITY
)
)
Rule 21
CHIEF JUSTICE THOMAS BALMER
)
)
and JEFF SAPIRO
)
) REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL CONFERENCE
)
)
INVESTIGATION
Real Parties in Interest
)
)
Respondent - Defendants,
)
A Class Action/ Oral Argument
------------------------------------------------------)
Page 3 of 76

v.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE DISTRICT
OF OREGON, EUGENE
Respondent

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

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

PRELIMINARY
In 2003, Lauren Paulson was elected to the Oregon State Bar Board
of Governors by his constituents; the one thousand lawyers of four counties
in Oregon. He had previously served as the President of the Washington
County Bar Association and also served on the Oregon State Bar House of
Delegates. Prior to that he was an Asst. VP for a financial firm on Wall St.
In 2004, as a member of the Judiciary Committee of the Oregon State
Bar Board of Governors he voted for a statewide judicial performance
evaluation program. Local judges made it clear they were NOT in favor of
such a program. In 2005 the American Bar Association came out with their
own formal similar program for evaluating judges. In 2006, the Oregon
Supreme Court killed the idea for such an independent system in Oregon.
In 2009, Paulson formally reintroduced this program to the Oregon
State Bar who again voted it down.

The Oregon Supreme Court

terminated Paulsons right to practice law in Oregon (2006-2009). There is

http://www.bulletinsfromaloha.org/weekly/2009/6/13/judicial-performance-evaluations.html

Page 4 of 76

no judicial performance evaluation system in Oregon nor is one

contemplated. Over half of the states in the U.S. have such a system.

ISSUES
1. Does the Judiciary adhere to the Oregon Constitution; The
Rule of Law, and does the Judiciary afford subject lawyers with Due
Process before taking away their right to earn a living in violation of
those protections?
2. Is the Judiciary biased against Paulson for espousing, inter
alia, the concept of formal statewide judicial evaluations in Oregon for
their judges since 2004?

ANSWERS
1. NO
2. YES

DISCUSSION
CATACLYSMIC FAILURE
This is the story of the cataclysmic failure of our legal system. The
report here catalogues that failure from the top down. The story begins
with the U.S. Supreme Court who operates at least one full generation
behind the times. It ends with solitary consumers engaged in the tragic
quest to save their homes from foreclosure.bereft of legal help from
any corner. THIS IS THE LEGAL PROFESSIONS DARKEST HOUR.
Page 5 of 76

Along the way we will trace that failure down from the U.S. Supreme
Court to a little known organization next in line The Judicial Conference
of the United States who is supposed to ensure that judges who decide to
follow a corrupt road of their own are held to account. The U.S. Supreme
Court refers to this impotent process and their players as The Guild. (See
the Breyer Report2)
Then there is the rest of the Court systems where there is the most
egregious corruption this side of Los Angeles3. (See Campaign for Judicial
Integrity.)
Finally, there is your local state court system where we will end. On
a sour note.

FROM THE TOP DOWN:

It is the Judicial Conference of the United States judicial misconduct

protocol that is supposed to protect the public against the likes of child
rapist Judge Richard W. Roberts. That is where until March 16, 2016
Judge Garland and Judge (rapist) Roberts served together as members of
the Judicial Conference of the United States from the D.C. Circuit. (In the
federal court realm there is the District Court {the lower court} and the
Circuit Court, the court between the District Court and the U.S. Supreme
Court).
2

http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/breyer06.pdf/$file/breyer06.pdf

http://www.campaignforjudicialintegrity.org

Page 6 of 76

THE FACTS

Does the Judiciary adhere to The Rule of Law and afford subject
lawyers with Due Process when they take away a persons right and
ability to earn a living?

CHRONOLOGY OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS

1973 Lauren Paulson graduates from Lewis & Clarks
Northwestern School of Law, passes the state bar exam and proudly
becomes an Oregon lawyer.
1996 Lauren Paulson is elected President of the Washington
County Bar Association.
2001 Lauren Paulson makes a formal bar complaint against
Oregon State Bar (OSB) Disciplinary Counsel Jeff Sapiro for over a
year delay of a disciplinary investigation involving allegations against
Paulson.
2001 Jeff Sapiro brings a formal disciplinary complaint against
Lauren Paulson for an alleged illegal attorney fee
charge of $67.50. It goes to a full scale trial.
2001 As an Oregon State Bar House of Delegates
member, Lauren Paulson votes to implement a study
of the Oregon State Bar Disciplinary process. The
Oregon State Bar through its President Ed Harnden
is against it, but it passes anyway.
2002 Lauren Paulson attends all meetings and provides input to
the Oregon State Bar Disciplinary Task Force Report.4 It is
approved by the House of Delegates in October, 2002 with Lauren
4

https://www.osbar.org/surveys_research/disciplinary.html

Page 7 of 76

Paulson as a voting member. The new system removed Jeff Sapiro

from the intake process of disciplinary complaints and creates a Client
Assistance Office to screen and triage Oregon attorney disciplinary
complaints. Jeff Sapiro was not happy. That change worked and is in
effect as of today.
2002 Lauren Paulson is elected to the Oregon State Bar
Board of Governors; the governing body of the Oregon State
Bar, by his Washington County lawyer constituents;.
2002
2007 Jeff Sapiro brings eight (8) new disciplinary charges against
Lauren Paulson. Paulson had never had a disciplinary complaint filed
against him from 1973 to 2001.
2003 Lauren commences a constituent newsletter to his
Washington County fellow lawyers regarding Board of Governors
happenings. Bar leadership wants to pre-approve (censor) said
newsletter to ensure it is following the party line. Paulson refuses
censorship and continues his constituent newsletter under a novel
concept known as free speech.
2004- While serving on the Oregon State Bar Board of Governors,
Lauren Paulson, along with an OSB Committee formally
recommended a formal statewide system of judicial performance
evaluations. (JPE) Judges say they want to be held accountable. That
is not so. Meanwhile the American Bar Association also
recommended a formal statewide system of judicial
performance guidelines. Arrangements were made to make a
presentation to Oregons judiciary. Oregons judiciary formally
scuttled the concept in Oregon. (Meanwhile see 2008 below)
2004 Lauren Paulson blows the whistle on the former OSB
Executive Directors attempt to secretly get the Oregon State Bar to
purchase her church building in Tualatin, Oregon. She is a creditor of
her own church for more than $22,000. It is later learned that the
church is financially underwater. The church founders husband
Page 8 of 76

eventually pled guilty to money laundering church and using church

money for the personal expenses of himself and his wife, Mary Manin
Morrissey. He was sentenced to two (2) years in federal prison and
was released in 2007. 5
2006 The Oregon State Bar Board of Governors writes a new
rule that defrocks any Board of Governor member who is subject to a
disciplinary complaint. Lauren Paulson is removed as a Board of
Governor of the Oregon State Bar under this new rule for the 2001
purported offense (see above). This new rule is clearly a Bill of
Attainder, precluded by the Constitution. He is later disbarred on the
multiple bar complaints filed against him by Jeff Sapiro beginning in
2001.
November 21, 2007 Jeff Manning of the Oregonian reports that
the State disbars Aloha lawyer, Lauren Paulson, citing numerous
violations. Reporter Manning states in that article that Paulson
was unavailable for comment. (Note the disparity between Mr.
Mannings reporting on Paulson and Mr. Mannings reporting on
Attorney Albert Menashe, a protagonist in Paulsons fall from grace at
the Oregon State Bar.)6 Note link to this article below.
2008 The Chicago Law School formally rates all of the appellate
courts in the United States. Oregons appellate courts rate next to last;
the worst appellate courts in the United States. (Note above at year
2004) Paulson files his predatory lending lawsuit against Wells Fargo
among other financial institutions. This lawsuit was filed in U.S.
District Court of Oregon before Judge Ancer Haggerty.
February 19, 2009 laurenjohn [sic](Lauren Paulson) reports in
his blog bulletinsfromaloha.org and subsequently in The Oregonians
Oregon live that Lawyer discipline in Oregon is unconstitutional.

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/10815/pastor-of-bankrupt-wilsonville-church-husband-nearplea-deal
5

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2011/04/
albert_menashe_hands_over_mana.html
6

Page 9 of 76

September 21, 2011 Therese Bottomly, Editor of the Oregonian,

attends an Oregon State Bar meeting where Paulson reports on why
and how the Chief Justice of the Oregon Supreme Court is wasting
$200 million taxpayer dollars on an abortive attempt to facilitate
electronically filed pleadings with the courts called eCourt. She is
unsure why she is there. (Think Cover Oregon) Lauren hands her his
business card on the issue of the Broken Legal System in Oregon. No
one at The Oregonian follows-up on Paulsons allegations against the
Oregon State Bars disciplinary system.
=============================================
April 28, 2012 Lauren Paulson wrote to the former members of
the 2002 Oregon State Bar Disciplinary Task Force of 2002 to point
out how the House of Delegates 2001 Resolution was never
implemented by the Oregon State Bar in general and Jeff Sapiro
specifically.
August 12, 2012 Reporter Jeff Manning leaves The Oregonian to
work for newly elected Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum.
August 29, 2012 Lauren Paulson wrote a formal letter to
Oregon Supreme Court Chief Justice Balmer outlining the
Hon. Balmers statutory responsibility for attorney discipline in
Oregon and how the present system is unconstitutional in twenty
(20) specific ways. (See Appendix below Exhibit A)
2012 Paulson formally requests reinstatement to the
Oregon State Bar. The Oregon Supreme Court and the
Oregon State Bar refuse to act on that application. Exhibit A

=========================
EXHIBIT A
Page 10 of 76

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Hon. Thomas Balmer
1163 State St.
Salem, OR 97301-2536
Re:

Lauren Paulson
Oregon State Bar Reinstatement Application

Dear Chief Justice Balmer:

Please accept this as my Application for Reinstatement
to the Oregon State Bar under ORS 9.529 which states:

9.529 Status of proceedings relating to discipline,

admission or reinstatement. Bar proceedings relating
to discipline, admission and reinstatement are neither
civil nor criminal in nature. They are sui generis and
within the inherent power of the Supreme Court to
control.
I am not submitting this Application for Reinstatement
under normal Oregon State Bar procedures for this
reason. Following my unceremonious removal from
the Oregon State Bar Board of Governors in 2004 Jeff
Sapiro, Disciplinary Counsel for the Oregon State Bar,
admitted in his deposition that he was biased against
me. All this may be found in the record of those
Page 11 of 76

proceedings that actually began in 2001 when I first

filed a bar complaint against Mr. Sapiro for delay.
Realizing this Application for Reinstatement may cause
an administrative burden on the Supreme Court of
Oregon which it may not relish, may I propose the
following:
Recommendation -- The Supreme Court of Oregon
appoint a Referee under ORCP 65 to perform the
administrative function normally accorded through the
good offices of the Oregon State Bar.
Moreover, I recommend that the appointment be made
for a Referee from outside the State of Oregon. You
see, following what I maintained was an
unconstitutional Bill of Attainder in the Paulson Bar
Rule 18.6 that cancelled me off the Oregon State Bar
Board of Governors; I sued the Bar and Jeff Sapiro in
U.S. District Court of Oregon. Therefore, it is unlikely
that any member of the Oregon State Bar, including the
judiciary can be unbiased toward me.
However, in view of the stakes involved, I am willing
to waive that bias that undoubtedly presents itself in
the Supreme Court of Oregon, provided we can follow
this alternative process.
Page 12 of 76

My goal is not to practice law again. My goal is to

clear my name.
As you can see from the attached, I regard Oregons
Disciplinary Process as patently unconstitutional. If the
Supreme Court of Oregon is willing to ameliorate my
situation in the legal profession then I am willing to
work with the Oregon State Bar to ameliorate the
defects in the Bar disciplinary process. It is my
understanding that the Oregon State Bar Board of
Governors is planning to look into the disciplinary
process anyway and perhaps, I can lend positive input
into that endeavor.
I look forward to hearing from you in these regards.
Thank you in advance for your interest and
consideration.
Very truly yours,
/S/

Lauren Paulson

================================================================

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL FILED CIVIL COMPLAINT AGAINST

THE OREGON STATE BAR FOLLOWED ON JANUARY 30, 2013
Twenty-Three (23) Unconstitutional Ways of Oregons lawyer
Disciplinary System

Page 13 of 76

Paulson identified and addressed the following issues in his

Original Complaint supplemented by the issues in the Opening brief
filed by the Plaintiff: [Compare to Judge Leavys ruling on only four
(4) of these issues identified by him and as is outlined below]:
PAULSONS ISSUES 1. The Rule of Law -- The Oregon
State Bar disciplinary regime does not follow the rule of law.
Trial panel proceedings and Oregon Supreme Court
proceedings do not follow case law nor other precedent even
though required to do so under the law.
2. Burden of Proof --Lawyer disciplinary cases are criminal
proceedings, even though they are dubbed sui generis. The
Oregon State Bar purports to have to prove their case by
"clear and convincing" evidence. That is a sham. Both the
Oregon disciplinary courts and the Oregon Supreme Court
decisions simply state, without analysis, that the case met
the clear and convincing burden. Without an analysis of
the standard and how the facts meet that standard under
Page 14 of 76

specific precedent, the burden of proof requirement is simply

an empty vessel.
3. Judges -- By statute, the Oregon Supreme Court is
required to appoint the trial panel judges for Oregon's lawyer
disciplinary courts. ORS 9.534. They don't. The Oregon State
Bar Board of Governor's Appointments Committee picks the
trial panel disciplinary judges in open defiance of the
applicable statute.
4. Judges -- Trial Panel judges are what judges for Oregon
State Bar disciplinary cases are called. Jeff Sapiro, Oregon's
Disciplinary Counsel, and as the prosecutor for disciplinary
cases in Oregon, improperly helps pick his own trial panel
judges. He attends the Oregon State Bar Board of Governor's
Appointments Committee meetings and weighs in on his
opinion of who should be chosen for trial panel judges to the
Oregon State Bar. No members of the Oregon State Bar who
are subject to discipline in Oregon know about nor are
Page 15 of 76

advised of Mr. Sapiros open, recorded participation in

picking the judges that he then prosecutes lawyer
disciplinary cases before.
5. Appeal Penalty -- By an illegal Bar Rule, the lawyer who
appeals a disciplinary court decision can be even more
harshly sanctioned. This rule states that when a lawyer
appeals a trial panel opinion, the Bar automatically appeals
as well; by virtue of the lawyer's appeal. The Oregon
Supreme Court regularly punishes Oregon lawyers even
more severely on a lawyer's appeal of a disciplinary trial
panel ruling than was the original trial panel ruling. This
intimidation factor blunts lawyer appeals of Oregon
disciplinary rulings. This is illegal double jeopardy. What
criminal defendant would appeal a second degree murder
charge if the appeal would result in a hanging?
Even more bizarre. Oregon lawyers who are not the subject of a
disciplinary proceeding formally and in writing point out to the Supreme

Page 16 of 76

Court of Oregon where they are wrong in their disciplinary decisions. The
Supreme Court then modifies their ruling, recognizing their error based on
this ultra vires input, but fail to tell the public the reason for their modified
decision; ie. that it was as a result of an uninvolved friend of the court
whos formal input goes without attribution contrary to all accountability and
transparency of the Oregon Supreme Court errors.
6. Indigent Defense Counsel -- Oregon disciplinary prosecutions
exact a devastating price on lawyers and particularly lawyers in small
practice situations. Often lawyers become indigent over the disciplinary
process or their financial problems led to the disciplinary circumstance in
the first place. They are entitled to court appointed counsel pursuant to the
Constitution of Oregon Art. 1, Section 11 and the Sixth Amendment to the
United States Constitution in these circumstances because these are
actually criminal proceedings. The Oregon State Bar maintains a program
of about 80 volunteer lawyers made up of lawyers who represent the Bar
free of charge. The majority of prosecuted lawyers do not get free legal
help as constitutionally required. Oregon's disciplinary department has a
budget of almost $2 million dues' dollars which the lawyers subject to
disciplinary proceedings are also paying. Providing the Bar free
representation and not the lawyer subject to discipline is also a denial of
equal protection of the laws along with being otherwise unconstitutional.
Page 17 of 76

7. Discovery -- The accused lawyer in disciplinary cases is not

afforded normal and necessary discovery. The Oregon State Bar is
allowed discovery, also in violation of due process and equal protection of
the laws.
8. Retaliation -- Statistically, the Bar wins about 97% of their
prosecutions. In the rare event that a lawyer wins, statistically, the Bar
prosecutes that same lawyer a second time on new charges with a
conviction in open and blatant retaliation. During 2002 the Oregon State
Bar appointed a Disciplinary Task Force to study how Oregon lawyers are
prosecuted. The Task Force found multiple problems. A survey produced
over forty lawyers who wrote letters to the Bar pointing out specific
instances of retaliation by Oregon's Disciplinary Counsel. No one at the Bar
nor the Oregon Supreme Court investigated these charges of retaliation
even though required to do so by their own House of Delegates Resolution
of 2001. The Plaintiffs have been subjected to said retaliation.
9. Bias -- In the same survey, 47% of Oregon lawyers, [a permutation
of 6,500 (out of 13,000) Oregon lawyers] opine there is bias in the State of
Oregon lawyer disciplinary process. The Defendants have failed to
investigate patent bias in lawyer disciplinary proceedings in the state even
though required to do so by the 2001 House of Delegates Resolution.
10. Reverse Gender Bias -- Oregon's Disciplinary Department is the
Page 18 of 76

largest department at the Oregon State Bar. Of the fifteen (15) employees
of Oregon's Disciplinary Department (sans Mr. Sapiro), all but one are
women. Of the 141 Oregon lawyers disciplined in 2007 and 2008, 120 of
them were men, 21 were women. (There are about 4,000 women lawyers
in Oregon and about 8,000 men) There is unfair statistical gender bias
against male lawyers in Oregon disciplinary proceedings in violation of their
civil rights. In the November 2012 Oregon State Bar Bulletin there are six
prosecutions of male lawyers and only one against a female lawyer.
11. Misjoinder -- In criminal court, in order for a prosecutor to
prosecute multiple cases against one defendant at the same time; the
cases must have a common nexus. The criteria for nexus is that only those
cases that have some sort of connection may be prosecuted against a
person at the same time. Contrary to that criminal law, Oregon State Bar is
permitted to prosecute multiple unrelated cases against one lawyer in the
same proceeding which are without such a nexus.
12. Prior Bad' Acts -- Prior bad acts may not be brought up in
criminal matters unless they show a commonality of scheme. In Oregon
disciplinary courts, the prosecutor can discuss ALL of an Oregon lawyer's
prior bad acts, real or imagined, in a single proceeding without limit.
13. Right to Remedy -- Oregon's constitution (Art 1, 10) provides
that in all cases a citizen has a right to a remedy by due course of the law
Page 19 of 76

in the case of injury to reputation. The Oregon State Bars disciplinary

counsel and surrogates openly impugn Oregon lawyers professional
reputations in multiple forums including the Oregon State Bars
Professionalism Commission, Oregons Judicial Conference (which is
secret) Managing Partners meetings and other Bar sponsored events.
Moreover, the Oregon State Bar has a Press Agent who regularly and often
speaks to the press about putative errant lawyers without their knowledge.
And their reputations. When the Oregon State Bar wants to get a lawyer
they issue press releases in order to harm lawyers reputations who are
disfavored. There is no remedy. The Oregon State Bar Board of
Governors hold ex parte proceedings involving lawyers subject to
disciplinary proceedings without informing said lawyer.
14. Alternate Dispute Resolution -- In accordance with a 2001
Oregon State Bar House of Delegates resolution, the Disciplinary Task
Force took a sweeping new look at Oregon's disciplinary department and
decided on sweeping new changes for the good of the system in 2002.
These changes were approved by the Oregon Supreme Court and became
effective in 2003. Subsequently, the Bar Rule changes aforesaid, permitting
mediation and diversion, are not used by Oregon's disciplinary department,
even now, years later for the reason that Jeff Sapiro would rather prosecute
than ameliorate disciplinary charges against Oregon lawyers through the
Page 20 of 76

changes made in 2001-2003. This failure to use Alternative Dispute

Resolutions systems implemented by the Oregon State Bar Disciplinary
Task Force by the Oregon State Bars Disciplinary Counsel is reported
annually to the Oregon State Bar Board of Governors with no enforcement
of said Bar Rules.
15. Prosecutorial Misconduct -- Oregons Disciplinary Counsel has
fashioned absolute immunity for himself, free of any scrutiny as the Oregon
State Bar prosecutor: Under Bar Rules the only entity in Oregon that may
investigate or indict Oregon's disciplinary counsel for any prosecutorial
misconduct is the State Professional Responsibility Board (SPRB)
Chairman. [Bar Rule 2.6(g)] {The SPRB is Oregon's disciplinary grand jury.}
The Oregon State Bar prosecutor, Mr. Sapiro, attends all SPRB sessions
and as prosecutor, presents lawyer disciplinary cases to the SPRB.
By rule, [Board Bylaw 18.100], Jeff Sapiro is also the designated
attorney, representing the SPRB, as their lawyer ( Mr. Sapiro wears two
hats....prosecutor and lawyer for the SPRB). Thus, the only entity that
may investigate Mr. Sapiros own bad acts as prosecutor is the SPRB who
would ALSO be investigating their own attorney, Jeff Sapiro -- Oregon's
disciplinary attorney! And prosecutor.
16. De Novo Review -- By statute, the Oregon Supreme Court is
required to review any and all Oregon lawyer disciplinary cases de novo.
Page 21 of 76

This means they are required obtain and read the entire record of the
disciplinary matter including trial panel proceedings. They don't. They don't
even get a copy of the entire record on lawyer disciplinary cases appealed
to them as required by law. Yet the Oregon Supreme Court issues
decisions depriving lawyers of their right to earn a living without having
done their own due diligence -- reading and examining the record afresh
as required by law. This malfeasance is judicial misconduct of the highest
order affecting the lives of hundreds of Oregon lawyers.
17. Irregular Proceedings -- There are secret' meetings in the
Oregon legal profession with regard to Oregon lawyers disciplinary
proceedings. The leadership of the Oregon State Bar secretly meets with
the Chief Justice of the Oregon Supreme Court on lawyer disciplinary
matters on pending Oregon lawyer disciplinary cases. The lawyer in
question is not informed of that illegal ex parte contact between Oregon
State Bar leadership and the Chief Justice of the Oregon Supreme Court
on the very pending case against the Oregon lawyer while it is pending
before the Supreme Court of Oregon.
Members of Bar leadership involved with pending disciplinary matters
meet with the Oregon State Bar Professionalism Commission and others
on individual lawyer disciplinary matters. The individual Oregon lawyer that
is subject to the disciplinary proceedings is not in attendance nor is the
Page 22 of 76

lawyer for the accused lawyer, informed of these secret meetings.

18. Unconstitutional Delay -- The Oregon disciplinary counsel has
no time constraints on how long it takes to prosecute an Oregon lawyer.
The problem of how long a disciplinary matter was to take was one of the
main tasks' of the Disciplinary Task Force assigned to it by the Oregon
State Bar House of Delegates in 2001. Under Oregon law, ORS 9.139 (1)
(b) the Oregon State Bar Board of Governors must carry out the
Resolutions passed by the House of Delegates under their statutory power
to formulate disciplinary rules under ORS 9.490. They didnt. The entire
Oregon State Bar has ignored their own House of Delegates vote in 2001
which required that the Oregon State Bar Board of Governors study "The
appropriate speed of (Oregons) disciplinary process". This has never been
done. Therefore, the Oregon disciplinary department takes their own time
subject to no time constraints. In Oregon and in all criminal courts, the
defendant has a constitutional right to a speedy trial under the Sixth
Amendment to the United States Constitution. Because the Oregon State
Bar failed to follow The Rule of Law aforesaid Oregon lawyers have
wrongfully had disciplinary matters pending against them for years because
the Board of Governors failed to carry out the 2001 Resolution passed by
the Oregon State Bar House of Delegates effective 2003 to determine the
appropriate speed of the Oregon State Bar disciplinary process as required
Page 23 of 76

by Oregon law.
19. The Constitutional Right to Confront Witnesses -- The Oregon
disciplinary courts do not require the personal appearance of either
complainants nor witnesses against an Oregon lawyer at trial. Thus, the
most basic of our constitutional rights under the United States Constitution
under the Sixth Amendment and Art. 1, Section 11 of the Constitution of
Oregon; the right to confront and cross examine witnesses against them
are lost to Oregon lawyers who are subject to disciplinary proceedings.
20. Convictions -- The Bar rules require a panel of three judges. The
Oregon disciplinary department and Supreme Court of Oregon both allow
decisions with only a two person panel contrary to their own rules. Criminal
convictions require no less than ten members of a twelve person jury under
Art 1., Section 11 of the Constitution of Oregon. Using the same ratio of
unanimity as is found in Oregons Constitution for criminal matters, the
Oregon State Bar allowing only two persons on a designated three-person
trial panel is unconstitutional.
21. Freedom of Speech -- The Oregon State Bar constrains
freedom of speech by subjecting lawyers who dissent to spurious
disciplinary proceedings. When Board of Governors members seek to
communicate to their Oregon lawyer members, the Oregon State Bar
requires prepublication censorship and other prior restraint to Oregon
Page 24 of 76

lawyers Constitutional right to free speech and of the press all of which is
unconstitutional.
22. Bill of Attainder -- Bar Rule 18.6 was enacted as a Bill of
Attainder against Oregon State Bar Board of Governors members who
exercise their right to freedom of speech and of the press. The Oregon and
United States Constitutions bar the enactment of ex-post facto laws and
Bar Rule 18.6 is such a Bill of Attainder. Oregon Bar Rule 18.6 is such an
ex-post facto law.
23. Right to a Jury Trial -- Under Art 1, Section 17 of the
Constitution, the right to a jury trial shall remain inviolate. Oregon lawyers
are not provided the right to a jury trial even though disciplinary proceeding
sanctions amount to criminal convictions including the loss of a lawyers
right to earn a living. (The above 1-23 is from Plaintiffs Original Civil
Complaint.)
================================================================

January 4, 2013 Jeff Manning Reports on new Oregon Attorney

General Ellen Rosenblum.
January 30, 2013 Lauren Paulson files a Class Action lawsuit in
U.S. District Court of Oregon against the Oregon State Bar, Oregon
Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Balmer and Jeff Sapiro alleging
Oregons Disciplinary regulations and laws against Oregon lawyers are
unconstitutional. Case No. 13-cv-00175 Those cases were on appeal
to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Paulson hereby requests a
Page 25 of 76

formal investigation by the Judicial Conference of the United States on

the Judiciarys failure to identify formal conflicts of interest in this and
foreclosure cases throughout the Ninth Circuit. (The Chief Judge of
the Ninth Circuit is formally reprimanded on other charges relating to
pornography.) This is a twenty-eight (28) page pleading alleging
twenty-three (23) constitutional violations and asks for an injunction
against those violations for the class of lawyers subject to them.
February 28, 2013 Jeff Sapiro, OSB disciplinary counsel and
director of regulatory services from 1989 to February 2013 retires.
March 12, 2013 Judge Aiken refuses the appointment of pro bono
attorney because there are no exceptional circumstances requiring it.
The Plaintiff may not represent the Class Action without outside
counsel.
April, 2013 The Oregon State Bar welcomes John S. Gleason as
the new OSB disciplinary counsel and director of regulatory services.
He was formerly regulation counsel for the Colorado Supreme Court.
In February, he received the National Organization of Bar Counsel
2013 Presidents Award, honoring his many years of dedication and
noteworthy contributions to the legal profession.
May 3, 2013 U.S. District Court Chief Judge Ann Aiken renders
her seven-page (7) Opinion and Order dismissing Plaintiffs case.
May 16, 2013 Paulson files a forty-six (46) page Writ of
Mandamus in the Ninth Circuit requesting a neutral judge from
another jurisdiction. This pleading is assigned the Case No. 13-71718.
(See Docket No.1) by the Ninth Circuit Clerk. The salient issue is
whether Justice Balmer enjoys immunity while engaging in
administrative (ie. disciplinary matters) v. judicial duties. Judge
Aiken never addressed this issue even though Paulsons pleading
addresses that issue in his twenty-six (26) page Response to Balmers
Motion to Dismiss. And now this Writ of Mandamus adds forty-six
(46) more pages to the legal discussion.
July 11, 2013 Chief Judge Kozinski rules on Case #13-71718 :
ORDER (on the 46 page Writ of Mandamus filed on May 16, 2013)
Page 26 of 76

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, CANBY and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. The
petition for writ of mandamus is denied as moot because the district
court entered judgment on June 07, 2013.
All other pending requests are also denied as moot.
No further filings will be entertained in this closed case. DENIED.
=======================================================

Note This is where things get confusing. Case #13-71718 (Writ of

Mandamus) is about getting a neutral judge. The case is not closed
and has never been closed. This Plaintiffs pleading has never
been addressed by the Court nor has it had a ruling on the
merits. Thus, there is nothing moot. This case was filed in May of
2013.
================================================
July 25, 2013 Paulson files his thirteen-(13)page Motion for
Hearing En Banc. (See Docket #11 under Case No. 13-71718) This
Plaintiffs pleading has never been addressed by the Court nor has it
had a ruling on the merits.
July 26, 2013 Paulson files his Notice of Appeal on both the
decisions of Judge Aiken and the ruling of Judge Kozinski on July 11,
2013. This portion of the case is assigned Case # 13-35672 by the
Ninth Circuit Court Clerk.
July 27, 2013 Paulson formally filed his judicial misconduct
complaint against Judge Aiken to the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council
citing her obvious plagiarism. Judge Alex Kozinski was the Chief
Judge of the Ninth Circuit at that time. The rules require that he
address the judicial complaint expeditiously. He didnt. Nor did his
Ninth Circuit successor chief judge Judge Sidney Thomas.
October 17, 2013 Jeff Manning leaves the Oregon Attorney
Generals office to head back to the Oregonian.
Page 27 of 76

November 7, 2013 Paulson files his global sixty-three (63) page

judicial misconduct complaint regarding the Ninth Circuit judiciary
including specifically against Judge Leavy and Judge Fletcher among
others. https://www.scribd.com/doc/182748927/JUDICIALMISCONDUCT-IN-FORECLOSURE-LITIGATION
==============================================
January 10, 2014 John Gleason, Director of Regulatory Services
& Disciplinary Counsel files a formal proposal with the Oregon State
Bar Board of Governors to invite the American Bar Association to
conduct an on-site review of the Oregon State Bar discipline system.

=========================================
January 10, 2014 The American Bar Association Journal
wrote in January of 2014:
John Gleason, who in March became disciplinary counsel and
director of regulatory services at the Oregon State Bar, says that even
non-death penalty states require disbarred lawyers to wait a number
of years before seeking reinstatement. In Colorado, where he
previously served as attorney regulation counsel, the waiting period
can be up to eight years.
My experience is that lawyers who are disbarred are generally unhappy with their work
as a lawyer. Theyve probably found a position theyre happy in and have no interest in
coming back, says Gleason. Its a fairly low percentage of lawyers who seek
reinstatement.

April 23, 2014 Jeff Manning writes about Oregon State Bar
Disciplinary Counsel John Gleasons controversial tenure and
departure. On his way out, Gleason wrote a memo outlining his dim
view of the Oregon bar's current disciplinary process and the bar's
disciplinary lawyers.
Page 28 of 76

Gleason also suggested his reforms were backed, or even

suggested by the Oregon Supreme Court and Oregons Chief
Justice Thomas Balmer specifically.
Reached for comment Wednesday afternoon, Balmer said that's
not the case. "It is not accurate to say the Supreme Court gave him
a directive and that Gleason was implementing that," he said.
"What is accurate, at least from my perspective is that there are
aspects of the bar's regulatory function that have not really been
looked at it in a long time. It's open to question whether that's the
best way to do things."
April 30, 2014 Lauren Paulson issues press release regarding the
lawyer Class Action lawsuit against the Oregon State Bar on their
unconstitutional lawyer discipline program.
May, 2014 New OSB Disciplinary Counsel Appointed
Dawn Miller Evans a lawyer from Texas and Michigan, has joined the
Oregon State Bar as Director of Regulatory Services and Disciplinary
Counsel. She replaces John Gleason, who served in the position from
February 2013 through March 2014.
2015 Jeff Manning at The Oregonian is assigned to a special
investigative reporter team. http://www.oregonlive.com/watchdog/
index.ssf/2015/01/whos_jeff_manning_hes_one_of_o.html
2015 The American Bar Association recommends twenty (20)
changes to Oregon State Bars disciplinary system in a secret report to
the Supreme Court of Oregon. The ABA and the OSB refuse any input
from Paulson. The OSB refuses to provide the Oregon State Bars
Board of Governors with Paulsons recommended changes. 7
July 14, 2015 Judge Leavy, Hawkins and Judge W. Fletcher render
their four (4) page memorandum opinion in these cases against
http://www.bulletinsfromaloha.org/weekly/2009/2/18/lawyer-discipline-in-oregon-isunconstitutional.html
7

Page 29 of 76

Paulson (analyzed below). The decision purports to follow their de

novo review of the district court dismissal. Paulson can prove there
was NO de novo review by these judges.
===============================================
Note As with Judge Murguia in the December 4, 2015 request by
Paulson for a Judicial Conference investigation; it is an objective
truth that these judges dont read what is before them. If they had,
Judge Leavy and Judge Fletcher would have noticed that they are the
subject of an unresolved judicial misconduct complaint at the same
time they are ruling in that case. This also happened with Judge
Clifton, but in contrast, he did read that portion of the pleading and
DID recuse himself. The only judge to do so here.
With Judge Murguia, she ruled on a case when she was the subject of
a judicial misconduct complaint in Paulsons of November 7, 2013,
but, proving she hadnt read enough to see that she then shouldnt be
ruling as a judicial council member of the same case. See http://
www.bulletinsfromaloha.org/weekly/2016/8/9/mandatory-conflictof-interest-in-federal-court.html
=================================================
Legal writing genius. , July 14, 2015 These three federal judges
(Leavy, Hawkins and Fletcher) resolve all twenty-three (23)
constitutional issues (see above) raised by the Plaintiff in his
Complaint document without mentioning any of them. ( See Case
#13-35672 Docket #37) These three judges from the Ninth Circuit also
fail to note that the American Bar Association had an ongoing Oregon
Disciplinary Study Group in the same time frame.
August 27, 2015 The subsequent Ninth Circuit Chief Judge,
Sidney Thomas, renders his decisions and finding no judicial
misconduct anywhere on behalf of the Judicial Council, nor regarding
Judge Aikens alleged plagiarism judicial misconduct. This decision
Page 30 of 76

comes over two years years AFTER the formal, official judicial
misconduct complaint was filed against Judge Aiken in July, 2013.
WRIT OF MANDAMUS STANDARD
Mandamus is available on a showing of an indisputable right to relief
or exceptional circumstances. Both are present here. The U.S. District
Court of Oregon judiciary and the Ninth Circuit judiciary including the U.S.
Bankruptcy judiciary have usurped the authority of the Judicial Conference
of the United States by the failure of these courts to comply with the
Judicial Conference policy requiring mandatory conflict screening. This is
not disputed. Our federal judiciary is not complying with Judicial
Conference mandates. The Petitioner has an indisputable right to relief.
It is manifest here at the most basic level.

Senior Judge Haggerty,

former Chief Judge Aiken and Judge Leavy have indisputable conflicts of
interest discussed below. Troubling because Judge Leavy has ruled
multiple times on this case and others involving Paulson notwithstanding
the specific, articulated manifold conflicts of interest belonging just to Judge
Leavy. The Plaintiff lacks alternative means for relief in the Ninth Circuit
while the federal judiciary there makes a mockery of The Rule of Law, due
process and the Judicial Conference mandatory policy on conflict
screening. The Plaintiff lacks alternative means for relief because:

Page 31 of 76

 The Oregon Judge Haggerty patently failed to disclose that he has a

conflict of interest in the original foreclosure/predatory lending case and
failed to use the Judicial Conference conflict screening system and
Paulson would have learned of that conflict thereby.

The Oregon Judge Aiken is the Court administrator and did not ensure
Judge Haggerty was complying with the conflict system set forth by the
Judicial Conference.

The Current New Oregon Chief Judge Mosman is not ensuring that the
Judicial Conference conflict screening system is being used or he would
have learned that Oregon Bankruptcy Trish Brown had a conflict in the
Lorenz case because (as with Judge Haggerty) she would have
disclosed to Ms. Lorenz that the lawyer before her, Pilar French was from
Judge Browns former law firm.

It is the sad fact that Oregon Judge Aiken herself is not using the conflict
screening system or she would have disclosed the conflicts of hers
discussed below.
Even more sensational is the stark fact that the Chief Judges of the
Ninth Circuit, past and present (Schroeder, Kozinski and Thomas), the very
judicial administrators responsible for ensuring that the rules are followed;
have ignored this Judicial Conference policy. There is a reason. There
was a huge feud between the Judicial Conference and the former
Page 32 of 76

administrator there during Chief Justice Rehnquists administration. http://

howappealing.abovethelaw.com/Mecham-Kozinski-Misconduct-Complaint.pdf

DO JUDGES READ BEFORE RULING?

The briefs filed by the Plaintiff here contain detailed legal and factual
arguments that are ignored by these very biased judges with their full flags
flying on important issues of Judicial Conduct and lawyer discipline. The
Original Complaint (See Docket #2 in Case # 6:13-cv-00175-AA) alone
identifies twenty-three constitutional violations of an Oregon lawyers
due process rights when caught in the spider web of Oregons defective
disciplinary system: Defective by any measure as confirmed by the
American Bar Association in their 2015-2016 19 recommendations for
reprise of the very Oregon State Bar Disciplinary system that ensnared
Paulson here.
Judge Ed Leavy discusses and dissects Paulsons Appellate Brief in
four (4) brief pages one year after he got the case in 2014. (See Docket
#37 in Case #13-35672) It takes a gifted legal mind to reduce down the
forty-four (44) page Opening Brief (Docket #13) of the Appellant much less
engage in an analysis of the twenty-three constitutional defects identified
in the Plaintiffs original Complaint filed two years earlierin a four-page
ruling. Judge Leavy mentions not-a-thing about the legal issues identified
by the Plaintiff in his civil complaint - not to mention Plaintiffs Reply brief
Page 33 of 76

which Judge Leavy decided had been filed late all the while the Ninth
Circuit uses the wrong address for the Plaintiff to this date. Could it be
because the Ninth Circuit has had the wrong address for Paulson??
A Writ of Mandamus is the appropriate vehicle by which to challenge
a district courts denial of a recusal motion. United States v. Washington,
573 F2d 1121, 1122 (9th Cir. 1978) The judiciary here displays deepseated favoritisms and antagonisms fully discussed herein that makes fair
judgment impossible. Liteky et al., v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555
(1994)
An Out -of-Circuit Judge should be identified and should be vetted to
ensure that the Plaintiff will not pay a penalty for making this request of the
guild.
The present Chief Judge Sidney Thomas has illegally ignored all
entreaties for a neutral adjudicator under the applicable Rules. Thus, the
Chief Justice of the United States is requested to execute the
application of the Plaintiff for an Out-of-Circuit Visiting judge. The
Plaintiff brings this action against the Bar and these Defendants which have
a vested interest in ensuring that disgruntled Oregon Lawyers8 do not get

ABA attorney Rosenfeld 3/21/15 memo to ABA President Paulette Brown regarding the OSB
2015 Lawyer Disciplinary study.
8

Page 34 of 76

their day in court much less even their input into ABA studies of lawyer
disciplinary matters. This is known as free speech. Viz.
Paulson to Mr. Arnold Rosenfeld: Would you please send me a full and
complete copy of all paperwork to and from the ABA and the OSB on this (disciplinary
system study) matter. I plan to participate in all future meetings and would like to have
the full prayer book on what transpired in the lead up to the ABA report and after.
Please give me the courtesy of a response. Thank you, Lauren Paulson

Mr. Rosenfeld: When we conduct an evaluation of a disciplinary system, the

(American Bar Association Standing Committee on Professional Discipline) does not
provide our materials to anyone but the Supreme Court that requests the evaluation.
Section 10. Administration of justice. No court shall be secret, but
justice shall be administered, openly and without purchase, completely and
without delay, and every man shall have remedy by due course of law for
injury done him in his person, property, or reputation.Oregon Constitution

JUDICIAL NOTICE
[JUDICIAL NOTICE SHOULD BE TAKEN OF PAULSONS
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT ON THE CASES LISTED
ABOVE AND TO THOSE DATED NOVEMBER 7, 2013 AND IN
PARTICULAR THE CLAIMS MADE AGAINST JUDGE EDWARD
LEAVY and Judge Fletcher THERE AT PAGE 35 ET SEQ in Case No.
10-36178 which are noteworthy because they made terminal rulings
against Paulson in 2015 yet both were the subject of his judicial
misconduct claims in 2013, both then pending in this case. This is never
noticed nor discussed by anyone. The claims of Judge Leavys conflicts
of interest below are in addition to those made in 2013].
Paulson asks judicial notice of his pending cases in the Ninth
Circuit be taken including his comprehensive complaint of Judicial
Misconduct dated November 7, 2013 among others. 9

https://www.scribd.com/doc/182748927/JUDICIAL-MISCONDUCT-IN-FORECLOSURELITIGATION
9

Page 35 of 76

(SEE additional mandatory screening discussion in the multiple

Applications for Visiting Out of Circuit Judge previously filed and
filed herewith.) An applicant for a Visiting Out of Circuit Judge is
powerless if the Chief Judge or his surrogate will not act on a bona
fide application. As here:
Finally, the Judicial Conference should note this is the SECOND
REQUEST FOR A JUDICIAL CONFERENCE INVESTIGATION. THE
FIRST ONE IS DATED DECEMBER 4, 2015 AND WAS RETURNED
BY MR. DUFF WITHOUT Him READING it. (See January 19, 2016
and June 23, 2016 letter from the Office of the General Counsel
Administrative Office of the United States Courts, James C. Duff and
Sheryl L. Walter General Counsel. THE PLAINTIFF HAS
POSSESSION OF THAT 62 PAGE RETURNED DOCUMENT along
with concomitant Exhibits A thru I.
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL CONFERENCE INVESTIGATION
The Committee on Judicial Conduct of the Judicial Conference of
the United States has jurisdiction to review Paulsons November 7,

Page 36 of 76

2013 Complaint of Judicial Misconduct in the Ninth Circuit and his

formal Sixty-Three (63) Petition for Review to the Judicial Conference
of the United States dated December 4, 2015. (James C. Duff through
his General Counsel Sheryl L. Walter returned said Petition to Paulson
unread on January 19, 2016.) It appears she thought this was an initial
judicial misconduct complaint.
The Committee on Judicial Conduct of the Judicial Conference of
the United States has jurisdiction under the Judicial Conduct and
Disability Act of 1980 (Act), 28 USC Sections 351-64, and the Rules
for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings (Rules) (U.S.
Jus. Conf. Sept. 17, 2015. See Memorandum of Decision J.C No
05-14-90120 and In Re: Complaint of Judicial Misconduct CCD No
16-01 (2016) Ty Clevengers Petition for Review before Judges
Anthony J. Scirica et al. The previous Notice to the Judicial
Conference dated July 13, 2016 through Judge Scirica can be found
here.10

10

http://www.bulletinsfromaloha.org/?SSLogoutOk=true

Page 37 of 76

Lauren Paulson, the Plaintiff, Pro Se moves the Judicial

Conference of the United States in coordination with these Courts
to Vacate all renderings by the Honorable Ann Aiken and the
Honorable Ed Leavy and his panel for the reason that these judges
did not follow the Judicial Conference of the United States policy
requiring mandatory conflict screening. Notwithstanding this
failure, here is identified patent conflicts of interest as to these
members of the relevant judiciary as is enumerated below. In
addition, the Court has made numerous errors of fact and law that
require a new trial.
Accordingly, this matter should also be delivered to the Ninth
Circuit Judicial Council with directions to undertake an investigation
both of the original copious allegations of judicial misconduct dated
July 31, 2013 against Judge Aiken for plagiarism and subsequent
allegations of judicial misconduct dated November 7, 2013 along with
the subsequent delay, demur and obfuscation by the judiciary of the

Page 38 of 76

Ninth Circuit subsequent to the original complaints. (See CCD. No.

16-01 at page 4)
INVESTIGATION REQUEST
Upon information and belief, the U.S. District Court of Oregon
and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit)
are INTENTIONALLY ignoring this mandatory conflict screening
policy of the Judicial Conference of the United States. Thereby, the
judicial officers of the Ninth Circuit including the Judicial Council for
the Ninth Circuit are engaging in conduct prejudicial to the effective
and expeditious administration of the business of the courts.
This is a request to the Judicial Conference of the United States to
investigate whether or not federal judges in the Ninth Circuit and
perhaps throughout the United States are failing to follow the
mandatory conflict screening policy. This request for an investigation
is made in order to determine whether or not the judicial officers of
the Ninth Circuit are failing to recuse themselves when required to do

Page 39 of 76

so under said Judicial Conference Policy on Mandatory Conflict

Screening and under The Rule of Law of the United States.
DISCUSSION
The foreclosure tsunami creates an unusual chapter in litigation in
the U.S. District Courts, the Ninth Circuit and possibly throughout the
United States regarding thousands and thousands of cases where the
federal judge is ruling when there is a conflict of interest often because
they have a mortgage with the financial institution as a party in the
very case before them.

Since 2008 there are literally always over 500

foreclosure cases pending in the U.S. District Court of Oregon and in

the State of Oregon. This means there are over 500 pending cases
where the presiding U.S. District Court judge will have a potential
conflict of interest because virtually all of Americas judiciary will
have a home mortgage or an account with the financial institution
before that court. Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and U.S. Bank are but
a few desultory examples applicable here.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Page 40 of 76

From the Top to the Bottom

What follows is a demonstration of how conflicts of interest
rears its ugly head in all phases of a simple or complex case because
the federal and state judiciary are flaunting the rules. Some judges
abandon their ethics because they can.they are so powerful.
Others do it out of greed.
Concrete Conflicts of Interest from the top of our judicial system
to the bottom as found in these cases:
1. CHIEF JUDGE MERRICK B. GARLANDS SECRET
Judge Merrick Garland is President Obamas pick for the current
vacant seat on the United States Supreme Court that now is moot in light
of Trumps election.
It was revealed in March of 2016 that Judge Garlands buddy, former
Chief Judge Richard W. Roberts of the DC Circuit (not to be confused with
current U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts) raped a 16 year
old woman years ago who was an important witness in the murder trial he
was prosecuting as a lawyer for the U.S. Department of Justice.
Judge Garland was vying for a spot formally occupied by Anton
Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court and has distanced himself from Judge

Page 41 of 76

Roberts troubles while acknowledging a close professional relationship

with that judge-rapist Richard W. Roberts.

Meanwhile, Chief Judge Garland is the head of the D.C. Circuit

Judicial Council where transgressions like Judge Richard W. Roberts
are supposed to be investigated and prosecuted. What does Judge
Garland do..he throws the hot potato to U.S. Supreme Court
Justice John Roberts. What does Chief Justice John Roberts do with
that hot potato..he throws it to Circuit Chief Judge Tymkovich of the
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals where it resides today. That is just
what Paulson wanted. A fair judge from another Circuit and this Writ
asks Chief Judge Thomas to do what Judge Garland did in an
instant.request a fair judge from another circuit.
It is a long sad story of life in the Ninth Circuit, but may provide
background on why some in the Ninth Circuit judiciary do not like Big
Brother dictating computer strategy to them in the United States. The
ubiquitous Judge Kozinski is here and everywhere and commenced
that feud with Mr. Duffs predecesor. His omnipresence represents the
antithesis of thoughtful and fair policy benefiting the public going
through the foreclosure maelstrom and suffering the absence of The

Page 42 of 76

Rule of Law in the Ninth Circuit while he violates those very laws
himself.
2. Judge Anthony J. Scirica Next down the line from the
U.S. Supreme Court of the United States is Judge Anthony J. Scirica.
(Not to be confused with Judge Sirica of Watergate fame.)11
Third Circuit Court Judge Anthony J. Scirica as a member of the Judicial
Conference presented testimony on this subject to Congress before the
Subcommittee on Courts, et al., Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House
Committee on the Judiciary on An examination of the judicial conduct and
disability system on April 25, 2013. There Judge Scirica outlined that The
Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980:
enables the Judicial Conference to establish uniform procedures
to adjudicate judicial conduct, to review judicial conduct and
disability decisions by the circuit court councils, and to monitor
compliance with the Act and the rules of procedure through regular
oversight. (Scirica Statement at Page 2)
So, it is clear Judge Scirica has the authority to review these matters
on behalf of the Judicial Conference of the United States. He has recently
done so on another matter for attorney Ty Clevenger in Judicial Conference
Case No. 16-01 with regard to the misfeasance of Judge Walter S. Smith of

John Joseph Sirica (March 19, 1904 August 14, 1992) was the Chief Judge for the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia, where he became famous for his role in the
trials stemming from the Watergate scandal.
11

Page 43 of 76

the Fifth Circuit. See for example the consideration of the impeachment of
former U.S. District Judge Mark E. Fuller (2015)
One would have to commend judges such as the Hon. M. McKeown
for serving her profession as a member of the Judicial Conference of the
United States. Along those same lines, she also serves on the Council of
the American Law Institute. One cannot enable here her equivocation to
Congress on such an important issue as conflicts of interests when
consumers are losing their homes through lies, lies and more lies wrapped
in judicial conflicts of interest.
Similarly, one must admire Judge Anthony J. Scirica as he extends
his service on the Committee Chair of the Committee on Judicial Conduct
and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the United States. Having
learned of Judge McKeowns subjugation of her integrity when she illegally
ruled on Paulsons case without adherence to her own policy.Paulson
wrote to Judge Scirica hoping that there was some explainable mistake as
follows:

EXHIBIT B
Wednesday, July 13, 2016
ANTHONY J. SCIRICA,
U.S. Court of Appeals Judge (Senior)
22614 U.S. Courthouse
Page 44 of 76

601 Market Street

Philadelphia, PA 19106
Re: The COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND
DISABILITY OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE
UNITED STATES and Your Testimony to Congress in 2013.
Dear Judge Scirica:
I am writing to you in lieu of James C. Duff of the Administrative
Office. I provided him with a 200 page summary and documentation
of what I write about here, on December 4, 2015. His office returned
that package twice without attention. And without reading it.
My purpose in writing now is to alert you, the Judicial
Conference and the SCOTUS to a serious malfunction in our court
system in the Ninth Circuit, in the District of Columbia Circuit and
beyond. This problem has implications to the Supreme Court of the
United States and the President of the United States.
The issue is Mandatory Conflict Screening in these Circuits and
across the United States which is required by the Judicial Conference
of the United States since 2008. I have ascertained that this
mandatory requirement is not being followed in the Ninth Circuit.
Unfortunately, because of the troubles of former Chief Judge Richard
W. Roberts of the D.C. Circuit I have also determined that jurisdiction
is also not following this aid to recusal determination for the federal
judiciary. This program was designed by the Breyer Committee and
the Judicial Conference of the United States exactly for the purpose it
is presently NOT being used.
Worse, the Ninth Circuits dilemma has caused Judge M.
Margaret McKeown to lie to Congress in her December 10, 2009
testimony. Unfortunately, her misrepresentations may have tainted
your testimony there on April 25, 2013 when you spoke on that same
subject.

Page 45 of 76

I have verified this judicial malfeasance across the

aforementioned jurisdictions. I have cases pending there and have
complained to both Chief Judge Sidney Thomas of the Ninth Circuit
and Judge McKeown where they both have illegally ruled without
Mandatory Conflict Screening. There is nobody home.
Chief Judge Sidney Thomas former law firm represents a stunning
cross-section of banking interests that are not being disclosed to the
hapless homeowner mired in foreclosure litigation across the entire
western portion of the United States. His law firm represented Bank
of America and Wells Fargo along with a full panoply of others.
There is wholesale judicial misconduct happening across the
wide expanse of foreclosure litigation actively being played out by a
garrulous federal judiciary. The extent of this fraud on the public is
staggering.
Apparently, you and the Judicial Conference of the United States
have the tools to do something about it that are unused. A foreclosure
Mercy ship passing silently in the night.
Very truly yours,
/S/
Lauren Paulson
16131 W. Hoffeldt Ln. #38
Brookings, OR 97415
==============================================
He answered not. Then Paulson learned that Judge Scirica
ALSO serves on the Council of the American Law Institute
along with Judge McKeown. Neither told reveled that potential
conflict of interest and this may answer why Judge Scirica does not
Page 46 of 76

weigh-in on Judge McKeowns transgressions. Surely, Congress would

like to know of all this.
Once this investigation peeks under the rug, hundreds, even thousands
of homeowners subject to foreclosure whose judge was not financially
vetted will be uncovered. They deserve an unbiased decision-maker.
If someone is trying to put you onto something.you
need to listen.

Continuing down the chain of command from the top

3. Judge McKeown 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:
Under this mandatory policy, each judge must develop a list of financial
interests that would trigger recusal. Special conflicts-screening software is
used to compare a judges recusal lists with information filed in each case.
McKeown Testimony at page 5

Page 47 of 76

At the same time Judge McKeown ruled against Paulson on Ninth

Circuit Case No. 15-35195 pertaining to these lenders, including Wells
Fargo, without complying with the mandatory conflict screening
policy. It is ironic she should have ruled here with fellow Circuit Court
Judge Mary Schroeder who would have been responsible for the
inauguration of this mandatory conflict screening policy in 2007 had the
Ninth Circuit implemented the policy as required. Judge Schroeder also
has accounts with Wells Fargo. Not disclosed. (In fairness, it should be
pointed out that Judge Schroeder has also ruled against Wells Fargo on
important foreclosure cases.) No conflict screening there either.

4. Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Sidney Thomas

The top federal legal officer in the Ninth Circuit; the Hon. Sidney
Thomas former law firm in Montana represents Wells Fargo, Bank of
America and U.S. Bank along with a plethora of other financial
institutions involved in foreclosure litigation throughout the U.S.
Paulson, in other litigation here (judical notice requested) has pending
litigation against Wells Fargo among other Defendants including a
Class Action against the entire financial industry for predatory
lending, LIBOR and all the other mortgage alchemy inflicted on the
Page 48 of 76

innocent consumer by the rapacious financial industry. Thus, Paulson

cannot get a fair trial in the Ninth Circuit without a judge from
another circuit who is not biased against Paulson for making this
request or the like. And who does not have conflicting affiliations
with Wall Street and Fleet Street. And Wells Fargo.
5. Judge Ed Leavy Judge Leavy most recently ruled in this
case in his July 14, 2015 Memorandum. Paulson wrote to Judge
Leavy on these issues. The case had sat dormant at the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals for a year, since July 22, 2014 following the
completion of briefing. Paulson wrote a follow-up letter to Judge
Leavy on March 5, 2016, but received no reply to either letter.
Meanwhile, Judge Leavy has a torrent of conflicts here:

He didnt follow the Judicial Conference policy on Mandatory

Conflict Screening.

Judge Leavy formerly had been the mediator between the Bar
and Paulson on the original Bill of Attainder case involving the
Oregon State Bar. (See Paulson v. Carter, U.S. District Court Case

Page 49 of 76

No. No. CV-04-1501-HU. (D. Or. Jan. 6, 2005) He thereby obtained

confidential information between both parties; i.e., the OSB and
Paulson.

Judge Leavy had been formally supported by the Bar when he

became a federal judge.12 One could suppose he might be beholding
to the Oregon State Bar thereby. https://usdchs.org/oral-histories/

The legal profession should certainly be able to socialize. But,

here there is a complex, internecine relationship between these
parties, The Oregon Chapter of the Federal Bar Association, the U.S.
District Court of Oregon Historical Society, The Oregon Community
Foundation, the Cosgrave law firm13, Judge Leavy, the Oregon State
Bar, The Miller-Nash law firm and Judge Aikens wide ranging
affiliations and concomitant copious conflicts. None disclosed to
Paulson. Paulson never got a dinner. Judicial Conference ignored.

12

https://usdchs.org/oral-histories/

Brenda Tiland now works for the Cosgrave law firm as a paralegal. Ms. Tiland was Paulsons
Office Manager and Paralegal for nine years. Upon her departure from Mr. Paulsons
employment she took the Paulson law firms computer hard drive with his permission so she
could preserve her personal information. She still has that computer hard drive and formal
requests for its return have been ignored by the Cosgrave law firm. What role she has played in
Cosgraves handling of this matter is unknown.
13

Page 50 of 76

Then, there is a factual error bordering on sophistry enabled by

counsel for the Oregon State Bar which found its way into Judge
Leavys Opinion of July 14, 2015:
Paulson is no longer a member of the Oregon State Bar and

does not seek reinstatement in this appeal. (Memo at Page 2)

Note that Paulson formally applied for reinstatement on August
29, 2012. (See, Exhibit A starting at page 11, above) Therefore that
quoted statement above is false. The Bar knew it was false and
allowed the ruling anyway without correction. This egregious
misrepresentation should be investigated by the Oregon State Bar
of their own lawyer in these cases. The concept is known as the
whole truth.

Judge Leavy failed to implement the mandatory conflict

screening process in this case. Had he done so he should have
disclosed to Paulson that he, Judge Leavy, was formally supported
by the Defendant Oregon State Bar for his appointment to the
federal bench. In 2004, Judge Leavy gave an Oral history to the U.S.

Page 51 of 76

District Court of Oregon Historical Society. 14 There Judge Leavy

pointed out that when his judicial appointment by Senator Hatfield
to the federal bench was in play that the Oregon State Bar formally
rallied to Judge Leavys cause by writing letters to the powerbrokers along with others. Judge Leavy obtained the judicial
appointment due to the Bars efforts in his behalf according to him.
This matter that Judge Leavy just ruled on here is in the Oregon
State Bars favor. Judge Leavy did not disclose this prior important
endorsement for him by Paulsons adversary here. He should have
recused himself or at a minimum this should have been disclosed to
Paulson as to this important formal endorsement of Leavy for the
federal bench by the Oregon State Bar. A party here.

Judge Leavys annual picnic for the Bar and federal bench of
Oregon is but one example of a cozy relationship by hundreds if not
thousands of Oregon lawyers and judges is played out each year at

14

https://usdchs.org/oral-histories/our-collection/edward-leavy/

Page 52 of 76

Judge Leavys annual picnic at his Hop farm. Paulson was not
invited.
We held our 2016 summer picnic on August 7, at Judge Leavys
family farm. Thank you to everyone who attended and donated to
support this successful event! Special thanks to our picnic sponsors,
the District of Oregons Attorney Admissions Fund, the Oregon
Chapter of the Federal Bar Association, the Pioneer Courthouse
Historical Society, and the following law firms:
More on the Miller Nash connection below.
Judge Leavys Picnic Sponsors:

OBJECTIVE EGREGIOUS JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT - JUDGE LEAVY

in his ruling in the instant case:
Judge Leavy and his panel rendered their Four-Page (4)
Memorandum Opinion of his Ninth Circuit Court Appeals decision
dated July 14, 2015. Their decision truncated Paulsons entire case

Page 53 of 76

which alleged twenty-three (23) constitutional violations by the

Oregon State Bar when they took away Paulsons ability to earn a
living. This panel identified and addressed the following issues in
those four (4) pages Judge Leavy only addressed these issues:
Judicial Immunity
Legal Standing
Recusal
Judicial Notice
Those were the only issues worthy of discussion according to
Judge Leavy in that four page 2015 judicial memorandum following
this case pending in the court system for over three years with filed
pleadings in the hundreds of pages by the Plaintiff.
Also note that next, Ninth Circuit Judges Leavy, Hawkins and
Fletcher did triple duty on Paulson: On December 21, 2015 they
dispatched Paulsons Ninth Circuit appeals on Case No. 13-35077,
13-35407 and 13-35672 to oblivion in one sentence each .as

Page 54 of 76

untimely(?). At the same time they ignored the twenty-three (23)

issues set forth in the original Complaint filed by Paulson.
It is a magnificent judicial scam to purport to engage in de novo
review of a matter on appeal when the scam is totally transparent that the
judicial officer has reviewed nothing of the record on de novo review. Yet,
Judge Leavy expands on his scam:
We do not consider issues or arguments not specifically and
distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. (Leavy Four-Page
7/27/15 Memorandum at Page 4)
APPELLANTS (PREVIOUS) OPENING BRIEF
Well, let us look at the Plaintiffs Opening Brief [in addition to the
twenty-three (23) constitutional violations alleged in the Complaint]:
1. RECORD (Plaintiffs Opening Brief at page 2 of 43) The first
thing Plaintiff requested is that Judicial Notice be taken of the record of
the entire proceedings.
Contra

Oddly, Judge Leavys Memo states that it will take

Judicial Notice of Appellees motion, but not of Appellants request FOR

JUDICIAL NOTICE. (Leavy Memo at page 4) But, he doesnt say why.
Bias. Open, transparent bias!
2. NEW EVIDENCE

This lawsuit was filed in 2013 over events

that began in 2001 when the Bar Regulatory Attorney, Jeff Sapiro filed his

Page 55 of 76

first case against Paulson for a line item charge he made to his client of
$67.50. Paulson was subsequently convicted of that offense following a full
day trial to a panel of local lawyers and this began a cavalcade of events
that continues to this day.

(Dont forget Paulson was at the same time

actively trying to change the system from within as a House of Delegates

member and subsequently as a Board of Governors member.) This is what
Jeff Sapiro didnt like and is why he admitted in his deposition that he was
prejudiced against Paulson. Bias.
The New Evidence included, among other things, the
commencement of the American Bar Association study of Oregons
disciplinary process in 2014.

This caused the removal of Mr. Sapiros

successor following Mr. Sapiros retirement. (OpenBr at pp. 2-3)

And the new evidence included the alleged plagiarized Opinion
rendered by U.S. District Court Chief Judge Ann Aiken (see below).
Finally, and most importantly, the discovery by Paulson in 2014 that
the federal judicial officers in the United States are required to use software
to determine whether or not the judge has a conflict of interest. That the
judge should recuse oneself or allow an objective screening process to
determine whether a conflict of interest exists dictating that a new judge be
appointed.

It turned out that Judge Aiken and other judges had such

conflicts. (OpenBr. page 3)

Page 56 of 76

LEGAL ANALYSIS A Summary of Appellants legal analysis on

why the Opinion rendered by Judge Aiken is not sound legally, begins at
page four (4) of the Appellants Opening Brief. Immunity the Appellees
argue that Justice Balmer has judicial immunity. The Appellant argues that
judges with statutory administrative duties like Chiefs have judicial
immunity when they have their robes on, but not when they dont. (OpenBr
at pp. 4-5)
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT The Appellant filed his formal judicial
misconduct complaint with the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council in 2013.

further detailed account of rampant judicial misconduct followed, but was

ignored by the Ninth Circuit Chief Judge for two years notwithstanding the
requirement that such judicial misconduct allegations be investigated and
handled expeditiously. It took a new Chief another year and a half to get
to the subsequent claims by Appellant notwithstanding that the underlying
litigation continued in the Ninth Circuit. Thus, began the Appellants quest
to obtain a Visiting Judge to continue with these unfolding developments.
(OpenBr at pg. 7)

APPELLANTS ANALYSIS IN APPELLANTS PREVIOUS OPENING

BRIEF IN DETAIL AND BY THE NUMBERS. (OpenBr at pg. 7) Here the
Appellant goes into a detailed legal analysis of the following issues:

Statute of Limitations at page 7

Page 57 of 76

The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine at pp. 7-11

A Historical Analysis at pp. 11-14

An Analysis of Immunity at pp. 14-18

An Analysis of OSB Disciplinary System at pp.18-19

A Conflict of Interest Analysis at pp.19-21

An Analysis of Certificate of Necessity at pp. 21-25

An Analysis of Judge Aikens plagiarism at pp. 25-27

An Analysis of Appellants Legal Involvement at pp. 27-28

An Analysis of the dysfunction at the Ninth Circuit at pp. 28-31

An Analysis of the dysfunction at the U.S. District Court of Oregon at

pp. 31-34

An Analysis of the Motions and filings by Appellant unaddressed

here at pp. 34-35

Table of Contents at pp. 36-38

American Bar Association Judicial Misconduct Model Rules at pg. 38

Judicial Complaint v. Chief Judge Ann Aiken at pp. 39-43

Can Judge Leavy be neutral and unbiased as to the Appellant on this

record? It cannot be ignored that this panel had to know they were ruling
long after Paulson had made a formal, detailed judicial misconduct
complaint against that neutral arbiter in November 7, 2013. Or they hadnt
read the file. Because they ignored those important facts.
Page 58 of 76

6. Karen Garst, Oregon State Bar former Executive Director

A White Elephant
LIVING ENRICHMENT CENTER
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Enrichment_Center
Paulson became a whistleblower in 2004 while serving on the
Oregon State Bar Board of Governors. The Executive Director of the
Oregon State Bar was Karen Garst. Her church, close to her home and
to the former Bar building location in Lake Oswego, was the Living
Enrichment Center. (LEC) Ultimately, the principals of this church
pled guilty to money laundering and served time in the federal
penitentiary. But, before that Ms. Garst had loaned the church
$22,000. Unfortunately, Ms. Garst failed to reveal that conflict of
interest when she proposed to the Bar Board of Governors that the
Oregon State Bar purchase this LEC church (white elephant) located in
Tualatin Oregon for millions and millions of Oregon lawyer dues
money.

Page 59 of 76

When Paulson found out about this boondoggle he blew the

whistle and suffered this Twelve-year shunning experience in return.
(The reader should consider how many Oregon State Bar Presidents
have been so intimidated by the rocks thrown Paulsons way; that
have kept their heads safely below the foxhole in the interim.
Stunning!) Who has your back??
At one point Paulson recommended mediation to resolve his
differences with the Oregon State Bar following his unceremonial
removal from the OSB Board of Governors. This Judge Leavy was
appointed as the mediator in that dispute as mentioned above.
There was one mediation session following which the Bar simply left
the proceedings without so much as a hi-how-you-do. Judge Leavy
served as a mediator in that case, but did not disclose that potential
conflict of interest when he ruled on the instant case either. Three
strikes. That duty alone disqualifies Judge Leavy.
7.

Chief Judge Ann Aiken First, Judge Aiken does not follow

any of these rules for bias, recusal and conflict of interest. As the chief

Page 60 of 76

judge she had administrative responsibilities to do so and failed.

Globally. Thus, in the Ancer Haggerty fail, she bears primary
responsibility because the Judicial Conference policy requires that the
chief judges ensure that the rules are followed specifically. Required.
But, Judge Aikens conflicts of interest transcend her entire
duties in her workplace; both on the bench and in the administrative
sphere. Her crime transcends all else when looked at globally.
A. July 27, 2013 Paulson formally filed his judicial
misconduct complaint against Judge Aiken to the Ninth Circuit
Judicial Council citing her obvious plagiarism. Judge Alex Kozinski
was the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit at that time. The rules require
that he address the judicial complaint expeditiously. He didnt. Nor
did his Ninth Circuit successor chief judge Judge Sidney Thomas.
This gang did not look at any of the judicial misconduct expeditiously.
B. November 7, 2013 Paulson files his global sixty-three
(63) page judicial misconduct complaint regarding the Ninth Circuit

Page 61 of 76

judiciary including specifically against Judge Leavy and Judge

Fletcher among others.
C. July 14, 2015 Judge Leavy, Hawkins and Judge W.
Fletcher render their four (4) page memorandum opinion in these
cases against Paulson (analyzed above beginning at page 53). The
decision purports to follow their de novo review of the district court
dismissal.
D. August 27, 2015 The subsequent Ninth Circuit Chief
Judge, Sidney Thomas, renders his decisions and finding no judicial
misconduct anywhere on behalf of the Judicial Council, nor regarding
Judge Aikens alleged judicial misconduct. This decision comes over
two years years AFTER the formal, official judicial misconduct
complaint was filed against Judge Aiken in 2013.
One cannot ignore Judge Aikens egregious plagiarism in this
case which has been fully set forth in the Plaintiffs formal 2013 report
to the judicial council and is set forth in Plaintiffs briefs and
pleadings which should be given judicial notice and not sanctioned as

Page 62 of 76

was done by Chief Judge Thomas at the Judicial Council. (See Judicial
Council of the Ninth Circuit Case No. 14-90031 2015). Surely, the bar
cant be that low. It is hard to fathom how judicial leadership can give
their good housekeeping stamp of approval to their own judges who
commit open plagiarism. Blatant and unmistakable plagiarism. Only
the intentionally blind could not see pages and pages of transparent
plagiarism by this former chief judge. Is this really O.K. to the Bar?
Finally, as pointed out below Judge Aiken does not have the
authority to decide out-of-circuit visiting judge matters yet she did so
anyway. Each chief judge is required to ensure that the rules in their
court domain are followed. Yet, Judge Aiken fails with the
enforcement of the mandatory conflict screening requirements. She
plagiarizes. She fails with respect to following the rules on
interdistrict and intercircuit visiting judges. She illegally decides SHE
has this authority.
But it gets worse.

Page 63 of 76

Among other things, Judge Aiken serves with Defendant Balmer

on the Board of Directors of the Oregon Chapter of the Federal Bar
Association. Undisclosed. This means the judge and a party serve on
the same trade organizationon yet neither discloses that joint
affiliation to Paulson.
The other conflicts Judge Aiken has here are detailed in a 2013
letter to her. She responded not. (http://
www.bulletinsfromaloha.org/weekly/2013/7/27/oregon-judge-annaiken.html)
8. Judge Ancer Haggerty The initial litigation over all
this began benignly in 2008 in a matter before Judge Haggerty (Case
No 08-cv-00982) in U.S. District Court of Oregon and the progeny.
This is Paulsons predatory lending lawsuit. Judge Haggerty failed to
implement the mandatory conflict screening process in these cases
and knowing filial judges did the same. Had they done so Paulson
would have learned that attorney Craig Russillo representing
Paulsons adversary there and here against a financial lender and

Page 64 of 76

Wells Fargo worked for the same downtown Portland law firm known
as the Schwabe law firm, where Judge Haggerty had been a partner.
Neither Judge Haggerty nor Attorney Craig Russillo disclosed this
conflict to the Plaintiff in that litigation.
It is known that major law firms have an internal mandatory
conflict checks formal system as well so it can only be that this failure
to disclose the obvious conflict is intentional by the two of them and
all the others affiliated with this litigation. Therefore, Paulson is
sending a copy of this pleading to the Oregon State Bar for their
further attention to members of the Oregon State Bar and former
members of the Oregon State Bar for prosecution on failing to act on
conflicts of interest as required by law and ethics. See the Barnes Ellis
case for an example how the system works when it comes to conflicts
of interests. The big flys escape where the little fly is ensnared.
The Plaintiff is also sending a copy of this to the Judicial Fitness
Commission of Oregon for their review of these issues as they pertain

Page 65 of 76

to Chief Justice Balmer of the Oregon Supreme Court and the

Cosgrave law firm.
9. Chief Justice Thomas Balmer Judge Ann Aikens
conflicts are ham-handed. Justice Balmers conflicts of interest are
illegal and involve money. (Remember that Judge Aiken herself did
not disclose her own conflicts recited above-whereas if she was
ensuring the rules were followed; she would have been cited for
judicial misconduct through her failure to disclose).
Justice Balmer is on the Advisory Board of the Oregon Lawyers
Campaign for Equal Justice.

The Oregon Lawyers Campaign for

Equal Justice siphons off donations15 illegally and without disclosure

to their lawyer membership to the Oregon Community Foundation
(OCF) where Justice Balmers wife works.16 {Mary Louise
McClintock is Justice Balmers wife and she is OCFs Director of Early
Childhood Programs. She was appointed to Governor Kitzhabers

http://www.cej-oregon.org/pdfFiles/taskforce/
1%20Campaign%20for%20Equal%20Justice%20Endowment%20Plan%20Draft%203.pdf
15

16

http://courts.oregon.gov/Supreme/pages/BioBalmer.aspx

Page 66 of 76

Work Group on Early Childhood and Family Investment before he

resigned}.
These legal aid donations that are gathered through the offices of
the Oregon Lawyers Campaign for Equal Justice automatically
become legally owned and managed by the Oregon Community
Foundation. To pay Mrs. Balmers salary or otherwise managed by
the President and CEO Max Williams and the OCF with no oversight
by the lawyers who thought they were donating to legal aid in
Oregon.

10. The Miller Nash connection:

The Oregon Community Foundation (OCF) is run by attorney
Max Williams,17 who formerly worked for Miller Nash where PK

http://www.oregoncf.org/news-resources/press-releases/current/welcome-new-ceo-maxwilliams
17

Page 67 of 76

Runkles is an appellate litigation partner. Ms. Runkles used to clerk

for Justice Thomas Balmer. The Oregon Community Foundation is the
largest foundation in Oregon with assets over $1 billion (with a b)
dollars:
Miller Nash celebrates its 140th anniversary in July 2013 by
announcing the establishment of the Miller Nash Legacy Fund, a
charitable fund established to enable the firm to pursue its
philanthropic goals for many years to come. The fund, managed by
The Oregon Community Foundation, supports nonprofit
organizations throughout Oregon and Washington through annual
grants.18 Establishing the Miller Nash Legacy Fund is our way of
perpetuating our culture of community partnership and service, said
Miller Nash Chair Dennis Rawlinson.
The Campaign for Equal Justice has been a part of OCFs
endowment partner program for over a decade. The Campaign is a
frequent recipient of donor funds held by OCF, and OCFs community
grants program has supported legal aids work. In 2014 Max
Williams, Justice Balmers wifes boss, joined the Task Force on Legal
Aid Funding where he provided input and guidance on private
funding and foundation support for legal aid and CEJ. The entire

18

http://www.oregoncf.org/news-resources/press-releases/current/ocf-announces-new-president

Page 68 of 76

Oregon Legal Aid Task Force is made up of Portland downtown law

firms.
11.

Fratricide by Other Brothers on The Oregon State

Bar Board of Governors. Dennis gets his bar gavel. And gets
Paulson Debarred.

Dennis Rawlinson, Mark Comstock and Lauren Paulson were

elected to the Board of Governors of the Oregon State Bar by their
lawyer geographical constituencies in 2003 for four year terms
commencing in 2004. Mark Comstock is from the same Salem law
firm as former Chief Justice of the Oregon Supreme Court Paul De
Muniz who is now an Oregon lobbyist.
Dennis Rawlinson is the Chair of the Miller Nash law firm and
was one of three candidates for the President of The Oregon State Bar
in 2006. Mark Comstock was the other candidate besides Paulson.
When, why and how the OSB bought their new $20 million
dollar building in Tigard is recounted in detail here. Remember that
Paulson was the whistleblower on Karen Garsts earlier attempt to
Page 69 of 76

convince the Oregon State Bar to purchase the LEC, her church that
owed her $22,000. Paulson had no idea that the Board of Governors
would support her in getting rid of that nettlesome whistleblower
Paulson, so they could then buy a $20 million dollar building they did
not need. So, Paulson is ignominiously turned out by Dennis
Rawlinson representing the Oregon State Bar in that endeavor and
sues the Bar accordingly19.
Karen Garst as Executive Director hires Dennis Rawlinson to
formally represent The Oregon State Bar as the Bars lawyer in 2004
against Paulson for the first hearing on Paulsons constitutional issue
on the illegal Bill of Attainder Dennis Rawlinson helped get passed.
This illegal Bill of Attainder was then voted on by the OSB Board of
Governors to turn Whistleblower Paulson out based on this New
Rule. The sad chapter is filled out in detail in the Chronology above.

19

No. CV-04-1501-HU. (D. Or. Jan. 6, 2005)

Page 70 of 76

Lauren Paulson
16131 W Hoffeldt Ln #38
Brookings, OR 97415
laurenjpaulson@gmail.com bulletinsfromaloha.org

=======================================

=========================================
Page 71 of 76

CONCLUSION
Paulson filed this case in 2013 on behalf of the lawyers of the
State of Oregon.
Paulson knew well what to expect from Oregons judiciary. For
that reason, this formal civil Complaint commenced at page 1 with a
formal pleading for a Visiting Judge. One of many. It is obvious why
Oregon judges dont want Paulson to have a fair trial. He is a
whistleblower. He now shines the light on the federal judiciarys
failure to abide by the Judicial Conference of the United States policy
on mandatory conflict screening using the software available through
PACER and ECM computer software to ensure compliance.
There is a specific, lucid Judicial Conference of the United States
process for such a request. To date that process has been ignored by
Oregons judiciary. Ignored by Ninth Circuit Court Chief Judge
Sidney Thomas. Why? Because the local judiciary WANTS to decide
Paulsons fate. This is such a pathetic, cynical ploy by an enfeebled
judiciary.

Page 72 of 76

The Winds of Conflict of Interest - Permeate the Legal Profession

Everywhere.

Consider this practical dilemma for the average consumer

litigant playing out here in a microcosm, but nationwide as it
oscillates throughout the legal profession: The dilemma
12. Judge Royce C. Lambert, as Chair of the Judicial Conference of
the Unites States Committee on Intercircuit Assignments advised in
his letter dated March 25, 2014 that his Committee wont act until he
hears from the Chief Judge of the Circuit or Acting Chief Judge
and has signed a certificate of necessity.
The Dilemma The Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Sidney Thomas will
not respond to the Plaintiffs pleadings looking for a judge without
bias. That is ipso facto bias. Moreover, the District Court Chief Judge,
(formerly) Ann Aiken has decided she has the authority in these
regards and has denied Plaintiffs request even though she is one of
the sources of the bias against Paulson, has objective conflicts of
interest and is responsible for the misapplication of the rule of law on

Page 73 of 76

recusal at the local level. As Judge Lambert has identified, Judge

Aiken does not have the authority yet has exercised it sacrificing The
Rule of Law.
The Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Sidney Thomas is responsible for
enabling the multiple conflicts of interest recounted above as to
judges Haggerty, Dunn, Aiken and Leavy when he does not
follow the Judicial Conference policy on Mandatory Conflict
Screening
The Dilemma A Chief Judge of the Circuit, Judge Sidney Thomas
who is not willing to follow the Judicial Conference policy for
Mandatory Conflict Screening on the one hand is NOT going to follow
the Guidelines for the Intercircuit Assignment of Article III Judges on
the other hand. True here. Thus, they can reinforce their bias against
Paulson along with their failure to ensure the implementation of The
Rule of Law in Oregon, in the Ninth Circuit; across the United States.
Thursday, November 17, 2016
LAUREN /S/ PAULSON

Page 74 of 76

I CERTIFY UNDER THE PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE

ABOVE FACSIMILE OF EXHIBIT A HERETO OF MY LETTER
APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT DATED AUGUST 29, 2012 to
Oregon Supreme Court Chief Justice Balmer IS A TRUE COPY OF
THE ORIGINAL SENT TO JUSTICE BALMER AT THAT TIME.
Thursday, November 17, 2016

Lauren /s/ Paulson

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE and Filing

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on Monday, September 26, 2016 I EMAILED the below
Motions TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT AND to:

Marc Abrams, Esq.

Senior Assistant Attorney General
Department of Justice, Trial Division
1515 SW Fifth Avenue
Portland OR, 97201

Page 75 of 76

by; Regular Mail and EMAIL

Paul A. Berg
Attorney at Law
888 SW 5th Ave Ste 500
Portland OR 97204
Of Attorneys for Defendants
CERTIFICATE OF FILING

MOTION TO VACATE AND Application for Out-of-Circuit Visiting Judge with the

Clerk
U.S. District Court
1000 SW 3rd Ave
Portland, OR 97204 and

JUDGE ROYCE LAMBERTH

FEDERAL COURTHOUSE
333 CONSTITUTION AVE NW
WASHINGTON DC 20001

Cathy A. Catterson/CHIEF JUDGE SIDNEY THOMAS

Office of the Circuit Executive
United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit
PO Box 193939
San Francisco, CA 94119-3939 by
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
_/S/__________________________________

Page 76 of 76