JUDGE LEAVY IS A HERO IN SOME CIRCLES. A SERIAL CORRUPT JUDGE IN OTHERS.
Wednesday December 30, 2015
Judge Edward Leavy
U.S. Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit
Pioneer Court House
700 SW 6th Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97204
Re: Lauren Paulson v. Oregon State Bar et al.
Dear Judge Leavy:
Eventually, the flies will conquer the flypaper.
The judiciary engages in unfettered wrongdoing. It is a bitter lesson to learn how flagrant and how pervasive. Eventually, it is going to dawn on the thousands of people in foreclosure in the Western States that the Chief Judge of that territory comes from a banker’s mien. Thus, the entire Ninth Circuit is shepherded by a former lawyer for the banks. But nobody is telling the consumers at the wrong end of foreclosure litigation and at the wrong end of the ‘fixed’ bankruptcy system. Conflict screening disclosures about this judicial mien are required by law. They aren’t happening.
Just now I received two more rulings from you on my lawsuit to try to get my life back. Without good result. Before addressing your one-line ruling in Case No. 13-35672 dated December 21, 2015 enclosed, I have another matter to address first. In 2013, I filed a formal judicial misconduct against you for a number of reasons enumerated in that November 7, 2013 sixty-three (63) page document. You have never responded to that specific complaint nor acknowledged that matter at all. I hope to fare better in the following inquiry.
Let me bring an additional serious matter to your attention. I know you take pride in your mediation efforts over the years. Well, I believe you may have overlooked the fact that you served as a mediator in a previous matter involving the Oregon State Bar and me thereby acquiring confidential information from both sides in that proceeding; the same parties here. Where you rule.
In 2004 you gave an oral history to the U.S. District Court Historical Society. There you pointed out that when your judicial appointment by Senator Hatfield was in play that the Oregon State Bar formally rallied to your cause by writing letters to the power-brokers along with others and you obtained the judicial appointment due to the Bar’s efforts in your behalf. This matter that you just ruled on is in the Oregon State Bar’s favor. You did not disclose this prior important endorsement for you by my adversary here.
MANDATORY CONFLICT OF INTEREST SCREENING
As you know the Judicial Conference of the United States required in 2007 that all federal judges implement a certain conflict of interest screening process. So, my question to you is did you follow that mandatory Judicial Conference conflict screening policy in my cases?
This failure of the Ninth Circuit judiciary by not following this mandatory screening policy has been reported to James Duff, the Director of the Judicial Conference of the United States, for an investigation. I hope that investigation is not as still-born as those conducted in the Ninth Circuit on their ‘guild’.
Further, I ask you to identify EXACTLY 0n what record you ruled on in my case. It is essential that you identify exactly what record you had in your possession and, in addition, that you identify exactly what you actually read in making your decision of December 21, 2015 while you became a judicial rock star. I will not relent until you disclose these two elements of this putative judicial misconduct in addition to all else.
In the meantime, I ask that you withdraw the spurious 12/21/15 ruling identified above and the mandate until these matters are investigated by the Judicial Conference and Congress.
Very truly yours,
cc: Senator Jeff Merkley, Senator Ron Wyden, U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio, Ninth Circuit Judicial Council, James Duff
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A FORMAL JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES INVESTIGATION.
JUDGES IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT AND CHIEF JUDGE SIDNEY THOMAS IN PARTICULAR ARE FAILING TO DISCLOSE TO FORECLOSURE VICTIMS THAT THEY HAVE A MORTGAGE WITH THE SAME BANK.
Wednesday, July 13, 2016
ANTHONY J. SCIRICA,
U.S. Court of Appeals Judge (Senior)
22614 U.S. Courthouse
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 Circuit’s 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.
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,
16131 W. Hoffeldt Ln. #38
Brookings, OR 97415
JUDGES IN ALL FEDERAL COURTS INCLUDING BANKRUPTCY ARE REQUIRED TO USE THE SAME SOFTWARE AS PACER TO DISCLOSE BIAS.
Page 1! of 1! 03
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
PAULSON V. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. TUCKER ACT………………………………………………3.
2. JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (Link to Complaint)………. 4.
3. NO IMMUNITY……………………………………………5.
Judicial Conference Meets; Committee Action…………5.
4. THE TAKING………………………………………………8.
5. CLASS ACTION DOCKET………………………………15.
9. PROCEDURAL POSTURE……………………………….33.
Page 2! of 1! 03
11. CONFLICTS and JUDICIAL CONFERENCE…………44.
12. SCREENING and JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT……….47.
Trilogy # 1…………………………………………………47.
Page 3! of 1! 03
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
THE UNITED STATES
COMES NOW THE PLAINTIFF, LAUREN PAULSON and brings
this action against The United States of America for compensation for
the illegal taking of ALL of his property, real and personal, in the
County of Washington, State of Oregon without constitutional
compensation, without due process and in denial of the equal
protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment . Strange but true.
1. TUCKER ACT
This proceeding is brought under the Tucker Act of 1887 et seq.
for illegal governmental taking of the real and personal property of the
Page 4! of 1! 03
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
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
nation’s 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
Page 5! of 1! 03
2015. The path to the document can be found at https://
3. NO IMMUNITY
Immunity protection is unavailing here. Under Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.
388 (1971) individual employees of the federal government are subject
to suit for damages for acts in violation of plaintiffs’ federal
constitutional rights. Judges have no immunity from dereliction of
their discretionary and administrative responsibilities as here.
Conflict of interest protection for consumers in federal court was
enacted as effective in 2008 by the Judicial Conference of the United
States as follows:
“COMMITTEE ON CODES OF CONDUCT
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 1! 03
reports relating to judges who have issued rulings in cases in which
they may have had a conflict of interest due to financial interests in
one of the parties, and expressed its view to the Executive
Committee that circuit judicial councils should mandate use of the
automated conflict-checking capabilities of the Case Management/
Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system.”
The formal name is: “Judicial Conference Policy on Mandatory
Conflict Screening” and was approved nationally on September
19, 2006 and formally enacted in the Ninth Circuit on June 30, 2007
for implementation in March 2008. The timing of this protection for
homeowners against judicial bias coincided with the economic
meltdown of 2008. The only problem is that federal judicial
administrators and the chief judges throughout the United States,
illegally decided to ignore this mandatory policy whose purpose was to
determine if that decision-maker judge happened to have a mortgage
or financial interest in that very bank before them in a foreclosure
Besides authorizing official capacity suits against state and local
officials for structural injunctive relief, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 authorizes
claims against those officials in their individual capacity for
compensatory and punitive damages when they engage in
Page 7! of 1! 03
discretionary unlawful acts. Although the Eleventh Amendment limits
official capacity claims against state officials to prospective injunctive
relief, it does not affect damage claims against those officials in their
individual capacity. The takings here are as a result of Judge Randall
Dunn and the phalanx of other judicial officers and their discretionary
failure, all recounted in detail in this link capturing the judicial
misconduct above. In their individual capacities these judges refused
to follow a required software and policy of the Judicial Conference of
the United States intended to identify conflicts of interests. These
failures result from personal prejudice and from individual economic/
financial interests. Specific, detailed recounting of these activities are
to be found in that Sixty-Three tome mentioned above at page 2 and
incorporated herein by this reference as though fully set forth here.
For one simple example, Judge Dunn failed to note his personal
relationship on the Oregon State Bar Debtor-Creditor Committee with
Justin Leonard, who represents the trustee here as an adversary to the
Plaintiff.2 Moreover, as with all the federal officials in these cases, he
2 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.
Page 8! of 1! 03
failed to comply with the Judicial Conference of the United States
Mandatory Conflict Screening Policy over the seven year period in
which he exercised discretionary control over the life of Lauren
Paulson and committed grievous crimes including embezzlement of
Paulson’s funds in the range over $35,000.
The doctrine of judicial immunity is meant to protect only
judicial acts, which, by definition, are acts requiring judicial
discretion. When a judge’s role does not include the exercise of judicial
discretion, the policies supporting absolute immunity disappear.
Complying with the mandatory conflict screening policy required by
law does not involve the exercise of judicial discretion. It is a required
4. THE TAKING
First, in 2008 Paulson brought an action in U.S. District Court of
Oregon Case No. cv-08982-ST/PK against his lenders for predatory
lending. In that complaint, Paulson describes the concept of
“dehorsing”. That is the aim of every predatory lender. In this case
the lender sought Paulson’s historic property, known as The M. E.
Page 9! of 1! 03
Blanton Estate listed on the National Register of Historic Places and
which he had spent twenty years restoring.
Had Paulson known of bankruptcy Judge Dunn’s conflict of
interest, he could have exercised his discretion to ask for his recusal at
the outset of this case. It is a pernicious and tawdry reality that Judge
Randall Dunn clings to this case for over seven years; doling out
$17,000 of Paulson’s money to his buddy, Mr. Justin Leonard without
notice, without a hearing, against the law, without due process; and
there the money remains. A taking when Paulson is destitute in the
bankruptcy arena where the hapless consumer seeks refuge.
The Plaintiff is filing a companion claim. Last week, the Trustee,
Amy Mitchell, who is an adversary here, is trying to spend $5,000
more of Paulson’s money when the case was technically closed years
ago and is taking this action out of spite AND WITHOUT NOTICE.
The other lawyer on the case in the early stages is Mr. Craig
Russillo. The Article III judge on the case in the early stages is the
Honorable Ancer Haggerty. Likewise, if Paulson had known in the
early stages of this case of the affiliation between Mr. Russillo and
Judge Haggerty, he could have asked for Judge Haggerty’s recusal. It
Page !10 of !103
cannot be ignored that Judge Haggerty exercised extreme and
objective favoritism toward Mr. Russillo in ruling on all his motions
and delaying or ignoring virtually all of the pleadings of Mr. Paulson.
This exercise of judicial ministerial discretion helped to facilitate his
buddy, Mr. Russillo from his old law firm coming into possession of
this historic property. A chart of this chronicle of judicial favoritism
and judicial misconduct facilitating the taking is to be found at the
Sixty-Three Tome on it at pp. 25-29. The link is at page 4 above.
Judge Haggerty gave a rather revealing radio interview where he
stated on the record that if given the dilemma of adhering to The Rule
of Law or doing justice (sometimes called ‘Natural Law’); he would
sacrifice The Rule of Law.
A ministerial act requires no discretion and while
administrative, legislative, or executive acts require varying degrees of
discretion, it is not judicial discretion merely because the actor is a
judge. Judicial immunity should therefore not be granted to such
failures here in failing to follow the ministerial dictates required by
law, i.e. failing to following the “Judicial Conference Policy on
Mandatory Conflict Screening” in order to conceal the
Page 1! 1 of 1! 03
relationships in conflict with the Plaintiff and as between Mr. Russillo
and Judge Haggerty. Again, facilitating the taking.
An illegal agreement by a corrupt judge prior to any judicial
proceedings does not resemble anything close to a normal judicial
function3. Judge Dunn made a rather revealing statement at the end
of the first bankruptcy hearing following Paulson’s filing of 2009
when Judge Dunn admitted that he ruled ‘…as he had
planned’,i.e.., in favor of Mr. Leonard with whom he served on the
Executive Committee of the Oregon State Bar Creditor-Debtor
Section; undisclosed to Mr. Paulson. In short, Judge Dunn had made
up his mind BEFORE the hearing. A judge who acts with personal
prejudice or economic interest in a case is not acting judicially, and
should be held liable for any resulting damages flowing from that
judicial bias. See Beard v. Udall, 648 F.2d 1264, 1269 (9th Cir. 1981)
(per curiam); Rankin v. Howard, 633 F.2d 844, 847-49 (9th Cir.
1980), cert. denied,451 U.S. 939 (1981); see also Arsenaux v. Roberts,
726 F.2d 1022, 1023-24 (5th Cir. 1982) (because no material issues of
3 Fordham Law Review,Volume 53 | Issue 6 (1985)
What Constitutes a Judicial Act for Purposes of Judicial Immunity?
Page !12 of !103
fact raised as to an improper prior agreement, judge immune under
Stump test). These interests must be balanced against the
fundamental policy of providing an adequate remedy to a wrongfully
Sadly, the federal judiciary is ignoring conflict machinations
when exactly such conflict ascertainment is needed because in
foreclosure matters virtually every judge has a mortgage. Because of
the clear violation of morality and conflict bias in the Caperton case,4
the Judicial Conference of the United States through the good offices
of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court Steven Breyer
formulated a sophisticated mandatory financial conflict screening
mechanism to help ensure that insidious bias like this does not sneak
into the courtrooms. This system has a monitoring feature that eludes
chief judge’s inquiry. And likely eludes their use.
Judge Dunn’s machinations will be recounted in more detail in
the companion Court of Federal Claims matter filed simultaneously
4 Lawrence Lessig, What Everybody Knows and What Too Few Accept, 123 Harv. L. Rev. 104
Page !13 of !103
Meanwhile, two apparent patent legal malpractice matters
played out in Judge Haggerty/Papak’s/Magistrate handling of the
case. First, Mr. Russillo failed to answer the initial complaint in time
in the 2008 case and allowed Paulson to take a default judgment.
Second, Mr. Russillo failed to issue the required ‘Danger Notice’
required by Oregon law.5 Finally, Paulson timely issued his Right to
Cure notice. The extant litigation also includes the Counter-claims
filed by Paulson in State Court6 following the Eviction proceeding filed
there and removed there by Mr. Russillo, of Judge Haggerty’s former
law firm, Schwabe, Williamson. (There is a further conflict there
because Wendell Wyatt formerly is from that law firm. Meanwhile
Wendell Wyatt endorsed, along with the Oregon State Bar; Federal
Judge Leavy’s judgeship. Thus they (OSB) both have conflicts as to
Former Chief Judges Schroeder, Kozinski and Thomas of the
Ninth Circuit have kicked up their heels and have ignored this
5 Danger notice. On or before the date the trustee serves or mails the notice of sale, the trustee
must mail what’s 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.
6 Washington County Circuit Court of the State of Oregon Case No. C122215EV (2012)
Page !14 of !103
requirement and this process in bad faith on the litigants and in
derogation of The Rule of Law. The most vulnerable citizens tangled
up in court to save their homes.
In an exemplar to the claims herein, Ninth Circuit Court judges
Clarke, Panner, Schroeder, Kozinski and Thomas have ignored the
Plaintiff’s Motion for a Certificate of Necessity to import an Out-of-
Circuit Visiting Judge in the bellwether class action case the Plaintiff
filed on behalf of all victims of predatory lending. Why? So these
biased federal court judges intentionally get rid of litigants they don’t
like; the dreaded Pro Se litigant ————and because they can!! See
immediately below at docket #14 of CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE # 1:14-
cv-01544-CL. Paulson has filed a Certificate of Necessity in his most
recent 300 page class action against predatory lenders and these
judges in order to obtain a judge from another circuit who can be fair.
The Chief Judge must act on this request which then goes to Judge
Lamberth then to the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. But,
the Chief Judges of the Ninth Circuit won’t act on this request because
they WANT to rule on Paulson’s case. They don’t want unbiased
federal court judges from another circuit who may abide by the
Page !15 of !103
mandatory screening process. Once again these are ministerial acts,
i.e., the appointment of an outside judge who might be fair to the
Plaintiff here. But again, a procedure that might be of benefit to the
consumer, unused by the federal judiciary.
What follows are the actual rulings of the Ninth Circuit which
sadly portrays how effectively the judiciary can cull out those claims
against predatory lending as in this CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE # 1:14-
Here is what that looks like on a major, even seminal predatory
lending class action that the federal judiciary has stealthily winnowed
out of the foreclosure tsunami: How a lawsuit can be dispatched to
oblivion by the federal judiciary can easily be discerned on these next
few Pages of the official docket of that class action case; truncated by
local federal court judges with a demonstrated conflict of interest and
against The Rule of Law:
5. A CIVIL DOCKET EXEMPLAR
(Paulson has filed two predatory lending cases: One in 2008 for his
initial grievances. That went in the normal fashion. — This is his
following predatory lending case for the class and is 300 pages long.
Page !16 of !103
Note now how different the Federal Judiciary Dispatches the Class of
Homeowners in Foreclosure to Oblivion with massive conflicts of
U.S. District Court
District of Oregon (Medford (1))
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE # 1:14-cv-01544-CL
Paulson v. Fairway America Corporation et al
Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke
Case in other court:
9TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, 15-35195
Cause: 15:1601 Truth in Lending
Date Filed: 09/26/2014
Date Terminated: 02/11/2015
Jury Demand: Plaintiff
Nature of Suit: 220 Real Property: Foreclosure
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
16131 W. Hoffeldt Lane, #38
Brookings, OR 97415
Page !17 of !103
Fairway America Corporation
fka Fairway Commercial Mortgage Corporation, Oregon corporations
Matthew W. Burk
also known as
John Doe Savings Bank
a Washington corporation
Wells Fargo Foothills
a California corporation
Bank of America
U.S. Bank Joan Doe
a mortgage broker
Page !18 of !103
JP Morgan Chase & Co.
Bank of New York
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems
Page !19 of !103
Skylands Investment Corporation
an Oregon corporation Manager
The Schwabe Williamson and Wyatt Law Firm
John and Jane 1-12 Does
Page !20 of !103
Hon. Paul Papak
Hon. Ancer Haggerty
Hon. Ann Aiken
Page !21 of !103
Hon. Michael Mosman
Hon. Anna Brown
Hon. Jim Pappas
Hon. Bruce Markell
Hon. Eileen Hollowell
Page !22 of !103
Jay Memo Bybee
Page !23 of !103
The United States Federal Reserve Bank
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)
Application for Leave to Proceed IFP. Filed by Lauren Paulson. (jkm)
Page !24 of !103
Motion for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel. Filed by Lauren Paulson.
(jkm) (Entered: 10/01/2014)
Notice of Case Assignment to Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke and
Discovery and Pretrial Scheduling Order. NOTICE: Counsel shall
print and serve the summonses and all documents issued by the
Clerk at the time of filing upon all named parties in accordance with
Local Rule 3-5. Discovery is to be completed by 1/29/2015. Joint
Alternate Dispute Resolution Report is due by 3/2/2015. Dispositive
Motions deadline is set for 3/2/2015. Pretrial Order is due by 3/2/2015.
Ordered by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke. (jkm) (Entered:
Notice of Case Assignment: This case is assigned to Magistrate Judge
Mark D. Clarke. (jkm) (Entered: 10/01/2014)
Scheduling Order by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke regarding
Complaint 1 . Dispositive Motions are due by 3/2/2015. Ordered by
Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke. (jkm) (Entered: 10/01/2014)
Application for CM/ECF Registration as a Self-Represented Party. Filed
by Lauren Paulson. (jkm) (Entered: 10/10/2014)
Notice of Change of Address. 16131 W. Hoffeldt Ln #38, Brookings,OR
97415.Filed by Lauren Paulson (jkm) (Entered: 10/22/2014)
Findings & Recommendation: Motion for Appointment of Counsel 3
should be denied, Complaint 1 should be dismissed, Application for
Page !25 of !103
Leave to Proceed IFP 2 should be denied. Objections to the Findings and
Recommendation are due by 12/4/2014. If objections are filed, responses
to the objections are due 12/18/2014. Signed on 11/14/2014 by
Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke. (rsm) (Entered: 11/14/2014)
Order referring Motion for Appointment of Counsel 3 , Complaint 1 ,
Findings & Recommendation: Motion for Appointment of Counsel 3 ,
Complaint 1 , Application for Leave to Proceed IFP 2 should be
dismissed and denied 8 , Application for Leave to Proceed IFP 2 to
Judge Panner. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke. (rsm)
Clerk's Notice of Mailing. Copy of Findings and Recommendation sent
to Lauren Paulson on this date. (rsm) (Entered: 11/14/2014)
Motion to Vacate Magistrate Judge Report Findings & Recommendation
Referred, 9 . Filed by Lauren Paulson. (jkm) (Entered: 12/08/2014)
Objections to Findings & Recommendation: Motion for Appointment of
Counsel 3 , Complaint 1 , Application for Leave to Proceed IFP 2 should
be dismissed and denied 8 . Filed by Lauren Paulson. (jkm) (Entered:
CERTIFICATE OF NECESSITY Filed by Lauren Paulson (jkm)
Request. Filed by Lauren Paulson. (jkm) (Entered: 12/11/2014)
Page !26 of !103
Motion for Status. Filed by Lauren Paulson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
Request) (jkm) (Entered: 01/14/2015)
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)
Judgment. Based on the record, this action is dismissed. Plaintiff's 380-
page 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)
Clerk's Notice of Mailing to LAUREN PAULSON regarding Order on
motion to Vacate, Order on Motion - Miscellaneous, Order on motion/
application for leave to proceed ifp, Order on Motion for Appointment
of Counsel, Order on Application for CMECF Registration as a Self-
Represented Party, Order on Findings & Recommendation,,,,,, 17 ,
Judgment, 18 . (jkm) (Entered: 02/11/2015)
Notice of Appeal to the 9th Circuit from Order on motion to Vacate,
Order on Motion - Miscellaneous, Order on motion/application for leave
to proceed ifp, Order on Motion for Appointment of Counsel, Order on
Page !27 of !103
Application for CMECF Registration as a Self-Represented Party, Order
on Findings & Recommendation 17 and Judgment 18 . Filed by Lauren
Paulson. (Attachments: # 1 Letter) (dsg) (Entered: 03/13/2015)
USCA Case Number and Notice confirming Docketing Record on
Appeal re Notice of Appeal, 19 . Case Appealed to 9TH CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS Case Number 15-35195 assigned. (jkm)
TIME SCHEDULE Order/CASE NUMBER from USCA for the 9th
Circuit, re Notice of Appeal, 19 . (jkm) (Entered: 03/17/2015)
ORDER of USCA for the 9th Circuit, USCA # 15-35195, re Notice of
Appeal, 19 . The decision of the District Court is DISMISSED.
(Attachments: # 1 NEF) (jkm) (Entered: 05/15/2015)
Order by Judges Schroeder and McKeown Appellants motion to
proceed in forma pauperis is also construed as a motion to reinstate this
appeal. So construed, the motion to reinstate is granted. The courts May
5, 2015 order is vacated, and this appeal is reinstated. Appellants motion
to proceed in forma pauperis is denied because we find that the appeal is
frivolous. If appellant wishes to pursue this appeal despite the courts
finding that it is frivolous then, within 21 days after the date of this
order, appellant shall pay $500.00 to the district court as the docketing
and filing fees for this appeal and file proof of payment with this court.
Otherwise, the appeal will be dismissed by the Clerk for failure to
prosecute, regardless of further filings. from USCA for the 9th Circuit, re
Notice of Appeal, 19 . (jkm) (Entered: 07/29/2015)
Page !28 of !103
MANDATE of USCA for the 9th Circuit, USCA # 15-35195, re Notice
of Appeal, 19 . The Notice of Appeal is DISMISSED for failure to pay
the court fees. (Attachments: # 1 NEF) (jkm) Modified on 9/14/2015
(cw). (Entered: 09/14/2015)
Note how deftly the federal judiciary truncates this three hundred
(300) page Class Action Complaint against the entire banking industry.
But look closer! These Defendants did not even have to file
pleadings in Response. Nowhere in the history of litigation does the
judge take on the responsibility of dispatching a major lawsuit to
nowhere without discovery, without responsive pleadings, without
mutual intellectual advocacy to arrive at truth. Without ‘due process’.
These Pro Se litigants are entitled to process not a toss.
This is what is happening to foreclosure consumers across the
nation in sharp contradistinction to the conflict of interest mandate. This
court docket microcosm graphically discloses the ease with which
federal judges from the bottom to the top are shorting to fail the rights of
citizens; denying their state and federal constitutional rights, denying
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.
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
The application of Mandamus is requested here to ensure that
federal officials across the nation are following the Judicial Conference
requirements on conflict screening through the available software and
otherwise. See in particular the conflict of interest in the case of
former Chief Judge Richard W Roberts of the D.C. court Case No. Civil
Action No. 1:15-cv-00556 who has a companion judicial misconduct
claim filed against him for failing to disclose that his wife works for
Sprint as a lobbyist in an anti-trust violation case he assigned to
himself involving the electronics industry including Sprint as
defendants. It is this sort of prophylactic that is needed to stop
rampant wrongdoing on the part of the federal court judiciary. The
problem is the wrongdoing is increasing in a geometric explosion
following maneuvers to save wayward judges from the sting of
violating ‘The Guild” or that “Close Personal Professional relationship.
The Defendants and each of them have nullified every extant
rescue vehicle for victims of foreclosure. As astonishing as it may
seem, the net result here is a ‘TAKING” of everything owned of the
Plaintiff by the Defendants. His historic home. His (all) personal
Page !32 of !103
property. His intellectual property. His ability to earn a living. His
office manager. Even his cat. Everything.
The governmental parties to this unconstitutional taking include
but are not limited to those identified as follows (in their judicial and
1. Hon. Randall Dunn, Bankruptcy Judge
2. Hon. Ann Aiken as former Chief Judge of the U.S. District
Court of Oregon
3. Hon. Michael Mosman as the current Chief Judge of the U.S.
District Court of Oregon
4. Hon Alex Kozinski as the former Chief Judge of the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals
5. Hon Sidney Thomas as the current Chief Judge of the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals
6. Hon Eric Holder as the former Attorney General of the
7. Hon Loretta Lynch as the current Attorney General of the
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:
1. Oregon Bankruptcy Case No. 09-32439rd11/7
2.Washington County Circuit Court Case No. C 10084
3.Washington County Circuit Court Case No. C 10085
4.Washington County Circuit Court Case No. C 10086
5.Oregon Court of Appeals Case No. A14569
6.Oregon Court of Appeals Case No. A14570
7.Oregon Court of Appeals Case No A14671
8.United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Case No. BAP
9.Oregon District Court Case No. 3:10-cv-00048-MO
Page !34 of !103
10.United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit Case Nos.
11.Oregon District Court Case No. cv-08982-ST/PK
12.Oregon Bankruptcy Court Case No. 11-03309
It is law that the jurisdiction which obtains jurisdiction over the
real property (in this case the M.E. Blanton Historic property) first
must retain jurisdiction. This law is meant to prevent forum
shopping and to prevent the current chaotic mess among multiple
jurisdictions. Cases like these are really very simple. Did the bank
have constitutional standing or not?? Instead these cases become
the full employment act for downtown law firms in both state and
federal courts. And a misleading stream of cases the Ninth Circuit
can claim on their numbers hit parade when asking for more help.
Over a year after Paulson had filed his initial complaint in federal
court, (Case No. 3:08-cv-00982-PK) U.S. District Court (now Chief
Judge) Michael Mosman issued a curious ruling. In what he called
a “Status” hearing in 2010 in Case No. 3:10-cv-00048-MO he
violated that precedent by allowing a state court proceeding for
Page !35 of !103
eviction even though Paulson had filed a federal court proceeding
for predatory lending two years prior.
A careful reading of the proceedings in Case No. 3:10-cv-00048-
MO shows how stealthy and how sneaky the co-conspirators; the
downtown law firms and the consanguine federal judges can be.
Because Paulson already had his federal court predatory lending
case before the federal courts, Paulson filed for Removal following
the banks state court eviction filing. Here is the stealth: Defendant
Franki Keefe’s lawyer Calliste Korach filed a “Motion for Status
Conference” on 2/05/10. No hearing was ever had on the Removal
issue. Judge Mosman simply took it upon himself to rule in the
banks favor when the only thing before him was the ‘Status
Conference”. First, this shanghaied Paulson on what was before the
Court that moment. There was no way for him to prepare
arguments…..for a ‘Status’ conference. A concept of ‘due process’ is
It also allowed multiple litigation in multiple forums when the
law is simply to the contrary. Multiple litigation is always to the
bank’s benefit; never to the consumer’s benefit when they seek the
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 Mosman’s 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 didn’t. 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 Haggerty———who used to
work for the same law firm as Craig Russillo—Portland downtown
law firm Schwabe Williamson. Only Paulson didn’t know that then.
Required disclosures would have educated Paulson on the potential
Page !37 of !103
conflict of interest and bias by Judge Haggerty in favor of Craig
Russillo’s client from his same law firm. That bias by Judge
Haggerty is graphically portrayed in the chart that records his
inactivity in 2009 when the Plaintiff needed his neutral
involvement most. He disappeared. The chart of Judge Haggerty’s
rulings in favor of Mr. Russillo and the vacancy of addressing
anything filed by Paulson is in the 63 page tome of 2013.
But Pro Se litigants aren’t intended to get a fair shake in this
The Plaintiff gave Judge Mosman an opportunity for a ‘do-over’ a
couple of months ago when he simply asked him to review what has
happened now that he is chief. Once again Judge Mosman failed to
follow the Judicial Conference policy. Not unsurprising. What is
surprising is all of the federal judiciary throughout the United
States is also ignoring this mandatory policy. Ignoring The Rule of
Banks, years ago, decided they could steal the sheepskin back
from unsuspecting homeowners through the non-judicial
foreclosure procedure. These federal officers of the court and the
Page !38 of !103
local prominent law firms saw a full-employment ploy: Litigate in
both state and federal court. Why not have an UNsuccessful
mediation while we are at it. And, for further local entrepreneurial
experience let’s send the debtor to counseling class. Gee, there
must be some other way to throw up obstacles for the consumer
while icing the palms of local enterprise and the legal profession.
All the while ensuring foreclosure while dispatching the home to
Documents that contain The Facts of this Eight (8) Year Odyssey:
The first is the document to be found at page 2 above. This is the
sixty-three (63) page comprehensive account of the rampant and freewheeling
Judicial Misconduct engaged in by the federal judiciary at all
levels and permutations in these cases.
Something very subtle and very insidious is happening in the
federal courts of the United States generally and the Ninth Circuit
specifically. These federal judges have discovered that they may do
what they want, when they want without regard to The Rule of Law,
Page !39 of !103
without regard to conflicts and without regard to the Judicial
Conference of the United States mandates.
The seminal issue here is Standing. Standing means you have to
have a dog in the fight to bring somebody before the Courts seeking
justice. ‘Standing’ comes before everything else. So, how did the best
legal minds in Oregon in the arena of creditors and debtors, after the
biggest financial meltdown since the Depression, miss the fact that
FHLF, LLC did not have ‘Standing’ anywhere. They had no dog in the
fight legally. At all. How, how then did everyone, in this august
meeting of legal minds; miss that? There was an unapologetic payoff
by Craig Russillo, so his client could get the $400,000 historic
property for $5,000. This was O.K. with everybody except Paulson.
The taking here occurred because the federal judiciary failed to
apply The Rule of Law with respect to Standing in foreclosure cases.
Across the nation lenders had destroyed or lost the sheepskin
document proving legal title. Without proof that the bank has the blue
ink sheepskin the homeowner gets a free house. The bank has no
Page !40 of !103
more standing to be in front of that judge than a small elephant has a
right to be in that courtroom.
Bank of America, Countrywide, Wells Fargo and others have
illegally consorted with the Federal Judiciary and various prominent
law firms to foreclose without following their own required procedures
and without following The Rule of Law. For example, Constitutional
Standing is required before any federal tribunal may consider legal
arguments. Bank of America, Countrywide, Wells Fargo and others do
not have Standing before the U.S. Federal Tribunals yet these
Defendants have fraudulently yielded to these bank’s economic
interests to the Plaintiff’s harm. Judge Mosman’s Opinion and Order
in Breyer v. Bank of America et al, U.S. District Court Case No. CV
10-523-MO (2011) is an example of how this plays out in current
rulings which then facilitates these illegal takings. This case is cited
as contrary to the rest of the decisional body of the jurisdiction.
State law requires that when mortgages (here deeds of trust) are
assigned that the promissory Note be transferred to or endorsed to the
assignee, FHLF, LLC. That wasn’t done. This means that the security
instrument (deeds of trust) were separated between two companies
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 10-1065-
PK, 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.
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 Natache’s
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
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 Mosman’s 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 In the words of Bill Maher, they made up New Rules.
This tsunami was exacerbated by the subsequent litigation
frenzy which brought the U.S. Bankruptcy laws into sharp relief and
exacerbated the legions of conflicts with all parties including the
bankruptcy system. This fiasco is addressed in the sixty-three (63)
page judicial misconduct complaint beginning at page 35 et seq. It is
supplemented by the Emanuel Real case that is summarized in Trilogy
Page !43 of !103
#2 Appendix. And Paulson brought the Bankruptcy problem to the
attention of Attorney General Loretta Lynch without result. (Exhibit
I) In a perfect world, the Hon. Ms. Lynch would have issued
instructions to the bankruptcy stalwarts working at the Department of
Justice for the United States and the bankruptcy courts could easily
have been the forum for foreclosure resolution. It was not to be.
FHLF, LLC, the creditor in the underlying case which was only
assigned the security instruments, not the Notes; had no standing to
foreclose because they did not possess nor have an interest in the debt
instruments—i.e., the promissory Notes. Judge Mosman and the judges of the
Ninth Circuit allow foreclosures notwithstanding the clear dictates of The Rule of
Law set down clearly by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Carpenter case two
hundred years ago. Precedent.
It gets worse. Most homeowners would win on the Standing issue because
of the wholesale plague of the lenders not processing the paperwork according to
the dictates of the law. All this is eloquently explained in a November 22, 2010
article by Adam Levitin entitled “The Big Fail” in a publication known as ‘Credit
Slips’.org. Natache’s case was decided on October 6, 2010. In a perfect world the
judiciary and the bar would have educated themselves on her case and on Mr.
Page !44 of !103
Levitin’s wisdom. The homeowner foreclosure tsunami would have benignly
passed on in the night and families restored to their homes as justice required.
11. CONFLICTS AND THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF
THE UNITED STATES
Former Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski flashed a bright
light on how far a federal judge may go in ignoring the law and
decency during his leadership tenure at the Ninth Circuit. As he said
in the video of the Ninth Circuit proceedings when he passed the
sepulcher to Chief Judge Sidney Thomas at the end of last year; he was
lucky he wasn’t impeached. Chief Judge Sidney Thomas has read the
playbook severely tainted by Judge Kozinski carefully and sails on
through the maelstrom of foreclosure dissonance without revealing his
close ties to Bank of American, Wells Fargo and the others. See
Paulson’s Motion to Disqualify him in Ninth Circuit Court Case No.
13-35077 at docket #68 and 69. (It is interesting though not
necessary for the resolution of this case — to note how
many times the Plaintiff has formally sought an unbiased
judge. No one, in eight (8) years of litigation has deigned to
allow an unbiased judge to intrude on this foreclosure
Page !45 of !103
tsunami nor on Paulson’s cases even though these judge’s
bias is palpable, pervasive and so patent. The Ninth Circuit
must not be overworked. Or…..they want to be sure that this
Plaintiff does not win….on any issue anywhere. This judicial
regime is positive that this Plaintiff does not need a pro bono
attorney; no matter how complex the cases. Criminal
Defendants and Prisoners get pro bono attorney help, but not
the foreclosure victim.) And this forum does all it can to
ensure pleadings may not be filed electronically nor ECM/
PACER used in the interests of justice and efficiency.
Judge M. McKeown goes to Congress. Somehow they have
allowed Ninth Circuit Court Judge M. McKeown to lie to Congress on
the subject9 of conflicts in foreclosure cases and allowed foreclosure
victims to be shrouded from the truth……their foreclosure judges have
extensive holdings in the banks they are ruling for in every court in the
Judges like Ms McKeown have no fear because their
administrative and judicial misconduct boss is none other than the
Page !46 of !103
Hon. Sidney Thomas who has never read a judicial misconduct
complaint that he didn’t …..rule for the miscreant. With impunity
because these cases then go to the next friendly judge up the line until
they (NEVER) get to the Chief Justice of the United States.
A full chronicle of how pervasive this judicial misconduct is against the
pro se litigant in California can be found at https://www.scribd.com/
document/293253918/Judicial-Misconduct . The thin thread of
judicial bias and conflict disclosure has a powerful software engine to
help all discover and process these bias bibles in the ECM/PACER
computer system adopted by the federal judiciary circa 2008. If they
would only use it. There is a formal reporting system there, but no
evidence anywhere that any federal circuits are using it anywhere.
Former Chief Judge Kozinski used it all right——-to watch
pornography from the courthouse to his home. He was caught and
now is in splendid retreat as are all the other judges recently anointed
with plentiful judicial misconduct but not reported in The New York
Times. If you want to know how bad this is on regular folks…….just
google former Chief Judge Richard W. Roberts of the U. S District
Court of the D.C. federal court and his episode with a teenager (that’s
Page !47 of !103
‘Washington D.C.’ —- where Chief Judge Merrick Garland awaits his
vote to the U.S. Supreme Court)
12. THE MANDATORY FINANCIAL
SCREENING POLICY AND GLOBAL JUDICIAL
A. GLOBAL JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT in U.S. Courts…THE
TRILOGY - CHAPTER ONE — Judge Murguia Judges Herself (Nos.
11-90185,14-90031 to 14-90050)10
Trilogy — Chapter One — Judge M. Murguia
Here, Judge M. Murguia is, at the same time:
1. A decision-maker member of the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council on
Paulson’s Petition for Review on Judicial Misconduct there.
2. A Defendant in a global predatory lending class action filed by
Paulson and on appeal in the Ninth Circuit.
3. A judicial decision-maker in a companion Ninth Circuit appellate
case by Paulson against his bankruptcy trustee among others.
4. A named Judicial Misconduct culprit on Paulson’s sixty-three (63)
page complaint filed by Paulson in 2013. But nobody noticed.
The Complainant, Lauren Paulson, moved the Judicial Council of
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to refer the captioned complaint to
10 Ninth Circuit Judicial Council Judicial Misconduct Case Numbers
Page !48 of !103
the Judicial Conference of the United States for an investigation
pursuant to 28 USC Section 354(b), Section 357 and The Rule of Law.
[See Appendix below] This extraordinary request was made because
the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit has made grievous errors
connoting corruption in its decisions dated October 15, 2015 in the
above-captioned cases warranting a Judicial Conference investigation
into why the Ninth Circuit allowed Judge Murguia’s multiple
participation. The concomitant Judicial Misconduct is:
The Complainant will demonstrate here, through objective
evidence that NONE of the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council
members who signed off on the October 15, 2015 decisions
captioned above read either Complainant's sixty-three (63)
page submission document nor the record. 11
No one noticed, neither the Judicial Council nor Judge Murguia,
that Judge Mary H. Murguia12 is a judge whose judicial misconduct is
one of those that is a subject of the 2013 sixty-three (63) page judicial
misconduct complaint-in-chief AND the very same Judge Murguia is
11 The 63 page Judicial Misconduct complaint may be found at: https://www.scribd.com/doc/
12 Not to be confused with her older brother Carlos Murguia, a U.S. District Court judge in
Page !49 of !103
a decision-maker on the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council decisions
described here on October 15, 2015 — at the same time. (Exhibit E
In between those two conflicting roles, Judge Murguia also
teamed up with Chief Judge Thomas on February 26, 2015 to make
multiple rulings on Complainant’s Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Case No. 13-35077 (Paulson v. Arbaugh, et al) which essentially
nullifies that lawsuit. This creates a huge conflict of interest in
addition to her two roles above because she is ruling on a matter
which is pending in the same Circuit where she is accused of Judicial
Misconduct. In addition, to ruling as a Judicial Council member here.
And finally, as a fourth demonstration that no one read anything
here; Judge Murguia is a named Defendant in Ninth Circuit Court
Case No. 15-35195, (Paulson v. Fairview II) a class action against
predatory lending filed by the Complainant and on appeal to the
Ninth Circuit. (Judicial Notice requested of all cases mentioned.)
That case is simultaneously being ruled on, favorably for fellow Ninth
Page !50 of !103
Circuit Judge Murguia, by fellow Ninth Circuit Court Judge M.
McKeown the Ninth Circuit Court expert on conflict identification for
the Judicial Conference of the United States. And also by fellow Ninth
Circuit and former Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder in that Case No.
15-35195 on July 28, 2015. (It may be noted that the trio of Chief
Judges (Schroeder, Kozinski and Thomas) are on the record as NOT
being in favor of computer-related monitoring of their Circuit by the
This means that Judge Murguia has three (count ‘em) conflicts of
interest here that makes one wonder how she ruled on the Judicial
Council matter and didn’t notice that she is involved in the
concomitant cases in the three OTHER roles, at the same time.
Moreover, why is the automated mandatory conflict screening process
not alerting anybody?
SUMMARY OF FACTS
(The detailed chronology and summary of the background to these
cases may be found in the sixty-three (63) page judicial misconduct
13 Wall St Journal Sept 4, 2001 Kozinski op - ed
Page !51 of !103
complaint beginning on page 9 and ending at page 19 of that
document. You can click on the 63 page tale of Ninth Circuit Judicial
Misconduct by clicking on the purple sentence below.)14
Prior to the 63 page 2013 judicial misconduct complaint, Paulson
had asserted a definitive singular judicial misconduct complaint
against Bankruptcy Judge Randall Dunn on December 7, 2011.
(Exhibit A) The Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit Alex Kozinski ruled
on the Judge Dunn case on June 25, 2012. (Exhibit D) He ruled
without considering the supplemental material supplied by the
Complainant well before he ruled. Somehow, Paulson’s May 4th, 2012
supplemental material (Exhibit B) on judicial misconduct in the Ninth
Circuit and by Judge Dunn got lost. (Exhibit C)
Lauren Paulson brought his global judicial misconduct complaint to
the Ninth Circuit on November 7, 2013. (This global document can
be viewed electronically by means of the above link in purple. One
hard copy of the global judicial misconduct complaint is enclosed)
14 (Or by using this link: https://www.scribd.com/doc/182748927/JUDICIAL-MISCONDUCT-INFORECLOSURE-
Page !52 of !103
Further pertinent background may be found in Paulson’s Motion for
Rehearing in Ninth Circuit court case #13-35672/13-71718. (Judicial
The Chief Judges did not get around to the sixty-three (63) page
complaints about judicial misconduct for almost two years. (Judge
Thomas replaced Judge Kozinski as chief judge of the Ninth Circuit in
December 2014.) There is no explanation from the Ninth Circuit
regarding these delays from either chief judge.
Judicial discipline in federal court is controlled by:
28 U.S. Code Chapter 16 -
COMPLAINTS AGAINST JUDGES
AND JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE
Under Section 351, 354, 355 et seq., the Judicial Conference of the
United States may investigate the grievous judicial misconduct of
the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council in these premises: “(a) In
Page !53 of !103
Upon referral or certification of any matter under section
354(b), the Judicial Conference, after consideration of the prior
proceedings and such additional investigation as it considers
appropriate, shall by majority vote take such action, as
described in section 354(a)(1)(C) and (2), as it considers
The Complainant timely sought his Petition for Review on these
matters. (Exhibit G) None of the issues addressed in the Petition for
Review was discussed in the abbreviated decisions of the Ninth
Circuit Judicial Council dated October 15, 2015. (Exhibit H) It is
Exhibit H pages 1 and 2 that is the subject here.
There is no evidence that anyone on the Ninth Circuit Judicial
Council nor that the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit sought to review
any part of the voluminous record from the U.S. District Court of
Oregon in Portland nor the Ninth Circuit ( including the Bankruptcy
Appellate Panel) even though most of the record is available
15 Following the commencement of the foreclosure tsunami, the federal courts began to
facilitate, (against The Rule of Law) the transferring of federal cases to state courts for eviction
proceedings. Thus, this case, like many others (including Natache’s case) also have a
voluminous state court record with a clear nexus to the federal court proceedings. The state
court record is also putatively available electronically. Some of the judicial misconduct, against
U.S. Judge Mosman, for example, is of this ilk. See Table of Contents at pp. 25 and 44
Page !54 of !103
Lost Documents in Ninth Circuit
It took six (six) months for Judge Kozinski to get around to
Paulson’s judicial misconduct complaint against Bankruptcy Judge
Randall Dunn on a pending case. In the meantime, specifically on
May 11, 2012, Deputy Ninth Circuit Clerk Joseph Williams sends back
Paulson’s supplemental judicial complaint (to the 63 page judicial
misconduct complaint) entitled ‘Barbaric’16 filed in the Ninth Circuit
on May 07, 2012. (Exhibit B) The Ninth Circuit and U.S. District
Court of Oregon case numbers to which this ‘Barbaric’ tome applies
can be found on pages 6 and 7 of that Exhibit B document along with
reference to each judge complained of.
This supplement should have been considered by Chief Judge
Kozinski as it had formally been filed a month BEFORE Judge
Kozinski issued his Order dated June 25, 2012. (Exhibit D) (See
Paulson’s letters to the Ninth Circuit Clerk dated July 16, 2012 et
seq. ) The points raised in the tome yclept ‘Barbaric’ have never been
16 That concept was developed by the Black Working Group while attempting to shield
homeowners against foreclosure in North Portland, Oregon as an adjunct to the ‘Occupy’
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 clerk’s 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 clerk’s 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
(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 party’s CM/ECF/
PACER privileges are arbitrarily revoked and a case is sandwiched
between electronic filings and snail mail filings.)
Page !56 of !103
Notwithstanding the requirements of Section 352 of the United
States Code, the matter was not attended to ‘expeditiously’ by the
Judicial Council then ( in 2012) nor here (2013 to 2015) now. The first
hiatus was from December 7, 2011 to June 25, 2012. The second hiatus
was from November 7, 2013 to August 27, 2015. But, there is a
further gaffe by the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council that proves
conclusively that no-one on the Judicial Council read the detailed
sixty-three (63) page Judicial Misconduct complaint submitted by the
Complainant nor was the record examined by anyone on the Judicial
Council even though Paulson formally requested judicial notice many
Judge Mary H. Murguia
Judge Murguia’s has four conflicting roles here: Judicial Council
decision-maker, Defendant, Litigation in chief decision-maker,
Judicial Misconduct Subject in the original sixty-three (63) page
judicial misconduct complaint of 2013.
This entire panoply of judges (Hon. Thomas, Paez, N.R. Smith,
Murguia, Collins, King, Winmill, and Illston) are caught red-handed
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 Thomas’s
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  page
submission. This means Hon. Murguia also could not have read the
Page !58 of !103
Judicial Misconduct complaint documents filed by Paulson where she
is clearly a Judge complained about, yet also allows herself to
represent the Ninth Circuit Court Judicial Council in their decisionmaking
here where she is a putative judicial misconduct violator at
the same time.
Also overlooked by all judicial participants is the fact that Judge
Murguia is a named Defendant in U. S. District Court of Oregon Case
No. 1:14-cv-01544-CL also pending in the Ninth Circuit under Case
No. 15-35195 and upon which her fellow Ninth Circuit Court Judges
Schroeder and McKeown ruled as recently as July 28, 2015. Likewise,
they didn’t notice their fellow Ninth Circuit Court Judge Murguia was
a party. So they (Hon. Schroeder/McKeown) could not have read
anything either in their 2015 ruling or they would have noticed their
fellow Judge Murguia was a named Defendant in the case where they
are ruling without noticing. And where is that automatic conflict
screening software in action?
Page !59 of !103
Even more startling is that none of the other Judicial Council
members could have read the sixty-three (63) page complaint or the
record either. If they had they would have noticed that one of their
fellow judicial council members (Judge Murguia) is a subject judge
being complained about there for judicial misconduct. This means
that none of the decision makers on October 15, 2015 could have read
either the Complaint submissions by Paulson nor the record. If they
had they would have noticed that one of their fellow travelers alleged
to have engaged in judicial misconduct is also a Judicial Council
decision-maker here. This is Judicial Misconduct ancillary to all the
other reported Judicial Misconduct; on a grand scale.
This (NOT reading what is submitted) is judicial misconduct of
the highest magnitude. Moreover, it represents the judicial disease
that has infected the Ninth Circuit for decades. This judicial
dereliction of duty — the duty to read and study what has been
submitted by the lonely consumer seeking justice and trying to protect
themselves from being homeless (remember the name Cindy Lorenz)
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.
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
17 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
Page !61 of !103
Circuit dysfunction in a thirty-eight (38) page detailed and fascinating
report of Judicial Misconduct in the Ninth Circuit from 1997 to 2008.
The Complainant here asks that judicial notice be taken of the
Mecham report as though it were fully set forth here. That report may
be accessed online at the following address:
APPENDIX to #12-A
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.—
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
recommendations for appropriate action, to the Judicial Conference of
the United States.
(2)Special circumstances.—In any case in which the judicial council
determines, on the basis of a complaint and an investigation under this
chapter, or on the basis of information otherwise available to the
judicial council, that a judge appointed to hold office during good
behavior may have engaged in conduct—
(A) which might constitute one or more grounds for impeachment
under article II of the Constitution, or
(B) which, in the interest of justice, is not amenable to resolution by
the judicial council, the judicial council shall promptly certify such
determination, together with any complaint and a record of any
associated proceedings, to the Judicial Conference of the United
28 U.S. Code § 357 - Review of orders and
prev | next
(a)Review of Action of Judicial Council.—
A complainant or judge aggrieved by an action of the judicial council
under section 354 may petition the Judicial Conference of the United
States for review thereof.
B. GLOBAL JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT …THE TRILOGY
CHAPTER TWO —Judge McKeown at Congress (Nos.
11-90185,14-90031 to 14-90050)18
18 Ninth Circuit Judicial Council Judicial Misconduct Case Numbers
Page !63 of !103
Trilogy — Chapter Two — Mandatory Conflict Screening
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. District Court of
Oregon are not following the Judicial Conference of the United States
Policy on Mandatory Conflict Screening (2008). It is mandatory that
they do so under Judicial Conference written policy.19 Here is the
requirement that is NOT being followed in the Ninth Circuit:
"Every judge is required to develop a list of personal and
financial interests that would require recusal, which courts use with
automated conflict-checking software to identify court cases in
which a judge may have a disqualifying conflict of interest.”20 The
articulated overarching purpose of this Judicial Conference policy is
transparency and accountability.
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 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
19 “This Judicial Conference policy extends to courts of appeals, district courts, ….and
bankruptcy courts and to the judicial officers thereof, but does not extend to the Supreme
Court.” 28 USC 331 et seq.
Page !64 of !103
engaging in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious
administration of the business of the courts.
Lauren Paulson hereby refiles with the Clerk of the Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit a written complaint containing a brief
statement of the facts constituting such judicial misconduct. 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.
The Plaintiff requested 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 following 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
so under said Judicial Conference Policy on Mandatory Conflict
Screening and under The Rule of Law of the United States.
Page !65 of !103
Federal judges are required to recuse themselves if they have a
conflict of interest. The foreclosure tsunami creates an unusual chapter
in litigation in the U.S. District Courts, the Ninth Circuit and possibly
throughout the United States. 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 america’s
judiciary will have a home mortgage or an account with the financial
institution before that court. Wells Fargo, Bank of America U.S. Bank
are but a few desultory examples.
Consider the collision between the litigants mortgage lenders,
servicers, investors, assignees, etc., etc., and the judge’s undisclosed
mortgage lender or interest in other financial institutions. How this
trap plays out against consumers in a typical Ninth Circuit foreclosure
case is fully portrayed and discussed below in the 2011 Sharpe21 case.
21 1:11-cv-03020-PA Sharpe et al v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage
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.
Noted Oregon real estate scholar Philip Querin wrote a
remarkably insightful and detailed analysis of the folly of Senior
Judge Owen Panner’s handling of Sharpe’s foreclosure case.
That analysis can be found at:
Wells Fargo along with Bank of America (cum Countrywide) are
major players in the global foreclosure tsunami. Judge Panner had a
bank account with Wells Fargo while the Sharpe matter was pending
before him.22 Undisclosed. Judge Panner ruled against the Sharpe's
and in favor of Wells Fargo on November 16, 2011 on questionable
facts that should have stopped the Wells Fargo foreclosure because
Wells Fargo did not have legal standing. There must be an
Page !67 of !103
investigation into whether Judge Panner used the mandatory conflict
screening policy or whether anybody in the Ninth Circuit is
complying with this mandatory policy in cases such as the Sharpe’s.
Meanwhile, 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. (Exhibit F)
As Attorney Querin so eloquently points out in his article on the
Sharpe case, usually consumer foreclosure victims do not have legal
representation, so are not aware of the complicated legal issues upon
which their family home depends. Thus, they are not aware of
conflict of interest issues that Judge Panner should have identified and
recused himself. They may not have fully understood that Wells
Fargo did not have legal standing; an issue their attorney Pilar French
painfully glossed over at the crucial hearing on a gullible Judge
Panner. Consumers caught in the complicated foreclosure web are not
Page !68 of !103
aware that no MANDATORY conflict screening was done on their
cases by judges like Judge Panner nor even the chief judge of the
Ninth Circuit and are thus denied Due Process along with The Rule of
A MANDATORY POLICY
The Judicial Conference of the United States adopted mandatory
conflict screening systems in 2008 to make sure mandated recusals
due to judicial financial conflicts of interest actually happen. It is a
“In 2006, the Judicial Conference of the United States adopted a
mandatory automated conflict screening policy. The policy required
courts to adopt automated systems that screen parties to cases, their
corporate parents, and judges' investments for conflicts.
The Fourth Circuit, for example, adopted such a plan, but there
is a weak link: judges have to self-report their personal and fiduciary
financial interests, keep their interests list updated, and have to review
flagged conflicts as they arise — if they follow the law.
The Center for Public Integrity reviewed the three most recent
years of financial disclosure reports filed by federal judges on the
appellate court level. Out of 255 judges who filed reports, over three
years, and thirteen circuits, the Center located 24 conflicts involving
stock ownership, as well as 2 instances where financial ties to a law
firm created a conflict.” (See report on the Fourth Circuit)
Page !69 of !103
CHIEF JUDGE ALEX KOZINSKI
The Washington Post has been reporting the problem of federal
appellate judges ruling on matters on which they had a financial
interest for decades. (Joe Stephens, “Judges Ruled on Firms in Their
Portfolios”, Washington Post (1999) According to their reporting
former Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski owned General
Motors stock at the same time he led a three-judge panel that made a
ruling rejecting a class action favorable to GM. Judge Kozinski
explained that midway through the case his wife bought 95 shares of
stock. The judge said, “We will try harder from now on, Kozinski told
the reporter.” “We do take this very seriously.”
In the age of the foreclosure tsunami, this means that legions of
foreclosure cases are being presided over by federal court judges like
Judge Kozinski that have real or possible conflicts without being
screened for conflicts as required by the mandatory policy of the
Judicial Conference of the United States.
Page !70 of !103
It is essential to find out why this mandatory policy for conflict
screening is being ignored in the Ninth Circuit and possibly
throughout the federal judiciary. Failing to discern judicial conflicts is
so pernicious and so omnipresent in foreclosure cases because
virtually all judges have a home mortgage and a checking account not
to mention their other financial holdings. (See Appendix for an E-mail
exchange between Paulson and PACER where the Complainant is
referred to ‘…the Court’ for information as to whether the Ninth
Circuit or the U.S. District Court of Oregon is following this
mandatory policy.) ‘The Court’s’ response: (Exhibit F)
Senior Judge Owen Panner, who does banking with Wells Fargo
dismissed a complex predatory lending complaint (Case No. 1:14-
cv-01544-CL) consisting of over three-hundred (300) pages including
Wells Fargo as a main Defendant opines: “I do not regard my
arrangements with the banks as a basis for recusal in your
case.” (Panner letter dated February 24, 2015) He does not comply
with the Policy.
Page !71 of !103
Chief Judge Ann Aiken: “All federal judges in the District of
Oregon are in full compliance with the financial conflict screening
obligations required by the Ninth Circuit plan.” (Aiken letter dated
September 4, 2015)
Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Sidney Thomas has not responded to
multiple inquiries as to whether the Ninth Circuit has a conflict
screening policy nor whether judges in the Ninth Circuit are following
the requirements of the Judicial Conference 2008 conflict screening
plan. Under the purported Ninth Circuit plan each Chief Judge is
required under Section 7 to make a semiannual report to the Judicial
Council on compliance with the plan. No reports received.
Ninth Circuit Judge Mary Schroeder has not replied to inquiries
as to whether she is following the Judicial Conference 2008 conflict
Ninth Circuit Judge M. McKeown has not replied to inquiries
as to whether she is following the Judicial Conference 2008 conflict
Page !72 of !103
All of Paulson’s matters involve Wells Fargo in one form or
another including his original case against Fairway, his lender, filed in
U. S. District Court of Oregon in 2008 which forms a crucial part of
Paulson’s Judicial Misconduct complaint against Bankruptcy Judge
Randall Dunn in 2011 and after. Continuing to this day. Wells Fargo
is involved in every phase of every case that is listed in the three
Trilogies. (Exhibit J) U.S. District Court of Oregon Case No. 3:08-
cv-00982-PK et al. No conflict screening was done by Judge Dunn nor
was his close ties to Paulson’s adversary Trustee, Amy Mitchell. Nor
with her attorney who has embezzled Paulson’s funds, Justin
Leonard. There is an illegal internecine relationship in the entire
Bankruptcy market in Portland, Oregon and elsewhere. Mandatory
conflict screening should have disclosed those manifold affiliations.
In one recent case, Bankruptcy Judge Trish Brown failed to disclose to
Cindy Lorenz that Mr. Maloney, attorney for the bank is her former
law partner. These hidden conflicts are legion. (Exhibit I)
Page !73 of !103
As stated, the present Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Sidney Thomas’
former law firm represents Wells Fargo, U.S. Bank and Bank of
America. See Paulson’s unanswered Motion to Disqualify him.
(Exhibit F) Undisclosed conflicts.
Judge Panner has recently dismissed Paulson’s subsequent class
action against Wells Fargo23 among other putative predatory lenders
without providing the required disclosures, without providing a
hearing, without The Rule of Law and without using the mandatory
conflict screening machinery. How brazen the judiciary can be is
personified in this case. Neither involved judge will disclose upon
what record they ruled on a fact pattern encompassing over seven (7)
years. Not unusual in foreclosure litigation. This complaint is over
300 pages, yet no record of the transcendent causes of action is
identified by any judge even though the complicated case has passed
before four Ninth Circuit Court judges eyes. Nor have the conflicts
been mentioned or identified.
23 Paulson v. Fairway et al., U.S. District Court Case No. 1:14-cv-01544-CL, Ninth Circuit Case
Page !74 of !103
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 conflictsscreening
software is used to compare a judge’s recusal lists with
information filed in each case.” McKeown Testimony at page 5
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 should be noted that Judge McKeown used to
represent Citibank, a named Defendant in Case No 15-35195. It is
ironic she should have ruled here with fellow Circuit Court Judge
Page !75 of !103
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.
Note: The 2008, thirty eight (38) page memorandum by former
Director of the Judicial Conference of the United States Administrative
Office, Ralph Mecham provides a picture of a possible cause to the
Ninth Circuit’s abject refusal to follow the Judicial Conference rules.
See that Report at: http://howappealing.abovethelaw.com/Mecham-
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. His
Page !76 of !103
omnipresence represents the antithesis of thoughtful and fair policy
benefiting the public going through the foreclosure maelstrom and the
absence of The Rule of Law in the Ninth Circuit.
Third Circuit Court Judge Anthony J. Scirica presented testimony
on this subject 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 stated 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)
Who is watching the store………..?
Hundreds, even thousands of homeowners subject to foreclosure
have had federal judges that were not financially vetted and
eventually will be uncovered.
Page !77 of !103
APPENDIX to 12-B
(email exchange begun by Paulson to the software entity
that was supposed to be triggered by each Circuit)
From: Lauren Paulson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/30/2015 07:10 PM
Subject: Mandatory Conflict Screening
It has come to my attention that the Judicial Conference
requires that each Circuit have a Mandatory Conflict
Screening policy. 28 USC 332(d)(1) Please send me a
copy of the Mandatory Conflict Screening Policy for the
Ninth Circuit. If there are any reporting requirements for
the use of this mandatory policy please send me a copy of
any and all reports for this policy in the Ninth Circuit since
the program began in 2006. Thank you,
Page !78 of !103
Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) is an
electronic public access service of the United States
Federal Courts that allows users to
obtain case and docket information from Federal
Appellate, District and Bankruptcy courts through the
“Unfortunately PACER is unable to assist you with
this. You will have to contact the court.”
For contact information, please go to
PACER Service Center
Page !79 of !103
Toll Free: 800-676-6856
For Frequently Asked Questions: http://www.pacer.gov/
For Account Information: https://www.pacer.gov/psco/cgibin/
Federal judge’s rulings favored companies
in which he owned stock
November 20, 2012 | Jennifer Gollan and Shane Shifflett
Photo by Virginia Lee Hunter
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:
• In 2008, he awarded Microsoft Corp. $746,027 in damages and fees in a
copyright infringement case against a computer sales and repair company.
At the time, Real held Microsoft stock worth between $15,001 and
$50,000, according to his financial disclosures.
• In another 2008 case involving a contract dispute between Atlanta Cancer
Care and biotech giant Amgen, Real dismissed the suit against Amgen.
Real held between $15,001 and $50,000 of Amgen stock, too, which he
transferred to someone else shortly after the case was appealed.
• 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 Real’s 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 company’s stock rose at least a dollar per share during the
two months following Real’s 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
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 Real’s 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
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 court’s
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 district’s U.S. attorney.
One of Real’s 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
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.
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
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 Real’s 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 doesn’t 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 Real’s 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 Real’s cases, Microsoft claimed that All-Valley Computer in Cathedral
City and its owner, Glenn Somervell, distributed software that infringed on
Microsoft’s copyrights and trademarks. All-Valley failed to respond to Microsoft’s
complaint by the deadline, and Microsoft’s 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
Real’s decisions damaged his career prospects.
“I probably can’t get a job for the rest of my life; it doesn’t look too good on my
résumé,” Somervell said. “If (Real’s) involved with Microsoft, he is going to take
their side. It’s 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 Amgen’s lawyers, he dismissed the
suit. But the 9th Circuit disagreed, reversing Real’s 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.
That’s because Schneider, the retired electrical contractor, brought a class-action
suit on behalf of Verizon customers challenging the company’s practice of billing
each of them up to $149 for canceling their Internet service before the end of
Schneider’s attorneys argued that the early termination fee was designed to lock
in customers and had little bearing on the actual costs of cancellation. Verizon’s
attorneys countered that the complaint lacked merit. Real dismissed the suit. On
appeal, the 9th Circuit reversed part of Real’s 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
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 public’s 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 clerk’s 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
district’s 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 California’s disclosures offline. Among the information
included in the filings are details such as addresses of rental properties judges
own or the name of their spouse’s employer.
“I don’t think judges want their holdings known by everyone and their mother,”
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
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
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
Page !86 of !103
C. GLOBAL JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT …THE TRILOGY
CHAPTER THREE — Judicial Misconduct Off Ramps(Nos.
11-90185,14-90031 to 14-90050)24
Trilogy — Chapter Three — Judicial Dysfunction
The Judicial Conference may exercise authority provided in
chapter 16 of title 28 United States Codes for the review of circuit
council conduct orders filed under that chapter.
“…..nearly all of these complaints are frivolous and valueless…”25
This is chapter three of a trilogy. There is nothing frivolous
about foreclosure and being homeless. A homeless veteran has value.
I am a homeless veteran.
Trilogy Chapter 1 — Circuit Judge Mary H. Murguia:
Chapter One of the trilogy is the most damning of all. And the most
sad. It proves beyond doubt that Ninth Circuit Court Judges DO
NOT read what is given them for decision-making. Nobody noticed
that Circuit Court Judge M. Murguia is not only a decision-maker on
the Judicial Council, but also, in the same cases, a named judge of
allegations of judicial misconduct. Further damning is nobody
noticed she also is a decision-maker along with Chief Judge Sidney
Thomas in a February 26, 2015 ruling against Paulson on Ninth
Circuit Case No. 13-35077. This is AFTER Paulson’s November 7,
2013 complaint of Judicial Misconduct AGAINST HER among
24 Ninth Circuit Judicial Council Judicial Misconduct Case Numbers
25 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
Page !87 of !103
others and BEFORE Chief Judge Thomas ruled in August of 2015 on
the pertinent Judicial Misconduct complaints.
And also see Chief Judge Sidney Thomas’s additional double
Trilogy Chapter 2 — Mandatory Conflict Screening: Chapter
Two demonstrates conclusively that the Ninth Circuit does not
follow nor comply with the Judicial Conference of the United States
Policy on Mandatory Conflict Screening. In the age of foreclosure.
Trilogy Chapter 3 — Judicial Misconduct Dysfunction Overall
in the Ninth Circuit: Chapter Three is a shocking litany of
substantive and grievous Judicial Misconduct in the Ninth Circuit in
all phases of litigation. All the assurances provided to policymakers
by the judiciary is smoke and mirrors. When is the last time a
policymaker has asked a foreclosure victim how they were treated
by the judiciary??? The entire legal establishment throughout the
United States is aware of the judicial dysfunction in the Ninth
Circuit, but nobody acts on this knowledge. Thereby making fools of
the Judicial Conference and the U.S. Supreme Court and us all.
TRILOGY CHAPTER THREE
Judicial Misconduct procedures in the Ninth Circuit are in shambles
1. The Record — No judge in the Ninth Circuit at any level
identifies the record upon which decisions are made. That
problem may be found in sharp relief in Paulson v. Arbaugh,
Mitchell and Russillo. Case No. 13-35077
A Walk Thru Paulson v. Arbaugh Backwards
Page !88 of !103
It is worthwhile to walk through this case backward to see how
dysfunctionally the Ninth Circuit operates to ensure the lonely
foreclosure consumer takes a judicially-enforced false off-ramp.
8/27/15 — In a five (5) page opinion Ninth Circuit Chief Judge
Sidney Thomas rules in favor of all judges on Paulson ’s sixty-three
(63) pages of Judicial Misconduct complaint reports. False off-ramp:
This is what is known as ‘The Judicial Guild” in operation. There is no
analysis of the actual facts nor an application of The Rule of Law. “A
fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process.”
Charles Gardner Geyh, Preserving Pubic Confidence in the Courts in an
Age of Individual Rights and Public Skepticism, in BENCH PRESS: THE
COLLISION OF THE COURTS, POLITICS, AND THE MEDIA 21,
7/09/15 — The Honorable Judges Leavy, Hawkins and Fletcher
dismiss Paulson’s case “….for lack of jurisdiction”. False off-ramp:
Paulson filed a Judicial Misconduct complaint against Judge Leavy
and Fletcher one and a half year earlier; then unaddressed.
5/06/15 — Paulson reports on the criminal disorder in bankruptcy
courts to the U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch. (Exhibit I) False
off-ramp: There are three layers of bankruptcy watchdogs and none
of them are doing their jobs. While foreclosure consumers suffer.
Homeless. There is criminal disorder in bankruptcy court and nobody
cares. Also note in the recitation of Judge Real’s follies; he is captured
in ruling for a fair maiden while ignoring the law. This is, in truth
what is happening across the nation. Judges are ruling as they want
without adherence to any semblance of the law.
4/13/15 — Clerk’s Order defers Paulson’s Motion for Visiting Judge
(Outside of Ninth Circuit) to panel assigned to hear the merits of this
appeal. False off-ramp: Paulson fears no local judge can be fair to
Page !89 of !103
him since he has authored a blog on local judicial misconduct for eight
(8) years. Judge’s 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
Paulson’s 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 Paulson’s
foreclosure case anyway. Paulson requests judicial notice, but never
given. The Motion points out that Legal Aid’s 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
Paulson’s 10/15/14 Motion for reconsideration based on Judge
Clifton’s 9/23/15 Order and subsequent recusal. It is never heard.
Page !90 of !103
12/17/14 — Paulson sends New Chief Judge Sidney Thomas a letter
reminding that no one in the Ninth Circuit has addressed Paulson’s 63
page Judicial Misconduct complaint for over a year now. False offramp:
Judge Thomas later rules against Paulson on all subsequent
and pending matters filed by him without responding to Paulson’s
December 17, 2014 inquiry.
11/14/13 — Paulson files a Motion to Redesignate the Record in Case
No. 13-35077 so that all prior underlying court proceedings relevant to
this case are before the Court. False off-ramp: The Court Clerk refers
this Motion “…to the panel that considers the merits of the case.”
This Motion is never heard.
11/7/13 — Paulson files a sixty-three (63) page accounting of five (5)
years of Judicial Misconduct in the Ninth Circuit. False off-ramp:
The Judicial Conference of the United States encouraged all federal
courts to have a judicial misconduct webpage with online reporting.
The Ninth Circuit has such a web page. Paulson encourages the
Judicial Conference to take a good look at the written criteria
consumers are forced to comply along with the annual report of the
written Orders by the Chief Judge disposing of all (repeat-all) of these
lamentable consumer reports of judicial misconduct. Classic FORM
over SUBSTANCE. Judicial misconduct is given a free pass.
7/31/13 — Paulson reports the criminal embezzlement of $30,000 of
his funds by Attorney Leonard, Mitchell and Bankruptcy Judge Dunn
in the bankruptcy proceedings. False off-ramp: There is no one overlooking
our bankruptcy proceedings even though there are many
public officials being paid to do so. A complete report on this
objective corruption and fraud in bankruptcy court can be found at
this link. This corruption was reported to Attorney General Loretta
Lynch May 6, 2015. (Exhibit I)
Page !91 of !103
4/22/13 — Paulson files his second request for Judicial Notice to
ensure that all relevant underlying cases are taken into consideration
in this case. False off-ramp: Judicial Notice of the underlying cases is
A careful look at the sixty-three (63) page Judicial Misconduct
Complaint here will demonstrate how hydra-headed these foreclosure
cases become. Concomitantly, the record also becomes difficult to
identify as multifarious judicial panels skim through to their decision
which does nothing to address nor resolve these troublesome
foreclosure cases; now complicated because of these manifold non
sequitur off-ramp rulings.
Moreover, no judge nor court staff will identify the record upon
which that court rules. Note for example, neither Magistrate Judge
Clarke nor Judge Panner will identify what record they had in their
possession when they ruled on U.S. District Court/Ninth cases —i.e. a
complaint consisting of over 300 pages and involving eight years of
facts and litigation across the nation. (Exhibit F).
1.) The Record - Did the seven judicial council persons located in six
(6) states here actually have an entire record of these twenty cases in
their possession for their read and decision-making? The Clerk sent
them the cases on October 2, 2015 and the Judicial Council made their
decision two weeks later. Did they have and read the thousands and
thousands of pages in these matters.26 The failure of Judge Dunn to
read the very file he is ruling on that according to him has no merit.
26 It should be noted that Judge Randall Dunn admitted ON THE RECORD that he never
examined the U.S. District Court file in the underlying predatory lending case which he was
required by the proceedings to rule on the very heart and merits of that underlying case. If he
didn’t read or make it part of the record in the bankruptcy proceedings then the BAP didn’t have
it nor read it and ipso facto the Chief Judge along with the Judicial Council here neither had the
file nor read it. Shameful.
Page !92 of !103
Judicial Notice requests by the consumer are ignored or denied
even though formally requested. Judicial Notice requests by the
banks are routinely granted. How do judges decide things without
2.) The Judges — Paulson wrote to Judge Thomas on December 17,
2014 when he learned of Judge Thomas’ appointment as Chief Judge
of the Ninth Circuit to point out that Paulson had filed his 63 page
Judicial Misconduct complaint a year earlier. (Exhibit E)
February, 26, 2015 — Chief Judge Thomas along with Judge
Mary H. Murguia (of whom Paulson had previously filed a judicial
misconduct complaint) ruled against Paulson on all counts in Ninth
Circuit Court Case No. 13-35077. A plethora of federal judges have
found there way to rule on this case that have concrete, objective
conflicts of interest.
March 9, 2015 — Paulson filed a Motion to Disqualify Judge
Thomas. (Exhibit F) Paulson asked for Oral Argument, but never
heard anything more on this pleading. Paulson asked, for the fourth
time, for a Visiting-Out of District/Circuit Judge. Nothing.
August 27, 2015 — Chief Judge Thomas observes in his August
27, 2015 ruling dispatching these twenty judicial misconduct
complaints to oblivion that it names “…ten circuit judges, four district
judges, four bankruptcy judges and a magistrate judge.” Why is one
simple consumer foreclosure case being reinvented before so many
judges in so many forums? When there are multiple proceedings over
the same fact pattern why not educate just one panel?27 Why not
allow consolidation? What is the standard? Why is the Chief Judge
making rulings after being asked to recuse himself, but doesn’t rule on
27 Several motions to consolidate were filed, but eschewed by each panel.
Page !93 of !103
the latter or act on the Certificate of Necessity or discuss the alleged
conflict of interest that are supposed to self-aware if the Chief Judge is
complying with mandatory conflict screening processes.
Further, there appears to be no system whatsoever to determine
whether there is a pending judicial misconduct complaint against a
Ninth Circuit judge before assigning a matter to that judge. Note here
there are assignments to:
• Judge Leavy
• Judge Clifton
• Judge McKeown
• Judge Fletcher
• Judge Murguia
• Judge Thomas
• Judge Kozinski
…….when there was a formal judicial misconduct complaint pending
against that very named judge.
3.) Petition for Review — None of the issues in the Petition for
Review were addressed by the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council. On
facts involving multiple complex Judicial Misconduct
issues…………….. the Judicial Council punts. (Exhibit G)
4.) Certificate of Necessity — The Breyer Commission
recommended in 2006 that each new chief judge should be schooled
in: “…the desirability in an appropriate instance to transfer a
complaint for handling outside the circuit and the mechanisms for
28 Implementation of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980
A Report to the Chief Justice 2006 by Associate Justice Steven Breyer
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
Paulson’s efforts to get an unbiased judge and ignores Paulson’s
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 Aiken’s ruling and Paulson’s 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 jurisdiction—usually 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
Page !95 of !103
8.) Pro Bono — There is a massive fraud being perpetrated on the
American consumer. The reins of pro bono help has been taken over
by Bank of America, Wells Fargo and the down town law firms.
29Witness a Task Force was convened to examine the pro bono
program in Oregon. It should come as no surprise that not one
consumer lawyer served on the task force. Yet all the downtown law
firms were represented on the task force.
Witness that Oregon Chief Justice Thomas Balmer serves on the
advisory committee for The Campaign for Equal Justice. This is one
funding device for pro bono help in Oregon. The Campaign for Equal
Justice Funds an endowment for The Oregon Community Foundation.
Chief Balmer’s wife works for the Oregon Community Foundation.
Here Judge Thomas and Judge Murguia determined (once again)
in their ruling on February 26, 2015 in Case No. 13-35077 that a
hapless pro se consumer will not have a pro bono counsel which they
say is limited in the Ninth Circuit to ‘exceptional circumstances’.
Likewise Paulson’s motion to mediate is denied even though the
Ninth Circuit has a large and sophisticated pro bono department and
a sophisticated mediation department waiting for this assignment that
never comes. A cynic could observe that the Judiciary in the Ninth
Circuit simply wants poor people to lose their foreclosure cases. And
just go away. Viz.
9.) Chief Judge Conflict of Interest — This concept takes on more
ballast when one observes that the Chief Judge, Sidney Thomas, of the
Ninth Circuit, and his former law firm represents Bank of America
and Wells Fargo among an extensive list of other financial institutions.
Page !96 of !103
It should be noted that Chief Judge Thomas, Judge Schroeder and
Judge McKeown DID NOT disclose these conflicts or do their own
mandatory conflicts checks in the rulings in these cases when
Paulson’s Ninth Circuit matters directly involve these banks. This is
the leadership of the Ninth Circuit.
11.) Judicial Misconduct Investigations — Under the Judicial
Conduct and Disability Act, chief judges and circuit judicial councils,
and the Judicial Conference of the United States when appropriate,
investigate and resolve any submitted claim that a judge “…has
engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious
administration of the business of the courts. “
The Judicial Conference should make clear that it possesses the
authority to revisit its Review Committee decisions on appeal by
complainants and judges from judicial council orders. Instead the rote
process lets consumers know there is no other avenue of appeal after
the Petition for Review.
12.) Delay — It is law in Judicial Misconduct cases that chief judges
are to act expeditiously. The Breyer Report points out: “Section 352(a)
of the Act tells chief judges to review complaints “expeditiously.” The
commentary says that “it would be a rare case in which more than
sixty days is permitted to elapse from the filing of the complaint to the
chief judge’s action on it.” Breyer Report at page 27 It must be noted
that no member of the Ninth Circuit judiciary has acknowledged the
exorbitant delay of the manifold Judicial Misconduct cases here; nor
why. Where is the accountability, the transparency, the fairness?
There were three substantial increments of delay in these matters
for the Judicial Conference to investigate and which they ignored:
A.) December 7, 2011 to June 5, 2012 — The Judicial
Misconduct complaint against Bankruptcy Judge Dunn was filed on
Page !97 of !103
or about December 7, 2011 and Ninth Circuit Court Chief Judge’s
Order is dated June 5, 2012.
In addition, there is an additional filing by the Plantiff (dubbed
‘Barbaric’ on the face page) made by the Complainant in May of 2012
that was either misfiled or lost by the Ninth Circuit. Regardless, that
22 page document was never greeted by a judicial officer to this day in
any forum even though officially filed as demonstrated by the Ninth
Circuit stamp ‘Received’.
B.) November 7, 2013 to August 27, 2015 — The instant
complaint consisting of Sixty-Three (63) pages is dated November 7,
2013. This complaint is never acknowledged by the Ninth Circuit, and
is never actually addressed except the renderings by Chief Judge
Thomas on August 27, 2015 by his four (4) page rulings of that date.
During the interim Paulson has multiple rulings by Ninth Circuit
judges who do not acknowledge the existence of the November 7,
2013 multipage complaint neither in substance nor in procedure.
Multiple judges named in the complaint continue to rule in the
instance cases. See Trilogy #1 and #2
C.) August 27, 2015 to October 15, 2015 — The Ninth Circuit
Judicial Council purports to address the multipage judicial
misconduct complaint of four years duration (December, 2011 to
October, 2015), but do not address either the substance of the initial
judicial misconduct Complaint nor the substance of the Petition on
All the while the litigation pends in state court, in bankruptcy
court, in federal court and in appellate court. Paulson learned last
month that some of his five buildings have been demolished. The
property is on the National Register of Historic Places.
Page !98 of !103
The disposition of his personal property remains a secret. The
bankruptcy matters remain open with Paulson’s funds and personal
property, including a missing cat in the possession of the bankruptcy
trustee Amy Mitchell subject to the Orders of Bankruptcy Judge
Randall Dunn. Both of whom Paulson complained of five years ago.
Where oh where is the Judicial Misconduct monitor??
13.) Law Knowledge — It is probably a product of dissonance
reduction, but judges, including chief judges do not seem to know or
understand the fundamentals of judicial disqualification. For
example, here Paulson first filed his motion to disqualify Magistrate
Judge Paul Papak in 2010 after Judge Papak set the Defendant’s
Pleadings for a hearing, but not the Plaintiff’s Pleadings. There is
patent bias against consumer parties and patent bias in favor of
downtown lawyers. See the Sharpe case for insidious evidence of
Moreover, there were no magistrate consents. This was a crucial
time. Paulson was thrown onto the homeless streets on May 24, 2010
and immediately filed for a TRO among other things. A TRO is an
emergency filing. Neither Hon. Papak nor Haggerty saw an
emergency. Ever. (Remember Judge Haggerty is from the same law
firm representing the lender before him.) Paulson was never, never
accorded a hearing before him on anything.
Paulson’s 2010 “Motion to Disqualify” was specifically stated to
be under Section 144 of Title 28 of the United States Code. This
Motion was supported by a nine (9) page affidavit alleging bias
among other things.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 144 (See Appendix below) a party is
entitled to secure the disqualification of a judge by submitting an
affidavit that the judge has “a personal bias or prejudice” against
the affiant or for the opposing party. In Berger v. United States,
Page !99 of !103
the Supreme Court interpreted this statute to prohibit a judge
from ruling on the truth of matters asserted in such an affidavit,
and to require automatic disqualification if the affidavit was
facially sufficient. Citing erroneous rules of law requiring an
‘extrajudicial source’,30 U.S. District Court of Oregon Chief Judge
Ann Aiken (who also has affiliations with the Defendant’s law
firm) should not have ruled accordingly and only did so out of
bias. She serves with Mr. Sabido on the same committee as
defense counsel before her.
Paulson appealed those erroneous rulings to the Ninth
Circuit, but the Ninth Circuit held the failure to recuse was not
appealable. All Circuits allow interim appeals of failure to recuse
in one spring board or another. Judge Anthony Scirica
specifically so testified before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee
in 2013. Paulson’s appeal on failure to recuse was erroneously
denied by the Ninth Circuit.
The Ninth Circuit has addressed situations where
questionable judicial tactics have compromised the appearance of
justice. For example, in Living Designs v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours
the district court adopted a party’s summary judgment order
wholesale with only minor changes; directed publication of the
ghost-written order; and reversed a previously entered
certification sub silento.
The Ninth Circuit concluded that even though the district
judge’s impartiality was arguably still intact, his actions
constituted the unusual circumstances necessary to require
reassignment on remand. Similarly, in Beckman Instruments, Inc.
30 Liteky—the Supreme Court’s latest word on the extrajudicial source doctrine—the Court took
pains to emphasize that “there is not much doctrine to the doctrine,”
Page 1! 00 of 1! 03
v. Cincom Systems, Inc., when the district judge displayed blatant
disregard for the circuit court’s mandates (as evidenced by the
reaffirmation of his prior ruling without addressing or attempting
to distinguish the appellate court’s determination), and overt
animosity toward a party (as displayed by his denial of the
party’s motions without review), the Ninth Circuit ordered
reassignment on remand. That is exactly what has occurred here.
Thus, neither the U.S. District Court of Oregon nor the Ninth
Circuit understood recusal law, or simply sought to ignore the
law in order to rule against Paulson. This is an insidiousness that
must not be ignored.
Not to mention the global failure of Ninth Circuit Judges and
District Court judges to follow the mandatory policy on conflict
screening. Had they followed this mandatory screening
requirement OTHER blatant conflicts such as Attorney Russillo’s
employment in the same firm as the Article III judge on the case;
Hon. Ancer Haggerty and the other conflicts in the Cosgrave law
firm would have been disclosed. Cosgrave law firm hired
Paulson’s ten(10) year office manager who stole his law office
hard drive and still has it. The conflicts of interest are legion. The
conflicts of interest are unexamined. Globally in the Ninth
“If someone is trying to put you onto something, you need to
Page 1! 01 of 1! 03
The harm of being a victim of this Judicial Misconduct
conflagration is multiplied ten-fold in the face of foreclosure and
homelessness of a veteran.
Even more stunning is the imprimatur placed on this Judicial
Misconduct by the Chief Judge of the Circuit. None of this Judicial
Misconduct would be countenanced by the public. However, the
misconduct of Judge Dunn and Judge Aiken along with the other
identified members of the judiciary is most grievous and most
pernicious. Lying and stealing.
Judge Aiken: Judge Aiken is the Chief Judge and therefore,
the example for the U.S. District Court of Oregon. Her bald face
plagiarism without attribution cannot be tolerated by this body nor
the public in general. Chief Judge Thomas decided a Chief Judge’s
plagiarism is O.K. Why?
Proof that no judge……has read this case is objectively available.
Paulson paid the first $1,000 for the trial transcript from the eviction
proceeding in state court in 2010. He was then evicted and homeless,
so had no funds to pay to complete the transcript.
The eviction proceedings were important because of one subtle fact
and one fact that is not so subtle. The subtle fact is that state trial
court Judge Erwin decided to take the case from the seated jury and
allow eviction. The problem is that is a taking. In Oregon and across
the nation and in the federal realm there can be no taking without just
Page 1! 02 of 1! 03
compensation. There has been a straightforward taking here of all of
Paulson’s stuff without compensation.31
The eviction proceeding is important for another reason. Paulson
raised the issue in this perfunctory state court proceeding that the
lender had failed to issue the ‘danger’ notice, required by law, before
the foreclosure. Mr. Russillo, ON THE RECORD admitted that the
lender failed to issue that danger notice.
Danger notice. On or before the date the trustee serves or
mails the notice of sale, the trustee must mail what’s 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. §
Therefore, no judge could have judged this case without the transcript
of these crucial state court proceedings. The transcript has never been
completed, therefore no judge has read the entire record here……
because the transcript has never been typed. No judge even noticed.
Dated this 8th day of August 2016
Lauren Paulson Pro Se
31 Again, consider how many consumers have lost everything due to insidious judicial
Page 1! 03 of 1! 03
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
Judge Dunn 12/7/11 Judicial Misconduct Complaint…. A.
Supplemental 5/4/12 Judicial Misconduct (‘Barbaric’)… B.
‘Barbaric’ is Lost 5/11/12 in Ninth Circuit………………….C.
Chief Judge Kozinski 6/25/12 Order on Ex. A……………..D.
Global 11/7/13 Judicial Misconduct Complaint…………..E.
Motion to Disqualify.………………………………………..F.
Petition for Review………………………………………….G.
Judge Murguia/Judicial Council Decisions 10/15/15……H.
Attorney General Lynch Letter……………………………..I.
Wells Fargo and Fairway…………………………………….J.
THE FIFTIES MALE
Men Face Their ‘Feminine Side’The Fifties Male
Something Is Wrong
While the male in the past forty (40) years has become more thoughtful, more gentle; he is not more free. He’s a nice boy who pleases not only his mother but also the young woman he is living with. We might call him the ‘soft male’. claurenpaulson2016
AND SCOTUS CANDIDATES -- BEWARE
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave
Washington D.C. 20500
Dear President Obama
Like many citizens, I have watched with enraptured attention to the drama that is unfolding over Justice Scalia’s replacement.
My letter here is to help you avoid three (3) potential minefields vis-a-vis his replacement. These minefields identified below present a clear and present danger as to future federal judicial candidates to the SCOTUS.
JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES MANDATORY FINANCIAL CONFLICT SCREENIN
On September 19, 2006, the Judicial Conference of the United States adopted a mandatory conflict screening policy requiring all federal courts and federal judges to implement automated software screening (think CM/ECF/PACER) to help identify financial conflicts of interest in our federal court proceedings.
SCOTUS Candidate Chief Judge Merrick Garland’s domain is the District of Columbia Circuit. Happily, this circuit has formally adopted this mandatory Judicial Conference policy on financial conflict screening procedures. (Exhibit 1) In this age of foreclosure this is important.
Minefield #1: It is important for you to determine whether Chief Judge Merrick or any other federal judge being considered actually followed this mandatory policy on his or her individual cases. The importance of the secondary step cannot be over-emphasized.
Reason to Be Careful: I have ascertained that federal judges in the entire Ninth Circuit are NOT following this mandatory Judicial Conference of the United States policy. Neither the U.S.District Court of Oregon nor the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have adopted this mandatory financial conflict of interest screening policy. The reasons are plain and the hijinks of former Chief Judge Alex Kozinski are to be partially blamed on this issue along with so many other egregious issues affecting foreclosure victims throughout the Ninth Circuit.
Minefield #2: Ninth Circuit Court Judge Mary Margaret McKeown was the Chair of the Committee on Codes of Conduct of the Judicial Conference of the United States. Judge McKeown has been mentioned by some as a possible future United States Supreme Court nominee.
I have independently determined that Judge McKeown herself does not comply with this Mandatory Financial Conflict Screening Plan even though she testified to the contrary before the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary on December 10, 2009. (Exhibit 2)
Minefield #3: U.S. District Court Senior Judge Owen Panner ruled against Denise and Michael Sharpe in a foreclosure case in 2011 . Only problem is that Judge Panner failed to disclose that he had bank accounts with Wells Fargo at the time. The Ninth Circuit’s failure to adopt this Judicial Conference Conflict Screening Policy is continued by the new Chief Judge Sidney Thomas. Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Thomas’ former law firm also represented Wells Fargo among other banking clients.
AN ADDITIONAL SCREENING STEP IS NEEDED TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE FINANCIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST SCREENING POLICY IS BEING FOLLOWED BY THE SCOTUS NOMINEE.
Thank you for your interest and consideration in these regards.
Very truly yours,
541 412 1390
cc:James Duff, Sen. Jeff Merkley Hon. Sidney Thomas, Hon. M. McKeown