BULLETINS FROM ALOHA

LEGAL ROT

PREPARED FOR: Law School Deans

Dean Robert Klonoff  --  Northwestern School of Law

Dean Peter V. Letsou -- Willamette School of Law

Dean Michael Moffitt --  University of Oregon School of Law

Date: Friday, April 26, 2013

From: Bulletins From Aloha--Lauren Paulson

QUESTION FOR THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND LEGAL COMMUNITY:  What if the legal profession/legal community is as ethically and morally bankrupt as our financial community?  Locally and nationally?

Executive Summary

Objective

The Objective of this report is to ask the Legal Community if the same corruption that visited the Financial Community beginning in the 1970’s has also infected The Legal Profession from top to bottom.  What if such legal rot results in the absolute loss of Due Process and The Rule of Law to plain citizens?

Summary 

There is a disconnect between what is being taught in Law Schools and what is really happening in the Courtrooms of America.  In short, Law Schools teach through the Case Law Method.  The Case Law Method, also known as The Common Law; requires lonely law students to read thousands and thousands of pages of case law.  The goal of this law school teaching method is to drill into a student’s skull cap how case law works and how it is supposed to set The Rule of Law.  It is a sham.  Judges do not follow case law.  Many judges follow Natural Law.  The reality is that judges often do what they want without regard to case law or precedent --  contrary to what law students are taught.  For example, one author has noted that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas does “...not believe in stare decisis, the law of precedent.”  Jeffrey Tobin, The Nine, Doubleday, 2007, Page 102

Solution

The Solution is simple.  But, first the Legal Profession has to recognize that judges at all levels and throughout the United States brazenly ignore The Rule of Law and Due Process.  A Formal, National System of Judicial Performance Evaluations (JPE) will shine a spotlight on the Rot of the Judiciary and provide a blueprint for a comprehensive solution found below.

It is absolutely essential to understand the difference between the Common Law and Natural  Law to see what is going on.

Definitions Required for Further Reading:

The Law

COMMON LAW  --  Law developed by judicial decisions.  This is the Anglo-American legal tradition which adheres to the principle of stare decisis (“let the decision stand”).  This doctrine holds that judges must look to past judicial decisions or Man-made legislated laws to answer the case before them presenting identical or similar questions.  Kermit L. Hall, ed., The Oxford Guide to the Supreme Court, Page 197 (2005)

NATURAL LAW  --  This is the philosophical doctrine holding that there is a certain order in nature that provides norms for human conduct.  It proposes that people can grasp certain principles through practical reason divined by nature and God.   If a judge makes decisions based on instincts and subjective reasoning then the philosopher George Santayana would call that Man’s imitation of divinity.  Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy, (1926-1961) Page 493

Judges Should Be Following the Common Law  --  They aren’t.  

24 JUDGES--

one case

Aquinas conceived of what is now known as the laws of nature.  The Laws of Nature so conceived are different from Man-made laws such as statutes and case law.  Judges are required to follow Man-made laws which are known as The Rules of Law.  We are supposed to be a country subject to The Rules of Law.  Laws of Nature are different.  When judges follow the Laws of Nature they are being “free agents”.  They are not applying nor following the Laws of Man.  Therefore, they are not following Common Law.  They are not following the Law of Precedents otherwise known as stare decisis.  STARE DECISIS Lat. "to stand by that which is decided." The principal is that the precedent (previous) decisions are to be followed by the courts.  It is only through this predictability can lawyers knowledgeably advise their clients.  Stare Decisis is missing in action in our present legal system.  We are not a country subject to The Rule of Law when judges follow the laws of nature or do whatever they want when they want.  Lawyers cannot  knowledgeably advise clients if judges do not follow established case law.   See below.  

Laws of Nature should be left to those who discovered them in the first place:  scientists.  Laws of Nature should be left to those who discovered them in the first place:  philosophers.  Laws of human conduct i.e.., Man-made laws or statutory laws are made by legislatures. Laws of Nature are discovered by scientists and philosophers.  Man-made Laws are supposed to be discovered and applied by judges based on decisions in previous cases.  Once so discovered and applied, these laws are supposed to be followed by subsequent judicial rulings as precedent.  The public cannot possibly know how to conduct themselves in the field of human affairs unless they can rely on judge-made law or Common Law from previous judicial decisions.  

“Aquinas conceives the Laws of Nature which the scientist discovers as laws implanted in the very nature of things at their creation by God.”  Mortimer Adler, Great Ideas, The Lexicon of Western Thought, Macmillan Publishing Company, Page 417(1952, 1992)

The problem is that the judiciary has decided that it is free to follow the Laws of Nature; that is, the laws divined by God, rather than the Common Law.  In a word, judges have decided they are Gods and may follow their own instincts and do not have to follow Man-made law.  This chaotic process started in your lifetime.   

A REAL-WORLD ANALYSIS

From the Biggest Court to the Trial Courts

1. THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT  --  Equal Protection Clause  --  Bush v. Gore

The Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, ruled that the Florida Supreme Court's decision, calling for a statewide recount, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This ruling was by a 7-2 vote, but (as discussed more fully in the next subsection below) two of the seven disagreed with the Court's remedy for the Equal Protection violation. The Court held that the Equal Protection Clause guarantees to individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by "later arbitrary and disparate treatment". Even if the recount was fair in theory, it was unfair in practice. The record, as weighed by the Florida Supreme Court, suggested that different standards were seemingly applied to the recount from ballot to ballot, precinct to precinct, and county to county, even when identical types of ballots and machines were used.  Justice O’Connor who now says the Court should never have taken the case,  stated at the earlier announcement that Gore had won Florida: “this is terrible”.  Then she ruled for Bush.  

According to the Court, the statewide standard (that a "legal vote" is "one in which there is a 'clear indication of the intent of the voter'") could not guarantee that each county would count the votes in a constitutionally permissible fashion. 

 The Court stated that the per curiam opinion's applicability was "limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."

Analysis  --  Consider for a moment if Chief Justice Taney had suggested such a thing in the Dred Scott decision of 1857.  The worst U.S. Supreme Court decision prior to Bush v. Gore.

Consistent with the Common Law/Natural Law analysis above, the 

U.S. Supreme Court simply wanted to make a ruling from the gut instead of from the U. S. Constitution just as Justice Taney did a century and half before.  Who are we kidding?

The reoccurrence of the U.S. Immigration problem since the 1986 fix is nothing more than a failure to enforce the 1986 law.  “For 20 years our country has done basically nothing to enforce the 1986 legislation against either the employers who hired illegal immigrants or those who crossed our borders illegally to work for them.”  Janet Napolitano, The Myth of Amnesty, The Washington Post (6/10/07)

In short, the law makers became the law breakers because nobody was following nor applying The Rule of Law.  Nationally.  

2.  THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS  --  Has the Highest Reversal Rate of any Circuit (Roy E. Hofer, Supreme Court Reversal Rates, ABA Journal 2010)  It has a reversal rate of 81%

A Court reversed 81% of the time....!?  Consider the attorney, being asked by an erstwhile client, about the chances on appeal to the Ninth Circuit from the U.S. District Court of Oregon.  Or any of the U.S. District Courts in the Western States?  

It is so bad in the Ninth Circuit that there is a “....9th Circuit Watch.”

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is regarded as a Rogue Court.  Recently, Northwestern School of Law  of Lewis and Clark College honored Ninth Circuit Court Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain.  Judge O’Scannlain has written about this problem where he “.....ponders ten years of reversals.”  Harvard Law & Policy Review (September 27, 2010)  14 Lewis & Clark Law Review 1558 (2010) 

Analysis  --  Why all these reversals?  Because the Ninth Circuit does not follow the law.  Let me be specific.  For over thirty years, the Ninth Circuit has been using the wrong standard for Civil Rights cases. Nobody cares.  Even the ACLU doesn’t care. Consider the case of Greg Lang.  Intel fired him because he was black, gay and had AIDS.  Greg Lang v. Intel Corporation, 112 F3d 516 (9th Cir. 1997)

Confirming the U.S. District Court’s toss of the case out of Court, the Ninth Circuit Judges said:

“We agree that, literally read, the language of 

district court misstates plaintiff’s burden at sum-

mary judgment.”  Lang at 516

Never mind, Greg loses anyway.  In essence, the Ninth Circuit is honoring the trial court’s ignorance of The Rule of Law by dishonoring it themselves.  How can an attorney advise the client if the Courts openly, brazenly and illegally ignore precedent and the standard of law to be applied?  

1. U.S. DISTRICT COURT  --  Granted, hard (difficult) cases make bad law.  Foreclosure cases are a perfect example.  The ‘foreclosure tsunami‘ that is sweeping across the nation, worse than a cholera plague; and is meeting the front lines of federal courts across the nation.  There is even a website that is keeping up with all this called stop foreclosure fraud.  You can locate all the 404 foreclosure cases filed in the U.S. District Court of Oregon here.

Foreclosure cases are complex and meet four corners of The Rule of Law.  It could have been the judiciary’s finest hour.  An actual examination reveals the opposite  --  local judges are an embarrassment; from top to bottom.  They do not know what they are doing when it comes to foreclosure cases.   

Foreclosure cases mix four of the following complex areas of the law:

•        Real Estate law governed by case (judge made) law.
•        Commercial law governed by the Uniform Commercial Code (statutory law) pertaining to commercial contracts.
•        Commercial law governed by the law of Security Interests (statutory law) pertaining to liens and such.
•        Real Estate law governed by statutory (legislative) enactments.  The entire legislative new approach to real estate law begins with nonjudicial foreclosure laws.  So the banks could get your stuff and your place without the delay and expense of judicial supervision.  We all now see how well that worked.  

Analysis  --  Initially, the judiciary, bastion of intellectual might, was as lost in the weeds as the banks.  Some are still there.  There are some bright spots.

Let us take the local foreclosure case of Natache Rinegard-Guirma. No different than the rest of us, she wound up behind the eight-ball.  Happily, Judge Michael Garr King of the U.S. District Court schooled himself on the applicable law, differentiated these four corners of the complexities of foreclosure law and reached a right result.  Unfortunately, his magistrate judge (the junior-partner judge) does not have a clue.  Thus, the magistrates’ erroneous rulings that have no foundation in the Common Law whatsoever and leaves Natache spinning in the wind three years later.  Then she will probably have to run the gauntlet (?) in the Ninth Circuit depending on whether The Rule of Law intervenes again or remains absent at the trial court level.

1. STATE SUPREME COURT --  It is a well-kept secret that the Oregon Supreme Court is regarded as the absolute worst appellate court in the entire United States, save two.  This report came in 2008 after an exhaustive, sophisticated study by the Chicago Law School.  The criteria was simple.  Did any other states follow Oregon appellate decisions?  How productive was the Court:  How many written decisions did the Court produce?  Oregon ranked 48th and 49th in those comparisons.  

Analysis  --  Oregon law requires the Oregon Supreme Court to produce a written report to the Oregon Legislature annually following the yearly Judicial Conference.  They don’t.  Oregon law requires the Oregon Supreme Court to select the judges for Oregon’s attorney disciplinary process.  They don’t.  The Oregon legislature put the Oregon Supreme Court on probation in 2012 due to the eCourt fiasco which continues. 

It is no accident that former Chief Justice of the Oregon Supreme Court Paul De Muniz is retiring after only one term.  The replacement is a political appointee.  

Upon appeal, Oregon law requires the appellate lawyer to notify the County trial court administrator to get the entire trial court record and notify the Oregon Supreme Court accordingly.  Then according to law which requires de novo review, (review of the entire trial court record including the recorded proceedings) the Oregon Supreme Court is then supposed to request the file from the Trial Court Administer.  The Oregon Supreme Court is then supposed to review the entire record before rendering a decision.

They don’t.  The Oregon Supreme Court renders formal decisions without reviewing the trial court record de novo as required by law.  No wonder other state appellate courts pay no attention to Oregon cases.  

1. STATE TRIAL COURTS  --  It will come as no surprise that the state trial courts take their cue accordingly.  Staying on the theme of foreclosure;  --Annette Steele is an impressive and formidable lady from the far end of town.  She was undergoing the lamentable foreclosure meat grinder subjected on thousands of households locally; millions across the nation.

Analysis  --  Happily there is a record of what happened to her last summer, in trial court Judge Alicia Fuch’s courtroom.  Annette Steele and her family were prepared.  She brought her two daughters along to help her present her case.  Pity the poor anonymous bank/servicer lawyer  --   her adversary across the aisle.  

At the crucial point of this foreclosure eviction, Ms. Steele’s mustered-forces asked.............asked the crucial, absolutely crucial question.  “Where, your honor are the BLUE ink copies of my loan documents??????”

You could see the color drain out of the the judge’s visage.  Pale.  Wide eyes.  Stammering.  The good judge clearly did not know what to do.  So, she did what any good judge would do.  She called a halt to the proceedings, stepped off the bench and called Presiding Judge Nan Waller for what to do.  The minutes went by.  Everybody fidgeted.  Ms. Steel had brought an entourage of her supporters into the proceedings, so there was an audience to this pathetic proceeding.

Finally, the good Judge Alicia Fuchs stepped back on the bench, announced that the bank did NOT have to produce original documents, announced that Annette Steele had lost, was going to be evicted, case closed.

Here is the problem.  It is significant.  Oregon’s constitution says many good things.  One of the things it says, is that there may not be secret court proceedings.  In other words, EVERYTHING MUST BE DONE in Open Court: 

“    Section 10. Administration of justice. No court shall be secret, but justice shall be administered, openly and without purchase, completely and without delay, and every man shall have remedy by due course of law for injury done him in his person, property, or reputation.”—Constitution of Oregon Article I, Section 10 (2012)

Now, we are talking about an Oregon judge not even following the Oregon state constitution, in addition to not following The Rule of Law requiring original blue ink copies in foreclosure cases.  Judge Fuchs is barred by the Oregon Constitution from having a ‘secret‘ conversation with another judge during the pendency of Ms Steele’s trial.  

If I haven’t convinced you yet let me yield to you two small further examples.  Take Judge Ed Jones in the same state court as Judge Fuchs, telling litigants that he couldn’t deal with a particular foreclosure case, because he didn’t know much about foreclosure law and he punted.  Want to know how pathetic?  I have the video of this lamentable event, free for the asking.

Finally, I wrap up my case in eviction court. Where people’s lives are changed every day by the foreclosure catastrophe and we don’t even send them to a real judge.  Neither do we help them with legal assistance (notwithstanding all the false self-accolades called ‘pro bono’ help.  The website is funded by Bank of America.  It is a fiction. Legal Aid for poor folks is a fiction in Oregon.)  While Oregon law leadership yawns and watches.  Mute.  And holds another award event.  For a fine politically connected lawyer ‘leader’. 

THE EVICTION SAFETY NET

EVICTION COURT

Any way you look at it; you don’t want to be there.  Eviction Court.  First floor of the Multnomah County Courthouse.  It is a desultory place.  The welcome mat is not there for you.

To get in you have to get naked.  Well almost.  There is a gauntlet of ten (10) uniformed Sheriff/search/security people there to ensure you don’t bring in a bazooka.  I counted them.  Ten.  Uniformed.  Most have their ample arms crossed, gabbing.  

Here are the things I had to take off to be sure I did no harm.  Shoes, wrist watch, belt, computer, keys, telephone, coins...and so on. 

But, get in there I did only to have my heart torn out.

As I walked into room 120, there was something already  going on.  A well-quaffed middle-age woman at one counsel table, an older, skinny woman with unkempt hair at the other.  It seems that my hero had not gotten her mail.  (When one is evicted, getting mail is an uncertain thing).  Thus, the landlord threw her personal property away, but the tenant had not gotten notice-------because she had not gotten her mail.  The Referee  --  they are not real judges, said, “So sad, too bad”.  Yeah, but...........stuttered the aged, skinny one, she did not know the consequences and was out of touch trying to get housing somewhere.  All her belongings gone.  

When the reality sank in, the skinny one began to cry.  No one cared.  Case closed.  Having just got there, I was adjusting to my surroundings and lost touch with the aged one as other cases got called. 

A REPUGNANT, SAD SCENE

The winners and losers (1% v. 99%) are very obvious.  The diverse  tenants are on tenterhooks; pins and needles even.  The landlords or their representatives have seen it all before and are smug, joking with each other.  The Referee too.

BUT THERE IS EVEN A WORSE SCENE

A knot of three or four have ties on.  They mill in and out, full of themselves.  You know the types.  They are all whispering at the Judge’s bench, smiling, looking out at the audience from time-to-time.  There is a woman with five to ten files in her crooked arm sitting front and center.  She, it turns out, is the legal assistant for the three or four lawyers in the room.  All smiling.  All looking confident.  Chatting amiably.

THE SKINNY ONE AGAIN 

I had all but forgotten about the aged one by now as I went out into the hallway.  I hadn’t seen her from the front, but immediately recognized her from the hair askew as she walked by.  On impulse, I asked her if she knew about Legal Aid Services of Oregon located on 921 Washington St., nearby.  She looked at me with beseeching eyes and asked  “............isn’t it too late??  Now, I got a good look at her.  

IS THIS WHAT THE SAFETY NET LOOKS LIKE? 

She was literally crushed.  She was Sad beyond description.  Devastated. Lost.  I stammered that maybe something could be done, like an appeal.  She fell almost onto my shoulder, streaming grateful tears.  Her countenance and aged face are from The Grapes of Wrath. Beautiful in some sort of way.  But, so torn apart.  So very sad.  Crushed.  Her lined face contorted; eyes drowned by tears.

Eviction Court in Portland, Oregon.  Any weekday.

CONCLUSION

"Thirty years ago if you were looking to get on the escalator to upward mobility you went to business or law school. Today the law school escalator is broken."

WILLIAM D. HENDERSON, a professor of law at Indiana University, on the declining number of applications to United States law schools.

The drastic drop in law school applications and enrollment has plunged law school administrations into soul-searching debate about the future of legal education and the profession over all.   New York Times, 1/31/13  In a current Lewis and Clark article with this subheading:  “Preparing Students for the Real World”.....Bobbie Hasselbring reports:

“It’s no secret that the current job market for attorneys is challenging.”  The Lewis and Clark Chronicle Magazine, Winter 2013, Page 35

Law Schools are defrauding the public if they do not teach the realities of the Market Place.  The solution to the due process problem was identified in 2005 by the American Bar Association (ABA).  The ABA produced a comprehensive program of judicial performance evaluations.  In 2006, the University of Denver produced a complete template for installing a formal performance evaluation program for judges in every state.  Thus far, almost half of the states have done so.  Oregon is lagging.  Lagging badly.  Where in the wide-wide world is the Oregon legal community’s leadership? by Lauren Paulson c2013 

DISORDER IN U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT IN OREGON 

It is a Closed System and You Ain’t a Member!

A FULL REPORT ON ILLEGAL ACTIVITY IN YOUR LOCAL 

BANKRUPTCY COURT  --  Spring 2013--- by Lauren Paulson

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

THIS IS NOTICE THAT THE US BANKRUPTCY COURT HAS ACCEPTED THIS CASE FOR A FULL AND COMPLETE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION:

From:  "The United States Trustee Program ("USTP") has received your (this) report (on April 16, 2013) of suspected bankruptcy fraud, and will review your submission."

All appropriate matters will be forwarded to the proper law enforcement authorities.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

BANKRUPTCY 101 REPORT                                                           

‘Vulnerable You‘ .....  are Facing Foreclosure and Bankruptcy:

  You have just been given notice of potential foreclosure of your home and hearth.  Is U.S. Bankruptcy Court a safe harbor, a time out; does it offer refuge and succor?  No, it offers criminal enterprise enabled by bankruptcy judges and an elaborate U.S. Trustees Office who is supposed to protect you.  It doesn’t.  It enables the criminal enterprise.  Sadly. 

Whenever a debtor files for bankruptcy, the United States Bankruptcy Court appoints a trustee to administer the case/estate for the Court. Whether a debtor files a Chapter 13 or Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, there is always a case trustee. And overseeing the case trustees, on behalf of the United States government, specifically the Department of Justice; is the United States Trustee Program. 

(Notice we said that the Trustee is there to ‘administer the case/estate for the Court’.)

The Question Before the House   ---   Well, which is it...??????    Is the trustee (sounds good)  there for YOU or FOR  THE COURT??

U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee  --  The job of the USBT is to review bankruptcy cases and to identify problematic areas.

There is also a ‘baby trustee’ who has the grinding job of sitting in on “No Asset” cases.  To Them: it is a “No Asset” case because you don’t have attractive GOODS for them to be interested in to go to the trouble of selling.  This is what happened to my GOODS as we shall See.  

1.  There are also many Assistant United States Trustees that directly oversee each state or division within a particular state.
2.  And added into that mix, are the attorneys for the Assistant United States Trustee, or the United States Trustee.  We shall see more about them too.  
3.  The trustees all review the documents provided and analyze whether the debtor should be repaying some of his/her debts or some higher percentage of the debts.
4.  Specific responsibilities of the United States Trustees include:

• Appointing and supervising private trustees  who administer Chapter 7, 12, and 13 bankruptcy estates (and serving as trustees in such cases where private trustees are unable or unwilling to serve); 
• Taking legal action to enforce the requirements of the Bankruptcy Code and to prevent fraud and abuse; 
• Referring matters for investigation and criminal prosecution when appropriate; 
• Ensuring that bankruptcy estates are administered promptly and efficiently, and that professional fees are reasonable; 
• Appointing and convening creditors' committees in Chapter 11 business reorganization cases; 
• Reviewing disclosure statements and applications for the retention of professionals; and 
• Advocating matters relating to the Bankruptcy Code and rules of procedure in court.

In Sum  --  The primary role of the U.S. Trustee Program is to serve as the "watchdog over the bankruptcy process."^1/   As stated in the USTP Mission Statement:

The mission of the United States Trustee Program is to promote the integrity and efficiency of the bankruptcy system for the benefit of all stakeholders – debtors, creditors, and the public.

So With All This  --  What Could Go Wrong??

A VIEW FROM 40,000 FEET

The Players  --  It is useful to observe at this point:  “Who are ThesePeople Anyway?”  Paulson goes into this bankruptcy process worth about $700,000 with a debt purporting to be owing of about $400,000:   And comes out with nothing.  Nada!  

• • •       Attorneys Craig Russillo and Joel Parker, experienced-creditor mavens.  These are the two attorneys for my Creditors.
    •       Randall Dunn is an experienced bankruptcy judge
    •       Matt Arbaugh, is Paulson’s bankruptcy lawyer
    •       Amy Mitchell, is Paulson’s ‘Baby Trustee’ (see above) --  sort of like your local bank manager.  A person that has charge of your money and assets:  (called--creepily---‘your estate’).
    •       M. Vivienne Popperl  --  Acting Assistant United States Trustee --  sort of like your local bank manager’s regulator.
    •      GAIL B. GEIGER  --  Regional U.S. Attorney--Vivienne ’s boss. 

Just the Facts Please, Preceding The Wheels ‘Falling Off’!

O.K, O.K, I WAS STUPID

Naive, even.  I Admit it.  But, it was 2005.  Here is reality.  Obtaining a loan from a “hard money” (think predatory) lender means only one thing.  Their goal is NOT to have the loan paid back.  

Oh, no!  Their goal is to get your property.  Why do you think all these banks aren’t going for a principle reduction.  They want your home and your stuff.  And with me---they got both.   That bunch named above are supposed to protect that lonely debtor.  But think about it for a minute.  Who, in that bunch does not work with them every day, all year long.  Only me.  Only the debtor is the ODD person out.  

But, I trusted my lawyer, Mr. Arbaugh.  That was a big mistake.  

And I assumed Judge Dunn would be a neutral arbiter of fairness and justice.  A bigger mistake, but not something I had a reason to be concerned about until:

May 7, 2010  --  Judge Randall Dunn decides that  I have an “empty head”  (yes he said that to me.....on the record.)  Before he then committed outright illegal acts.  All on the record.  All for subsequent investigators (which the U.S. Trustee’s office is SUPPOSED TO BE, BUT THEY ARE MISSING IN ACTION--COMPLETELY.)  Judge Dunn goes on to decide that my major predatory lawsuit against the ‘hard money’ lender is of no value. He then allows the trustee to settle Paulson’s $17 million dollar lawsuit against the predatory lender,  Fairway, FHLF, LLC’s predecessor, and other banks for a paltry$5,000. Paulson never sees any of that settlement money.  It all goes, like everything else to your ‘Baby Trustee’, Amy Mitchell.

Consider for a moment all the mega settlements that state attorney generals have made with predatory lenders for NOT millions of dollars, But BILLIONS of dollars since 2008 when I filed my predatory lending lawsuit.   But, Judge Dunn, without looking at the Court file decides to stab Paulson in the back and let Amy Mitchell have her way with my ESTATE?? 

Judge Randall Dunn later admits, on the record,  he never looked at the U.S. District Court file and the $17 million predatory lawsuit documents before allowing the settlement.  

May 24, 2010  --  Mr. Russillo changed locks and illegally evicted Paulson into the night without notice and without his stuff.  The eviction was illegal because Mr. Russillo had failed to issue the statutorily required ‘danger notice’ (ORS 86.737) to Paulson then failed to give Paulson the statutorily required five (5) days notice before foreclosure (ORS 86.753).  

  *******Over 30% of all foreclosures are fraudulent.**********

June 04, 2010 --  Amy Mitchell formally abandoned my property without ever looking at any of the property.  Thus, she left  all of the debtor’s stuff in the possession of Mr. Russillo. All of it. Even his family heirlooms dating back 100 years.

June 29, 2010  --  Paulson formally requests Amy Mitchell’s removal for cause as the ‘baby trustee’ from Paulson’s bankruptcy case.  Nothing!

July 12, 2010  --  Amy Mitchell’s lawyer, Ball, Janik file a blank document with the Court asking to be appointed to also represent Trustee, Ken Eilers who represents a debtor who owes money to Paulson.  No order grants that application for employment.  (Docket # 119)

October 6. 2010  --  U.S. District Court Garr King rules on the Natache Guirma-Rinegard case on facts similar to Paulson’s that the alleged creditor had no legal ‘Standing’ to foreclose.  Re: Natache D. Rinegard-Guirma v. Bank of America, et al., Civil Case No. 10-1065-PK, 

December 27, 2010  --  Paulson files pleadings in U.S. Bankruptcy Court to Expunge Attorney Russillo’s documents filed on behalf of FHLF, LLC because FHLF, LLC had no Legal Standing.  This pleading is based on the 10/6/10 ruling in the Rinegard case which is still the law.  (Docket # 122)  Entered 1/14/11

March 19, 2011  --  Paulson filed a Motion to ReOpen this case.  Judge Randall took the Motion to be just an Exhibit to another Motion also filed,  --   a Motion to Compel Mr. Russillo to return my stuff taken on May 24, 2010.  In reality, this was a Motion for Judge Randall to examine the issue of Standing which he refused to do. [ Notice the pattern of hiding Paulson’s documents, that are properly filed.]

February 15, 2013  --  Judge Randall Dunn renders an Order based on blank application to employ attorney Ball Janik on behalf of Amy Mitchell.  (Docket #127)

February 27, 2013  --  ‘Baby Trustee’ Amy Mitchell files “Interim Report Number 1 and reveals for the first time that she has $35,046.15 of Paulson’s money.  Her attorney wants $17,545.50 of that money.  (Docket #128 and 129)  Amy Mitchell’s attorney mails this notice to the address Paulson was evicted from in 2010.  (Docket # 130 Dated April 2, 2013-- Amy Mitchell’s attorney declaration of no timely objections)  

When Paulson finally gets this ‘Interim’ Report dated 3/05/13 that was sent to his old address, he mails his formal Objection on March 26, 2013.

March 27, 2013  --  The Bankruptcy Clerk “pjk” ‘Unfiles’ Paulson’s Objection and returns it to Paulson as though never filed.  But Paulson’s Objection document has the filed stamp “Mar 27 2013” (sic) in U.S. Bankruptcy Court.  The Notice says Paulson’s Objection is untimely and inappropriately filed.  In other words, Amy Mitchell’s blank documents are filed and O.K. with the Bankruptcy Court, but Paulson’s objection to the stealing of $17,545.50 of Paulson’s money to Amy Mitchell’s attorney is mysteriously “untimely and inappropriately filed.”  (Order Returning Document(s) dated March 28, 2013.)  

The Four Wheels Fall Off:

Wheel No. 1:  Neither Judge Randall Dunn, Nor Baby U.S Trustee Amy Mitchell looked at whether Paulson’s $17 million dollar predatory lawsuit had merit.  No independent analysis by an outside attorney---or by anybody.  

Wheel No.2:      Neither Dunn nor Mitchell determined whether the foreclosure of Paulson’s $750,000 property was legal inasmuch as there was no ‘danger’ notice nor the required 5 day notice of foreclosure before the sale itself.  

Wheel No.3:     Nobody noticed that the creditor, FHLF, LLC (who was NOT the lender) had no legal standing to do anything  before any court including the bankruptcy court.  It is a basic, yet all these legal minds missed it as an issue.  Suspiciously no judge will address the issue.???????

Wheel No.4:    All these files are still open and all of the wheels could be put back on and this vehicle steered to the proper location.

Where or where is that U.S. Trustee to do what they are required to do above?

Dear U.S. Attorney General Holder  --  All of these miscreants work for you.  May I hear from you in these regards? 

This bogus Bankruptcy system is run by the U.S. Department of Justice.  Methinks, everybody is assuming that bankruptcy in United States is a salutary system for the poor, the meek, and the downtrodden.  It isn’t.  It is a criminal enterprise with some major law players milking the system at the poor’s expense.  

very truly yours,

May I hear from you Please

LAUREN PAULSON 503 470 9709

PO BOX 2236

NEWPORT, OR 97365

laurenjpaulson@gmail.com            bulletinsfromaloha.org

Where is the honesty and integrity?        

This is the M.E. Blanton House that I owned for twenty (20) years and lovingly restored.  You can see why Mr. Russillo wanted it for his predatory client.  

How can these ‘professionals’ dealing in poor folk’s agony look at themselves in the mirror???

Thursday, April 11, 2013

Attorney General Eric Holder

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

Re:  In re Lauren Paulson Debtor

U.S. Bankruptcy Case No.# 09-32439

Adv. Proc No.#11-03309

Dear Attorney General Holder:

This report to you will reveal criminal enterprise in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Oregon.  I have formally reported on this case before. 

The salient facts are these:

1. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Randall Dunn discloses that he has not read the  federal circuit file on Page 4 of the transcript and admits on Page 66 stating on the record that he had made up his mind on May 7, 2010 before the hearing. 
2. Trustee Amy Mitchell is guilty of the most egregious dereliction of her duties and criminal favoritism of creditors.
3. Acting Assistant U.S. Trustee Vivienne Popperl has failed to oversee the fraudulent activities of Trustee Amy Mitchell 
4. Trustee Amy Mitchell and A.A. U.S. Trustee Vivienne Popperl have failed to take legal action or actions at all to protect the assets of the Estate.
5. Trustee Amy Mitchell and A.A. U.S. Trustee Popperl failed to require the Debtor Plan under the Chapter 11 proceedings.
6. Trustee Amy Mitchell and A.A. Trustee Popperl have allowed blank documents to be filed and failed to review the disclosure documents and application for retention of professionals.
7. Trustee Amy Mitchell and A.A. U.S. Trustee Popperl failed to convene a creditor’s committee in the chapter 11 proceedings.
8. Trustee Amy Mitchell, A.A. U.S. Trustee Popperl and U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Randall Dunn failed to require that creditors have legal standing before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court.   Indeed, on the transcript of the May 7, 2010 at Page 65, Judge Dunn states this dispute is between Mr. Paulson and Fairway, not between Mr. Paulson and FHLF, LLC.  
9. U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judges Hollowell and Markell failed to address the issue of legal standing notwithstanding the pleading dated December 19, 2010 filed by Debtor Paulson that specifically outlined why the ONLY creditor in litigation of the bankruptcy case, FHLF, LLC, did not have legal standing.  The issue of legal standing IS NOT addressed in BAP decision of May 10, 2011.  
10. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Randall Dunn failed to address or rule on Debtor Paulson’s Motion to Reopen the Chapter 7 Proceedings dated March 9, 2012 nor recognize nor address the Adversary Proceedings filed by Debtor Paulson.
11. Fraud on the U.S. Bankruptcy Case No. 09-32439 Docket Record  --  There are two important pleading packages missing from the Docket of this proceeding and both were submitted by the Debtor Lauren Paulson.  The first is Paulson’s Motion to ReOpen Case (5010) dated March 9, 2012.  This pleading package is 21 pages and was specifically filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Case No. 09-32439.  But there are no pleadings filed on the official docket of Case No. 09-32439 in 2012. 
12.  The second pleading package of 8 pages plus four (4) exhibits filed in Case No. 09-32439 by the Debtor Lauren Paulson is entitled “Plaintiff’s Objection to Payment to Trustee”.  That was filed on March 27, 2013, but returned to Paulson the same day and not listed on the docket.  It was returned by “pjk Deputy”.  This means that all of the Debtor’s efforts to petition the Court to address the issue of FHLF, LLC’s lack of legal standing have never been addressed anywhere in these four years of  U.S. Bankruptcy proceedings.  Erased.  

 Now, the Court is attempting to erase the Debtor’s objecting to payment to Amy Mitchell’s attorneys of $17,545.50 out of $35,046.15 of the Debtor’s money nobody told him he had until Marcy 5, 2013.  Notwithstanding Paulson’s 3/27/13 objections, Judge Dunn approved said payment  on April 10, 2013.  Without a hearing and on a document with handwritten changes.  

It is important to keep in mind that on October 6, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Garr King ruled in Natache’s case that on facts exactly on all fours of Paulson’s case, that the putative lender did not have legal standing once they have separated the security instrument from the debt instrument.  This is fully briefed in Paulson’s documents on the subject discussed above.

The extent of Judge Randall Dunn’s criminal enterprise is further elucidate by Judge Randall Dunn’s ruling in the Fawn Ridge case which is also on all fours with Paulson’s case here.  In short, the Rule of Law articulated in Fawn Ridge was subject to total amnesia when Judge Dunn came upon Paulson in Case No. 09--32439.  

When Paulson learned of this amnesia, he formally asked Judge Dunn to recuse himself for not following the Rule of Law in Natache’s case and the Fawn Ridge matter:  He wouldn’t recuse himself.  

In re:  Fawn Ridge Partners, LP, Debtors

BAP No. CC-09-1396-HPDu (March 29, 2010)

  Here is the Parallel View:

• Fawn Ridge filed their Chapter 11 on March 5, 2009.  I filed my Chapter 11 in your room on April 10, 2009.  

• Fawn Ridge’s creditor, BAC, filed for relief from the automatic stay.  Paulson’s creditor, FHLF, LLC, filed for relief from the automatic stay.  

• In Fawn Ridge the creditor furnished no documentation regarding indorsement, assignment, transfer, sale of the Note and Deed of Trust, or servicing agreement with the Stay Relief Motion.  In my case, FHLF, LLC, the solitary creditor, furnished no documentation regarding indorsement, assignment, transfer, sale of the Note and Deed of Trust, or servicing agreement with the Stay Relief Motion. 

• In Fawn Ridge the Bankruptcy Court and the Appellate Panel addressed the issue of whether or not the creditor had standing.  In my case neither the Bankruptcy Court nor the Appellate Panel addressed the issue of whether or not the creditor had standing.   Remember, both these cases were before you at the very same time.

• In Fawn Ridge the Bankruptcy Court held the debtor’s challenge to standing on their Relief of Stay Motion was not “timely or valid”.  In Paulson, you allowed FHLF, LLC’s standing to file their Relief of Stay Motion. 

• Both Fawn Ridge and Paulson filed timely appeals.

THE U. S. BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL (BAP) OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT  RULES:

Judge Dunn, you should, along with judges Hollowell, Markell and Jury, sua sponte, reverse all of your defective rulings and take judicial notice now that FHLF, LLC did not have legal standing in the Chapter 11/7 proceedings at all.   

How can you look at yourself in the mirror?  And there are legions of these cases going in and out of these courtrooms.  How is it that you can look the public in the eye anymore?  The worst foreclosure tsunami in history and you allow this tortured sort of thing to go on in your presence.  And enable it through blatant judicial misconduct.  Then treat me, your self-described empty headed debtor with contempt.  At the end of the May 7, 2011 proceeding you gave away the fact that you had your mind made up before the ‘evidentiary’ hearing.  You stated, referring to your ruling that day, “I said what I planned to say on the record.”  

Hence, I formally ask you to recuse yourself in this matter as it proceeds forward and vacate your participation in the Chapter 11/7 proceedings in toto.

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

Please look into this matter and advise.  Thank You,

Sincerely,

S/Lauren Paulson

laurenjpaulson@gmail.com 

503 470 9709

PO Box 2236

Newport, OR 97365

April 15, 2013

Re: In re Lauren Paulson debtor

Case No. 09-32439, et al

Dear Ms. Popperl:

Please find enclosed my Criminal Fraud Report on the proceedings in your jurisdiction from 2009 to present.  You may recall I specifically came to your office twice to complain about the proceedings in my case captioned above.  Each time you demurred on doing anything about my complaints.   Now, I have had occasion to read the 2012 report by Clifford J. White III, Director following the National Mortgage Settlement of that year.   

In that report, Mr. White notes the 2012 settlement was to address “mortgage servicing, foreclosure and bankruptcy abuses.”  There are such abuses in my case.  All three abuses are present in my case.  Big time.   

The settlement was to “...ensure the integrity of the bankruptcy process.”  That integrity is completely and starkly missing in my case.

The settlement was for “...$25 billion in cash...”  I haven’t seen any of that money in my case nor do I know of anybody that has seen any.   

The settlement was to ensure  “... financial relief to homeowners.”  I have not had such relief.  I continue to remain homeless where Mr. Russillo happily put me.   

There was supposed to be three an a half years of compliance review by an independent monitor.  Please advise who is the independent monitor for my case and what monitoring has been done now, a year later.   

Attorney General Holder complimented your office and the United States Attorney’s Offices.  I have reported specific acts of fraud by local attorneys to Amanda Marshall at the U.S. Attorney’s office and you with no result.  See my letter to Amanda Marshall, Oregon U.S. Attorney, dated November 11, 2011 and December 21, 2011 to Special Agent Audrey Devinney also with no result.    

Mr. White points out that reports to the Federal Trade Commission brought this problem to the USTP’s attention in 2006.  My problems began in 2005.  I first reported on this problem to the Federal Trade Commission in 2010 with no result.  See FTC Reference No.# 24122365 and my letter to the FTC dated November 8, 2010 and March 17, 2010.  

Mr. White’s report on Page 2 identified one of the abuses for which your office was supposed to have stepped up its investigation as:  “....contested motions for relief from automatic stay”.  There was a contested motion for relief from automatic stay in my case.  Indeed, that is how the abuse began in my bankruptcy case.  FHLF, LLC, represented by  downtown lawyer Craig Russillo, asserted a contested relief from automatic stay even when FHLF, LLC had NO STANDING BEFORE THIS COURT BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT THE HOLDER OF THE DEBT INSTRUMENT.  I have been contesting this in every court across this state AND NOT ONE JUDGE WILL ADDRESS THE ISSUE NOR WILL YOU --  EVEN AFTER I PERSONALLY VISITED YOUR OFFICE TO BRING THIS PROBLEM TO YOUR ATTENTION.   It is curious, don’t you think, that no judge will address the issue of Legal Standing.  Have you looked into this problem for me and others?  Natache for example.  

Further, Mr. White states that “....with technical assistance from the USTP and others, undertook a review of the servicers’ general mortgage loan servicing and foreclosure processing to determine compliance with state and federal laws.  Gee, someone failed to note that my nonjudicial foreclosure was illegally done by Mr. Russillo because he failed to provide the required statutory ‘danger’ notice (ORS 86.737) AND failed to provide notice of the sale and thereby prevented my right to cure which I had the power to do.  (ORS 86.753)  The Rule of Law requires STRICT compliance with state law for foreclosures because they are done without judicial supervision.  That didn’t happen here.  In fact, Mr. Russillo admitted ON THE RECORD that he failed to provide me with the required ‘danger’ notice.  Where was the Trustee on that issue?  The judge? Anybody?

Settlement Agreement

Under the National Mortgage Settlement agreement “...servicers will adhere to special provisions relating to bankruptcy conduct....to ensure the accuracy of ...motions from stay”.  Note here that is an issue since the entity seeking relief from stay ---  FHLF, LLC; has no legal standing to even seek a stay!  

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Randall Dunn ignored my Motion to Expunge the Stay and Reopen this case to reexamine whether this Relief from stay was valid.  What rule allows a judge to just ignore a party’s legal filing??!!Not only is USTP not conforming with the purpose of this settlement, but U.S. Bankruptcy judges are not either. Why is the USTP not monitoring these bankruptcy deficiencies in this time of highest need by the poor?

Servicer conduct will be reviewed for three and a half years by an independent monitor who will oversee a series of prescribed tests of compliance.  Failure to meet established metrics of compliance is subject to remedy by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, including through monetary penalties and non-monetary equitable relief.  

$35,000 suddenly and mysteriously appeared in my column last month (after four years of bankruptcy proceedings??!!) without any accounting or notice.  ( By the way, I never received my $35,000 homestead exemption and advised Ms. Popperl personally of that problem and she advised that was not her job.)  Gee, how did the USTP fail to notice that?  

Instantly, the Trustee’s attorney sought $17,000 of these funds for her attorneys fees.  No audit, no notice, no accounting.  Just easy money to the Trustee’s attorney.  Again Judge Dunn approves it without a hearing, without notice, without anything.  Yet, he ignores my Motion to Reopen altogether.  And my Motion to Expunge the Stay to address the issue of Legal Standing.  

Mr. White noted:    “The USTP must attack emerging problems by following the evidence wherever it leads, even if the facts are surprising and contrary to prevailing wisdom. “   “Not only does this settlement provide relief to homeowners, but importantly it establishes standards to help prevent future misconduct.”

Ms. Popperl  --  When does this begin...........?? 

Very truly yours,

S/Lauren Paulson

laurenjpaulson@gmail.com  503 470 9709

PO Box 2236  Newport, OR 97365

WASHINGTON

GAIL B. GEIGER
ACTING UNITED STATES TRUSTEE 
700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5103
SEATTLE, WA 98101

CLIFFORD J. WHITE III
DIRECTOR US TRUSTEES PROGRAM
441 G STREET, NW, SUITE 6150
WASHINGTON, DC 20530

Attorney General, ERIC HOLDER

U.S. Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

Thursday, April 4, 2013

Hon Ann Aiken

United States Courthouse

405 E 8th Ave

Eugene OR  97401 

  Re:   Paulson v. OSB et al. 

  Case No:  Civil No. 6:13cv175-AA

Dear Hon. Ann Aiken: 

It has just come to my attention that you also have an internecine business relationship with the Cosgrave law firm that is representing several defendants in the captioned matter and was not disclosed.  I had previously pointed out that you are on the Board of Directors of the U.S. District Court Historical Society with Hon. Thomas Balmer, the other Defendant here and that was not disclosed.    

I have learned that your law clerk, Jolie Russo is the President-Elect of the Oregon Federal Bar Association.  You serve as a Director on the Board of the Oregon Federal Bar Association along with Robert Sabido, a member of the Cosgrave law firm.  The Cosgrave firm repesents several Defendants here.  You apparently are speaking there this month.   

For several years, I have pointed out that my former Office Manager for ten years, also works at the Cosgrave law firm.  Unfortunately, when she left as I began my trek down the rabbit hole, she also took the hard drive to my entire law office computer with the promise to return it to me, but that has not happened.  

Please consider these matters in conjunction with my request for a visiting judge.  Since your law clerk administers the University of Oregon External Judgeship program I fear many other filial relationships here with all Oregon judges as well; which is one of the reasons this case will be served better by a judge from outside the District and the Ninth Circuit.  Thank you.

Very truly yours,

S/Lauren Paulson

PS:  And then there is the omnipotent presence of the Schwabe law firm here and elsewhere on matters you are handling which required disclosure.   

Oregon Chapter of the Federal Bar Association

UPCOMING EVENTS

• Trailblazing in the Modern Legal Era
  Apr 5 2013 - 10:30am - 3:00pm 
• 2013 Annual Lunch Honoring Burns Award Winners
  Apr 18 2013 - 12:00pm 

• Brownbag with the Bench
  Apr 29 2013 - 12:00pm - 1:00pm 

Officers

President
Tom Johnson
Perkins Coie LLP
1120 NW Couch St 10th Fl
Portland OR 97209-4128
(503) 727-2176

Vice President
Gosia Fonberg
Law Clerk for Hon. Thomas Coffin
US District Court
1000 SW 3rd Ave Ste 740
Portland OR  97204

President-Elect
Jolie Russo
Law Clerk for Hon. Ann Aiken
5500 United States Courthouse                  BOING!
405 East Eighth Ave.
Eugene, OR 97401

Immediate Past-President
Susan Pitchford
Chernoff Vilhauer et al.
601 SW 2nd Avenue
Suite 1600
Portland OR 97204
(503) 227-5631

Secretary
Johnathan Mansfield
Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt BOING!
1211 SW 5th Ave., Suite 1900
Portland, OR 97204
(503) 796-2088

Treasurers
Jacqueline Tommas
Law Office of Jacqueline Tommas
19288 S Mattoon Road
Estacada, OR 97023
(503) 631-2660

Robert Sabido
Cosgrave Vergeer Kester LLP                   BOING!
888 SW 5th Ave Ste 500
Portland OR  97204

(503) 323-9000

Directors
Melissa Aubin
Amy Baggio
Heather Bowman
Jeffrey Bowersox
Robert Calo
Jeff Edelson
Gosia Fonberg
Nadine Gardner
Hwa Go
Chelsea Grimmius
Todd Hanchett
Thomas Johnson
Erin Lagesen
Frank Langfitt
Colin Love-Geiger
Johnathan Mansfield
Nancy Moriarty
Susan Pitchford
Jim Rice
Peter Richter
Hellen Rode
Jolie Russo BOING!
Robert Sabido BOING!
Laura Salerno-Owens
Josh Sasaki
Timothy Snider
Jackie Tommas
Patrick Wade
Evelyn Winters
Kelly Zusman
Marianne Ghimm
Chris Pallanch
Harold DuCloux
Paul Bruch
Julia Follansbee
Mary Anne Nash
Judge Ann Aiken                     BOING!
Judge Michael Simon

E-Mail  --  laurenjpaulson@gmail.com       

TABLE OF CONTENTS  (Note Foreclosure Law Articles-and on Drones Torture, Due Process -Below)

1. Welcome To A New Blog Site for Oregon Lawyers(2/4/07)
2. Opening Page -- Purpose of This Blog Site (2/4/07)
3. Update -- The Oregon State Bar's Confused Organization( 2/6/07)
4. Feedback and Leadership at the Oregon State Bar(3/28/07)
5. Packing the Court -- The Oregon State Bar is an Oligarchy(4/5/07)
6. A Monumental Failure of Leadership(4/28/07)
7. Our Judicial Emperors Have No Clothes(5/22/07)
8. Oregon's Court of Appeals Has No Clothes(5/29/07)
9. Lawyer Advertising -- Not!(6/4/07)
10. Attorneys With Kind Hearts(6/10/07)
11. To Tell You The Truth(6/19/07)
12. Judicial Emperors With Clothes of Gold(6/23/07)
13. The "F" Word(6/25/07)
14. The Strange Case of Judge Michael McElligott(6/29/07)
15. A Simple Proposal for Judicial Accountability(7/11/07)
16. Legal Malpractice Got Me To Mt. Hood(7/19/07)
17. How Much Would You Spend to Shut Me Up?(7/31/07)
18. Erased -- By the Oregon State Bar(8/13/07)
19. They Rule, But Do Judges Read What You Send Them?(8/22/07)
20. Finally, A Solution to Divorce in America(8/27/07)
21. Silence is an Accomplice to Injustice(9/4/07)
22. Oregon Lawyers and the Oregon Media(9/16/07)
23. The Oregon Federal Court -- Evaluated(9/24/07)
24. The Oregon State Bar House of Delegates Meeting(10/3/07)
25. Oregon State Bar's Member Services--The Black Hole(10/5/07)
26. Whoever Has the Biggest Megaphone Wins(10/5/07)
27. Reality Overcomes Hope at the Oregon State Bar(10/10/07)
28. Common Law Does Not Make Common Sense(1/1/08)
29. Everybody is Looking the Wrong Way for Legal Help(1/9/08)
30. Does the Oregon State Bar Make Common Sense?(1/10/08)
31. You Are Not Entitled to a Jury Trial(1/23/08)
32. Roadmap To Improve Our Legal System(1/28/08)
33. Minority ‘Rites' of Passage in Oregon(2/1/08)
34. Our Legal System Has It Exactly Backwards(2/13/08)
35. In Defense of Your Local Lawyer(2/19/08)
36. One Year Anniversary of This Blog(2/22/08)
37. A ‘Subprime' Odyssey(2/26/08)
38. Rogue's Gallery is Too Good For Some(3/6/08)
39. An Open Letter to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor(3/13/08)
40. So You Want To Be A Blogger(3/19/08)
41. The Death of Ivan Ilych(4/1/08)
42. The New Oregon State Bar Center(4/8/08)
43. Theories for Legal Improvement -- And For Revolution(4/16/08)
44. Judicial Elections -- and Judicial Evaluations(4/23/08)
45. The Real Estate Auction -- The New Kid on The Block(4/30/08)
46. The Good Lawyers Do!(5/7/08)
47. The Power at The Oregon State Bar -- Practical Magic(5/14/08)
48. Report Card on The Oregon Supreme Court(6/10/08)
49. An Open Letter to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.(7/30/08)
50. Structured Settlements(8/7/08)
51. America, The Rule of Law and Torture(8/12/08)
52. Confessions of a Court-Appointed Criminal Defense Attorney(8/29/08)
53. Yes, Virginia The Sky IS Falling(9/19/08)
54. The Master Litigator(9/23/08)
55. A Model Legal System(10/1/08)
56. The Iconoclast(10/4/08)
57. A Model Legal System -- Subpart #1(10/7/08)
58. Legal Reading Lite(10/10/08)
59. A Model Legal System -- (Subpart #2(10/15/08)
60. Legal Reading Lite(10/16/08)
61. Viewer Comments(10/18/08)
62. A Model Legal System -- Subpart #3(10/21/08)
63. Judicial Elections Anyone!(10/27/08)
64. Redistribution Anyone?(10/30/08)

65. A Model Legal System #4 -- The Judiciary

66. A Model Legal System #5 -- The Money

67. So, I Inquired Further

68. A Model Legal System #6 -- Bar Associations

69. Reuben Lenske -- On Attorney Fees

70. Civil Rights -- Before

71. Something's 'Askew' at the Bar

72. Civil Rights -- After

73. A Cry From The Wilderness

74. The Bar's Board of Director's Meeting (2008)

75. Lawyer Discipline in Oregon is Unconstitutional

76. Landlord/Tenant Litigation in Oregon

77. Oregon Courts Close Again (2009)

78. Oregon Secret Law Societies

79. Downtown Law Firms and Money

80. House of Delegates Unite!

81. Money, Minutes and the Oregon State Bar

82. Do Judges Tell the Truth?

83. Health Care Reform and You

84. Oligarchy or Democracy?

85. Impact Women!

86. Those Wonderful Supremes

87. Judicial Performance Evaluations

88. Judicial Accountability

89. Judicial Accountability - Federal

90. Civil Rights at the Street Level

91. May U.S. Presidents Legally Kill?

92. May It Please the U.S. Supreme Court

93. Race Relations Pure and Simple

94. Health Care Reform - Part Deux

95. A Broken Legal System

96. Impact Women and Quality of Life

97. Harry Truman Liked Medicare

98. Judges Pay and You

99.  Police, Power and the Public

100. Chumming the Judiciary

101. The Tort Reform Shibboleth

102. State Judicial Conference

103. Closed Judicial Meetings

104. State Lawyer Leaders Meet

105. An Ode to the Corporate Lawyer

106. Law and Justice at the Movies

107. Why are Lawyers Evil?

108. Impact Women with Courage

109. Merry Holidays from 'Bulletins'

110. An Idle Mind in the New Year

111. Bulletins v Supreme Court I

112. Bulletins v. Supreme Court II

113. Bulletins v. Supreme Court III

114. Bulletins v. Our Legal System IV

115. ADR and Supreme Court V

116. Do Judges Read...?

117. A Jury Trial...Not!

118. The Killing Fields

119. Your Appeal

120. A Bar Sinking

121. Starve the Beast

122. Shane and Police

123. Little Lawyers

124. Judicial Disqualification

125. Throw Away Lawyers

125. The Client in a Box

126. Judicial Performance Evaluations III

127. Law Schools in Training

128.  Financial Fraud in America (Bank of America)

129. Foreclosure Fraud

130. A Supreme Court Scam

131. Plato Meets Bill Haley and The Comets

132. Truth and Justice Fail -- Again

133. eCourt (Electronic Filing) Oregon Disaster

134. Hon. Donald Ashmanskas

135. Troy Davis Dies in Broken Legal System

136. Dollar Love

137. Legal Help for Self-Represented

138. Let's Occupy Wall Street

139. The 'WHY' to Occupy Wall Street

140. S. Brian Willson, Local Hero

141. Eviction Court

142. A Court at Work

143. 1986 Immigration Law O.K.

144. Oregon eCourt at Risk

145. The Mayor's Police and Occupy

146. Ninth Court of Appeals Hubris

147. Oregon's Legal Oligarchy

148. Arabian Knights

149. Foreclosure Mess Made Simple

150. Democracy is Ugly

151. Dollar Diplomacy

152. Devil Dancing

153. Veteran's Care Benefits in Big City

154. Foreclosure Mediation

155. Justice as Fairness

156. Oligarchy Near You

157. eCourt Update

158. Legal Aid Missing in Foreclosures

159. Guns and Roses

160. Foreclosures in Middle America

161. Stopping Random Violence

162. No Retreat

163. Fraud O.K. in USA

164. Aaron Swartz and Power Grid

165. Drones and Due Process

166. 1955 Fords and Due Process

167. Nuclear Waste at Hanford

168. Good Senses

169. Quiz on Legal Waste

QUIZ           

by Lauren Paulson

Course Name:  Our Government--Reinvents the Wheel------AGAIN

                       FEBRUARY 2013  Ed. 

1. What Oregon agency continues to spend $200 million dollars on a fifteen-year boondoggle reinventing an electronic court filing system, -‘eCourt’-, already available to the federal government court systems across the USA? 

ANS:  Oregon’s Judicial Department [(OJD) -by Chief Justice Paul De Muniz].  Oregon’s eCourt program and the Federal Government’s Pacer program both began in 2001.  The Pacer electronic court filing program for the entire United States was completed in five years.  Oregon’s eCourt project is planned for completion in 2015, fifteen years after it began.  And more money is requested.

Former OJD employee Jeff Barlow quits the Oregon eCourt project to go work for one of the software vendors for the eCourt project--ImageSoft, Inc.  ImageSoft fails the project and another software vendor is hired in 2010, setting the eCourt project back until 2017.  

2.  What Oregon agency will spend as much as $24 million dollars reinventing and funding an outside foreclosure mediation program already available in the State?

ANS:  Oregon’s Department of Justice [(DOJ)-by John Kroger, the former Oregon Attorney General].  Oregon is paying the Collins company $80,000 per month to administer Oregon’s new foreclosure mediation program.  Then they went bust.  There have been two mediations. 

A former Collins Center employee Jon Conant and a contractor who had been working on the Oregon program will join Mediation Case Manager, an entity that will manage the mediation program on an interim basis until a new administrator is selected through a bidding process, OR Department of Justice spokesman Jeff Manning said.  That new entity is managed by Canopy Software Inc., the vendor that created the software the Collins Center used to manage loan documentation and schedule mediations.  This is some of the same information the Fed is looking for below.

3.  What Governmental agency has spent $1.5 Billion dollars reinventing foreclosure software systems already in place across the USA?

ANS:  The Federal Reserve, a regulator of the USA banking system.  

The Federal Reserve Board issued enforcement actions against four large mortgage servicers--GMAC Mortgage, HSBC Finance Corporation, SunTrust Mortgage, and EMC Mortgage Corporation--in April 2011. Under those actions, the four servicers were required to retain independent consultants to review foreclosures that were initiated, pending, or completed during 2009 or 2010. The review was intended to determine if borrowers suffered financial harm directly resulting from errors, misrepresentations, or other deficiencies that may have occurred during the foreclosure process.  The Federal Reserve has paid the vendors $1.5 Billion; they paid-homeowners -$0- as of 2/28/13.