U.S. SUPREME COURT NOMINEE AND VALUES

  

Thursday, March 23, 2017

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse

Hart Senate Office Bldg., Rm. 530

Washington, DC 20510 

Re:  Judge Neil Gorsuch  —  Nomination New Issue

Dear Senator: 

Everybody is missing a vital element in search of the values we are looking for in Justice Scalia’s replacement.  

Minefield #1:    It is important to determine whether Judge Gorsuch or any other federal judge being considered actually followed the mandatory policy outlined below on his or her individual cases.  The importance of this step cannot be over-emphasized.  I have written to Judge Gorsuch on February 6, 2017 to determine whether or not he is in compliance with the Judicial Conference of the United States policy on mandatory financial conflict  screening.  http://www.bulletinsfromaloha.org/weekly/2017/2/8/judicial-corruption-part-2.html  

 

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES MANDATORY FINANCIAL CONFLICT SCREENING

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 ECM/PACER) to identify financial conflicts of interest in all our federal court proceedings.  

About a year ago I discovered through Ninth Circuit Court Judge Mary M. McKeown’s testimony to Congress that there is a mandatory requirement that you and Judge Gorsuch were searching for in his testimony this week.  Moreover, I found out she was lying to Congress when she represented that federal courts and judges were, in fact, in compliance with this important requirement.  It would require disclosures now of the $10 million dollars you inquired about flowing to his nomination.  This mandatory policy requires sophisticated disclosures of Judge Gorsuch right now of all the cases he is presently handling.  I know from his clerk, Elisabeth A Shumaker, that he is not presently complying with this mandatory conflict screening requirement nor is the Tenth Circuit overall.  This means if any of the donors of $10 million have any matters before Judge Gorsuch that he must disclose those conflicts in every case he handles.  And he must use the federal court software to index his cases to ensure compliance.  It is a detailed mandatory obligation.

Keep in mind this requirement is IN ADDITION to mandatory financial disclosures.  They are different requirements.  Therefore, your colloquy on the First Amendment with Judge Gorsuch should have been directed at whether he complies as a Circuit Court judge with the automated requirements Judge. M. McKeown spoke of to Congress.  These conflict of interest disclosures emanate from the judicial branch of government; out of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Robert’s aegis.  This has nothing to do with First Amendment and Citizens issues.   

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 are following this mandatory financial conflict of interest screening policy.  The reasons are plain and the hijinks of former Chief Judge Alex Kozinski are to be blamed on this issue along with so many other egregious issues affecting  foreclosure victims throughout the Ninth Circuit. 

Minefield #2:    I have written to Merrick Garland of the D.C. Circuit as to whether there is compliance there.  He did not respond.  My inquiry to the Ninth Circuit Chief Thomas is also met with silence.  

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.   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.   (Lying appears to be a pandemic.)

CONCLUSION 

The question is not about the First Amendment nor separation of powers.  The rule being violated by Judge Neil Gorsuch comes down from the judicial branch of government and requires disclosures of potential conflicts of interest by Judge Gorsuch pursuant to the Judicial Conference of the United States mandatory screening policy.  Thus, the financial backers of Judge Gorsuch must be disclosed by him using the required software and other screening tools mandated by the Judicial Conference.  

Therefore, Judge Neil Gorsuch was and is subject to this requirement under 28 USC Section 332(d)(1) as a Circuit Court judge in the federal judiciary.  Most judges as with Judge Gorsuch have failed to comply with this requirement.   With the current judicial make-up there is rampant corruption throughout.  More than you might think.  

Thank you for your interest and consideration in these regards.   

Very truly yours, 

Lauren /S/Paulson

16131 W Hoffeldt Ln #38

Brookings, OR 9741

laurenjpaulson@gmail.com

541 412 1390

bulletinsfromaloha.org

cc:James Duff, Jeff Merkley Hon. Sidney Thomas, Hon. McKeown

 

 

 

Posted on Friday, March 24, 2017 at 11:18AM by Registered CommenterLAUREN PAULSON | CommentsPost a Comment

JUDICIAL CORRUPTION Part 2

 

SCOTUS NOMINEE HOME SCHOOL VETTING!!

 

Monday, February 6, 2017

 

Judge Neil M. Gorsuch

Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals

1823 Stout Street

Denver, Colorado 80257

 

Re:  Mandatory Conflict Screening

 

Dear Judge Gorsuch:

 

Congratulations on your nomination to SCOTUS.  As part of due diligence, would you please answer the following questions.  I will be reporting your answers to Senator Wyden and Senator Merkley along with the other interested parties. To each I have submitted a detailed report on the failure of federal court judges and officials to follow the U.S. Judicial Conference Mandatory Conflict Screening requirements.  

 

Moreover, I have filed a detailed report on this failure to Jeffrey P. Minear at the Office of the Counselor to the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.  Here are the questions to you:

 

  1.  Has the Judicial Council of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the Judicial Conference of the United States Mandatory Financial Screening policy adopted on September 19, 2006?  

 

2.  What was the effective date in the Tenth Circuit for this program?

 

3.  Have you completed a Checklist for Financial Conflicts and has that         been submitted to the Tenth Circuit?  

 

4.  Have you completed a Checklist for Other Conflicts and has that been submitted to the Tenth Circuit?

 

5.  Has the Chief Judge of the Tenth Circuit submitted mandatory conflict screening reports to the Tenth Circuit Judicial Council?

6.  Have you recused yourself on any cases in the Tenth Circuit since their adoption of the mandatory conflict screening policy?

 

7.  Have you used the CM/ECF conflict checking software?

 

8.  Does the Tenth Circuit produce recusal data on the case query tree in Appellate CM/ECF?  

 

9.  Is there any reason why you or any other Judge in the Tenth Circuit do not use CM/ECF automated conflict screening?

 

10.  Have you encountered any difficulties or filed any complaints about CM/ECF financial conflict of interest screening?

 

11.  Have you handled any foreclosure cases since 2007?

 

12.  Have you provided the Tenth Circuit clerk’s office with recusal information?

 

13.  Is your recusal information entered into the CM/ECF in the Tenth Circuit?

 

14.  Does the Tenth Circuit run a conflict clearance report on each case you handle?

 

15.  Do Tenth Circuit Motions Attorneys check recusal data?

 

16.  Does the Tenth Circuit run a daily conflict check report?

 

17.  Do you have written in-chambers conflict check procedures?

 

A copy of this questionnaire is being sent to your Chief Judge with a request to furnish me with any and all reports including semi-annual reports in connection with these requirements.  Thank you for your professional courtesies in all respects.

 

Very Truly Yours,  Lauren Paulson

cc:  Senator Merkley, Senator Wyden.

Posted on Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 02:40PM by Registered CommenterLAUREN PAULSON | CommentsPost a Comment | References3 References

MILLIONAIRES

RankNameMinimum Net WorthAverageMaximum Net Worth
1 Stephen G. Breyer $5,645,047 $11,982,523 $18,320,000
2 Ruth Bader Ginsburg $4,930,022 $10,597,511 $16,265,000
3 Samuel A. Alito $3,385,072 $7,545,036 $11,705,000
4 John G. Roberts $4,355,036 $6,997,518 $9,640,000
5 Sonia Sotomayor $1,175,009 $3,702,504 $6,229,999
6 Antonin Scalia $1,905,021 $3,267,510 $4,630,000
7 Elena Kagan $1,035,019 $1,765,009 $2,495,000
8 Anthony M. Kennedy $580,004 $890,002 $1,200,000
9 Clarence Thomas $470,011 $852,505 $1,235,000

 

Posted on Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 10:45AM by Registered CommenterLAUREN PAULSON | CommentsPost a Comment | References5 References

SOFT ELEGANCE

MAYA ANGELOU

SOFT ELEGANCE

 

 

She appeared at the covered bus stop suddenly.  One minute she was not there, then she was.

 

One does not make eye contact in this part of town, particularly at a bus stop.  The patrons milled around, some with back packs, some in sleeping clothes.  There was no elegant coiffure among those waiting. 

 

Except for her.  She was approximately half of the century mark or more.  Hard to tell with her soft features and her unlined face.  Hard to tell because eye contact was not allowed.  

 

It was another day again on my way at that bus stop.

This time I noticed her elegant clothes.  Soft elegance.  No one was dressed like her, yet it wasn’t gaudy.  Life had dealt me a twister, so I was ruffled; not covered like her.  

 

On the regular bus routes I encountered her often and now had time to carefully study her.  First, she was beautiful without a trace of makeup on that unlined beautiful skin.  She always wore a tasteful hat.  Sometimes appropriate gloves.

 

Now I studied that demeanor of dignified grace.  She looked out of place at this bus stop across the sidewalk from the welded muffler repair shop.  Those clothes were always perfectly coordinated in the proper place always with grace.  

 

She never spoke to anyone, but neither did others.  Once in awhile I would make a lame attempt at eye contact to simply exchange a smile, but she was too smooth for that.  

 

Slim so everything fit as though on a runway model.  

 

That twister threw me down the street, so I never saw her again.  Today, I took note of Maya Angelou. 

 

claurenpaulson2016  laurenjpaulson@gmail.com bulletinsfromaloha.org  541 412 1390 

 

 

Posted on Monday, December 12, 2016 at 04:13PM by Registered CommenterLAUREN PAULSON | CommentsPost a Comment | References2 References

CONFLICTS AND JUDGE LEAVY

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. 

 

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT

 

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. 

 

BIAS

 

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 starI 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,

 

 

Lauren /S/Paulson

 

cc:  Senator Jeff Merkley, Senator Ron Wyden, U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio, Ninth Circuit Judicial Council, James Duff

Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 10:43AM by Registered CommenterLAUREN PAULSON | CommentsPost a Comment | References3 References
Page | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next 5 Entries