« FINALLY, A SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM OF DIVORCE IN AMERICA | Main | ERASED -------- BY THE OREGON STATE BAR »

YES, THEY RULE, BUT DO THEY READ WHAT YOU SEND THEM?

If a trial judge may not delegate the responsibility of presiding over a trial to a clerk, why can appellate courts delegate the responsibility of reading the appellate record and briefs to their clerks?

The Honorable John Roberts, Jr.

Supreme Court of the United States

One First Street, NE

Washington, D.C. 20543

     Re:  Lauren Paulson v. The Oregon State Bar, et al.       United States Supreme Court Case No. 06-675/06-996

Dear Justice Roberts:

     You don't know me, but I have recently had business in your court.  It was unsatisfactory.  So, I have a question for you. 

     Is it okay with you for a trial judge to delegate to their judicial assistant the responsibility of presiding over the actual trial while that judge performs other duties?  This I fear is what the United States Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Oregon are doing to the appellants in their respective courts.  It appears that no justice from either the United States Supreme Court nor the Supreme Court of Oregon has read a single page of my petition or the record sent to your respective courts in this matter.  Is that true? 

     I know a little bit about clerk pools.  As I understand it the justices of the United States Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Oregon illegally delegate your duty to read my papers to your clerks.  (Ergo, no justice takes responsibility for denying my petition.)  Indeed, no justice from either court appears to have read my erudite submissions to them at all.  Worse, none of them appear to have read a single page of the extensive record here.  'Worser', the Supreme Court of Oregon has indirectly admitted that they did not even have the entire record before them on de novo review.  'Worsest', this is okay with you.  The reason I know this is because you have told me so.  Your actual words were:  "The petition for writ of certiorari is denied."  But, like the Supreme Court of Oregon you don't say whether any justice at the United States Supreme Court read what I sent to you.   I asked the Supreme Court of Oregon this question  by a polite letter.  They didn't respond.  Therefore, let me pose this question to you:

QUESTION  --  Does our system of appellate law throughout the United States require any appellate judge or justice to read anything we send you?

Stated another way, may you delegate your ultimate duties and responsibilities to a clerk when no trial judge may do so?

     Supreme Court of Oregon  --  The Oregon Supreme Court's written opinion in this case is riddled with factual errors.  Thus, I asked them to reconsider their written opinion, politely pointing out the glaring, important factual errors.  These errors include such fundamentals as  -- what causes of action remained in the underlying complaint; in other words, ascertainable objective facts.  Incredulous, I politely asked them if they had read the record at all or my submissions at all.  They answered not. 

     United States Supreme Court  --  Seeking succor in your court, even though I know you are busy, I thought it would strike your fancy that the Supreme Court of Oregon would not respond to my question as to whether any justice had read the record and submissions when their review is DE NOVO, meaning they have to read the entire record.  Moreover, I thought it would peak your interest when the Supreme Court of Oregon did not even have the entire record before them on de novo review and would not certify that record on review notwithstanding that I specifically asked them to do so.  Don't you think that is a bit curious? 

     My Problem  --  Our courts in this instance are taking away my right to earn a living and practice law.  When one has such a heavy price to pay wouldn't you think at least one justice somewhere would have to read something of what I sent them?  Please let me hear from you in this regard. I suspect other lawyers would like to know the answer to the question posed above as well.   Thank you in advance for your interest and consideration in this regard.

Very truly yours,

Lauren Paulson

PS:  Did I forget to tell you that the trial court judge in the underlying case also confessed in his deposition he did not read a single page of six volumes of the trial court file before dismissing my client's case that had been in litigation for over a year?  The only thing he read was the amended complaint before ruling. 

cc:  Justices/Mary Cooper/Media

 

    

 

Posted on Wednesday, August 22, 2007 at 08:15AM by Registered CommenterLAUREN PAULSON in | CommentsPost a Comment

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>