Main | JUDICIAL CORRUPTION Part 2 »

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 | References1 Reference

References (1)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.
  • Response
    Response: CogniFlex Review

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>