Wednesday, July 13, 2016



U.S. Court of Appeals Judge (Senior)

22614 U.S. Courthouse 

601 Market Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19106




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,



Lauren Paulson  

16131 W. Hoffeldt Ln. #38

Brookings, OR 97415









Posted on Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 11:09AM by Registered CommenterLAUREN PAULSON | CommentsPost a Comment | References8 References




Page 1! of 1! 03





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.

6. JURISDICTION……………………………………………30.

7. PRELIMINARY……………………………………………31.

8. PARTIES……………………………………………………32.

9. PROCEDURAL POSTURE……………………………….33.

10. STANDING………………………………………………..38.

Page 2! of 1! 03



Trilogy # 1…………………………………………………47.

Trilogy #2…………………………………………………62.

Trilogy #3…………………………………………………86.

13. PROOF……………………………………………………101.


Page 3! of 1! 03










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.


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

jurisdiction —

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.


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

1 https://www.scribd.com/doc/182748927/JUDICIAL-MISCONDUCT-IN-FORECLOSURELITIGATION

Page 5! of 1! 03

2015. The path to the document can be found at https://




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:



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

ministerial act.


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?

Joseph Romagnoli

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

injured party.

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

Judge Leavy.

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:


(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

interest: )

• Reports

• Utilities

• Logout


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

Demand: $50,000,000

Case in other court:


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


Lauren Paulson

represented by

Lauren Paulson

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

Matt Burk

also known as

Matt Burk


John Doe Savings Bank

a Washington corporation


Wells Fargo Foothills

a California corporation


Bank of America




U.S. Bank Joan Doe

a mortgage broker


James Doe


Page !18 of !103


Jane Doe



JP Morgan Chase & Co.


Ally Financial


Goldman Sachs








National City


Deutsche Bank


Bank of New York


Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems

Page !19 of !103


Skylands Investment Corporation

an Oregon corporation Manager




Craig Russillo


Joel Parker


Anne Helton


Amy Mitchell


Rob Levy


Lanny Doe


Greg Blair


The Schwabe Williamson and Wyatt Law Firm


John and Jane 1-12 Does

Page !20 of !103


John Doe

Lender 1-12


Jane Doe

Lender 1-12


John Doe

Servicer 1-2


Jane Doe

Servicer 1-12


John Doe

Mortgage Co.


Jane Doe

Mortgage Co.


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


Randall Dunn

Judge Jury


Richard Clifton

Judge Jury


Sandra Ikuta

Judge Jury


Ed Leavy

Judge Jury


William Canby

Judge Jury

Page !22 of !103


Ronald Gould

Judge Jury


Richard Tallman

Judge Jury


Jay Memo Bybee

Judge Jury


Alex Kozinski

Judge Jury


WM Fletcher

Judge Jury


C.M. Callahan

Judge Jury


Unknown Robinson

Judge Jury


Bea Murgia

Judge Jury


Page !23 of !103

The United States Federal Reserve Bank


Barclays Bank


John Doe


represented by

John Doe



Jane Doe


represented by

Jane Doe


Date Filed


Docket Text



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)

(Entered: 10/01/2014)



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)

(Entered: 11/14/2014)



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)

(Entered: 12/08/2014)



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)

(Entered: 03/17/2015)




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

administrative capacity).

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

United States

7. Hon Loretta Lynch as the current Attorney General of the

United States.

Page !33 of !103


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

7 http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/OREGON-DISTRICT-COURTISSUES-


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

8 https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=consensus+judges+foreclosure


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.



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

9 https://judiciary.house.gov/_files/hearings/pdf/McKeown091210.pdf

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)





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

and H)

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

Judicial Conference.13

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?


(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

Notice requested)

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 -



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

electronically. 15

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 [63] 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:





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.—

(1)In general.—

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.



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.

20 http://search.uscourts.gov/search?affiliate=uscourts.gov&locale=en&query=mandatory


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

22 http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/owen-m-panner-2011/

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



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

Self-Reporting System:

“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


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

screening plan.

Ninth Circuit Judge M. McKeown has not replied to inquiries

as to whether she is following the Judicial Conference 2008 conflict

screening plan.

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

No. 15-35195

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



(email exchange begun by Paulson to the software entity

that was supposed to be triggered by each Circuit)

From: Lauren Paulson <laurenjpaulson@gmail.com>

To: pacer@psc.uscourts.gov

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

Lauren Paulson

Lauren Paulson




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



Thank you,


PACER Service Center

Page !79 of !103

Phone: 210-301-6440

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

potential problems.

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.

Notable cases

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

their contract.

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

California’s practices.

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,”

Dwyer said.

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



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

trouble below.

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.


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


41-43 (2007).

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

never taken.


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

the record??

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

doing so.”28

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

important, pleadings?

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.

(Exhibit F)

29 http://www.bulletinsfromaloha.org/weekly/2011/9/26/bank-america-your-law-partner.html

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

that fact.

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





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.

Posted on Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 11:02AM by Registered CommenterLAUREN PAULSON | CommentsPost a Comment | References4 References



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

Posted on Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 07:11PM by Registered CommenterLAUREN PAULSON | CommentsPost a Comment | References2 References




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.


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.  




Thank you for your interest and consideration in these regards.


Very truly yours,

Lauren /S/Paulson 


541 412 1390





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

Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 03:47PM by Registered CommenterLAUREN PAULSON | CommentsPost a Comment | References4 References




Scalia dies.   He was not wise.

He leaves us in death throes;

Where the law goes

nobody knows.

Scalia was not wise 

As Bush v. Gore came to the fore.

Bombastic and assertive; yet still I rise.

He put on clothes and put on the guise 

and spoke certainly 

of uncertainty; surely I must doze. 

Scalia dies; he was not wise 

The Rule of Law knows not where it goes:  

Fake science, fake commentary

allows those faces to run rudimentary.

Fake experts extol stories we already have been told, 

Scalia has died, originalists ebb tide. 

Now let’s roll up our sleeves

and see what this means 

Without phony and false experts scraping their knees 

while all about Scalia we can unbelieve. 

And yet I rise and look at him square, 

through all his lies 

Seeing clearly through his disguise......

and through all of those lies.   



Posted on Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 10:39AM by Registered CommenterLAUREN PAULSON | CommentsPost a Comment | References5 References