Wednesday, April 30, 2014


FROM: Lauren Paulson






CONTACT: Lauren Paulson

    827C Ransom Ave

  Brookings, OR 97415                                           503 470 9709


Katerie Walsh

Oregon State Bar


Marc Abrams

Department of Justice


Hon. Thomas Balmer




On April 30, 2014 the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit, in Case No. 13-35672 reinstated the Class Action lawsuit filed against The Oregon State Bar, The Supreme Court of Oregon and that Court’s Chief Justice, Thomas Balmer.  The case had been dismissed by federal U.S. District Court of Oregon’s Chief Judge Ann Aiken in June of last year in Case No. 13-cv-00175.    


The Class Action lawsuit filed by former Oregon lawyer, Lauren Paulson, sought to correct alleged multiple deficiencies in how the Oregon State Bar operates their lawyer disciplinary process.  Jeff Sapiro, the former Regulatory Counsel for the Oregon State Bar is also a defendant.  He retired last year.  His replacement, John Gleason resigned several months ago after less than a year in the job. The newest Regulatory Counsel for the Oregon State Bar has just been hired. 


Paulson, a lawyer from Aloha, ran afoul of Oregon’s disciplinary process just as he began a four year term on the Oregon State Bar Board of Governors.  He had participated in a previous Oregon State Bar disciplinary process study task force in 2002.    


There are about 14,000 lawyers in Oregon.  


Sylvia Stevens, the third Executive Director of the Oregon State Bar in the last three years, has recently announced that the American Bar Association is going to evaluate the Oregon State Bar’s lawyer disciplinary system and a task force is presently forming to supplement that process.  

Posted on Saturday, July 19, 2014 at 06:19PM by Registered CommenterLAUREN PAULSON | Comments1 Comment | References8 References




Aaron Swartz and Eric Hoffer Have Those Answers…


………….But who will see…or listen?


“A movement is pioneered by (people) of words,  materialized by fanatics and consolidated by (people) of action.”  The True Believer by Eric Hoffer (1951) at page 134.  

The Occupy movement has gone into eclipse.  Aaron Swartz,  activist ‘braniac’, and longshoreman philosopher Eric Hoffer have the key to unlock this movement and send it on a road to successful change.  


Occupy Portland 2011 to 2012

Or Finding Those Little Green Girl Shoes

Occupy Portland Eviction Night:  It was about 8 p.m. on November 13, 2011.  Surveying the abandoned jetsam and flotsam, I saw something that was so graphic, it took my heart.  Little green shoes.  It was as though, a medium size girl had literally stepped out of them in her haste for safety.

People were seeking safety because Mayor Sam Adams had drawn his line, had his national mayor’s conference call on how to deal with ‘Occupy’ miscreants and outfitted Portland Police with their Ninja Turtle outfits.  A sobering and scary prospect.  No wonder this little red-headed (she had to be red-headed in those green shoes) girl had fled right out of her shoes. 

October 6, 2011  --  Revolution Truth is headed by Tangerine Bolen.  I had no sooner adjusted to being at OPDX on that first day, than I found myself chanting.  A significant band of Occupiers were in full chant: “This is what Democracy Looks Like...........!!!!!”, being led by Tangerine.  Tangerine is now one of the Plaintiffs along with Chris Hedges in the lawsuit against the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which allows for indefinite detention. 

Such is the power of Tangerine’s charisma. We were engaged in a full-throated chant about what “....Democracy Looks Like.”, and I didn’t even know we were there for that very moment.  Happily, I made a 6 second movie of this episode.  

The very next week Occupy Elder Council (now Elder Caucus) was formed and sported involvement by a true believers, Brian Willson (Blood on the Tracks) and Nan Wigmore (Grateful Great Grandma gets arrested in Chicago at the NATO protest).  Elder Caucus has over 100 elders on their mailing list.  We can all be proud for what Occupy Portland has done in those beginnings and the beat goes on. 

In October and November of 2011 as I wandered through ‘Camp’, I was struck by two things.  The first was the Kitchen by Uta.  I have been in many chow lines; none better organized than this.  The second was the unvarnished enthusiasm of All there.  All of them, regardless of age, race, creed, mission or detachment.  There was a special spirit there and all felt it.  Nobody could wander through the two park blocks and not feel it.  The police noticed it.  The Portland Media could only talk about the fictitious damage and the aroma of dedicated, wonderful people.  Dedicated, wonderful people.   

The overwhelming winners of these last years are not the Occupy lawyers who keep a sterile distance.  Not the Teachers who are there as unwanted parents.  The overwhelming core fires are burning in the bellies of the houseless, homeless and otherwise dispossessed.  If you haven’t met Tim, Bob, 99 and Michael D then you have missed out on a piece of the movement that will not be denied.  Cameron is an example we all are proud by not giving up; not letting the dream die.   

So, How About It, Mayor of Portland  --    Can’t we find five city blocks within walking distance of City Hall to be donated to the dispossessed, for their use without a rule-making parent along?  It is all they need.  A small place to pitch their hootch, to make a sandwich, to stay out the rain and everybody’s way.  Five acres, not out-of-sight.  But, in plain view for their use as proud citizens of America.  Somewhere close.  Just for them.  For us.

Somewhere out there is that little red-headed girl looking for those green shoes and a place that is safe from those in power who want to use their homeland security toys on the hard heads of Portland Occupiers.   

Somewhere there is a fanatic, a person of words, an idealist who can consolidate this movement.  But wait there is a roadmap below:

Aaron Swartz provided us with a roadmap on how to effect a successful mass movement to effect change.  He did it with SOPA He did a video which succinctly tells us how to do it  —  (Aaron’s video summary which follows is stunning and simple).

Hear How to Do It in Aaron’s Own Words 

Occupy and Occupy Portland missed the boat by trying to fix too many things and by being too scattered.  Aaron’s message is to pay attention to one issue and commence an unstoppable tsunami to change the world, but on one issue at a time — in a full court press.  Tsunami’s get a politician’s attention.  Tsunami’s get the attention of those in power.  


Splintered Occupy effort’s don’t.  






Posted on Tuesday, July 1, 2014 at 09:54AM by Registered CommenterLAUREN PAULSON | Comments1 Comment


Monday, May 12, 2014


Hon. Thomas Balmer

Oregon Supreme Court

1163 State St.

Salem, OR 97301-2563


OSB President Thomas Kranovich

Oregon State Bar

P.O. Box 231935

Tigard, OR 97281


Re:  Paulson v. OSB, et al.

        Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 13-35672


Dear Judge Balmer and OSB President Thomas Kranovich:


A short time back, I made several peace overtures to the Supreme Court of Oregon and the Oregon State Bar regarding the Bar’s dysfunctional and pernicious disciplinary system. See below, for example. 

In that same recent time-frame, the Oregon State Bar has been through three Executive Directors and three Regulatory Counsels. * 

Now, it appears that the Oregon State Bar is inviting the American Bar Association to perform the very same evaluation of the Oregon State Bar Disciplinary process that James Hennings proposed in 2001The Bar never complied with the legal mandate of that 2001 Oregon State Bar House of Delegates Resolution. Bar members just turn away.   The Supreme Court of Oregon turns a blind eye.  Shame. 

I am a friendly fellow.  Following my multiple overtures to ‘parley’ at the commencement of this lawsuit; each of you steadfastly refused.  I have tried everything.  It is remarkable to me that even though Oregon statutes require litigants to ‘parley’; the very agencies of Oregon government charged with enforcing that law — refuse to talk.  (ORS 36.100)   They have refused to talk ‘on the record’.   

It is hereby proposed that we have a formal mediation with the Hon. Sue Leeson or through the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals mediation program.

This is my final overture to each of you to sit down, like adults, and talk.  It is ironic the Bar is planning to now do; what Mr. Henning’s Resolution required and what I recommended over ten years ago.  Meanwhile, many innocent Oregon lawyers have suffered from your lash. 


Let’s talk.  It can’t hurt, can it?  


Very truly yours, 


  /S/Lauren Paulson


Oh, Sure #2 Will Do at the OSB!


*The Bar replaces its executive director: no one is called, and no. 2 is chosen.

Lawyers' tongues are buzzing, in a quiet and nonbillable way, about the sudden departure of Teresa Schmid, who from January 2009 until last month was the executive director of the Oregon State Bar.  The Oregon State Bar is an unusual entity: it's both the trade association for Oregon's lawyers (all of whom must join to be able to practice) and a state agency, part of the judicial department.  The Bar's board comprises twelve persons elected by the state's lawyers and four public members appointed by the governor.  The board appoints the executive director.

The Bar's board hired Ms. Schmid after the previous executive director, Karen Garst, retired.  Unlike Ms. Garst and her predecessors, Ms. Schmid was herself a lawyer, and most recently the executive director of the State Bar of Arizona.  (The idea that the Oregon State Bar was at long last administered by a lawyer reminds me of a headline that Mrs. Laquedem noticed a while back: "Rocket scientist to head NASA.")  The Oregon State Bar conducted an intensive search to replace Ms. Garst, and Ms. Schmid narrowly won out over two attorneys who were then working for the Bar.

Faced with Ms. Schmid's resignation, the governors of the Bar chose not to hold another search, but offered the job to one of the runners-up from the 2008 search, Sylvia Stevens, a longtime member of the Oregon Bar.  The buzz is not so much why the governors picked Ms. Stevens -- she was apparently the close second choice in 2008 -- but what, if anything, the governors will tell their members about why the winner of the first search didn't hold the job for even two years.


(At least Ms. Schmid was  brave enough to meet with me face-to-face regarding my dilemma at the OSB—while she was there!  LP)


Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Hon. Thomas Balmer 

Supreme Court of Oregon 1163 State St.
Salem, OR 97301-2536

Re:       Lauren Paulson
          Oregon State Bar Reinstatement Application

Dear Chief Justice Balmer:

Please accept this as my Application for Reinstatement to the Oregon State Bar under ORS 9.529 which states:

 9.529 Status of proceedings relating to discipline, admission or reinstatement. Bar proceedings relating to discipline, admission and reinstatement are neither civil nor criminal in nature. They are sui generis and within the inherent power of the Supreme Court to control.

I am not submitting this Application for Reinstatement under normal Oregon State Bar procedures for this reason. Following my unceremonious removal from the Oregon State Bar Board of Governors in 2004 Jeff Sapiro, Disciplinary Counsel for the Oregon State Bar, admitted in his deposition that he was biased against me. All this may be found in the record of those proceedings that actually began in 2001 when I first filed a bar complaint against Mr. Sapiro for delay.

Realizing this Application for Reinstatement may cause an administrative burden on the Supreme Court of Oregon which it may not relish, may I propose the following:

Recommendation -- The Supreme Court of Oregon appoint a Referee under ORCP 65 to perform the administrative function normally accorded through the good offices of the Oregon State Bar.

Moreover, I recommend that the appointment be made for a Referee from outside the State of Oregon. You see, following what I maintained was an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder in the “Paulson” Bar Rule 18.6 that cancelled me off the Oregon State Bar Board of Governors; I sued the Bar and Jeff Sapiro in U.S. District Court of Oregon. Therefore, it is unlikely that any member of the Oregon State Bar, including the judiciary can be unbiased toward me.

However, in view of the stakes involved, I am willing to waive that bias that undoubtedly presents itself in the Supreme Court of Oregon, provided we can follow this alternative process.

My goal is not to practice law again. My goal is to clear my name.

As you can see from the attached, I regard Oregon’s Disciplinary Process as patently unconstitutional. If the Supreme Court of Oregon is willing to ameliorate my situation in the legal profession then I am willing to work with the Oregon State Bar to ameliorate the defects in the Bar disciplinary process. It is my understanding that the Oregon State Bar Board of Governors is planning to look into the disciplinary process anyway and perhaps, I can lend positive input into that endeavor.

I look forward to hearing from you in these regards. Thank you in advance for your interest and consideration.

Very truly yours,

/S/Lauren Paulson


cc: Oregon State Bar





Saturday, April 28, 2012

Oregon State Bar Disciplinary Task Force

Re: Class Action 

Dear Task Force Member:

It was with a satisfying glow; not of smugness, rather for the happy fact that the system worked, that I left Eugene in the Fall of 2002. I was heading towards the Oregon Coast where I was late for a ‘Chill’ reunion with grade school classmates.

The Disciplinary Task Force (DTF) of the Oregon State Bar had done its job. In a plenary way. Because Ed Harnden had left a troublemaker like me off the DTF, I decided to follow the process anyway. But, this is not about me.

It is about over 13,000 Oregon lawyers who are being made fools of by a small knot of people without integrity who somehow made their way to the top of our local legal profession. And those same people have made fools of you too. For the last ten years.

I watched carefully as each of you did your job then. In fact, your efforts should be the prototype for all such efforts at the Oregon State Bar. This compliment comes from one who entered that process beginning in September, 2001as a cynic. I also observed, as a member of the House of Delegates (HOD), as Bar leadership tried to rig the crucial HOD vote when delegate James Hennings bravely provided a blue print for your task.

During the nine-month long process I attended every meeting, read every report, watched with admiration as each of you gallantly did your job. Watched again when Oregon State Bar Executive Director Karen Garst brought sycophant William Carter into your midst to try to sway you from establishing a ‘Consumer’ Assistance Office. And I watched other attempts at subversion.

On that point there is some bad news. A principle objective of Mr. Henning’s Resolution, adopted by the Oregon State Bar membership, was “....the appropriate speed” ....of the disciplinary process. Equally important, your task was to discern whether there was bias in Oregon’s lawyer disciplinary process. Do the little fish get caught while Charlie Tuna swims cheerfully away? Forty seven (47) Oregon lawyers took the time to write to you about their tales of bar retaliation. Nobody (except Charlie Williamson) looked into any of them. Does Sally Leisure ring a bell? Or Charlie Isaak? Or…………? 47% of Bar members opined in the DTF survey that there is bias in the system. This elephant is still in the $20 million dollar Oregon State Bar Center living room ten years later.

You examined neither the issue of delay in the handling of disciplinary matters nor the issue of bias in the system; notwithstanding formal reminders that this part of your task was never addressed by you nor anyone.

There is worse news. Not only did the Oregon State Bar ignore the statutory obligations here; the Bar also ignored the formal mandates prescribed in the 2002 report and subsequently adopted in the Bar Rules; notably mediation. Jeff Sapiro is making a fool of each of you right before your adverted eyes. All while thousands of Oregon lawyers suffer because Jeff Sapiro, Oregon’s Disciplinary Counsel enjoys prosecuting erstwhile lawyers so much. The little fish.

Thus, it is time to provide a forum to assuage the grievances of all those lawyers in Oregon who you and the the Oregon State Bar leadership have let down. Only now there is much more at stake.

Very truly yours, 

/S/Lauren Paulson

(May 12, 2014)  —  ……And by the way, do you-all feel a little bit remorseful about what the Bar did to me in 2004-6 as I was earnestly serving the Bar?  Just asking.  If you do, a letter to Chief Justice Balmer wouldn’t hurt.  Just asking.  Thanks, L.P.

Posted on Tuesday, June 17, 2014 at 03:49PM by Registered CommenterLAUREN PAULSON | Comments2 Comments | References1 Reference



Here is how they do it:


This Is Notice of Class Action and a Demand to Immediately Unlock All Mobile Wireless Devices in the United States.  

To: Apple



U.S. Cellular 

Third Party Computer Vendors of Mobile Wireless Devices

From: Lauren Paulson on Behalf of The Class

Date: Tuesday, May 6, 2014

At all times material hereto, Apple, Sprint, T-Mobile, U.S. Cellular and other mobile wireless manufacturers, carriers and providers have conspired to engage in uncompetitive and illegal practices known as ‘locking’ a consumer’s mobile wireless device (here telephones).  ‘Locking’ forces consumers to needlessly purchase a new telephone when switching mobile wireless device carriers.   Consumers of mobile wireless devices do not know the device nor mobile wireless carrier services are ‘locked’ when securing or purchasing said devices or services.  

This practice and these ‘locking’ practices are an illegal collusive practice in restraint of trade in violation of  the Sherman Act of 1890, 

the Clayton Act of 1914, the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914,  The Consumer Code For Wireless Service  and the intentional violation of the Federal Communications Announcement dated December 11, 2013:   in which there was a voluntary commitment among mobile wireless service providers on standards for policies on unlocking mobile wireless devices. ‘Unlocking’ a device allows consumers to move their device from one network to another compatible network.

Further, the CTIA-TheWireless Association is intentionally in violation of their own adopted standards on mobile wireless device unlocking and their said commitment thereto dated February 11, 2014 among other violations and laws in illegal restraint of trade.  

The above identified companies are in intentional and open violation of the aforementioned laws, consents, commitments and agreements causing known and unknown injuries to consumers such as Lauren Paulson, who is acting on behalf of the class of consumers similarly situated all to their damage in the amount of $10,000 each, or such amounts as are proved at trial.  These consumers are also entitled to punitive damages in an amount of $500,000 or such amounts as are proved at trial for their failure to abide by the federal and state anti-trust laws because such violations are intentional notwithstanding said voluntary consents and commitments to cease said actions of ‘locking’ mobile wireless networks and devices.  These violations cause the ordinary consumer to lose their telephone service or incur costs of purchasing replacement telephones causing known and unknown damages to vulnerable consumers in need of EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE and are unable to obtain needed medical care due to these illegal ‘locking’ practices aforesaid.  

These parties have conspired with computer vendors known as Third Party Vendors such as Software Electronics of Portland, Oregon who would normally provide the ‘unlocking’ of consumer telephones but refuse to do so because of the illegal acts aforesaid.  

Apple has colluded with said mobile wireless device carriers to lock said telephones and refuses to unlock these devices in clear violations of the antitrust laws, agreements, consents and commitments aforesaid.  

Lauren,  (email from Apple dated May 5, 2014)

I completely understand the frustration.  Apple only sells contracted iPhones with subsidies or Unlocked/Full Price iPhones without subsidies.  If you paid anything other than the full price (starting in the neighborhood of $649 for newer iPhones) for the device that would mean you received a subsidized price from the company who's contracted cellular plan you signed with.  That would require a "sim-locked" phone for that particular carrier. 

The part that confuses me the most is that all resources I have utlizied (sic) state that the Sprint iPhone does not use the same radio bands as T-Mobile.  Essentially, the iPhone 4S you have was never physically intended to support T-Mobile's cellular technology, locked/unlocked aside.  Which is why I find it interesting that the phone was functioning for you prior to this issue.

I understand that information does not resolve your issue.  In short, I would continue partnering with John from T-Mobile and even look into the loaner option he offered to get you back up and running.

Long term, you will have to consider getting a phone that is either unlocked for use on a GSM network (the technology T-Mobile and AT&T use) and/or purchase a T-Mobile specific iPhone.  You can looking (sic) into trade-in/recycling options to recoup some value from your older Sprint iPhone 4S" 


Nick Deao

Business Specialist

Apple Store, Pioneer Place” 



Private civil suits may be brought, in both state and federal court, against violators of state and federal antitrust law. Federal antitrust laws, as well as most state laws, provide for triple damages against antitrust violators in order to encourage private lawsuit enforcement of antitrust law.



/S/ Lauren Paulson on behalf of the Class

Contact:  Lauren Paulson

827C Ransom Ave

Brookings, OR 97415

503 470 9709  (not functioning since April 18, 2014 due to said ‘locking’)


Posted on Tuesday, May 6, 2014 at 12:09PM by Registered CommenterLAUREN PAULSON | Comments8 Comments | References35 References




But Are You Listening to Me?


I don’t think so. Yesterday, my Senator Ron Wyden wrote to me in one of those e-mails that ends with a contribution request.  


Not long ago I attended Senator Wyden’s town hall meeting and asked him a specific question about the failure of our judiciary in Oregon and elsewhere.  I provided his staff with my study of the subject and asked for a response.  Thus far, I have not heard anything from the good Senator Wyden.  (By the way, I am very proud of our Oregon senators in most regards.)


Politicians count on citizens NOT following up.  So, today I am going to follow-up with Senator Wyden on my subject of Judicial Evaluations in conjunction with Oregon’s appellate judiciary being the worst in the nation.  I will let you know what happens.  


Here is the barrier to the process of being in touch with your politician locally or across the nation.  When they send you an e-mail blast, they can do one e-mail blast to us all through a list-serve.  But they have set up a barrier for us to ‘list-serve’ them back.  Each entity that does not really want to hear from you has a template where you have to individually type everything back including your name.


Thus, it is very easy for them to send you information, but it is very cumbersome to write them back.


I have noticed that every entity that really does not want to hear from you has this barrier to a simple e-mail from you to them.


Then the next question is whether they ‘get back’ to you.  


So, here is my experiment.  I am going to copy this article to Senator Wyden to see if I get an individualized response back.  


This is the other pattern I am seeing in the world of communication.  If I call someone or e-mail someone in the government or business world, I am amazed with which brazenness they ignore you.  Let’s say I have a ‘letter to the editor’ of my local newspaper.  Off it goes and no one ever gets back to me nor does the article get printed.  Let’s say I have identified pollution in my local area caused by corporate malfeasance.  So, I report it to the EPA.  No one ever gets back to you.  It is up to you to follow-up.  In my corporate days long ago, I would always return my telephone calls or a letter to me.

Recently, I gave my local city council my studied  article on how to utilize eminent domain to cope with the housing foreclosure mess.  No body ever got back to me.  What if it was the best idea since sliced bread? 


This is what I am now going to do here.  I am going to send this to Senator Wyden to ask him if he read my study of judicial malaise and to see if he gets back to me.  Then I will get back to you.  If I don’t let me know.  I don’t want to be like them.  


claurenpaulson2014  bulletinsfromaloha


Posted on Wednesday, April 23, 2014 at 11:53AM by Registered CommenterLAUREN PAULSON | Comments5 Comments