Tuesday, May 19, 2015



United States District Court-- 

for the District of Columbia   

333 Constitution Avenue, NW              

Washington, DC 20001


Re: Paulson v. Apple, et al

Case No. 1:15—cv—00556


Dear Chief Judge Roberts:

What if the judiciary didn’t like little people very much?  You have lifetime employment; they don’t.  You have wealth and power; they don’t.  What if the judiciary didn’t like little people very much?

Everybody likes Apple, Inc.  Jeb Bush has ‘The Watch’.  

One paltry, pro se person observed:


“The Anti-Government Movement Handbook is a training manual for judges and court staff against pro se litigants, published in 1999 by the National Center for the State Courts (NCSC) in Williamsburg, Virginia. This book, along with Dealing With Common Law Courts: A Model Curriculum for Judges and Court Staff, published in 1997 by NCSC, was developed from an Institute for Course Management (ICM) course on dealing with common law courts, held in Scottsdale, Arizona, February 5-7, 1997. “  


The National Center of State Courts has just received the remnants of the American Judicature Society.  The Bank of American sponsored the American Judicature Society.  

Here, I tried to do everything by the book, but you didn’t like it very much.  But, I don’t like what you have done very much.  Therefore, my appeal.  It is about the right to be heard.   

I will bet that James Crawford doesn’t like what you did to him very much either.  For example, you mistakenly sent me his April 10, 2015 ‘ORDER’ in Case No. 11:15-cv-00558.  I am returning that document to you for a ‘do over’ for him.  

I am requesting a ‘do over’ as well.  You have had my complaint since August, 2014, yet waited to April, 2015 to entertain that complaint.  Meanwhile, I continue to be without cellular phone service even though my bill is fully paid up.  That is what big corporations do to little people.  Enabled by you.  

It is interesting that you have decided for Apple, Inc.; without even bothering them; that my complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.  Did you carefully read my complaint?  (Please answer this question.) It is thirty nine (39) pages long.  What part of those thirty nine (39) pages fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted?


Please consider this as an official complaint of judicial misconduct and turn it over to your Judicial Council for further proceedings.  


Very truly yours,


Lauren Paulson

16131 W Hoffeldt Ln. #38

Brookings, OR 97415


cc:  Court of Appeals  —

Posted on Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 04:12PM by Registered CommenterLAUREN PAULSON | Comments6 Comments | References3 References


OF OREGON LAWYERS THAT IS.................


RE:  Crime and Punishment at the Oregon State Bar  






The Bar has an insatiable interest in punishing.  My record speaks for itself.  From 1973 to 2001 I was discipline free.  Almost thirty years!  Somehow, according to Jeff Sapiro, my ethics made a paradigm shift in 2001 because, subsequently, THE BAR filed eight (8) ethical complaints against me.


I am sure it had nothing to do with the 2001 complaint I filed against Mr. Sapiro for a year delay in investigating a client’s pique at my fee bill.  And nothing to do with my being an Oregon State Bar Board of Governors whistleblower on a new (white elephant) building they wanted to buy among other things.    




I am a Vietnam Era Veteran.  Many veterans are committing suicide for far less than what THE BAR has done to me;———-taken away my right to earn a living.  And my reputation.  





I Have Read the 2015 Oregon Disciplinary ‘REPORT’ by the American Bar Association and Am Fully Advised in These Premises


We all know the gauntlet one endures to be anointed to The Bar.  Those that so endure are to be treasured.  They didn’t do it for fun and most don’t even do it for the money.  They do it because they love the law.


A Page of History


Returning to Oregon in 1987, I had been a lawyer for fourteen (14) years, involved in complex commercial litigation across the entire United States with nary a disciplinary issue. Reading the Oregon advance sheets in 1987, I was aghast to read about a lawyer being disciplined.  The issue was whether or not his minor traffic violation involved ‘moral turpitude’ and concomitant ethical problems for him as a lawyer.  Really??




We need a whole new approach to lawyer discipline.  Rehabilitation rather than punishment.  Take the lawyer trust account overdraft problem.  Now our banks are our snitch.  Who among us has not been financially short from time to time?  


Instead of discipline a lawyer in financial trouble needs a friend not sanctions.  Let’s create a lawyer credit union or a line-of-credit for lawyers in such emergencies.  You may not have noticed that THE BAR has a large network of what they call “Leadership” bank affiliations who want a piece of The Bar’s IOLTA cache.


Lawyers seldom dare to intentionally infringe on their client’s money.  


Our problem is we treat all lawyers like children in all venues.  Judges talk down to you from on high.  The bigger the judge the more they do it.  There are three ways to talk to someone:  Adult to adult, Adult to child, and Child to child.  Judges and The Bar typically use the Adult to Children demeanor.  


The Bar’s whole approach to lawyer discipline is ‘Adult-to-child’.  If we put the same effort into a united approach to help the client rather than using all that energy to discipline lawyers we all would gain much in the long run.  That was the original aim of the CAO concept.  




‘Client’ Assistance Office (CAO)


The enlightened original concept was to have a “Consumer” Assistance Office.  Rather than trade letters back and forth a’ la’ the Jeff Sapiro approach; thoughtful lawyers were recommending triage.  If there was a problem, let’s put our heads together to see how to help the ‘consumer’ whether client, lawyer or member of the public.  The Bar spends almost three (3) million dollars per year on a bloated Disciplinary office AND a bloated CAO office to find ways to punish good hearted, and perhaps wayward lawyers.  The original idea was to reduce these costs of doing business and help the public in need of legal help when the Task Force of 2002 was putting their heads together.   Instead we have grown these offices, without the recommended improvements like mediation which has gone the way of the horse and buggy in Oregon.  It is called talking to each other.  


How can we justify what we did to Ellis and Rosenbaum?  That scenario is a perfect example of all that is wrong with lawyer discipline in Oregon.   It is time for a complete purging of what we are doing now and a reorientation to work together to rehabilitate those in need of it and to help them change for the good of our profession.  And for the good of the public.  


Punishment does not help anyone.  The harsh reality is that some people in our profession really don’t like lawyers.  Curious.  We have way too many hammers looking for real or imagined nails.  Let’s work together on this……..or at least talk!  And yes, I am ‘disgruntled’.   But you could have also mentioned that I was on the OSB Board of Governors, an Oregon State Bar House of Delegates member for years, a pro bono mediator for Washington County Circuit Court for ten years, President of the Washington County Bar Association and I was sometimes kind to my mother.   Finally, I am a U. S. Army veteran with the 82nd Airborne Division.  


Let us help lawyers and consumers with legal problems not cause them.  




Addendum:  At their 2013 Oregon State Bar meeting the following occurred:  

Consider a request by the Board of Governors (BoG) to help draft a rule that would require judges to take a certain number of CLe credits in judicial temperament. the Committee heard from Sylvia Stevens regarding the reasoning behind the request. the Committee inquired about what other states require, and learned that no other state had a similar requirement. the Committee voted to table the issue unless requested to address it by the Chief Justice. 

Posted on Monday, March 23, 2015 at 07:38PM by Registered CommenterLAUREN PAULSON | Comments7 Comments | References1 Reference




Thursday, February 19, 2015


To:  Helen Hierschbiel

General Counsel—Oregon State Bar


Dear Helen:


Thank you for yours of February 16, 2015.  


Richard Spier I know to be a person of integrity and honor.  For that reason, I contacted him on these issues:  


  1.   Oregon State Bar’s unconstitutional disciplinary system, and;
  2. A formal statewide system of judicial performance evaluations Oregon.  For the entire state’s judiciary.  


In addition, I have filed a class action lawsuit against the Oregon State Bar for redress for Oregon lawyers of the sort you have just granted Sally Leisure.  Remember, I was in the room when the Oregon State Bar Board of Governors schemed against her to indict her a second time after she won round one.  Schemed behind her back.  


Thomas Brown and the Cosgrave law firm have a conflict of interest because:


  1.   Brenda Tiland  —  Ms. Tiland has worked for the Cosgrave law firm as a paralegal during the pendency of these proceedings.  Ms. Tiland was my law firm Office Manager for ten years, i.e. from 1996 until the closure of my law office in 2006.  


B.  Hard Drive  —  When Ms. Tiland left, with my permission, she took the hard drive of my entire law practice computer, so she could download her own personal information.  Unfortunately, she has never returned that hard drive.  Accordingly, the Cosgrave law firm has access to that information even now.  


Those two matters create a non-waivable conflict of interest in the Cosgrave law firm which should be investigated and reported to the Court and to the OSB Disciplinary Counsel.  And, my law office hard drive should be returned to me intact, certified by her as such.


It is curious that you want me to only speak to the Bar’s lawyers when your current executive director feels free to talk about me in the BOG meeting agenda reports behind my back even now.  Indeed, Bill Carter, then OSB President had an exparte meeting with then Chief Justice Wallace Carson while my disciplinary proceeding was pending before the Oregon Supreme Court. Moreover, Karen Garst’s deposition revealed a rich and fecund ‘back channel’ communications system about me while I innocently served on the Oregon State Bar’s Board of Governors after I became a whistleblower.  


You can’t have it both ways. Please review and advise. 


Lauren Paulson

16131 W Hoffeldt Ln. #38

Brookings, Oregon 97415

541 412 1390



Posted on Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 12:21PM by Registered CommenterLAUREN PAULSON | Comments11 Comments | References2 References





by Lauren Paulson


It may come as a surprise to some of you that Oregon judges lie.  Recall the mantra which says that one must tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  Oregon judges are not telling you, the public, the whole truth.  


Executive Summary  —  Oregon judges want the Oregon legislature, the Oregonian and the Oregon Public to give Oregon’s judiciary a pay raise.  But, they want you to examine case load numbers without examining the quality of their ‘performance’.  Even while the case load numbers also refute their cry for more money.  For ten years the legal profession has resisted accountability by resisting the adoption of an objective method to rate judicial performance. Oregon’s judiciary, and the current Chief Justice of the Oregon Supreme Court, Thomas Balmer, have specifically rejected accountability through the adoption of those evaluation methods.  


While giving you a ‘three-card monte’ approach to accountability, these forces; Oregon’s judiciary and Oregon’s legislature are openly and candidly violating existing Oregon law. Oregon’s law has required an ‘independent’ commission to set judges salaries since 1983 :


“The Legislature created the Public Officials Compensation Commission in 1983, and gave it the job of recommending salaries for (judges)”.  ORS 292.907 et seq.  



These public employees, Oregon judges and the Oregon legislature have used the Public Officials Compensation Commission  (POCC) once, in 2008, to set judge’s compensation.  Once.  


The Commission law, ORS 292.907 to 292.930, requires that the Commission meet on or before September 1 of each even-numbered year to review and establish the salary recommendations.  (See, 2008 Report at Page 2)



Detail  —  Ask whether those who are authorized to wear those black robes in Oregon are telling you the whole truth.  Oregon judges have been lobbying for a pay raise continually for more than a decade.  In fact, one could call judicial pay raises an eternal quest in Oregon. Just now, Oregonian reporter Aimee Green reports on this prospect yet again in the Oregonian on January 6, 2015.  Oregon judges got a $5,000 raise last year and have another one coming up this year. But, do they deserve a raise?  And why are they circumventing the POCC who is packed with the ex-law partner of former Chief Justice of the Oregon Supreme Court, Paul De Muniz.  That former partner is John Hemann.  It is the POCC that is supposed to set judges pay in Oregon.  Why is Oregon’s Supreme Court circumventing the law?  


One could expect the Oregonian to give you, the public, the information and the tools necessary to answer these questions.  Unfortunately, the press-release pablum they release to you is ill-equipped to answer the real questions on judicial pay.


So, let us go back and look at whether or not Oregon judges are accountable to you, the public, who pay their salaries.  


Information Available to Determine if Oregon Judges Deserve a Raise:


  1.   2004   In 2004 The Oregon State Bar Board of Governors (BOG) voted to implement a statewide judicial performance evaluation program. The Oregon State Bar BOG had a (now moribund) Judiciary Committee in 2004 which compiled a detailed study of other state court judicial evaluation systems in a memo first dated May 7, 2004 which observed "Oregon has no established judicial evaluation procedure. Many other states do." The pros were listed as "help judges improve; help the public evaluate judges at election time". The cons listed "...alienating judges further, complexity of the task; cost". 


The Oregonian has inside access to this information since their editor, Therese Bottomly is: 

Director of state content @Oregonian. Oregon State Bar Committee member: Open Oregon, Bar-Press-Broadcasters Council, Oregon Newspaper Publishers Association.


  2. 2005   The American Bar Association Black Letter Guidelines for Judicial Performance Evaluations is published.  Adoption would give the public an objective, systematic method to evaluate whether Oregon judges are being unfair and capricious or fair and thoughtful.  Oregon Supreme Court Chief Justices warned the Oregon State Bar not to do this and it was scotched.  Why, one could ask, is the Oregon Bar not adopting a program recommended by the ABA?


3.     2005  Oregon Court of Appeals:     The Oregon Court of                      Appeals ‘design team’ began to develop “appellate success factors” along with ‘core’ performance measures.


4.    2006  Denver Law School’s Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System publishes their program for a statewide system of judicial performance evaluations.  They send Jordan M. Singer to Oregon to meet with Oregon State Bar Board of Governors and U.S. District Court Chief Judge Ann Aiken on implementing this program in Oregon.  Without result.  


5.   2006   The ‘coup disgrace’ came in the Bar's Board of Governor's meeting on November 18, 2006.  Mr. Hill, the public member, identified "...a list of issues that should be pursued in the future.  ...  The committee continues to believe that judicial evaluations are a good idea, but recognizes that this is not the time to pursue them."  (Open Session BOG Minutes dated 11/18/06)   Thus, this noble effort at holding Oregon judges (and justices) accountable died. 

 6. .  2007   Oregon Supreme Court:   Tracking the activity of regular Oregon judges and Oregon appellate court activity is easily done by going to Oregon’s Blue Book.  Oregon Supreme Court Chief Justice De Muniz asked the Oregon legislature for an additional thirteen (13) judges and upgraded courthouses in 2007.  The problem is that only 611,946 cases were filed in Oregon courts in 2005, down from the 653,367 filed in 2000 and down from a yearly average of 638,200 over the last six years.  


7.    2007  Oregon Court of Appeals:    Oregon Court of Appeals Chief Judge David Brewer announces a “…unique project…” to set performance standards and to conduct an annual survey once a year for the next several years.  The survey items are primarily derived from performance standards published by the National Center for State Courts  (NCSC) in 1995 and 1999.  Again, Oregon’s appellate court activity is easily tracked in Oregon’s Blue Book.  


8.    2008   Oregon's Supreme Court is rated at the virtual bottom of all fifty states in the United States in both productivity and competence according to an independent University of Chicago Law School 2008 study cited below and a further link is found here: this study is now published in final form in 58 Duke Law Journal 1313 (2009)


Also, in 2008, Oregon’s Public Officials Compensation Commission  (POCC) which is supposed to set the salaries of Oregon’s judges on a biannual basis; issues its only report in a decade.  Without attribution, Chief Justice of the Oregon Supreme Court Paul De Muniz votes his law partner, John Hemann, onto the POCC.  Conflict of interest you say??????


9.    2009  Former OSB/BOG member, Lauren Paulson makes a formal report to the Oregon State Bar recommending that Oregon adopt a formal statewide judicial performance evaluation objectively under either the ABA approach or the Denver Law School’s Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System template which was furnished to the Bar’s Board of Governors at this meeting.

10.   2010    The National Center for State Courts issues their ‘Final Report’ entitled “Oregon Court of Appeals Judicial and Staff Weighted Caseload Study”  No reference is made to the above University of Chicago Law School objectively rating productivity and quality of performance in Oregon published before this NCSC workload study began.  


11..   2012   The Center for Public Integrity assembled a nationwide report card that rates judicial accountability in Oregon as a “D”.  Oregon’s rejection of the ten-year quest to develop objective performance measures even though they are used in most states, is one of the reasons for the ‘D’ grade according to the Integrity Investigation. 

Also in 2012


The lawyer who actually runs the legal profession in Oregon is Ed Harnden.  He is appointed to the POCC by Governor Kitzhaber in 2012.  The POCC is supposed to issue an independent report setting judicial salaries in 2010, 2012, and 2014, but do not.  


Oregon’s legislature votes a raise for Oregon judges in 2012, circumventing the POCC.  Oregon’s legislature votes to add an additional panel of three appellate judges to Oregon’s Court of appeals even though their caseload has steadily trended down for the last ten years.  Thus, it is not workload on this ‘busy’ court that requires an additional three judges notwithstanding what they would have one believe.   This can be confirmed in Justice Balmer’s current budget albeit it is hidden there.  


12.  2013    Notwithstanding that it is Oregon’s Public Officials Compensation Commission that is supposed to be setting Oregon judge’s salaries, the Oregon State Bar Public Affairs department along with Oregon Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Balmer assembles the Citizens’ Campaign for Court Funding along with taxpayer-supported Oregon Circuit Court Judges Association.  Both are asked to lobby for increased compensation for Oregon judges. They sponsor a “Day in the Capitol” to educate those in power on the Bar’s displeasure and concern with the current court funding situation.  


Chief Balmer, along with the Citizen Campaign and the Oregon State Bar host almost 50 business leaders, legislators and members of the Bar for a breakfast  “….to discuss the funding needs…” on this judicial pay raise quest.


Meanwhile, the Multnomah Bar Association (MBA) which is partially funded by Bank of America’s Merril Lynch for lunches with the judiciary; hires Robeson Communications  to spearhead the MBA Court Funding Committee’s public relations efforts.  


“………a report….”


13.  2015    Oregonian’s reporter Aimee Green tells us about “……a report….” from Oregon’s Judicial Department for the period 2011 to 2014 with Chief Justice Thomas Balmer’s smiling approval on the introduction page.  But, this does not tell us the ‘…rest of the story….’ for those who know about radio personality Paul Harvey’s reporting.  


14.  1971  Things changed in America in 1971.  Justice Balmer’s five goals articulated on the cover of this “report” are taken from the “Anti-Government Guidebook” . (See “Part V Trial Court Performance Standards. Dated 1999”)  The “Trial Court Performance Standards” in the Anti-Government Movement Guidebook are identical to the ‘Oregon Judicial Branch Mission’ in Justice Balmer’s 2014 ‘report’. Both were ultimately prepared by the SJI and the National Center for State Courts which emanated from Lewis Powell’s Memo from 1971:  








The Oregon link to this crucial year is manifest in the undistinguished ‘Wally’ Carson, the Chief Justice of the Oregon Supreme Court from 1991 to 2005.  In 2006 he was awarded the Lewis F. Powell award by the Inns of Court organization.  So, what?


Lewis F. Powell was twice selected by Richard Nixon to be on the U.S. Supreme Court.  Twice, as he turned it down the first time because he was making too much money as a corporate lawyer.  

Lewis F. Powell is remembered for something else.  In 1971 Lewis F. Powell wrote the infamous ‘Powell Memo’ to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  The Powell Memo was a confidential memorandum that described a strategy for the corporate takeover of the dominant public institutions of American society.  


Not coincidentally, a now-important legal organization was formed in 1971 as well.  Former President Nixon’s Chief Judge of the U.S. Supreme Court, Warren Burger, formed the National Center for State Courts [NCSC]. Their self-described mission is to improve judicial administration in American courts.  Soon, the National Center for State Courts became the sanctioning body for everything from how the poor are treated in court to how much the next judge’s raise shall be.  As we now see.




The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) was formed in 1973 by a  group of conservative state lawmakers who shared a common belief in limited government, free markets, federalism, and individual liberty.   Thus, the 1% cornered the judiciary and congress.


A marriage managed in heaven:  {NCSC and ALEC  --  They control both ends of the bet; legislation and the courts.}


In quick succession the 1% formed the following groups to ensure that the legislative and judicial branches of government served their particular segment of society:


National Center for State Courts  --  Formed in 1971 by Richard Nixon and Chief Justice Warren Burger.  Its mission is to improve judicial administration in the courts of the U.S.  

In November 2011, Oregon Chief Justice De Muniz was inducted into the National Center for State Courts' Warren E. Burger Society.


   The Federalist Society  --  Formed in 1982, its mission is to reform the current legal order.  U.S. Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Thomas attended the November 9, 2011 Federalist Society Fundraising dinner.  There is an active branch at every law school near you.  


       American Inns of Court  --  Formed in 1983 by Chief Justice Warren Burger.  Its mission is to foster excellence in professionalism, ethics, civility and legal skills.  They give out three awards named after Republicans:  The Lewis F. Powell, Jr. Award for Professionalism, the Sandra Day O’Connor Award for Professional Service and the Warren E. Burger Prize.  There are no awards at the Inns of Court named after Democrats.  This is where ‘Wally” got his 2006 award. 


       State Justice Institute  --  Formed in 1984, its mission is to ensure access to a fair and effective justice system.  It serves to finance the activities of the National Center for State Courts.  The State Justice Institute has a Koch Brother’s employee on the governing board.  


The State Justice Institute came out with a ‘movement guidebook’ for Judges on how to handle and silence the unsuspecting and unrepresented public in 1999. It is called the Anti-Government Guidebook.   It instructs judges on how to do away with due process.   From this document comes the Oregon Judicial Department’s Mission for the current period: 2011 to 2014  and may be found in “…a report…” cited by Oregonian reporter Aimee Green in the link above.   




New lawsuit filings and new appeals filed, BOTH have been on the decline for the last decade.    


Oregon needs neither more bricks and mortar nor more judges.  If you doubt this assessment, just go by any County courthouse on a Friday afternoon and see how many trials are in process.  



Field Trips, Mortar and Brickbats


(For a real treat go visit the Mark Hatfield Federal Courthouse on 3rd in Portland.  Then check out the magnificent balcony facing east on the top floor for one person: the chief judge.  Then ask for directions to the ‘public’ balcony many floors below and without the spectacular view.  For those interested in the arcane, check out the mysterious sculptures on the public balcony.  Somebody is laughing at somebody. )


Oregon law-makers are not following the law when it comes to setting judicial compensation.  (See, ORS 292.907 et seq.)  Oregon does not hold its judiciary accountable and is not honest with the public as to how and why they they refuse to require objective performance measures for their judges.  


Oregon’s judiciary is among the worst in the United States and have avoided accountability for over twenty years.  All the information provided by the media on the judiciary must be taken from their press releases because there is no independent reporting on Oregon judicial leadership fiascos such as the eCourt project.  Oregon’s judiciary in this report and in the overall characterization of the eCourt project is out-and-out untruthful.  The Oregonian knows about this dismal Oregon Court failure because the Oregon legislature put the Oregon Supreme Court on probation over the dreadful management of the eCourt project fiasco as described in the link above.  (Think ‘Cover Oregon’)  


Max Williams, as he ended his tenure in the Oregon legislature volunteered to give a report, in person, to the Oregon State Bar Board of Governors while Paulson was a member.  The message Mr. Williams gave the OSB was simple.  Former Chief Justice “Wally” Carson of the Oregon Supreme Court had a disconnect with Oregon’s legislature.  He wanted to let us know so we could try to work together.  


Now there is a disconnect of another sort which amounts to fraud by our leadership on the public.  Sad.  


Here is what is really going on.  Oregon’s downtown lawyers (Ed Harnden) and Oregon’s judiciary have joined hands to ensure that Oregon’s legal system remains an operating table from the Dark Ages.  All for judicial full employment and downtown lawyer’s full paychecks.


Alternate Dispute Resolution is one of the best things that could have come along for the public benefit, to amicably resolve disputes.  The foreclosure tsunami could have been Oregon’s legal profession finest hour through an expanded use of mediation instead of another con job.  Instead, the system in Oregon is playing directly into the hands of Bank of America and their sycophants.  At the expense of thousands of homeowners.  This is the tip of the iceberg.  Fraud is rampant while Oregon’s Attorney General enables it all.  And the Oregonian nonreports.  And Oregon’s legal leadership equivocates on it all.  Missing in action except for themselves. 


Lauren Paulson

16131 W Hoffeldt Ln #38

Brookings, OR 97415

Posted on Friday, February 13, 2015 at 10:28AM by Registered CommenterLAUREN PAULSON | CommentsPost a Comment | References3 References


To: Justice Elena Kagan

United States Supreme Court

1 First Street Northeast, 

Washington, DC 20543


Re:  Judicial Corruption 

by Lauren Paulson

  Thursday, January 8, 2015

Dear Justice Kagan:  


Not so fast.  Is it relevant to ask again what Paul Krugman just asked in his November 9, 2014 article in The New York Times?  Is there reason to worry about corruption at the U.S. Supreme Court?


It was an impressive appearance at the Princeton University, broadcast on C-SPAN on November 20, 2014! U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan was interviewed by Christopher L. Eisgruber, the President of Princeton University.  Justice Kagan dismissed Economist Krugman’s written concern about U.S. Supreme Court corruption with the cursory assessment:  ‘ridiculous…, honestly’.  




Not so fast.  We did not ‘get over the Dred Scott decision . Nor should we ‘get over’ the Bush v. Gore  decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 for the reasons outlined below in my report “Legal Rot”.  As for legal corruption among the judiciary; it is rampant.  Across the divide.  Link to for an extensive recent report on the problem.

The U.S. Supreme Court is the titular head of this problem and cannot afford to be dismissive.  It would be wise to pay attention to Mr. Krugman’s alert.  ‘If someone is trying to put you onto something, you need to listen’.



QUESTION FOR THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND LEGAL COMMUNITY:  What if the legal profession/legal community is as ethically and morally bankrupt as our financial community?  Locally and nationally?


Executive Summary


The Objective of this report is to ask the Legal Community if the same corruption that visited the Financial Community beginning in the 1970’s has also infected The Legal Profession from top to bottom.  What if such ‘legal rot’ results in the absolute loss of Due Process and The Rule of Law to plain citizens?


There is a disconnect between what is being taught in Law Schools and what is really happening in the Courtrooms of America.  I know.  I have directly been involved in major litigation from Coast-to-Coast, across the entire United States for over forty (40) years.  

In short, Law Schools teach through the Case Law Method.  The Case Law Method, also known as The Common Law; requires lonely law students to read thousands and thousands of pages of case law.  The goal of this law school teaching method is to drill into a student’s head how case law works and how it is supposed to set The Rule of Law.  It is a sham.  Judges do not necessarily follow case law.  Many judges follow Natural Law.  

The reality is that judges often do what they want without regard to case law or precedent --  contrary to what law students are taught.  For example, one author has noted that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas does “...not believe in stare decisis, the law of precedent.”  Jeffrey Tobin, The Nine, Doubleday, 2007, Page 102




The Solution is simple.  But, first the Legal Profession has to recognize that judges at all levels and throughout the United States brazenly ignore The Rule of Law and Due Process.  A Formal, National System of Judicial Performance Evaluations (JPE) will shine a spotlight on the Rot of the Judiciary and provide a blueprint for a comprehensive solution found below.

It is absolutely essential to understand the difference between the Common Law and Natural  Law to see what is going on.

Definitions Required for Further Reading: 

The Law

COMMON LAW  --  Law developed by judicial decisions.  This is the Anglo-American legal tradition which adheres to the principle of stare decisis (“let the decision stand”).  This doctrine holds that judges must look to past judicial decisions or Man-made legislated laws to answer the case before them presenting identical or similar questions.  Kermit L. Hall, ed., The Oxford Guide to the Supreme Court, Page 197 (2005)


NATURAL LAW  --  This is the philosophical doctrine holding that there is a certain order in nature that provides norms for human conduct.  It proposes that people can grasp certain principles through practical reason divined by nature and God.   If a judge makes decisions based on instincts and subjective reasoning then the philosopher George Santayana would call that Man’s imitation of divinity.  Will Durant, The Story of Philosophy, (1926-1961) Page 493



Judges Should Be Following the Common Law  --  They aren’t.  Instead judges are following Natural Law otherwise called ‘Legal Realism’ by some.  

Aquinas conceived of what is now known as the laws of nature.  The Laws of Nature so conceived are different from Man-made laws such as statutes and case law.  Judges are required to follow Man-made laws which are known as The Rules of Law.  We are supposed to be a country subject to The Rules of Law.  Laws of Nature are different.  When judges follow the Laws of Nature they are being “free agents”.  They are not applying nor following the Laws of Man.  Therefore, they are not following Common Law.  They are not following the Law of Precedents otherwise known as stare decisisSTARE DECISIS Lat. "to stand by that which is decided." The principal is that the precedent (previous) decisions are to be followed by the courts.  It is only through this predictability can lawyers knowledgeably advise their clients.  Stare Decisis is missing in action in our present legal system.  We are not a country subject to The Rule of Law when judges follow the laws of nature or do whatever they want when they want.  Lawyers cannot  knowledgeably advise clients if judges do not follow established case law.   See below.  

Laws of Nature should be left to those who discovered them in the first place:  scientists.  Laws of Nature should be left to those who discovered them in the first place:  philosophers.  Laws of human conduct i.e., Man-made laws or statutory laws are made by legislatures. Laws of Nature are discovered by scientists and philosophers.  Man-made Laws are supposed to be discovered and applied by judges based on decisions in previous cases.  Once so discovered and applied, these laws are supposed to be followed by subsequent judicial rulings as precedent.  The public cannot possibly know how to conduct themselves in the field of human affairs unless they can rely on judge-made law or Common Law from previous judicial decisions.  This analysis describes legal realism.   

As stated above, “Aquinas conceives the Laws of Nature which the scientist discovers as laws implanted in the very nature of things at their creation by God.”  Mortimer Adler, Great Ideas, The Lexicon of Western Thought, Macmillan Publishing Company, Page 417(1952, 1992)

The problem is that the judiciary has decided that it is free to follow the Laws of Nature; that is, the laws divined by God, rather than the Common Law.  In a word, judges have decided they are Gods and may follow their own instincts and do not have to follow Man-made law.  This chaotic process started in your lifetime.  


From the Biggest Court to the Trial Courts


  1.   THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT  --  Equal Protection Clause  --  Bush v. Gore


The Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, ruled that the Florida Supreme Court's decision, calling for a statewide recount, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This ruling was by a 7-2 vote, but (as discussed more fully in the next subsection below) two of the seven disagreed with the Court's remedy for the Equal Protection violation. The Court held that the Equal Protection Clause guarantees to individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by "later arbitrary and disparate treatment". Even if the recount was fair in theory, it was unfair in practice. The record, as weighed by the Florida Supreme Court, suggested that different standards were seemingly applied to the recount from ballot to ballot, precinct to precinct, and county to county, even when identical types of ballots and machines were used.  Justice O’Connor who now says the Court should never have taken the case,  but stated at the earlier announcement that Gore had won Florida: “this is terrible”.  Then she ruled for Bush; her bias already revealed.  Recusal would have been in order. If there was no corruption in the U.S. Supreme Court.     

According to the Court, the statewide standard (that a "legal vote" is "one in which there is a 'clear indication of the intent of the voter'") could not guarantee that each county would count the votes in a constitutionally permissible fashion. 


 The Court stated that the per curiam opinion's applicability was "limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.”  So much for the U.S. Supreme Court being the precedent setting court………..!


Analysis  --  Consider for a moment if Chief Justice Taney had suggested such a thing in the corrupt Dred Scott decision of 1857.  The worst U.S. Supreme Court decision prior to Bush v. Gore.  


Consistent with the Common Law/Natural Law analysis above, the 

U.S. Supreme Court simply wanted to make a ruling from the gut instead of from the U. S. Constitution just as Justice Taney did a century and half before.  Who are we kidding?


The reoccurrence of the U.S. Immigration problem since the 1986 fix is nothing more than a failure to enforce the 1986 law or the failure to follow The Rule of Law on a grand scale and is another form of corruption.  “For 20 years our country has done basically nothing to enforce the 1986 legislation against either the employers who hired illegal immigrants or those who crossed our borders illegally to work for them.”  Janet Napolitano, The Myth of Amnesty, The Washington Post (6/10/07)


In short, the law makers became the law breakers because nobody was following nor applying The Rule of Law.  Nationally.  



2.  THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS  --  Has the Highest Reversal Rate of any Circuit (Roy E. Hofer, Supreme Court Reversal Rates, ABA Journal 2010).  It has a reversal rate of 81%.


A Court reversed 81% of the time....!?  Consider the attorney, being asked by an erstwhile client, about the chances on appeal to the Ninth Circuit from the U.S. District Court of Oregon.  Or any of the U.S. District Courts in the Western States?  


It is so bad in the Ninth Circuit that there is a “....9th Circuit Watch.”  In fact, there are many.  Many.  


The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is regarded as a Rogue Court.  Recently, Northwestern School of Law  of Lewis and Clark College honored Ninth Circuit Court Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain.  Judge O’Scannlain has written about this problem where he “.....ponders ten years of reversals.”  Harvard Law & Policy Review (September 27, 2010)  14 Lewis & Clark Law Review 1558 (2010)   Senior U.S. District Court Judge Robert Jones once remarked at a legal seminar that in the Ninth Circuit reversals depend entirely on what panel one gets in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Ponder that one for a moment.


Analysis  --  Why all these reversalsBecause the Ninth Circuit does not follow the law.  Their former chief, Alex Kozinski is an avowed adherent to Natural Law.  For over thirty years, the Ninth Circuit has been using the wrong standard for Civil Rights cases. Nobody cares.  Even the ACLU doesn’t care. Consider the case of Greg Lang.  Intel fired him because he was black, gay and had AIDS.  Greg Lang v. Intel Corporation, 112 F3d 516 (9th Cir. 1997)


Confirming the U.S. District Court’s toss of the case out of Court, the Ninth Circuit Judges said:

  “We agree that, literally read, the language of 

district court misstates plaintiff’s burden at sum-

mary judgment.”  Lang at 516


Never mind, Greg loses anyway.  In essence, the Ninth Circuit is honoring the trial court’s ignorance of The Rule of Law by dishonoring it themselves.  How can an attorney advise the client if the Courts openly, brazenly and illegally ignore precedent and the standard of law to be applied?  


  1.   U.S. DISTRICT COURT  --  Granted, hard (difficult) cases make bad law.  Foreclosure cases are a perfect example.  The ‘foreclosure tsunami‘ that is sweeping across the nation, worse than an ebola plague; is meeting the front lines of federal courts across the nation.  There is even a website that is keeping up with all this called stop foreclosure fraud.  You can locate all the 404 foreclosure cases filed in the U.S. District Court of Oregon here.

Foreclosure cases are complex and meet four corners of The Rule of Law.  It could have been the judiciary’s finest hour.  An actual examination reveals the opposite  --  local judges are an embarrassment; from top to bottom.  They do not know what they are doing when it comes to foreclosure cases.   


Foreclosure cases mix four of the following complex areas of the law:


  •        Real Estate law governed by case (judge made) law; the common law which is based in deep history.
  •        Commercial law governed by the Uniform Commercial Code (statutory law) pertaining to commercial contracts.
  •        Commercial law governed by the law of Security Interests (statutory law) pertaining to liens and such.
  •        Real Estate law governed by statutory (legislative) enactments.  The entire legislative new approach (from the 1950’s) to real estate law, begins with nonjudicial foreclosure laws (and the concept of ‘trust deeds’ which are not deeds at all!).  All so the banks could get your stuff and your place without the delay and expense of judicial supervision.  We all now see how well that worked.  


Analysis  --  Initially, the judiciary, bastion of intellectual might, was as lost in the weeds as the banks.  Some are still there.  There are some bright spots, but they are ephemeral.  


Let us take the local foreclosure case of Natache Rinegard-Guirma. No different than the rest of us, she wound up behind the economic meltdown eight-ball.  Happily, Judge Michael Garr King of the U.S. District Court of Oregon schooled himself on the applicable law, differentiated these four corners of the complexities of foreclosure law and reached a right result in 2010.  Unfortunately, his magistrate judge (the junior-partner judge) does not have a clue.  Thus, the magistrate’s erroneous rulings in her case that have no foundation in the Common Law whatsoever, leaves Natache spinning in the wind five years later.  Then she will have to run another gauntlet in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals depending on whether The Rule of Law intervenes again or remains absent at the trial court level.  Meanwhile, she is ALSO in full litigation mode in State Court.  See how that gauntlet works in local urban court.  Never mind that our entire legal structure is set up so you don’t have to litigate in two court systems at the same time.  ALL JUDGES are so inept that this basic rule is swept under the rug so downtown law firms can benefit from the full litigation deal.  Think about that.  Corruption?


  1.   STATE SUPREME COURT --  It is a well-kept secret that the Oregon Supreme Court is regarded as the absolute worst appellate court in the entire United States, save two.  This report came in 2008 after an exhaustive, sophisticated study by the Chicago Law School.  The criteria was simple.  Did any other states follow Oregon appellate decisions?  How productive was the Court:  How many written decisions did the Court produce?  Oregon ranked 48th and 49th in those comparisons.  


Analysis  --  Oregon law requires the Oregon Supreme Court to produce a written report to the Oregon Legislature annually following the yearly Judicial Conference.  They don’t.  Oregon law requires the Oregon Supreme Court to select the judges for Oregon’s attorney disciplinary process.  They don’t.  The Oregon legislature put the Oregon Supreme Court on probation in 2012 due to the eCourt fiasco which continues.  Corruption on a grand scale ($200 million taxpayer dollars lost and barely noticed).


It is no accident that former Chief Justice of the Oregon Supreme Court Paul De Muniz retired after only one term.  The replacement is a political appointee.  Think disgraced child molester Neil Goldschmidt and his progeny.  Where oh where is Tom McCall when we need him??


Upon appeal, Oregon law requires the appellate lawyer to notify the County trial court administrator to get the entire trial court record and notify the Oregon Supreme Court accordingly.  Then according to law which requires de novo review, (review of the entire trial court record including the recorded proceedings) the Oregon Supreme Court is then supposed to request the file from the Trial Court Administer.  The Oregon Supreme Court is then supposed to review the entire record before rendering a decision.


They don’t.  The Oregon Supreme Court renders formal decisions without reviewing the trial court record de novo as required by law.  No wonder other state appellate courts pay no attention to Oregon cases.  The U.S. Supreme Court puts its formal stamp of approval on this corruption cacophony.  Because the U.S. Supreme Court reviews less than 1% of the cases appealed there; it puts its imprimatur on virtually all the corrupt cases flowing to it from State Courts.  Ponder 8,000 cases going without review.  


  1.  STATE TRIAL COURTS  --  It will come as no surprise that the state trial courts take their cue accordingly.  Staying on the theme of foreclosure;  --Annette Steele is an impressive and formidable lady from the far end of town.  She was undergoing the lamentable foreclosure meat grinder subjected on thousands of households locally; millions across the nation.  Occupy Portland was watching.  


Analysis  --  Happily there is a record of what happened to her, in trial court, in Judge Alicia Fuch’s courtroom.  Annette Steele and her family were prepared.  She brought her two daughters along to help her present her case.  Pity the poor anonymous bank/servicer lawyer  --   her adversary across the aisle; without his client there.    


At the crucial point of this foreclosure eviction, Ms. Steele’s mustered-forces asked.............asked the crucial, absolutely crucial question.  Where, your honor, are the BLUE ink originals of my loan documents??????”


You could see the color drain out of the the judge’s visage.  Pale.  Wide eyes.  Stammering.  The good judge clearly did not know what to do.  So, she did what any good judge would do.  She called a halt to the proceedings, stepped off the bench and in secret called Presiding Judge Nan Waller for what to do.  The minutes went by.  Everybody fidgeted.  Ms. Steel had brought an entourage of her supporters into the proceedings, so there are witnesses to this pathetic proceeding.  (Click on ‘Video’ link at this website.)


Finally, the good Judge Alicia Fuchs stepped back on the bench, announced that the bank did NOT have to produce original documents, announced that Annette Steele had lost, was going to be evicted, case closed.


Here is the problem.  It is significant.  Oregon’s constitution says many good things.  One of the things it says, is that there may not be secret court proceedings.  In other words, EVERYTHING MUST BE DONE in Open Court: 


    Section 10. Administration of justice. No court shall be secret, but justice shall be administered, openly and without purchase, completely and without delay, and every man shall have remedy by due course of law for injury done him in his person, property, or reputation.”—Constitution of Oregon Article I, Section 10 (2012)


Now, we are talking about an Oregon judge not even following the Oregon State Constitution, in addition to not following The Rule of Law requiring original blue ink documents in foreclosure cases.  Judge Fuchs is barred by the Oregon Constitution from having a ‘secret‘ conversation with another judge during the pendency of Ms Steele’s trial.  This illegal event is corruption, but no one does anything about it.


If I haven’t convinced you yet, let me yield to you two small further examples.  Take Judge Ed Jones in the same state court as Judge Fuchs, telling litigants that he couldn’t deal with a particular foreclosure case, because he didn’t know much about foreclosure law and he punted.  Want to know how pathetic?  I have the video of this lamentable event, free for the asking.


Finally, I wrap up my case in eviction court. Where people’s lives are changed every day by the foreclosure catastrophe and we don’t even send them to a real judge.  Neither do we help them with legal assistance (notwithstanding all the false self-accolades called ‘pro bono’ help.  The website is funded by Bank of America.  It is a fiction. Legal Aid for poor folks is a fiction in Oregon.)  While Oregon law leadership yawns and watches.  Mute.  And holds another award ceremony.  For a fine politically connected lawyer ‘leader’





Any way you look at it; you don’t want to be there.  Eviction Court.  First floor of the Multnomah County Courthouse.  It is a desultory place.  The welcome mat is not there for you.

To get in you have to get naked.  Well almost.  There is a gauntlet of ten (10) uniformed Sheriff/search/security people there to ensure you don’t bring in a bazooka.  I counted them.  Ten.  Uniformed.  Most have their ample arms crossed, gabbing.  

Here are the things I had to take off to be sure I did no harm.  Shoes, wrist watch, belt, computer, keys, telephone, coins...and so on. 

But, get in there I did only to have my heart torn out.

As I walked into room 120, there was something already  going on.  A well-quaffed middle-age woman at one counsel table, an older, skinny woman with unkempt hair at the other.  It seems that my hero had not gotten her mail.  (When one is evicted, getting mail is an uncertain thing).  Thus, the landlord threw her personal property away, but the tenant had not gotten notice-------because she had not gotten her mail.  The Referee  --  they are not real judges, said, “So sad, too bad”.  Yeah, but...........stuttered the aged, skinny one, she did not know the consequences and was out of touch trying to get housing somewhere.  All her belongings gone.  

When the reality sank in, the skinny one began to cry.  No one cared.  Case closed.  Having just got there, I was adjusting to my surroundings and lost touch with the aged one as other cases got called. 


The winners and losers (1% v. 99%) are very obvious.  The diverse  tenants are on tenterhooks; pins and needles even.  The landlords or their representatives have seen it all before and are smug, joking with each other.  The Referee and his staff are joking around and smiling too.


A knot of three or four have ties on.  They mill in and out, full of themselves.  You know the types.  They are all whispering at the Judge’s bench, smiling, looking out at the audience from time-to-time.  There is a woman with five to ten files in her crooked arm sitting front and center.  She, it turns out, is the legal assistant for the three or four lawyers in the room.  All smiling.  All looking confident.  Chatting amiably.



I had all but forgotten about the aged one by now as I went out into the hallway.  I hadn’t seen her from the front, but immediately recognized her from the hair askew as she walked by.  On impulse, I asked her if she knew about Legal Aid Services of Oregon located on 921 Washington St., nearby.  She looked at me with beseeching eyes and asked  “............isn’t it too late??  Now, I got a good look at her.  


She was literally crushed.  She was Sad beyond description.  Devastated. Lost.  I stammered that maybe something could be done, like an appeal.  She fell almost onto my shoulder, streaming grateful tears.  Her countenance and aged face are from The Grapes of Wrath. Beautiful in some sort of way.  But, so torn apart.  So very sad.  Crushed.  Her lined face contorted; eyes drowned by tears.

Eviction Court in Portland, Oregon.  Any weekday.




The Solution is simple.  But, first the Legal Profession has to recognize that judges at all levels and throughout the United States brazenly ignore The Rule of Law and Due Process.  A Formal, National System of Judicial Performance Evaluations (JPE) will shine a spotlight on the Rot of the Judiciary and provide a blueprint for a comprehensive solution found below.

By-the-by, the Ninth Circuit got a new Chief Judge in late 2014.  His former law firm represents Bank of America.  What effect will this have on foreclosure cases in the Ninth Circuit?  Who is responsible for ensuring that consumers have a fair trial in the Ninth Circuit notwithstanding this clear conflict of interest?  Hello, U.S. Supreme Court.  

  Law Schools are defrauding the public if they do not teach the realities of the Market Place, the realities of legal incompetence and the realities of judicial corruption in Oregon and across the divide. 

The solution to the due process problem was identified in 2005 by the American Bar Association (ABA).  The ABA produced a comprehensive program of judicial performance evaluations.  In 2006, the University of Denver produced a complete template for installing a formal performance evaluation program for judges in every state.  Thus far, almost half of the states have done so.  Oregon is lagging.  Lagging badly.  Where in the wide-wide world is the legal community’s leadership?  

by Lauren Paulson cbulletinsfromaloha(2015)  All links available and accessible at the website:   Or leave a message there with your email address and I will send an electronic copy for easy links.  

/S/Lauren Paulson

16131 W. Hoffeldt Ln #38

Brookings, OR 97415

Posted on Thursday, January 8, 2015 at 04:19PM by Registered CommenterLAUREN PAULSON | CommentsPost a Comment | References1 Reference