OREGON HOME FORECLOSURES

AN UPDATE ON NEW ISSUES TO OREGON SENATOR JEFF MERKLEY

Thursday, May 28, 2015

 

U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley

c/o Joel Corcoran

Constituent Services Director & State Counsel

121 SW Salmon #1400

Portland, OR 97204

 

Re:  Oregon Home Foreclosures

 

Dear Mr. Corcoran:

 

This follows Senator Merkley’s Town Hall meeting on May 27, 2015 at Gold Beach, Oregon.  There I spoke to you and Senator Merkley about current foreclosure issues confronting Oregon homeowners.  

 

Moreover, I furnished you with a synopsis of who I am and an example of the cascade of judicial misconduct that is infecting the four corners of foreclosures in Oregon.

 

These issues are new:

 

  •  
    •       The new Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit, Sidney Thomas belonged to a law firm in Billings Montana that represented Bank of America and Wells Fargo as primary clients.  It is hard to know how this conflict may be accommodated in the current tsunami of Ninth Circuit foreclosures.

 

  •  
    •        Worse, Chief Judge Thomas was a Creditor’s trustee in bankruptcy cases.  There is Criminal Disorder in bankruptcy courts in Oregon involving Creditor’s and local trustees in all local bankruptcy cases where foreclosure is an issue.   
    •       Oregon judges are illegally following secret foreclosure guidelines provided to you.  These secret guidelines not only are unconstitutional; they don’t follow extant Oregon law.  

 

The foreclosure dance in Oregon is being completely controlled by powerful downtown law firms.  Let me be specific.  In one tragic foreclosure, the attorney representing the Creditors is Robert E. Maloney.  He is a lawyer from the downtown law firm commonly known as Lane Powell.  As often happens, this homeowner has sought succor in bankruptcy court.  The only problem is that the U.S. Bankruptcy judge, Trish Brown formerly was a partner in that same Lane Powell law firm. She failed to disclose that conflict of interest and failed to recuse herself in this complex foreclosure case.  In 2015!  

 

In my case, the Creditor’s lawyer is Craig Russillo.  He works for the downtown Portland law firm commonly known as Schwabe Williamson.  My case was assigned to U.S. District Court of Oregon Judge Ancer Haggerty.  Judge Haggerty was formerly a partner at Schwabe Williamson; Mr. Russillo’s firm.  He failed to reveal that conflict of interest and failed to recuse himself——-to this day.

 

I have filed a formal judicial misconduct complaint against Judge Haggerty in 2013 in my case.  That issue has descended into the black hole that is known as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judicial Misconduct process were it remains ——to this day.

 

Meanwhile, the victims of this tsunami of judicial misconduct remain homeless or in the unkind clutches of the foreclosure crisis. 

 

Very truly yours,

 

 

/S/Lauren Paulson

Posted on Sunday, May 31, 2015 at 05:53PM by Registered CommenterLAUREN PAULSON | CommentsPost a Comment | References5 References

LITTLE PEOPLE IN LAW

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

 

Hon. CHIEF JUDGE RICHARD ROBERTS 

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,

/S/

Lauren Paulson

16131 W Hoffeldt Ln. #38

Brookings, OR 97415

 

cc:  Court of Appeals  —  mediation@cadc.uscourts.gov

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

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT IN OREGON

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

 

RE:  Crime and Punishment at the Oregon State Bar  

 

=====================================================

 

THIS IS A PLEA FOR REASON

 

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.    

 

SUICIDE IS PAINLESS

 

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.  

 

 

LAWYERS ARE NOT CHILDREN

 

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??

 

Re-Orientation

 

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.  

 

claurenpaulson2015  laurenjpaulson@gmail.com  bulletinsfromaloha.org

 

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

LAW IN OREGON'S FAST LANE

 

 

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

laurenjpaulson@gmail.com

bulletinsfromaloha.org

 

 

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

JUDICIAL PAY FOR NONPERFORMANCE

OREGON JUDGES GET A RAISE AND WANT ANOTHER.

 

BUT MEANWHILE OREGON JUDGES TAKE THE OREGONIAN AND YOU FOR AN EXPENSIVE ‘TRUTH-FREE’ RIDE.

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:  

 

LEWIS F. POWELL'S MEMO

 

WHEN DID LAW ‘TURN’ IN THE UNITED STATES?

 

THE EXACT MOMENT WAS 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.

 

AND ALONG CAME ALEC IN 1973

 

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.   

 

CONCLUSION

 

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

laurenjpaulson@gmail.com

bulletinsfromaloha.org

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