OREGON JUDGE ANN AIKEN
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT
COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
COMPLAINANT -- LAUREN PAULSON
http://www.bulletinsfromaloha.org/
PO BOX 2236
NEWPORT, OR 97365
503 470 9709
laurenjpaulson@gmail.com
Judicial Misconduct Complaint v. U.S. District Court Chief Judge Ann Aiken
This Complaint concerns multiple matters and cases including No. 6:13-cv-175-AA.
Please take judicial notice of the U.S. District Court case cited and U.S. Ninth Circuit Case No.#13-71718 along with the complete record in both cases including dockets and filings.
Facts:
The underlying case is a class action by Oregon lawyers against the Oregon State Bar, the Supreme Court of Oregon Chief Justice, Thomas Balmer and Jeff Sapiro.
-- A. VISITING JUDGE>> Upon the initial filing of the complaint, a visiting out-of-circuit judge was requested by motion because the Defendants including Ninth Circuit judges are a member of the Oregon State Bar with a potential conflict of interest against Plaintiff’s including Lauren Paulson, a former member of the Oregon State Bar. There are specific guidelines to be followed when requesting intercircuit visiting judges and Judge Aiken refused to follow those requirements. Only the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court may decide such matters and Judge Aiken refused to follow those guidelines and the federal statute by ruling on these matters herself.
--B. JUDICIAL PLAGIARISM In reviewing Judge Aiken’s written opinions in this case, Plaintiff has discerned that these written opinions are directly lifted from the Memorandums submitted by the Defendants without attribution. viz.
In her Opinion and Order dated June 4, 2013 (Docket #51) she has plagiarized Defendant Attorney Brown’s legal memorandum (Docket #28) dated April 5, 2013 as follows:
This summary just covers the first four
(4) pages. The rest of Judge Aiken’s Opinion and Order is similarly
copied from Defendant Balmer’s document.
Moreover, in Judge Aiken’s Opinion and Order dated May 3, 2013 (Docket #32) which is seven (7) pages long, pages 2, 4, 5 are copied almost exactly (See items 1-12 attached) from Defendant Balmer’s Legal Memorandum dated March 14, 2013. Without attribution. No part of either decision even mentions the Plaintiff’s twenty-six page Plaintiff’s Response to those Defendant documents.
In sum, Judge Aiken is not writing her own opinions, she is copying them directly from Supreme Court Balmer’s and defendant Oregon State Bar’s documents. But she is not telling anybody she is doing that.
C. -- NONDISCLOSURE -- (See Plaintiff’s Writ of Mandamus [Docket # 35] for further details) The U.S. District Court Chief Judge of Oregon, Ann Aiken failed to supply relevant disclosures as required by federal law (5 USC Sec. 101-111) in this case and across all of her cases in Oregon. Moreover, in this case Chief Judge Aiken failed to disclose the following as outlined in an excerpt of Plaintiff Paulson’s April 4, 2013 letter to her:
“Dear Hon. Ann Aiken:
***
It has just come to my attention that you also have an internecine business relationship with the Cosgrave law firm that is representing several defendants in the captioned matter and was not disclosed. I had previously pointed out that you are on the Board of Directors of the U.S. District Court Historical Society with Hon. Thomas Balmer the other Defendant here and that was not disclosed.
I have learned that your law clerk, Jolie Russo is the President-Elect of the Oregon Federal Bar Association. You serve as a Director on the Board of the Oregon Federal Bar Association along with Robert Sabido, a member of the Cosgrave law firm. The Cosgrave firm represents several Defendants here. You apparently are speaking there this month.”
*********
[ Oh, and Judge Aiken -- by-the-by did you know that my former law office office manager works for the Cosgrave law firm. With the hard drive of my former law office computer......!!]
*************
Therefore, Judge Ann Aiken serves on two boards, one with Hon Thomas Balmer, a defendant here--The U.S. District Court Historical Society and one with a member of the Cosgrave law firm -- representing the other Defendants here -- the Oregon Federal Bar Association and did not disclose either affiliation in this case. In denying Plaintiff’s Motions for a Visiting Judge, Chief Judge Aiken makes no reference to the absence of disclosures regarding these affiliations with the Defendant Party who she then dismisses from this law suit. Therefore, Hon Aiken may have other affiliations with these Defendants, undisclosed; which may further invoke the objective bias standard outlined in U.S. Supreme Court decision in Liteky.
-- CONFLICT OF INTEREST -- Since both Judge Aiken and Chief Judge Kozinski sit on the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council, the Complainant here asks both to recuse themselves from this Complaint.
Dated this 27th day of July, 2013
S/ LAUREN PAULSON
COMPLAINT OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
COMPLAINANT -- LAUREN PAULSON
http://www.bulletinsfromaloha.org/
PO BOX 2236
NEWPORT, OR 97365
503 470 9709
laurenjpaulson@gmail.com
Judicial Misconduct Complaint v. U.S. District Court Chief Judge Ann Aiken
This Complaint concerns multiple matters and cases including No. 6:13-cv-175-AA.
Please take judicial notice of the U.S. District Court case cited and U.S. Ninth Circuit Case No.#13-71718 along with the complete record in both cases including dockets and filings.
Facts:
The underlying case is a class action by Oregon lawyers against the Oregon State Bar, the Supreme Court of Oregon Chief Justice, Thomas Balmer and Jeff Sapiro.
-- A. VISITING JUDGE>> Upon the initial filing of the complaint, a visiting out-of-circuit judge was requested by motion because the Defendants including Ninth Circuit judges are a member of the Oregon State Bar with a potential conflict of interest against Plaintiff’s including Lauren Paulson, a former member of the Oregon State Bar. There are specific guidelines to be followed when requesting intercircuit visiting judges and Judge Aiken refused to follow those requirements. Only the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court may decide such matters and Judge Aiken refused to follow those guidelines and the federal statute by ruling on these matters herself.
--B. JUDICIAL PLAGIARISM In reviewing Judge Aiken’s written opinions in this case, Plaintiff has discerned that these written opinions are directly lifted from the Memorandums submitted by the Defendants without attribution. viz.
In her Opinion and Order dated June 4, 2013 (Docket #51) she has plagiarized Defendant Attorney Brown’s legal memorandum (Docket #28) dated April 5, 2013 as follows:
| ATTORNEY BROWN | JUDGE AIKEN | PAGE |
| “Complaints filed by litigants appearing without counsel are generally construed liberally and pleadings by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than pleadings crafted by lawyers.” citing Erickson | “Complaints filed by pro se litigants are generally construed liberally and pleadings by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than pleadings drafted by lawyers.” citing Erickson | 3 |
| “However, if a pro se plaintiff fails to allege a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory, dismissal is proper under Rule 12(b)(6)” citing Balistreri | “Although if a pro se plaintiff fails to allege a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory dismissal is proper under Rule 12(b)(6)” citing Balistreri | 4 |
| “And courts may decline to liberally construe pleadings offered by pro se plaintiffs that are attorneys.” See Smith v. Plati | “Further, courts may decline to liberally construe pleadings drafted by pro se plaintiffs that are attorneys.” Smith v. Plati | 4 |
Moreover, in Judge Aiken’s Opinion and Order dated May 3, 2013 (Docket #32) which is seven (7) pages long, pages 2, 4, 5 are copied almost exactly (See items 1-12 attached) from Defendant Balmer’s Legal Memorandum dated March 14, 2013. Without attribution. No part of either decision even mentions the Plaintiff’s twenty-six page Plaintiff’s Response to those Defendant documents.
In sum, Judge Aiken is not writing her own opinions, she is copying them directly from Supreme Court Balmer’s and defendant Oregon State Bar’s documents. But she is not telling anybody she is doing that.
C. -- NONDISCLOSURE -- (See Plaintiff’s Writ of Mandamus [Docket # 35] for further details) The U.S. District Court Chief Judge of Oregon, Ann Aiken failed to supply relevant disclosures as required by federal law (5 USC Sec. 101-111) in this case and across all of her cases in Oregon. Moreover, in this case Chief Judge Aiken failed to disclose the following as outlined in an excerpt of Plaintiff Paulson’s April 4, 2013 letter to her:
“Dear Hon. Ann Aiken:
***
It has just come to my attention that you also have an internecine business relationship with the Cosgrave law firm that is representing several defendants in the captioned matter and was not disclosed. I had previously pointed out that you are on the Board of Directors of the U.S. District Court Historical Society with Hon. Thomas Balmer the other Defendant here and that was not disclosed.
I have learned that your law clerk, Jolie Russo is the President-Elect of the Oregon Federal Bar Association. You serve as a Director on the Board of the Oregon Federal Bar Association along with Robert Sabido, a member of the Cosgrave law firm. The Cosgrave firm represents several Defendants here. You apparently are speaking there this month.”
*********
[ Oh, and Judge Aiken -- by-the-by did you know that my former law office office manager works for the Cosgrave law firm. With the hard drive of my former law office computer......!!]
*************
Therefore, Judge Ann Aiken serves on two boards, one with Hon Thomas Balmer, a defendant here--The U.S. District Court Historical Society and one with a member of the Cosgrave law firm -- representing the other Defendants here -- the Oregon Federal Bar Association and did not disclose either affiliation in this case. In denying Plaintiff’s Motions for a Visiting Judge, Chief Judge Aiken makes no reference to the absence of disclosures regarding these affiliations with the Defendant Party who she then dismisses from this law suit. Therefore, Hon Aiken may have other affiliations with these Defendants, undisclosed; which may further invoke the objective bias standard outlined in U.S. Supreme Court decision in Liteky.
-- CONFLICT OF INTEREST -- Since both Judge Aiken and Chief Judge Kozinski sit on the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council, the Complainant here asks both to recuse themselves from this Complaint.
Dated this 27th day of July, 2013
S/ LAUREN PAULSON
No comments:
Post a Comment