Calle 13 - Multi_Viral
(letra en inglés/ English lyrics)
(letra en inglés/ English lyrics)
It all begins with a blaze
when we release flames from our gazes
they want to stop the fire that spreads
but there are some fires that water cannot put out
and the police line gets closer
muscles get tense and heartbeats grow
testosterone levels rise
and that moment when people come face to face, begins
when we become friends of bravery
when yelling becomes our only language.
I take my orders from the truth/reason
you take your orders from a colonel.
If our fight is made of cardboard, yours is made of paper
and they don't stop us
because a powerful message
turns any lieutenant
into a toothless shark.
We are feared by the State
because at the same time we are 132 and 15M.
If the press doesn't speak, we give the details
painting the walls with aerosol in the streets
I raise my banner and spread it
where only one person to read it, the world begins to change.
It all began with a blaze.
We want the rulers to be exiled.
With a blaze.
Coude à coude, elbow with elbow
Pas à pas, step with step
when we release flames.
From our gazes.
The wave grows, the foam grows
each time that more people join.
From our gazes.
The one who controls, who dominates
wants to make you sick to sell you medicine
and they drug us, make us dumb
they anesthetize any question we may have
those are the reheated lies
they feed us with processed meat
and people remain misinformed
a news wrongly told is like an assault with a weapon.
We infiltrate, we duplicate
like cells, we multiply
to the one who doesn't want broth, you give two cups
we are the yeast that rise the dough
our ideas are free and are awake
because we think with doors open
we're seeing what cannot be seen
we were born without knowing how to speak
but we will die saying.
It all began with a blaze.
We want the rulers to be exiled.
With a blaze.
Coude à coude, elbow with elbow
Pas à pas, step with step
from our gazes.
It all began with a blaze.
The wave grows, the foam grows
each time that more people join.
From our gazes.
ASSANGE
We live in the world that your propaganda made.
But where you think you are strong you are weak.
Your lies tell us the truth we will use against you.
Your secrecy shows us where we will strike.
Your weapons reveal your fear for all to see.
From Cairo to Quito a new world is forming.
The power of people armed with the truth.
It all began with a blaze
when we release flames
from our gazes
from our gazes.
It all began with a blaze.
We want the rulers to be exiled.
With a blaze.
Coude à coude, elbow with elbow
Pas à pas, step with step
from our gazes
It all began with a blaze.
We want the rulers to be exiled.
With a blaze.
Coude à coude, elbow with elbow
Pas à pas, step with step
from our gazes
It all began with a blaze.
The wave grows, the foam grows
each time that more people join.
from our gazes
It all began with a blaze,
https://soundcloud.com/lacalle13/mult... - Free Download
http://www.bulletinsfromaloha.org/
Tell all the Truth, but tell it Slant
Success in Circuit lies
Too bright for our infirm Delight
The Truth’s superb surprise
As Lightning to the Children eased
With explanation kind
The Truth must dazzle gradually
Or every man be Blind ----
-------Emily Dickinson
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT -- COMPLAINT
OF
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
COMPLAINANT -- LAUREN PAULSON
New Address
827 C Ransom Ave
Brookings, Oregon 97415
503 470 9709
laurenjpaulson@gmail.com
I. ISSUES --PRELIMINARY
Twenty (20) Judges, fourteen (14) case numbers and one
simple Oregon Foreclosure Case -- that should have been finished in 2010.
Manifold judicial misconduct has caused wasteful and protracted litigation
1
going nowhere. These judges will not address the simple fact that
foreclosure lenders do not have Constitutional Standing to even
be in Court---anywhere. Competent judges are simply turning away.
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT -- This is a Judicial Misconduct
Complaint versus the following Judges of the U.S. District Court of Oregon
and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the following cases:
OREGON FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT -- Case Nos. 08-00982,
10-00048, 12-00196
• Hon. Paul Papak
• Hon. Ancer Haggerty
• Hon Michael Mosman
• Hon. Anna Brown
• Hon Ann Aiken
U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT -- Case Nos. 09-32439-rld, BAP
#10-1173, Adversary Case #11-03309
• Hon. Jim D. Pappas
• Hon. Bruce A. Markell
• Hon. Eileen W. Hollowell
• Hon. Judge Jury
• Hon. Randall Dunn
2
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT -- Case Nos.
10-36178, 10-35745, 11-60038, 11-72697, 11-90185, 13-35077,
13-35160
• Hon. Richard R. Clifton
• Hon. Sandra S. Ikuta
• Hon. Ed Leavy
• Hon William C. Canby Jr.
• Hon. Ronald M. Gould
• Hon Richard Tallman
• Hon. Jay Memo Bybee
• Hon. Alex Kozinski
• Hon. Wm. A. Fletcher
• Hon. C.M. Callahan
II. NINTH CIRCUIT JUDICIAL COMPLAINT FORM
A. THIS COMPLAINT CONCERNS THE PROCEEDINGS IN U.S.
DISTRICT OF OREGON, PORTLAND DIVISION, U.S. BANKRUPTCY
COURTS AND THE U.S. CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT. The precise court and case numbers are identified throughout
this complaint. Paulson is a Pro Se party in these matters.
3
B. Paulson has not filed lawsuits against any judge here. The
record should include any and all proceedings (including all letters) in
all Oregon courts and the Ninth Circuit identified by their numbers here.
The record should be specifically identified as to what was examined by the
chief judge or his/her surrogate with regard to the entire judicial
misconduct complaint.
1. Summary of Issues: The U.S. District Court of Oregon, Portland,
Division, and the Ninth Circuit Court under the leadership of Chief Judge
Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge Ann Aiken, other District Court judges and
Ninth Circuit judges named above are illegally truncating filed
foreclosure cases and appeals using the artifices outlined here and
discussed in detail below:
2. Ninth Circuit Court Chief Judge Alex Kozinski --
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT of CHIEF JUDGE ALEX KOZINSKI
AND CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Ninth Circuit Court Chief Judge Alex Kozinski takes pride in pointing
out that when it comes to the issue of Judicial Misconduct, he is the chief
administrator in addition to being the Chief Judge. Thus, it is Alex
Kozinski, the public servant who must be held responsible for the
subversion of The Rule of Law at the highest level of the Ninth Circuit.
Judge Kozinski has a record of his own in judicial misconduct in many
places, thus cannot be objective here and must be recused.
4
Two cataclysmic events took place on the myriad of cases pending in
the Ninth Circuit on this simple foreclosure case. It must be noted that
Paulson filed many ‘Motions to Consolidate’, to ameliorate the mess
created by the manifold proceedings at all levels on this one
simple foreclosure case.
THE RECORD ON APPEAL: The First Catastrophe is engendered by
the contradictory administrative rulings by the Ninth Circuit Clerk’s office
in an inability to identify “The Record” upon which these multiple rulings
are made. No judge ever identifies the record upon which their rulings are
made.......that refusal continues to this day notwithstanding the repeated
efforts by Paulson to mine the record, identify the record and present the
record to the judicial panel involved. (Investigators of judicial
misconduct will discover that the problem of identifying the
record permeates all courts of Oregon and all proceedings in the
Ninth Circuit. Even at the highest level.)
Because no judge in the Ninth Circuit ever mentioned any part of the
Record in all these rulings, Paulson specifically wrote to The Ninth Circuit
Court Clerk on December 5, 2011 and to each judge thereafter to specifically
identify upon what record these rulings are made, without result.
5
JUDICIAL NOTICE - From the outset Paulson has requested the
identification of and judicial notice of the extant cases particularly when
there are so many of them and because they reside in different court
buildings with different numbers. Judicial Notice--Consolidation. Neither
taken. When courts do not take judicial notice of the other cases (that
should have been consolidated) then the litigant is required to repeat, over
and over, the facts and the law to each new panel. Attrition of legitimate
appeals, over issues such as fees, is the intentional product and by product
of the legal situation in the U.S District Court of Oregon and of the Ninth
Circuit.
III. ISSUES -- DETAIL
A. IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS IS BEING DENIED: First,
Pro Se Appellant’s are being denied In Forma Pauperis (IFP)
status without following the IFP law. Poor people in Oregon and
the Ninth Circuit are being refused poor litigant (Pro Se) status and
are being refused pro bono lawyer help. In short, judicial legal
leadership in the West is refusing self-represented victims of
foreclosure; due process in Oregon and Ninth Circuit Courts.
B. OVERUSE OF ‘FRIVOLOUS’ DESIGNATION: Second,
these judges, deviously, are not following the Ninth Circuit
Standards nor the law by falsely declaring appealed cases
“frivolous” when those cases are appealed from the U.S. District
Courts. This is happening in foreclosure cases where an appeal is
hardly frivolous when the appellant is homeless and we all know
lenders are engaging in massive fraud at all levels. These
judges simply declare a foreclosure case ‘frivolous’ without any
analysis of the law nor the facts, without any record and without
adhering to The Rule of Law. A mirror image of lender fraud.
6
C. SPURIOUS APPEAL DISMISSALS BECAUSE ‘Fees not
paid’: Third, those subject cases are then dismissed because the
putative appellate filing fee has not been paid; even when it has
been paid or IFP status approved. In this devious way these
judges are getting rid of appeals on foreclosure cases without
addressing the merits of the foreclosure defenses, which are
manifold. Why else would banks be paying these billion dollar
fines???? pertaining to foreclosure cases.
D. MOTIONS FOR EN BANC HEARINGS GO INTO A
‘BLACK HOLE’: When an En Banc filing is made, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals unilaterally interprets the filing as a Motion
for Reconsideration then denies the Motion as late and dismisses the
appeal. This ploy denies the Ninth Circuit judicial panel from an
opportunity to review the case En Banc and prevents the appellant
from their day in court DUE TO JUDICIAL PERVERSION of the rules
and The Rule of Law.
F. PLEADINGS FILED ARE ILLEGALLY RETURNED ‘UNFILED’
OR ‘LOST’: Court Clerks are unlawfully being
instructed to send lawfully filed pleadings back to the filer in order
to avoid lawful foreclosure cases being litigated in local and Ninth
Circuit cases. They then attempt to cover-up the fact of the filing in
those foreclosure cases. No standard is identified as to why a
pleading is returned. See, Case No. 08-00982 Docket # 190 to 192
for example.
G. PRO BONO PROGRAM UNUSED IN NINTH CIRCUIT:
The U.S District Court of Oregon and the Ninth Circuit have a pro
bono attorney program. In a denial of the equal protection of the
laws, judges do not appoint pro bono attorneys for pro se litigants
in foreclosure cases in either court. The Judicial Council is asked
to take Judicial Notice of the Ninth Circuit Conference videos
which documents the Ninth Circuit pro bono attorney program
charade.
H. THE DISTRICT COURT/NINTH CIRCUIT IGNORES THE
RULE OF LAW: The threshold issue in these thousands of
homeowner foreclosure cases is STANDING. The issue of
STANDING could have been and should have been addressed by
Judge Ancer Haggerty in District Court in 2010 and Judge Dunn in
7
2010. See discussion on Natache’s case below at Page 29. The issue
of Standing should have been addressed by each ONE of these 2o
judges and was not. This is the full employment act for judges
and downtown law firms in each city where this kabuki dance is
being choreographed in foreclosure cases.
I. DISTRICT/NINTH CIRCUIT COURT JUDGES RULE
WITHOUT IDENTIFICATION OF ‘THE RECORD’ : In the
entire Judicial Misconduct area and in the entire universe of Ninth
Circuit Court rulings, it is striking that judges never identify upon
what record they have ruled. Even when specifically asked.
Paulson has written a formal letter to each judge, formally asking
for an identification of the record. Each of these judges refuses.
J. DISTRICT/NINTH CIRCUIT COURT JUDGES FAIL TO
MAKE THE REQUIRED DISCLOSURES UNDER THE
LAW: U.S. District Court Judge Haggerty and U.S. District Court
Chief Judge Ann Aiken failed to make required disclosures. He
was formally a partner in the law firm for which he has made
favorable rulings here for five years and she has numerous
professional affiliations with law firms adverse to Paulson
including Paulson’s former office manager who has the computer
hard drive for that ten (10) year Paulson law-office tenure, and
works at the Cosgrave firm involved here; for which Judge Aiken
has a conflict requiring disclosure.
K.ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION TOOLS ARE NOT
USED IN THESE COURTS.
See Judge Papak’s parting remarks at the July 29, 2010 hearing in
Case No. 08-00982 on this subject. Also see Ninth Circuit
Conference materials on the purported ADR program charade.
L. U.S. Bankruptcy Courts are Engaging in CRIMINAL
ENTERPRISE on Behalf of Creditors in Denial of The
Equal Protection of the Laws to the Debtors. See extensive
discussion below and the machinations of Judge Randall Dunn
easily discerned in his written rulings.
3. Evidence -- The evidence is the entire record of proceedings in the
case numbers listed above including a transcript of all those court
proceedings-- of which Paulson requests that the Ninth Circuit Judicial
Council take JUDICIAL NOTICE.
8
IV. BACKGROUND
2005--Fairway and Paulson entered into the subject loans
through the facilities of a loan broker referred to as Joan Doe.
2005-2008--Payments on the loan were made until
February, 2008. The property had been put up for sale in 2005.
February, 2008-to-
August, 2008 --The parties engaged in various resolution
negotiations including a forbearance agreement upon which the
Plaintiff began making monthly payments. Fairway then reneged
on that agreement, but did not return Paulson’s first payment.
Now, Paulson realizes all these negotiations were a sham.
Fairway and its subsidiaries have always intended to flim-flam
themselves into ownership of these historic properties.
August 21, 2008--The negotiations broke down and
Paulson filed this class action predatory loan lawsuit. Lauren
Paulson v. Fairway Commercial Mortgage Corporation, et al., U.S. District
Court of Oregon, Case No. 08-cv-00982. Paulson paid the District Court
filing fee when this case was filed in 2008. (Docket #1 in District Court
Case # 08-cv-00982) This is Paulson’s original lawsuit against Fairway,
FHLF, LLC and Wells Fargo among other defendants, for predatory
lending.
9
November 25, 2008--Fairway/FHLF, LLC issued their Notice
of Default and Election to sell the subject properties with the
nonjudicial foreclosure sale scheduled on April 10, 2009.
March 9, 2009--This Court issued its order Designating this
Case for Mediation. Paulson made a preliminary contact with the
Ninth Circuit and Judge John Jelderks as a mediator/settlement
conference judges. Judge Jelderks would have been available in
May. The Defendants refused to participate.
April 9, 2009--To prevent the threatened foreclosure,
Paulson filed his Chapter 11 Bankruptcy (Case No. 09-32439-rld
11) and conveyed the subject properties to himself as an
individual and the Real Party at Interest -- without Creditor
objection.
June, 2009--Pursuant to a stipulated agreement in the
Chapter 11 Bankruptcy proceedings, the subject properties were
put up for sale through a licensed real estate agent.
The Subject Property -- The major asset in the
bankruptcy proceedings, other than the District Court predatory
loan case, is the real estate owned by Paulson for over twenty
10
years. Half the real estate is the M.E. Blanton House which is
on the National Register of Historic places. This property is
approximately .68 of an acre holding a High Style Craftsman
Bungalow structure where Paulson maintained his law office for
over twenty years. (Paulson was elected to the Board of
Governors of the Oregon State Bar in 2002. Paulson became a
whistle blower at the Oregon State Bar in 2004. He was
unceremoniously quitted from his practice for his activism in
2006). The M.E. Blanton House is 3,500 square feet of original fir
wainscoting and oak wood floors done in high style. The other
half of the real property, of about the same size, adjoins the M.E.
Blanton House to make a square. This other half is three lots,
affectionately known as “The Three Sisters”. There are three
structures on the center lot of these three lots which are erstwhile
rentals. So, picture a square cut down the middle with the M.E.
Blanton Home on one half and three buildings (one not habitable,
yclept ‘The Barn’) on the other half, all called ‘The Three Sisters’.
The formal appraised value of The M.E. Blanton House
obtained during the sale negotiations of August and September,
11
2009 is $425,000. The sale price offered by a local investor on
The Three Sisters on August 5, 2009 was $230,000 without
conditions precedent other than to convey marketable title. This
means the combined value of the entire real estate involved here
is $655,000. The putative loan amount claimed by Fairway/FHLF
is $400,000. Thus, Paulson’s property IS NOT underwater.
To the contrary, Paulson has more than $250,000 equity.
The putative illegal nonjudicial foreclosure sale for which
Defendant FHLF, LLC made their credit bid (meaning no cash is
paid) of $375,000 for The Blanton House and $175,000 for Three
Sisters occurred on September 25, 2009.
‘Sale’ of Half of The Properties in 2009: -- The Three
Sisters property (three of the four parcels) did receive, on
August 5, 2009; an unconditional written cash offer from a
local investor of $230,000 to purchase said three parcels. In
September of 2009 the Plaintiff Paulson found out he was
eligible for a reverse mortgage on the fourth parcel of over
$250,000 net to him and available to resolve the subject
loan along with the aforementioned purchase offer on the
12
three other parcels. Both transactions were made known to
the defendants and escrow was ordered with Candace Brown
at First American Title Insurance Company of Oregon.
Both transactions were nullified by the illegal nonjudicial
foreclosure sale held by defendants Fairway/FHLF, LLC, Parker
and Russillo on September 25, 2009; done without notice to
the plaintiff, without giving Paulson his Right to Cure as required
by state law and otherwise done without regard to the danger
notice requirement of state law. Schwabe lawyer Craig Russillo
admitted on the record that the required ‘danger’ notice was not
provided to Paulson. This new law applicable at this time:
--Oregon law ORS 86.737 requires that a specified (‘danger’) notice
be provided to an owner such as Paulson prior to a nonjudicial foreclosure.
That statute provides:
“86.737 Notice to grantor; requirements; additional forms; rules. (1) If a notice of
default is recorded for property that is subject to a residential trust deed, the sender of a notice of
sale under ORS 86.740 shall, on or before the date the notice of sale is served or mailed, give
notice under this section to the grantor by both first class and certified mail with return receipt
requested. Subject to any rules adopted under subsection (2) of this section, the notice must be in
substantially the following form and printed in at least 14-point type:.......”
Under Oregon law this notice must be provided regarding
property that is subject to residential trust deed foreclosure. Under ORS
13
86.705 a residential trust deed means a trust deed on property upon which
are situated four or fewer residential units and one of the residential units
is occupied as the principal residence of the grantor at the time a trust
deed foreclosure is commenced. This trust deed foreclosure was
commenced on November 28, 2008. At that time and at all times pertinent
here, the trust deed foreclosure was upon property which are situated
three residential units and Paulson, the grantor, has occupied one of the
residential units as his principal residence. It is undisputed that Fairway/
FHLF, LLC, the beneficiary and his successors and assigns failed to provide
these statutory notices to the grantors as required by law (Paulson
Declaration).
Mr. Joel Parker, a defendant in this federal court case (Case
No. 08-CV-00982-ST) and a Schwabe lawyer, engaged in this
illegal foreclosure sale of September 25, 2009 as the successor
trustee of the loan without having legal or what is called
Constitutional Standing in any of the legal proceedings. (Case
No 09-32439-rid11).]
November 5, 2009--The Chapter 11 case was converted to
a Chapter 7.
14
January 13, 2010--FHLF, LLC illegally obtained relief from
the automatic stay in the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy proceeding to file
their FED actions for possession of the subject properties. FHLF,
LLC filed their FED proceedings in Washington County Circuit
Court under Case Nos. C100084-86
January 15, 2010--Paulson removed the state court FED
proceedings to Federal District Court under the number of the
original instant proceeding and filed his Third-Party Complaint.
The removal proceeding was assigned to Judge Michael Mosman
under Case No. 10-cv-48-MO. [Note, keep in mind there is
duplicate litigation over the same property in the same federal
court in Case No. 08-cv-00982]. What should have happened
here was a consolidation of the two cases.
February 25, 2010--The Trustee of the Chapter 7
proceeding, Amy Mitchell, subverted Paulson’s Class Action for
predatory lending to a proposal to settle the instant lawsuit for
$5,000 through negotiations with Craig Russillo. Paulson
objected and a hearing was held discussed below.
15
March 4, 2010--In a scheduled court proceeding in Case
No. 3:10-CV-48-MO for a “status conference” filed by the
attorneys for Franki Keefe, Judge Michael Mosman orally
remanded this federal court case to the state court FED
proceedings. This ruling was contrary to established law which
states that if the property is initially subject to federal court
jurisdiction as here, then state courts may not commence their
own proceeding over the same property.
(Since the State Court proceedings are not part of these
allegations of judicial misconduct by federal judges, they are left
out of the timeline here. Paulson’s lawsuit against these Fairway
Defendants is still pending in Washington County Circuit Court.
Subsequent timelines follow below, integrated into the specific
acts of judicial misconduct by each judge in those extended
timelines):
V.ANALYSIS
or How Oregon/Ninth Circuit Judges Sanction Illegal
Foreclosures and Truncate Appeals
A Kabuki Dance Like No Other
Let us start at the beginning of the litigation. Remember that
Paulson filed suit first against Fairway, a loan broker, for predatory loan
practices, among other things in a class action case in 2008. Paulson had
16
taken a default against Fairway in that lawsuit (later set aside) and U.S.
District Court Magistrate Judge Janice Stewart had ordered the case into
settlement proceedings.
Then the wheels fell off. They took Paulson’s case away from Judge
Stewart and gave the case to Judge Ancer Haggerty. What they didn’t tell
Paulson is that Judge Haggerty is a former law partner in the same law firm
as Attorney Craig Russillo, Fairway/FHLF, LLC’s attorney and Paulson’s
adversary here, in a Portland law office known as ‘Schwabe Williamson’. It
is 2010 in this narrative and Paulson has been in the foreclosure box for
two years. Since 2008, this case has been ‘the full employment act’ for
Judge Haggerty’s former law firm, Schwabe Williamson, a major law firm
in downtown Portland, Oregon. Paulson filed an appeal to the Ninth
Circuit in 2010 after receiving shoddy treatment in the U.S. District Court
at Judge Haggerty’s, Judge Aiken and Judge Papak’s hands.
PONDER FOR A MOMENT?
Who does it benefit if a litigant is required to adjudicate a simple
foreclosure case in multiple forums before 20 different judges?
SO WHERE HAVE WE BEEN AND WHERE ARE WE NOW?
Paulson filed suit against Fairway in 2008. Paulson filed bankruptcy
in 2009 to prevent foreclosure. Fairway/FHLF, LLC illegally foreclosed
17
in a nonjudicial foreclosure in 2009. The bankruptcy court via Judge
Dunn sold Paulson’s 2008 predatory loan lawsuit against Fairway (and
FHLF, LLC) to the Schwabe law firm’s Attorney Craig Russillo in 2010
over Paulson’s formal legal objection.
Therefore, as of 2010 there are three lawsuits in three different court
systems (Paulson’s predatory loan against Fairway et al., in federal court,
his bankruptcy case in bankruptcy court and state court where Mr. Russillo
filed eviction proceedings.
The law of the land is simple. If one court acquires jurisdiction over
property first, no other court may take jurisdiction for common sense
reasons. Sexton v. NDEX West, et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, Case No. 11-17432, D.C. No. 3:ll-cv-00440-LRH-VPC (2013) If it
were otherwise, then there would be multiple proceedings leading to
multiple and contradictory results. But, federal U.S. District Court Judge
Michael Mosman apparently didn’t know about that rule because he sent
this case back to Washington County Circuit Court (state court) in blatant
violation of The Rule of Law in the Ninth Circuit as enunciated in the
Sexton case above and all precedent everywhere. Remember, who gains--
with multiple proceedings in multiple courts with the potential for multiple
contradictory results? There would be less incentive for Judge Papak,
18
Aiken and Judge Haggerty to fudge The Rule of Law if they are held to
account:
VI. JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
1. U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE ANCER HAGGERTY -- Conflict Of
Interest, Lack of Disclosures and Delay: Judge Haggerty was assigned to
this case on or about April 6, 2009. The case had been in litigation for
eight months with Schwabe Williamson (Schwabe) attorneys Craig
Russillo and Joel Parker already having allowed an Order of Default
taken against the Schwabe client, Fairway Commercial Mortgage
Company. The law requires three things at this juncture that did not
happen. First, the Schwabe law firm should never have taken this case
because the Schwabe law firm had represented Paulson with respect to
this same land in complex litigation ten years earlier in condemnation
proceedings on a county road widening project. Second, Judge Haggerty
should have disclosed to Paulson that he had been a partner at the
Schwabe law firm. Judge Haggerty did not make that required
disclosure. He clearly has a potential conflict of interest that required
disclosure to Paulson since the defendants are being represented by
Judge Haggerty’s former law firm. Third, Attorney Craig Russillo is
required to advise his clients of his legal malpractice by allowing this
case to go into default and for failing to provide Paulson with the
statutorily required ‘danger’ notice before taking an illegal nonjudicial
foreclosure.
Finally, as noted in the chart below, Judge Haggerty fails to rule on
multiple matters in the underlying litigation for over six months, all the
while Paulson is not only homeless, but unable to access his personal
property in Attorney Craig Russillo’s hands.
Incidentally, not one judge has deigned to examine the raised, more
difficult (than Standing) issues such as Fairway’s failure to provide the
‘danger’ notice before the nonjudicial disclosure nor their failure to provide
the notice of the final nonjudicial foreclosure date AT ALL. Why are all
these legal issues favorable to the consumer ignored?
19
U.S. BANKRUPTCY JUDGE RANDALL DUNN’S JUDICIAL
MISCONDUCT.
A BANKRUPTCY KABUKI DANCE (here)
A Dance Where Everybody Knows The Ending
Everything is different in Bankruptcy Court. Everybody knows their
assigned seats and assigned roles except the victims aka ‘debtors’. There is
a ‘judge’ but the fix is in. Our Judge Randall Dunn knew his role, but forgot
to watch what he said. On May 7, 2010 Judge Dunn had already made up
his mind BEFORE the hearing where he sold all of the class action’s
interests in the predatory lending $11 million lawsuit, filed by Paulson, to
Judge Haggerty’s former law firm’s client for $5,000. At the end of the
proceeding Judge Dunn said:
Judge Dunn: “I said (in ruling) what I planned to say on the
record.” (Tr.66)
Judicial Misconduct Judge Dunn’s statement means he had made
up his mind BEFORE the hearing. But, Judge Dunn’s misconduct far
transcends that event.
Judicial Misconduct Keep in mind the May 7, 2010 hearing was
to decide if Fairway and Cos. should escape Paulson’s predatory loan
lawsuit filed two years before. To do that Judge Dunn outlined a criteria for
making his decision: There was no probability of success of
Paulson’s predatory lending lawsuit according to Judge Dunn.
Only problem is Judge Dunn inadvertently admitted on
November 29, 2011, on the record that he never looked at the
two-year old U.S. District Court file. (See transcript of proceedings in
Docket #9, Adv. Case# 11-03309-rld) So, how could he judge the
likelihood of success of the predatory loan class action if he had
never read the predatory loan court file? (This is but one example of
WHY it is so important that the entire record be examined by any reviewing
court.) This is an important and startling admission by Judge Dunn.
20
Judicial Misconduct Judge Dunn’s judicial misconduct
becomes much more transparent and acute in 2011, 2012 and 2013 as is
discussed below. (Just to pique the reader’s interest -- Judge Dunn’s 2013
involvement allows embezzlement of $17,000 of Paulson’s funds, held in
trust by the Ball Janik law firm.) Ah, yes -- another downtown law firm.
U.S. DISTRICT COURT MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL PAPAK’S
and JUDGE ANN AIKEN’S JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
IN FORMA PAUPERIS (IFP)--Paulson is homeless
Delay --When Paulson was evicted without notice in May of
2010, he filed a series of emergency pleadings in the predatory lending
lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court case he had originally filed in
2008. These pleadings including a TRO (emergency proceeding) to keep
him in his home in the predatory loan lawsuit and while he appealed the
FED matter to the Oregon Court of Appeals. (Docket #’s 74 thru 77, 91, 92,
104, 105, 112, 113, 114, 115 in Case #08-cv-00982)
Judicial Misconduct -- -- Magistrate Judge Paul Papak did not get
around to these emergency pleadings for two months (see below). (Docket
#110) Meanwhile, Paulson is homeless living in a tent at a state
park.
The eviction caused Paulson to lose his rental income. The eviction caused
Paulson to be homeless and have to pay rent for housing after living in a
tent for two months. Because Paulson had expended all of his liquid funds
to pay for the state court FED trial transcript for the state court appeal, he
filed for IFP status in U.S. District Court of Oregon on July 27, 2010.
(Case No. 08-00982, Docket # 107)
Moreover, Paulson appealed the rulings regarding Judge Papak’s
disqualification by Chief Judge Ann Aiken to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals on August 23, 2010 because she did not follow The Rule of Law on
the applicable standard enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case
of Liteky v. U.S. 510 US 540 (1994) (Case No. 08-00982, Docket # 116)
Judicial Misconduct -- Magistrate Judge Paul Papak denied
Paulson’s IFP application/Motion on September 10, 2010 as Moot because
the filing fee was paid at the time the case was initiated two years earlier.
21
(Docket # 121) That is certainly not a basis to deny IFP status under The
Rule of Law. See Rule 72, Magistrate’s PreTrial Orders. A District Court
judge may not refer a decision on IFP status to a Magistrate Judge without
the consent of all parties. Judge Papak did not have the consent of all
parties. 28 USC 1915(d) - subject to 28 USC 636(b) which narrowly
mandates magistrates judge’s power.
Paulson filed his IFP application in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on
September 16, 2010 (Docket # 12 and 14 in the Court of Appeals Case #
10-35745)
The Law: A magistrate judge like Hon. Paul Papak may not enter a
“final judgment”. Therefore, a magistrate judge may not deny a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis because that is a final judgment. Rather, a
magistrate judge must make a recommendation of that decision regarding
IFP status to the Article III judge for a de novo review. Tripati v. Rison, 847
F 2d 548, 548 (9th Cir 1988). That did not happen here. The importance
of that failure to Paulson will become apparent below. Judicial Misconduct
and Judicial Incompetence.
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT OF JUDGE ANN AIKEN
On May 24, 2010 Paulson became homeless. Paulson is still homeless
as of today, five years later due to the plentiful judicial acts of misconduct
recounted here. On May 24, 2010 Attorney Craig Russillo on behalf of
Fairway and FHLF, LLC came into possession of all of Paulson’s real estate
and all of Paulson’s personal property including the litigation materials
involved here.
As noted above, Fairway/FHLF, LLC.’s nonjudicial foreclosure of
September 25, 2009 was illegal. It is NOT a close question. It was illegal
because it was done without the required statutory five day notice. It was
illegal because Mr. Russillo did not issue the statutory ‘danger’ notice. It
was illegal because Paulson has a Right to Cure. It was illegal because the
foreclosure was only in FHLF, LLC’s name and FHLF, LLC had no
Constitutional Standing before any of the courts. None. All this has been
raised in these pleadings which the Ninth Circuit regards as frivolous.
22
There are two other important legal concepts escaping these rulings:
1.) The law abhors a forfeiture. 2.) Statutory proceedings require strict
adherence. No judge here has applied either “Rule of Law”.
But, during the summer of 2010 Paulson had practical problems. All of
his stuff was behind lock and key. Thus, when Paulson filed his Emergency
pleadings on June 1, 2010 and thereafter, it was of paramount importance
that a Master (a neutral ) be appointed soon, so that the return of his
computer, his litigation materials for this litigation and his office supplies
be returned to him so he could defend himself in these legal proceedings
now pending in four legal places: U.S. District Court of Oregon, U.S.
Bankruptcy Court, the Oregon Courts and the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel.
This is not to mention the return of his family heirlooms and other personal
possessions denied him since May, 2010.
The judges in Portland, Oregon including were in no hurry. A
fundamental of due process is the right to be heard. And even hardened
criminals have a right to a speedy trial. In the summer of 2010 Judge Aiken
dispensed with Paulson’s right to be heard. As below, Judge Aiken would
benefit from allowing litigants their right to be heard as it would aid in her
ability to apply the correct Rule of Law. In particular, Judge Aiken did not
follow The Rule of Law when she did not disqualify Judge Papak.
In particular, she applied the wrong standard when she rendered her Order
dated July 28, 2010 in that regard. Case No. 08-cv-00982 Docket #109 An
extrajudicial source of the disqualification IS NOT required as she
erroneously states in that ruling, in order to disqualify a judge.
It was clear that Magistrate Judge Paul Papak, Judge Haggerty and
Judge Aiken were in no hurry. (See chart) Paulson then sought to get the
attention of some judge, any judge anywhere. So, he filed a:
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
On August 23, 2010 Paulson filed a fifteen (15) page Motion for Writ
of Mandamus and Injunction pending the appeal (Case No. 08-cv-00982
Docket # 117) because the Defendants, by virtue of Paulson’s eviction
(without prior notice) came into possession of ALL of Paulson’s ‘stuff’
including his files on this litigation on May 24, 2010. Pointing out to the
Court that an Emergency Exists because the Schwabe lawyers representing
the creditors were threatening to DESTROY Paulson’s stuff including his
23
litigation papers, his classic motor home and his 100 year-old player piano,
among other important personal possessions. Paulson moved formally for
a Master to supervise the transfer of Paulson’s ‘stuff’ back to him. (Docket
#115 in U.S. District Court Case # 08-cv-00982 on August 13, 2010 and
again on September 14, 2011 in Ninth Circuit Docket #1 in Case #11-72697.)
Judge Aiken denies Paulson’s Writ of Mandamus without a hearing.
While doing so she says: “the court (does not) find any grounds to enter an
“immediate injunction”. Case No. 08-cv-00982 Docket #118 While at first
glance that ruling appears innocuous; it ignores Paulson’s reality. Had
Judge Aiken allowed oral argument, she might have found the ‘grounds’ in
what Paulson was living every day. Grinding poverty.
Paulson filed his lawsuit against his Bankruptcy Attorney, Arbaugh along
with Craig Russillo and Amy Mitchell, the trustee in bankruptcy. Once
again Paulson sought his ‘stuff’ back from these actors who have control
over Paulson’s worldly goods. At the Bankruptcy Adversary hearing of
November 29, 2011 Judge Dunn appeared to be confused about what
was in the Creditor’s possession and what was not. Since that issue (of who
has Paulson’s worldly goods) was raised in the predatory lending case (Case
No. 08-cv-00982) and because Judge Dunn supposedly had made a studied
abandonment of that litigation to Attorney Russillo for $5,000; Paulson
inquired as to whether he, Judge Dunn, had read that (Case No. 08-
cv-00982) file. He admitted as recounted above: “No, I have not.” On the
record in Case No. 11-03309, Docket No. 9
Judicial Misconduct -- Disclosure and Discovery are routine in civil
cases except here. Paulson has filed a Request for Production in every case.
When nothing was produced, Paulson filed a Motion to Compel in every
case. In every case his Motion to Compel was denied. One of the issues in
every foreclosure case is whether the lender has the ‘blue ink’ copies of the
operative documents. Anybody seen them here?? Paulson’s worldly goods
were taken from him on May 24, 2010. In a startling act of negligence,
the Trustee, Amy Mitchell abandoned Paulson’s personal property without
ever consulting Paulson or ever looking at what was being abandoned.
Paulson has unsuccessfully sought the return of his stuff ever since. (See,
for example the transcript of proceedings on Adversary Case No. 11-03309,
Docket Nos. 51, 55, 56, the latter 124 pages on why and what should be
returned to Paulson) Important reading.
24
Again, on this subject came Judge Randall Dunn’s subsequent admission
again in the March 16, 2012 hearing on Paulson’s Motion to Compel (which
he denied) in the bankruptcy adversary proceeding that he had never read
the predatory lending case that he purported to decide that litigation’s
worth at the May 7, 2010 hearing.
.
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE MICHAEL MOSMAN’S JUDICIAL
MISCONDUCT
U.S. District Court Judge Mosman Judicial Misconduct --
Unfortunately, U.S. District Court Judge Mosman committed two acts of
judicial misconduct in one proceeding.
1.) The Res -- When a federal court obtains jurisdiction over the Res (the
real estate) FIRST, then a state court is subsequently precluded from
assuming jurisdiction over the same Res. Sexton v. NDEX West, et al., U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Case No. 11-17432, D.C. No. 3:llcv-
00440-LRH-VPC (2013) The U.S. District Court of Oregon first
assumed jurisdiction over the Res when Paulson filed his predatory lending
case there in 2008 in Case # 08-cv-00982. But, Judge Mosman and
Attorney Calliste Korach performed a Kabuki dance that was too cute by
half. Attorney Calliste filed a “Motion for Status Conference” in Judge
Mosman’s Case #10-cv-00048 (Docket # 5) It was a trap. No one knew
what the status conference of March 4, 2010 was for. At least Paulson
didn’t. Surprise, Judge Mosman used that hearing to remand the FED case
BACK to state court. 2.) So, Judge Mosman’s second act of misconduct is
scheduling a hearing on one thing (status) and using that hearing for an
undisclosed purpose (remand). Then he denies a protective order because
he says he has no jurisdiction. A Kabuki act.
The gravity of the out-and-out judicial misconduct by Judge
Aiken, Judge Papak Judge Mosman and Judge Haggerty in the
period from June 1, 2010 to and including the filing of Paulson’s
Emergency Writ of Mandamus on August 23, 2010 cannot be
overstated. A reading of that document, The Writ of Mandamus,
25
states clearly why. See Docket #117 in the District Court Case #
08-cv-00982 -- And their delay as follows:
SUMMARY OF U.S. DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS
(June 1, 2010 to December, 2010)
DATE FILED DOCUMENT AND
DOCKET NUMBER
DISPOSITION
JUNE 1, 2010 PAULSONʼS MOT TO
REACTIVATE
#74
DENIED AS MOOT,
DOCKET #98 ON JULY 9,
2010
JUNE 1, 2010 PAULSONʼS MOT FOR
TRO #75
DENIED BY JUDGE
HAGGERTY ON
DECEMBER 10, 2010 #
137
JUNE 1, 2010 PAULSONʼS MOTION
FOR SET CONF #76
DENIED BY JUDGE
HAGGERTY ON
DECEMBER 10, 2010
#137
JUNE 9, 2010 PAULSONʼ 2ND MOT
TRO #77
DENIED BY JUDGE
HAGGERTY ON
DECEMBER 10, 2010 #
137
JUNE 10 2010 DEF MOTSUMJUD #78 GRANTED BY JUDGE
HAGGERTY ON
DECEMBER 10, 2010
#137
JUNE 21, 2010 PAULSONʼS MOTION
FOR IMMEDIATE
POSSESSION #91 AND
PLAINTIFFʼS MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION. #92
#91 IS TAKEN UNDER
ADVISEMENT BY JUDGE
PAPAK ON JULY 29, 2010
# 110. #92 IS DENIED BY
JUDGE HAGGERTY ON
DECEMBER 10 2010
#137
JULY 23, 2010 PAULSONʼS MOTION TO
DISQUALIFY #104
PLʼS MOTION TO
DISQUALIFY DENIED BY
CHIEF JUDGE ANN
AIKEN ON JULY 28, 2010
DOCKET # 109
26
DATE FILED DOCUMENT AND
DOCKET NUMBER
DISPOSITION
JULY 27, 2010 PAULSONʼS
APPLICATION FOR IFP
#107
DENIED AS MOOT BY
JUDGE PAPAK ON
SEPTEMBER 10, 2010
BECAUSE THE FILING
FEE WAS PAID.
DOCKET #121
JULY 29, 2010 #110 PLʼS MOTION FOR
IMMEDIATE
POSSESSION TAKEN
UNDER ADVISEMENT
BY JUDGE PAPAK. #110
AUGUST 2, 2010 PAULSONʼS MOTION
FOR OUT OF DISTRICT
VISITING JUDGE #112
DENIED PLʼS MOTION
FOR OUT OF DISTRICT
VISITING JUDGE ON
AUGUST 9, 2010 BY
JUDGE ANN AIKEN.
DOCKET #114
AUGUST 13, 2010 PAULSONʼS MOTION
FOR TRO #115
DENIED BY JUDGE
HAGGERTY ON
DECEMBER 10, 2010
#137
AUGUST 13, 2010 PAULSONʼS MOTION
FOR APPOINTMENT OF
MASTER #115
AS FAR AS PAULSON
KNOWS THIS WAS
NEVER RULED ON
AUGUST 23, 2010 PAULSON NOTICE OF
APPEAL TO 9TH CIR ON
RECUSAL ISSUE. #116
NOTE --A RECUSAL
MOTION IS PROPER
FOR INTERLOCUTORY
APPEAL
AUGUST 23, 2010 PAULSONʼS MOTION
FOR WRIT OF
MANDAMUS AND
INJUNCTION PENDING
APPEAL. EMERGENCY
EXISTS #117
DENIED BY JUDGE ANN
AIKEN ON AUGUST 24,
2010. DOCKET# 118
27
DATE FILED DOCUMENT AND
DOCKET NUMBER
DISPOSITION
DECEMBER 6, 2010 PAULSONʼS MOTION TO
COMPEL #136
PAULSON RAISED THE
ʻSTANDINGʼ ISSUE
DENIED BY JUDGE
HAGGERTY ON
DECEMBER 10, 2010
#137 HON. HAGGERTY
NEVER ADDRESSES
THE STANDING ISSUE--
TO THIS DAY.
**********************
SO WHERE ARE THE THREE PENDING CASES NOW? (2010)
1. Paulson v. Fairway, FHLF, LLC, et al, Case No. 08-cv-00982, Paulson’s
predatory lending lawsuit has been ‘sold’ to Mr. Russillo of the Schwabe
law firm for $5,000. The damages to ‘the class’ are over $11 million.
2.In Re Paulson, Case # 09-32439-rld, Paulson’s bankruptcy case is a
disaster. Paulson has lost everything even though his real estate was not
underwater. Value of real estate $655,000-$400,000 Fairway loan=
$255,000 equity for Paulson----all lost in the bankruptcy proceeding??
3.Mr. Russillo has evicted Paulson in the State court proceedings, by means
of Judge Mosman’s Judicial Misconduct above and they have taken
possession of ALL of his personal property, which was abandoned by the
bankruptcy trustee who did not participate in these proceedings.
4.Because Oregon federal magistrate Judge Paul Papak demonstrated
objective BIAS in favor of Mr. Russillo by allowing him a hearing on his
only issue and would not allow a hearing on Paulson’s seven (7) motions,
Paulson appealed this matter to the Ninth Circuit in Case # 10-35745
on August 24, 2010.
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT OF NINTH CIRCUIT JUDGES
RICHARD R. CLIFTON, JAY (MEMO) BYBEE AND SANDRA
IKUTA
On September 14, 2010 these three judges ruled in Docket #11 in
Case No. 10-35745 that Paulson’s interlocutory appeal regarding Judge
Papak’s disqualification due to his bias “....was not final nor appealable”.
They were protecting what U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer
refers to as “the guild”. All federal courts of appeals permit a party to seek
28
interlocutory review of a refusal to disqualify via mandamus, reasoning
that, at least in some cases, the damage to public confidence in the justice
system (or perhaps to the litigants) would not be undone by post-judgment
appeal. Charles Gardner Geyh, Federal Judicial Disqualification, An
Analysis of Federal Law, Federal Judicial Center, Second Edition, Page 105
(2010)
Paulson had properly filed his Writ of Mandamus. It is Judicial
Misconduct to ‘protect the guild’.
THE LEGAL FORECLOSURE WORLD IN OREGON CHANGES on
October 6, 2010
THE NATACHE RINEGARD-GUIRMA CASE (aka ‘Natache’s
Case)
The New Issue of ‘Standing’ in Oregon Foreclosure Cases
Facts Detail: On October 6, 2010 U.S. District Court Judge Garr
King rendered his decision in U.S. District Court Case # 10-cv-1065,
Natache Rinehard-Guirma v. Bank of America, et al. on her TRO and
Preliminary Injunction which held that if a lender failed to assign the Note
when assigning the trust deed, then a foreclosure attempted by only the
holder of the trust deed was a nullity.
Paulson’s facts are exactly on ‘all fours’ with Natache’s case and both of
which are extensively briefed here. For this reason, after learning of
Natache’s case, Paulson immediately moved the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in
Portland to hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue of ‘Standing’ and for a
Stay in the forums to do so. As pointed out below, on December 19,
2010 Paulson rushed to point these facts out to the judiciary in the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals, to the Bankruptcy Court and to the District Court
because they are determinative of all the pending cases. FHLF, LLC’s,
Paulson’s putative creditor here, lacked standing under Judge King’s ruling
(which still is the law in Oregon today). FHLF, LLC like Natache’s case,
only held the trust deed, not the promissory note. Therefore, FHLF, LLC
had no standing to foreclose and no standing before any of these courts.
The first alert on the issue of FHLF, LLC’s lack of legal standing following
Judge King’s decision in Natache’s case was in U.S. District Court of Oregon
29
in Paulson’s Motion to Compel. (Docket #136 in Case #08-cv-00982--See
chart above) Judge Haggerty denied it without a hearing. The lack of
‘Standing’ issue was contained in that motion which Judge Haggerty took
no note.
DO THESE JUDGES KNOW RIGHT FROM WRONG?
PAULSON’S FORECLOSURE WORLD SHOULD HAVE ‘RIGHTED’
ITSELF THEN AND THERE, WITH ‘NATACHE’S CASE, BUT DIDN’T.
FOR THE NEXT THREE YEARS NOT ONE OF THE TWENTY (20)
JUDGES HAVE DEIGNED TO ENTERTAIN THE RULE OF LAW AS IT
PERTAINS TO THE LENDER’S LACK OF STANDING------
THROUGHOUT OREGON.
In short, this is not just Paulson’s problem, it is happening to
every one of the thousands of Oregonians suffering foreclosure
in the state. Perhaps, throughout the West.
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT -- BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL
JUDGES PAPPAS HOLLOWELL JURY AND MARKELL
On December 19, 2010 Paulson filed a 22 page Motion, Legal
Memorandum and Declaration with the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel to
Expunge all filings by FHLF, LLC because of their lack of Standing. BAP
Case # 10-1173, Docket #22. To be sure, Paulson also sent this pleading to
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Portland, Oregon (where it mysteriously
disappears).
On January 18, 2011, Judges Pappas and Markell deny Paulson’s
filings above without discussing a single issue nor case raised in those 22
pages of legal briefing on FHLF, LLC’s lack of standing. Docket # 23 of
BAP Case No. 10-1173 This begins three years of judicial, legislative and
executive branches of government turning away from important foreclosure
issues; one of thousands of foreclosure cases pending in Oregon.
Paulson also filed his ninety-eight (98) page pleading with all other
courts including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the issue
of ‘standing’ on December 29, 2010. (Docket # 1 and 2 in Court of
Appeals case # 10-36178)
30
FEES -- The Ninth Circuit is using the issue of fees to get rid of cases
filed by regular citizens also known as Pro Se filers.
Paulson paid the regular filing fee when he commenced his predatory
lending case in 2008. Paulson was neither a pauper nor homeless until
May 24, 2010 when, without notice, Fairway evicted him and took
possession of all of his worldly goods on that day. As discussed herein, that
nonjudicial foreclosure was done illegally and without prior notice to
Paulson. Thus, Paulson found himself homeless and destitute on May 24,
2010 due to the machinations of the judiciary here and the lender here.
Accordingly, with chagrin, Paulson applied to the Court for In Forma
Pauperis (IFP) or pauper status on July 27, 2010.
NINTH CIRCUIT USES ‘FEES’ TO TRUNCATE APPEALS
EVENT CASES FILED AND
DOCKET #
DISPOSITION AND
DOCKET #
IFP APPLICATION FILED
BY PAULSON JULY 27,
2010 IN DISTRICT
COURT
A SECOND IFP
APPLICATION IS FILED
BY PAULSON IN THE
NINTH CIRCUIT ON
SEPTEMBER 16, 2010
08-CV-000982 #107
NINTH CIRCUIT CASE#
10-35745 DOCKET #12
DENIED BY JUDGE
PAPAK ON SEPTEMBER
10, 2010 AS MOOT
BECAUSE FILING FEE
WAS PAID WHEN THE
DISTRICT COURT CASE
WAS FILED BY PAULSON
IN 2008!!??. #121
Things Change--See
Above
31
EVENT CASES FILED AND
DOCKET #
DISPOSITION AND
DOCKET #
THE NINTH CIRCUIT
COURT CLERK ORDERS
THAT PAULSON MUST
APPLY FOR IFP STATUS
OR PAY THE $455 FILING
FEE OR THE CASE WILL
BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE.
JANUARY 10, 2011
A THIRD IFP
APPLICATION FILED BY
PAULSON FEB. 3, 2011
NINTH CIRCUIT COURT
CASE #10-36178
DOCKET #8
NINTH CIRCUIT CASE #
10-36178 DOCKET # 12
THIS IFP APPLICATION
IS ALSO FILED IN NINTH
CIRCUIT CASE
#10-35745 DOCKET #12
JUDGES LEAVY AND
BYBEE DENY THE IFP
BECAUSE THEY FIND
THE APPEAL IS
FRIVOLOUS. ORDERS
PAULSON TO PAY $455.
FAILURE TO PAY WILL
RESULT IN APPEAL
BEING DISMISSED FOR
LACK OF
PROSECUTION. NO
FURTHER MOTIONS
FOR IFP ALLOWED.
SHOW CAUSE WHY THE
APPEAL SHOULD NOT
BE SUMMARILY
AFFIRMED ORDERED.
MARCH 16, 2011
PAULSON PAYS $455
AND FILES 15 PAGE
RESPONSE TO ORDER
TO SHOW CAUSE ON
APRIL 4, 2011
NINTH CIRCUIT
#10-36178 DOCKET #18
AND #20
JUDGES CANBY, GOULD
AND TALLMAN FIND
THE “....QUESTIONS
RAISED IN THIS APPEAL
ARE INSUBSTANTIAL
AND AFFIRM DISTRICT
COURT JUDGMENT.
PAULSONʼS MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE WITH
11-60038 (BAP
DECISION) DENIED AS
MOOT. JUNE 28, 2011
32
EVENT CASES FILED AND
DOCKET #
DISPOSITION AND
DOCKET #
PAULSON APPEALS THE
MAY 10, 2011 BAP
DECISION TO THE
NINTH CIRCUIT ON
JUNE 03, 2011
NINTH CIRCUIT CASE
#11-60038 DOCKET #3
NINTH CIRCUIT DEPUTY
CLERK ORDERS
PAULSON TO FILE AN
IFP APPLICATION OR
PAY THE $455 FILING
FEE OR THE CASE WILL
BE DISMISSED FOR
FAILURE TO
PROSECUTE.
JUNE 15, 2011
ON DECEMBER 5 2011
THE COURT CLERK, IN
IDENTICAL LANGUAGE
TO CASE # 10-35745
DISMISSES BOTH
CASES FOR FAILURE TO
PAY FEES. DOCKET # 7
PAULSON FILES FOR AN
EN BANC PROCEEDING
IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ON JUNE 7, 2013
NINTH CIRCUIT
#13-35160
IDENTICAL
ʻBOILERPLATE
LANGUAGE DENYING
IFP STATUS, ASKING
FOR $455 AND SO ON..
KEEP IN MIND JUDGE
MOSMAN HAD
GRANTED PAULSON
IFP STATUS IN CASE
#12-00196 ON
FEBRUARY 12, 2013.
DOCKET # 14
It is important to put Paulson’s precarious status of being homeless in
juxtaposition with the chart above. Paulson was making all these
Emergency filings above, commencing on June 1, 2010 in handwritten
form, because he was without his computer or any of his files on
this very case. You will note that no court mentions this sorry fact even
though Paulson laid it out in ‘four-part harmony’ in those pleadings.
This is what makes these subsequent Ninth Circuit court rulings so
ridiculous in the face of the issue of FEES:
33
Judge Paul Papak denies Paulson’s application for IFP status on
September 10, 2010 “.....as Moot as the requisite filing fee was paid at
the time this case (the appeal) was initiated.” Case No. 08-cv-00982,
Docket #121 Paulson had an ability to pay in 2008, but not in
2010. Things Changed!
Paulson filed his IFP application in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
on September 16, 2010 (Docket # 12 and #14 in the Court of Appeals
Case # 10-35745)
On December 19, 2010 Paulson, having studied Natache’s case, files
a Motion for ALL these Courts to reexamine the issue of whether or not
FHLF, LLC had ‘Standing’. The issue of Standing is never waived and is
always subject to being contested.
On December 29, 2010 Paulson files one of the most important
pleadings with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Docket #’s 1 and 2 in
case #10-36178). But, the 9th Circuit Court Clerk notes there is a filing fee
due on that same date on the same docket entry.
Then twelve (12) days later, on January 10, 2011, the 9th Circuit
Court Clerk notes at Docket #8 in Case #10-36178: “ A review of the district
court docket reflects that appellant has not paid the docketing and filing
fees for this appeal.” Thus commences standard language requiring
Paulson to file a motion for IFP status, the demand for $455 filing fee
and a requirement to otherwise show cause why the appeal should not be
dismissed for failure to prosecute. A review of the Pacer dockets will quickly
disclose that this is knee-flex NINTH CIRCUIT boilerplate language to
illegally truncate appeals to them. One wonders how many poor people are
turned away an the door to the Ninth Circuit while they are in Hawaii
having productive educational seminars.
Setting a pattern that continues to this day, Bankruptcy Appellate
Panel Judges Pappas and Markell denied Paulson’s twenty-two (22) page
Motion to Expunge on January 18, 2011 without a mention of the law or
the facts. (Docket # 23, BAP case # 10-1173) The ORDER states:
“On December 27, 2010, appellant (Paulson) filed with the
BAP a motion to expunge appellee’s proof of claim and
34
vacate all orders granting relief from stay. The Panel has
received and considered the motion. All relief requested
in appellant’s motion is hereby ORDERED DENIED.”
Note that the Judges state they “considered” the pleading. What they
don’t say is whether or not they read Paulson’s 22 page pleading. What
they don’t say is anything about Constitutional Standing. What they don’t
say is anything about the law nor the facts. Nor the cases. Nor The Rule of
Law. Rather they say, without more, ‘Ordered Denied’. This is why
Natache’s case and Paulson’s case are facilitating more legal expense in the
foreclosure world than any normal citizen knows about. When poor people
have a defense to illegal foreclosures. All due to Judicial Misconduct.
And we countenance this sort of judicial arrogance. At poor people’s
expense---homeless people, vulnerable people -- with no judicial empathy
palpable anywhere. This pattern characterizes the remainder of Ninth
Circuit decisions in Paulson’s case and in Natache’s case. To the end of
2013---------with no end in sight.
On February 3, 2011 Paulson files his third IFP application. (Docket
#12 in Ninth Circuit Case # 10-36178)
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT LEAVY AND BYBEE
On March 16, 2011, Hon. Leavy and Bybee ordered Paulson’s IFP denied
because ‘we’ find that the appeal is frivolous. (Docket #17 in case
#10-36178) The Order goes on to require Paulson to show cause why this
appeal should not be summarily affirmed (then what follows is the
‘boilerplate’ fee language the Court uses to truncate appeals).
On March 16, 2011 there is oral argument on the Bankruptcy proceeding
(Case # 10-1173 # 26)before the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. (BAP)
Paulson argues the issue of Standing without comment by the Panel.
On April 4, 2011 Paulson pays the $455 filing fee and files a fifteen (15)
page legal brief in response to the show cause order. #19 and #20 in Case
No. 10-36178
On May 10, 2011 the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel rendered their written
decision without mentioning the issue of Standing raised by Paulson in his
35
22 page pleading dated December 19, 2010. Paulson argued the issue of
Standing at oral argument and in his pleadings submitted to the BAP.
On May 16, 2011 Paulson files his Notice of Appeal of the BAP decision
and a Motion to consolidate the two cases at the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.
Judicial Misconduct As stated above, On May 10, 2011 the U.S.
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel rendered their written decision without
mentioning the issue of Standing. Paulson appealed this decision to the
Ninth Circuit in his pleading dated May 31, 2011. (Docket #27-33 in BAP
Case # 10-1173) Paulson also moved to consolidate this appeal with the
extant case in the Ninth Circuit. (Docket #1 in Ninth Circuit Case
#11-60038) Paulson’s opening brief was not due until September 12, 2011.
In that same ‘boilerplate’ language, on June 15, 2011 the Ninth Circuit
again Orders that Paulson file a motion to proceed as an IFP, pay that $455
filing fee within 21 days or the appeal will be dismissed. (Docket # 3 Ninth
Circuit Case #11-60018) By Molly Dwyer Clerk of the Court.
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT OF NINTH CIRCUIT COURT JUDGES
CANBY, GOULD AND TALLMAN
Judicial Misconduct In a one page ruling dated June 28, 2011,
without a discussion of any of the one hundred thirteen (113) pages of
pleadings filed by Paulson, the Honorable Judges of the Ninth Circuit,
William C. Canby, Ronald M. Gould and Richard C. Tallman decide, after
examining the record, that “... the questions raised in this appeal are so
insubstantial as not to require further argument.” (Docket # 24 in Ninth
Circuit Case # 10-36178) No mention of the issue of Standing. No
mention of the arguments, issues nor facts raised by Paulson.
*************************************************************
A legal and logical conundrum -- How can the identical issue of legal
Standing warrant discussion and analysis leading to a written opinion in
Natache’s case and in the Fawn Ridge case, but not in Paulson’s case on
identical facts?
************************************************************
36
In the Ninth Circuit Court Case No. 10-36178, Paulson referred to above as
one of the most important cases of Paulson’s life. It is the appeal of
12/29/10 following Paulson’s learning about U.S. District Court Garr King’s
ruling in Natache’s case on the issue of Standing. Judges Jay (Memo)
Bybee, and Leavy decide Paulson does not get IFP status because they find
the appeal is frivolous. (Docket #17) Later, on the same case, (10-36178)
Judges Canby, Gould and Tallman decide the questions raised in this
appeal (not briefed yet) are so ‘insubstantial’ as not to require further
argument. (Docket # 24)
But, here is another question -- These three judges also decide that
Paulson’s Motion to Consolidate this matter (involving Standing) with
Ninth Circuit Court Case No. 11-60038 (the BAP appeal, involving Standing
and other issues) is moot. (Case No. 10-36178, Docket #24)
The BAP appeal (Case No. 11-60038) is still pending in the Ninth Circuit
under the boilerplate language referred to multiple times. This case
received Paulson’s addendum to his petition for a hearing En Banc on
November 28, 2011 and should be still pending. No judge has ruled on
the merits of this BAP appeal and there is the new evidence of Judge
Dunn’s never having read the Portland District Court file which bears
directly on the BAP twenty (20) page written opinion. The consolidation is
not moot.
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT OF NINTH CIRCUIT COURT JUDGES
RAWLINSON, BEA AND MURGUIA
On September 14, 2011 Paulson files his 17 page Writ of Mandamus and
for a Declaratory proceeding in the Ninth Circuit in Docket #1, Case #
11-72697 asking the Court to address the issue of Standing and to
Stay all other proceedings. (Note-no judges entertain the Motions for a
Declaratory proceeding--a separate proceeding altogether.)
Judicial Misconduct - In Case No. 11-72697 Ninth Circuit Court Judges
Rawlinson, Bea and Murguia deny Paulson’s Writ of Mandamus on October
18, 2011 (Docket # 3) without a discussion of the law, facts nor cases
presented by Paulson’s pleading filed on September 14, 2011. No
discussion of the issue of Standing.
37
On October 19, 2011 PAULSON FILES A lawsuit in state court
Against Attorney Arbaugh, Russillo and Trustee Mitchell AND IT IS
REMOVED TO AN ADVERSARY PROCEEDING IN FEDERAL
BANKRUPTCY COURT BY RUSSILLO ET AL. Adversary Case
No. 11-03309
Paulson filed this lawsuit in state court instead of federal court because
after a year of trying, Paulson clearly could not get any ruling on any rule of
law on any matter in Oregon’s federal court (Haggerty, Papak, Aiken et al.,
nor in the Ninth Circuit.
JUDGE DUNN AGAINOn
November 29, 2011, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dunn holds an
initial hearing on Paulson’s lawsuit and makes a startling admission,
recounted above, on the record in open court. At the end of the proceeding,
Judge Dunn admits he never read the U.S. District Court file in Case No. #
08-cv-00982. That matters and it is so startling. The whole Kabuki dance
of May 7, 2010 is based on the value of the underlying predatory lending
class action to Paulson(‘s ‘Estate”). If it has great value, then the Trustee,
Amy Mitchell should pursue it. If it has no value then it is no use spending
the ‘Estate’ money pursuing it. Judge Dunn had no crystal ball, but needed
to do “due diligence” to determine that question. He admitted on
November 29, 2011 that he did not do the required ‘due diligence’
yet ruled as though he had.
But, it gets worse. There is much (fake) discussion in the May 7,
2010 hearing as to whether there were funds in the ‘Estate’ to pursue the
predatory loan litigation. Case No. 08-00982 It was a given that there
were no such funds according to Judge Dunn and Trustee Amy Mitchell.
They were wrong. Over $35,000 came into Paulson’s ‘Estate’ in 2012;
Paulson’s money, but was sequestered by Trustee Mitchell in the
bankruptcy proceedings. More than enough to fund the predatory loan
matter Judge Dunn failed to do ‘due diligence’ on earlier. Remember, Ms
Mitchell “abandoned” Paulson’s ‘Estate’ in 2010.........!
EMBEZZLEMENT IN BANKRUPTCY COURT
Everybody knows the dance in bankruptcy court. All the ‘players’ know
38
each other, so a lot is done subterranean or kabuki style. Judge Dunn
knows this money, $35,000, belongs to Paulson, but decides it should go to
Amy Mitchell who appears in his court often and sits on the Creditor side of
the courtroom even though in theory she is supposed to be a trustee of
Paulson’s ‘Estate’. Well, she hasn’t done a very good job and Paulson
formally pointed that out in 2010 and asked that she be removed THEN.
The Judicial Council should look into why that was not done. She is no
longer ‘neutral’ since Paulson filed suit against her. Yet, Judge Dunn and
the legal apparatus at bankruptcy court allow her to take Paulson’s hard
earned funds to pay her lawyer for defending her against her negligence.
WHERE OR WHERE IS THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE
THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE OVERSEEING ALL THIS??
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT JUDGE DUNN
On December 7, 2011 Paulson filed his seven-page formal judicial
misconduct complaint against Judge Dunn. See Case No. 11-90185 On
December 24, 2011 Paulson inquired as to whether the Ninth Circuit was
going to obtain a record of the November 29, 2011 hearing on this matter.
The Ninth Circuit never answers the letters of Paulson. They go into the
ethernet.
39
It is the end of 2011 and Things Get Stranger. While Judges in
the Ninth Circuit ignore The Rule of Law; their Court Clerks make
substantive decisions to throw Paulson out of court. Transparent ones.
On December 5, 2011 the Ninth Circuit Court Clerks do the same thing
as Judge Dunn; namely, decide that the headings on pleadings don’t mean
what they say. Paulson’s filing for an En Banc hearing is not only
fraudulently diverted from Ninth Circuit judges by Court staff; two appeals
by Paulson get tossed by Court Staff as well,I in the same stroke of the pen.
Viz.
EVENT CASE AND DOCKET # DISPOSITION
PAULSON FILES FOR AN
EN BANC REHEARING
AND DECLARATORY
PROCEEDING DATED
NOVEMBER 21, 2011
10-35745 DOCKET #16 ON DECEMBER 05, 2011
DEPUTY CLERK: MF
“CONSTRUES” THE
FILING AS A MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND FILED TOO LATE AS
SUCH.
PAULSON FILES A WRIT
OF MANDAMUS DATED
NOVEMBER 21, 2011
10-35745 DOCKET #16 ON DECEMBER 05, 2011
DEPUTY CLERK: MF
DECIDES THE WRIT OF
MANDAMUS WILL NOT
BE “ENTERTAINED”
ALLEGEDLY BECAUSE
PAULSON DIDNʼT PAY
FILING FEES IN CASE #
11-60038
40
EVENT CASE AND DOCKET # DISPOSITION
ON DECEMBER 8,
2011BEGINS A PATTERN
THAT CONTINUES TO
THIS DAY--THE
DISTRICT COURT
CLERKS AND THE NINTH
CIRCUIT COURT
CLERKS PURPORT TO
NOT BE ABLE TO
IDENTIFY ANY PENDING
CASE FOR PAULSON
AND RETURN FILED
PLEADINGS.
STILL PENDING IN
DISTRICT COURT IS #08-
cv-00982 AND IN THE
NINTH CIRCUIT CASE #
10-35745, 11-60038
DISTRICT COURT
CASE#08-cv-00982
CONTINUES TO THIS
DAY. IN ADDITION, 12-
mc-00196-MO is on
appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
An exchange of letters in 2011 and 2012 regarding the status of the
complaint of judicial misconduct against Judge Dunn filed in December of
2010, should be a part of the record. Paulson also inquired about the status
of the two appeals regarding his Writ of Mandamus/Declaratory
Proceeding and Petition En Banc on Case Nos.# 10-35745 and 11-60038.
THE CAPTIONS IN FILED PLEADINGS MEAN WHAT THEY SAY
Judge Dunn Decides a Pleading Caption doesn’t Mean What it Says. The
Ninth Circuit Court Clerk’s office does the same thing.
On March 9, 2012 Paulson filed two sets of pleadings with Judge Randall
Dunn in the adversary case (the lawsuit Paulson has filed against Attorney
Russillo, among others) to be heard the following week. One set of
pleadings is Paulson’s Motion to Compel and the second is a
Motion to Expunge all prior pleadings filed by FHLF, LLC due to
lack of Standing. Mysteriously only the Motion to Compel shows up on
the Bankruptcy Court Official Docket: That of the Motion to Compel.
41
(Docket #51 to 58, Adv. Proceeding Case # 11-03309-rld) A copy of the
cover page of that pleading demonstrates there could be no reason for
Judge Dunn’s “misunderstanding”. Rather it is his excuse to avoid
the issue of Standing.
This pleading is over 100 pages and includes virtually all of the evidence
needed to dispatch the case in its entirety on the issue of Standing. Judge
Dunn’s malfeasance in ignoring this pleading with exhibits is staggering.
On March 16, 2012 Judge Randall Dunn held a hearing on, among other
things, purportedly to be on Paulson’s Motion to Expunge all of FHLF,
LLC’s pleadings and proceedings due to lack of legal Standing and
Paulson’s Motion to Compel. When asked on the record about the Motion
to Expunge, Judge Randall advised on the record that he construed this
pleading as an ‘Exhibit’ to the Motion to Compel and refused to hear
argument on the issues pertaining to Standing raised therein. Standing.
Judge Dunn is a patent unrepentant liar.
On May 4, 2012 Paulson filed another formal judicial complaint on all
judges involved in this matter, calling on how the courts handling of
foreclosure cases in Oregon is “Barbaric”. On May 11, 2012 the Ninth
Circuit Clerk of the Court advised “Ms Paulson” that “.......a review of the
record reflects no pending cases filed by you in this court”, and ‘un-filed’
that document. The document contains the Ninth Circuit ‘filed‘ stamp
which is dated. How could the Ninth Circuit not find any cases filed by
Paulson in the Ninth Circuit when they have a sophisticated electronic file
tracking system. (This important part of the record, with file stamp, will be
provided by Paulson upon request. The title of this document is “Barbaric”.
If no request is made to Paulson and the Judicial Council rules without
42
requesting that Paulson furnish this part of the record will prove that the
Ninth Circuit Judicial Council did not read this document.)
On May 17, 2012 Judge Papak “struck” Paulson’s Motion to
Consolidate, among other pleadings and returned “(unidentified)
documents” in U.S. District Court Case No 08-cv-00982. Docket #190
PAULSON REDOUX
In 2011, Judge Haggerty denied Paulson’s Motion for a Declaratory
proceeding among other motions because the case had been appealed to the
Ninth Circuit. Case #08-cv-00982 Docket #168 But, these denials were
without prejudice “....to (Paulson’s) right to refile after the appeal is
resolved. Docket # 169
Accordingly, all the previous pleadings, particularly with respect to
FHLF,LLC’s lack of Standing were properly refiled in U.S. DISTRICT
COURT IN August, 2012. Case No. 08-cv-00982 Docket Nos. 193, 194,
195, 196, and 197. Why then were documents ‘returned’ in May of 2012 by
the clerks’s office and ‘struck’ in 2012 by Judge Papak when they were
properly filed?
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT OF JUDGE ANNA BROWN
Keep in mind that to and including this date, August, 2012, not one
judge had ever allowed the word ‘Standing’ to emanate from their lips or
43
drain from their ink pens. Judge Anna Brown continued that perfect record
in her rulings dated October 15, 2012 (Case No. 08-cv-00982 Docket Nos.
205) and January 29, 2013 (Docket #217). Paulson wrote her a simple
letter asking why she ignored the issue of Standing. (Docket # 227) She did
not answer that question or Paulson’s letter. Paulson wrote to Judge Brown
and Judge Mosman to identify upon what record they ruled. Neither
responded. Paulson wrote again to each of their clerks. No answer.
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT OF JUDGE MICHAEL MOSMAN
Recall that Paulson had filed suit against Attorney Russillo, Arbaugh
and Trustee Amy Mitchell for their misdeeds in connection with this issue
of ‘Standing’ among others. Judge Mosman thought FHLF, LLC could
properly remove the eviction proceedings to state court (even though
contrary to The Rule of Law over the Res as discussed above). As recounted
above, now Judge Mosman decides that Paulson’s lawsuit against these
folks in state court properly belonged in federal court. What is good for the
goose (FHLF, LLC) is not good for the gander (Paulson). When Fairway/
FHLF, LLC wants to litigate a matter in state court instead of federal court,
that is fine with Judge Mosman. When that same party wants to litigate the
same case in federal court, not state court, once again that is fine with
Judge Mosman. U.S. District Court Case No. 12-00196, Docket Nos. 3 and
44
8 It is only Paulson that has NO say in where his litigation will reside
between federal or state court. It is that nonsensical result that The Rule of
Law over the Res, (property) requiring which ever court first obtains
jurisdiction, keeps it makes common sense, ergo, why that is The Rule of
Law. Judge Mosman’s rulings to the contrary amounts to judicial
misconduct, not just incompetence. These judges know The Rule of Law
with respect Standing and the Res. They are making a conscious decision
to rule for the banks and not the consumer in open defiance of The Rule
of Law.
Thus, Judge Mosman, as all the judges before hims, once again fails to
address the issue of Standing.
And both Judge Brown and Judge Mosman are consistent in not
discussing a single issue raised by Paulson, a single case proffered by
Paulson nor a single legal theory proffered by Paulson.
Then in 2013 The Plot Thickens Once Again -- $35,000 dollars
belonging to Paulson mysteriously shows up in Trustee Amy Mitchell’s
account for PAULSON at the end of 2012. Remember Paulson fired Ms.
Mitchell as his ‘trustee’ in the bankruptcy proceedings in 2010 when she
abandoned his “Estate” and Paulson sued her in 2012. In 2013, with
hubris without equal, she asks Judge Dunn to use some of Paulson’s money
45
($17,000) to pay off HER lawyers for her misdeeds here. Do they sleep
well at night?
BANKRUPTCY COURT’S CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE
April 11, 2013
Re: In re Lauren Paulson Debtor
U.S. Bankruptcy Case No.# 09-32439
Adv. Proc No.#11-03309
Dear Attorney General Holder:
This report to you will reveal criminal enterprise in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court in Oregon. I have formally reported on this case before.
The salient facts are these:
1. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Randall Dunn discloses that he has not read
the federal circuit file on Page 4 of the transcript and admits on Page
66 stating on the record that he had made up his mind on May 7,
2010 before the hearing.
2. Trustee Amy Mitchell is guilty of the most egregious dereliction of her
duties and criminal favoritism of creditors.
3. Acting Assistant U.S. Trustee Vivienne Popperl has failed to oversee
the fraudulent activities of Trustee Amy Mitchell
4. Trustee Amy Mitchell and A.A. U.S. Trustee Vivienne Popperl have
failed to take legal action or actions at all to protect the assets of the
Estate.
5. Trustee Amy Mitchell and A.A. U.S. Trustee Popperl failed to require
the Debtor Plan under the Chapter 11 proceedings.
6. Trustee Amy Mitchell and A.A. Trustee Popperl have allowed blank
documents to be filed and failed to review the disclosure documents
and application for retention of professionals.
7. Trustee Amy Mitchell and A.A. U.S. Trustee Popperl failed to convene
a creditor’s committee in the chapter 11 proceedings.
8. Trustee Amy Mitchell, A.A. U.S. Trustee Popperl and U.S. Bankruptcy
Judge Randall Dunn failed to require that creditors have legal
46
standing before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court. Indeed, on the transcript
of the May 7, 2010 at Page 65, Judge Dunn states this dispute is
between Mr. Paulson and Fairway, not between Mr. Paulson and
FHLF, LLC. Ms. Mitchell and Ms Popperl are supposed to be the
experts. Then how is it that they have failed to determine whether or
not FHLF,LLC had Standing to obtain a relief from stay or had
Standing to truncate the pending District Court case?
9. U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judges Hollowell and Markell failed
to address the issue of legal standing notwithstanding the pleading
dated December 19, 2010 filed by Debtor Paulson that specifically
outlined why the ONLY creditor in litigation of the bankruptcy case,
FHLF, LLC, did not have legal standing. The issue of legal
standing IS NOT addressed in BAP decision of May 10, 2011.
10. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Randall Dunn failed to address or rule on
Debtor Paulson’s Motion to Reopen the Chapter 7 Proceedings dated
March 9, 2012 nor recognize nor address the Adversary Proceedings
filed by Debtor Paulson.
11. Fraud on the U.S. Bankruptcy Case No. 09-32439 Docket
Record -- There are two important pleading packages missing from
the Docket of this proceeding and both were submitted by the Debtor
Lauren Paulson. The first is Paulson’s Motion to ReOpen Case (5010)
dated March 9, 2012. This pleading package is 21 pages and was
specifically filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Case No. 09-32439. But there
are no pleadings filed on the official docket of Case No. 09-32439 in
2012.
12. The second pleading package of 8 pages plus four (4) exhibits filed in
Case No. 09-32439 by the Debtor Lauren Paulson is entitled
“Plaintiff’s Objection to Payment to Trustee”. That was filed on
March 27, 2013, but returned to Paulson the same day and not listed
on the docket. It was returned by “pjk Deputy”. This means that all
of the Debtor’s efforts to petition the Court to address the issue of
FHLF, LLC’s lack of legal standing have never been addressed
anywhere in these four years of U.S. Bankruptcy
proceedings. Erased.
Now, the Court is attempting to erase the Debtor’s objecting to
payment to Amy Mitchell’s attorneys of $17,545.50 out of
$35,046.15 of the Debtor’s money when nobody told him he only
had until Marcy 5, 2013. Notwithstanding Paulson’s 3/27/13
objections, Judge Dunn approved said payment on April 10,
47
2013. Without a hearing and on a document with handwritten
changes. And Paulson’s pleadings returned and left off the
docket. (Attorney General Holder has not responded) LP
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT JUDGE WILLIAM A. FLETCHER AND
CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN
On June 17, 2013 Paulson filed for a Hearing En Banc and a
Declaratory Judgment on the issue of Standing. That pleading by Paulson
was dismissed on July 5, 2013 by the Ninth Circuit for failure to pay filing
fees! THE BOILER PLATE LANGUAGE AGAIN. This Order, citing
the exact same language used by the Court Clerks -- denies IFP status,
finds the appeal frivolous, asks the appellant to pay $455 and so on. No
mention of Standing, cases, etc., etc. No mention of The Rule of Law nor
why this case cannot be submitted En Banc. Let’s face it, the Ninth Circuit
will not let poor people file nor perfect appeals in that court system.
SUMMARY
This case has been or is pending in six (6) distinct court forums if one
counts the District Court, the Bankruptcy Courts, the Ninth Circuit and the
state court (3) proceedings. The issue of Constitutional Standing has been
raised and briefed in each of them by Paulson. Yet, each court has failed to
address that issue -- at all. In contrast, the Oregon courts have addressed
the issue of Constitutional Standing in both Natache’s case and in Fawn
Ridge discussed herein.
Either these Courts are biased against Lauren Paulson, or they are
shirking their duty, or are engaging in egregious intentional judicial
misconduct -- as follows:
48
1. U.S. District Court of Oregon: Lauren Paulson first raised the issue of
Constitutional Standing in U.S. District Court of Oregon, Portland
Division in his Motion to Compel dated December 6, 2010. Paulson cited
the then-recent case of Natache Rinegard-Guirma v. Bank of America, et
al., Civil Case No. 10-1065-PK (2010) where just two months earlier, in a
case factually on all fours with the instant case, District Court Judge Garr
King allowed the homeowner a preliminary injunction because when the
promissory note and trust deed are split for collection, as here, “...the
transfer of the deed of trust is ineffective.” Bellistri v. Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC, 284 SW 3rd 619, 623-24 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009) In those
cases, as here, a transfer of the trust deed, separate from the note, was
ineffective and the successor lender (FHLF, LLC) lacked a legally
cognizable interest in the property. Thus, FHLF, LLC has no
Constitutional Standing in any of these cases. It is that simple:
A. This issue was raised and ignored by Judge Ancer Haggerty in
Paulson’s Motion to Compel dated December 6, 2010.
B. This issue was raised and ignored by Judge Papak and Judge
Haggerty in Paulson’s Motion for Declaratory Judgement and Stay
dated March 9, 2011.
49
C. This issue was raised and ignored by Judge Papak and Judge
Haggerty in Paulson’s Motion for a Visiting Out-of-District Judge
dated April 22, 2011.
2. U.S. Bankruptcy Court : Lauren Paulson raised the issue of
Constitutional Standing before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, not only at the
trial court level, but also at the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel by motion on
December 19, 2010. The Bankruptcy Court ruled on the underlying
issues of the bankruptcy proceeding. While the issue of
Constitutional Standing was formally raised by Paulson in this
forum, no bankruptcy court has addressed the issue of
whether or not FHLF, LLC has Constitutional Standing before
the bankruptcy courts.
What should make the reader pause is this. There is a foreclosure
tsunami occurring in Oregon and other states. In theory, these
bankruptcy people are supposed to be the experts. Wouldn’t you
think one of these ‘experts’ would have noticed when a party has no legal
right to be there?
Paulson’s Motion to Expunge FHLF, LLC’s Proof of Claim and Vacate
All Relief from Stays Issued in U.S Bankruptcy Court was filed on
December 19, 2010. It is twenty-two (22) pages and extensively briefs the
50
issue of Constitutional Standing and why FHLF, LLC does not have it.
Without addressing the issue of Constitutional Standing, the U.S.
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel only states “All relief requested in appellant’s
motion is hereby ORDERED DENIED.” As in all of these courts, the BAP,
on the issue of Constitutional Standing, there is not a single case discussed,
not a single issue discussed; not anything discussed on this issue. Just a
denial without saying why. Without saying the court has read anything. In
fact, just for reemphasis, there is not a single case nor issue discussed in
any of the six (6) forums on Constitutional Standing nor on any issue raised
by Paulson in his filings on the issue in each court.
Notice that no court ever identifies that it read anything supplied by
Paulson. No court ever identifies that it read a single case supplied by
Paulson. No court ever identifies that it examined a single issue raised by
Paulson. No court ever indicates that it ever took Judicial Notice of any of
the other pending court matters, even though Paulson has requested that
they do so.
JUDICIAL NOTICE
Paulson has requested in each forum that the court take judicial
notice of the cases pending in the other five (5) forums on the identical
issues in each case. Judicial Notice of these other cases is necessary
51
because the courts refused Paulson’s motions to consolidate all these cases
into one.
Note in particular that in Natache’s case, Judge Garr King explicitly
states “The Court takes judicial notice of the documents and notes that
Rinegard-Guirma signed a promissory note............”, (emphasis supplied)
and then the court summarizes that it is taking judicial notice and of what.
Natache Rinegard-Guirma v. Bank of America, et al., Civil Case No.
10-1065-PK (2010) Nowhere in any of the decisions in any of the forums
in the instant case does any judge mention judicial notice nor the taking (or
refusing to take) thereof.
And then there is the issue of whether or not any of these courts
examined any record AT ALL. Again, Judge Garr King identifies what he
has read in Natache’s case. He also affirms what he knows about extant
case law, then analyzes the law and discusses the cases. No judge does any
of that here. None of the twenty (20) judges (sans state court judges that
have failed here as well, but that is a story for that judicial complaint
forum) assigned to do (due) justice in this case have done so.
3. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: The issue of Constitutional
Standing has been raised more than three times in the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals, but never addressed there either. Not a word. Paulson
52
first raised the issue of Constitutional Standing in the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals on December 24, 2010 in his Motion for Preliminary
Injunction. Paulson’s Motion is twenty six (26) pages long citing
numerous cases. Moreover, Paulson provided a comprehensive eight (8)
page Reply to FHLF, LLC’s Response dated January 13, 2011. Paulson’s
Preliminary Injunction Motion and Reply had twenty (20) exhibits.
Paulson’s Reply raised supplemental issues that pertained to why
Paulson will ultimately be successful on the merits plus more analysis of
the issue of Constitutional Standing.
Paulson’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction followed on the decision
by Judge Garr King in Natache’s case where he granted the Debtor the right
to stay in her house on October 6, 2010 on facts virtually identical to the
instant (Paulson’s) case. Paulson foolishly thought the Ninth Circuit would
be interested in providing him with the same succor Judge King gave
Natache only two months earlier--to stay in his house. It was even the
Christmas Season.
The Ninth Circuit ruled on March 16, 2011, finding the appeal
frivolous. Once again Paulson’s quest to get one judge, just one judge to
address a single issue he has raised in each one of these forums, the issue of
Constitutional Standing, is denied, viz., “Appellant’s motion for preliminary
53
injunction and stay is denied.” More, on Paulson’s thirty-four (34) pages of
briefings the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sayeth naught.
Paulson briefed the issue of Constitutional Standing further in his
Response to an Order to Show Cause dated March 30, 2011. That brief is
ten (10) additional pages of briefing on the issue of Constitutional Standing.
Finally, Paulson further briefed the subject of Constitutional
Standing in his Notice of Appeal of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel decision
to the Ninth Circuit dated May 31, 2011. Again, the only issue the Court
Clerk was interested in was fees. Who knows what a Ninth Circuit judge
might have done on this case because no Ninth Circuit judge ever got to
address the issues raised (and briefed) on the BAP appeal to the Ninth
Circuit, including Standing because the case was dismissed in the Court
Clerk’s omnibus dismissal dated December 05, 2011. See Case No.
10-35745 and Case No. 11-600038
NATACHE’S CASE AND COINCIDENCES
It is important to keep in mind that on October 6, 2010, U.S. District
Court Judge Garr King ruled in Natache’s case that on facts exactly on all
fours of Paulson’s case, that the putative lender did not have legal standing
once they have separated the security instrument from the debt instrument.
In Rinegard the lender, Mortgage Lenders Network (MLN) assigned the deed of trust
to LaSalle who appointed the successor trustee
54
In Paulson, the lender, Fairway Commercial Mortgage Corporation (FCMC) assigned
the deed of trust to FHLF who appointed the successor trustee
In Rinegard the lender, MLN, physically retained the promissory notes as well as the
servicing rights to the mortgages.
In Paulson, the lender (FCMC) physically retained the promissory notes as well as the
servicing rights to the mortgages.
In Rinegard payments were to be made to the lender, Mortgage Lenders Network, USA
In Paulson payments were made to the lender, FCMC.
It is important to take Judicial Notice of the wayward path both cases
take in and out of the federal court systems, the state court systems and
bankruptcy court. Each case a simple homeowner foreclosure case. Each
instantly disposable on the Standing issue alone. Natache’s effort at getting
the Ninth Circuit to take notice of her case in the other forums that the
bank lawyers and the judges have required has been dumped on in her case
as here. This is fully briefed in Paulson’s documents on the subject
discussed above. Is it a coincidence that Natache and Paulson end up with
Judge Papak and Trustee Amy Mitchell as well? Is it a coincidence that
bankruptcy court gives her short shrift as well? Is it a coincidence that
each case gets sent to state court where each loses, then back to federal
court where no judge recuses? Or uses The Rule of Law?
If Paulson and Natache weather the hurricane forces of foreclosure
relief and continue to assert that which is required for simple foreclosure
55
relief in these court systems while banks and lenders continue their
wayward ways---then what is happening to other consumers who get
dumped at first base and do not live to fight for justice again in these other
forums because they don’t know...........?
THE FAWN RIDGE CASE
The extent of Judge Randall Dunn’s and bankruptcy court’s criminal
enterprise is further elucidated by Judge Randall Dunn’s ruling in the Fawn
Ridge case which is also on all fours with Paulson’s case here. In short, The
Rule of Law articulated in Fawn Ridge was subject to his total amnesia
when Judge Dunn came upon Paulson in Case No. 09--32439. Exactly,
how did Paulson wind up before Judge Dunn again in his separate lawsuit
against Russillo and Mitchell? Judge Dunn has given Trustee Mitchell
everything she wanted and then some. How does that happen?
Fawn Ridge Partners, LP v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, U.S.
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit, Bk. No 09-15088-TD, BAP No.
CC-09-1396-HPDu , before Hollowell, Dunn and Perris, Bankruptcy Judges,
(3/29/10) { Countrywide, the lender, has a practice of retaining the original Notes.
Because Countrywide did not endorse and transfer the Note to BAC, the latter had
no standing to request a relief from stay. 11 USC Section 362(d) Court holds that
56
Constitutional standing is a ‘threshold jurisdictional requirement, and cannot be
waived (citing cases)’” Under California law, to qualify as a ‘Holder’, one must be
in possession of the instrument, and the instrument must be properly endorsed.}
When Paulson learned of Judge Dunn’s amnesia following his
decision in the Fawn Ridge case, he formally asked Judge Dunn to recuse
himself for not following the Rule of Law in Natache’s case and the Fawn
Ridge matter in Paulson’s case: He wouldn’t recuse himself. But it is worse
than that. Judge Dunn continues to allow $17,000 of Paulson’s money to
be held in Amy Mitchell’s account while Paulson lives as a pauper.
CONTROL FRAUD
Standing identifies who may bring claims in these judicial forums. In
order to have Constitutional Standing, FHLF, LLC must show that it
suffered an actual injury-in-fact, caused by Paulson which would result in
the right to redress. FHLF, LLC cannot show that because they have no
financial stake; they have no dog in the fight as is fully briefed in the
documents above-described. FHLF, LLC can show no interest in the
putative underlying debt nor that it paid anything out in the underlying
transaction. By saying it did, through it’s attorney Craig Russillo; when it
did not, means that FHLF, LLC has defrauded these courts. And it has
57
defrauded Paulson. In Natache’s case Lake Oswego lawyer Ian Kyle lied to
Judge Papak and attempted a fraud on the court there, yet nothing is done.
The Judicial Council should take a close look (aka JUDICIAL
NOTICE) at what Bank of America’s attorney Ian Kyle did in Natache’s
case. He filed a false note that purports to give Bank of America an interest
in the underlying promissory note. That was a lie to the court. The ‘real’
original DID NOT give Bank of America an interest in the underlying note.
Attorney Kyle ‘fessed’ up only after Natache got a hearing before Judge
Garr King and only after Judge King considered her arguments on the issue
of Constitutional Standing.
This is important because this is Judge Papak again. What is
happening is that federal judges are ignoring resplendent fraud when it
comes to foreclosure cases, again and again, and again. Judge Haggerty
ignores the Standing issue because he knows that issue is in favor of the
other side to his old law firm.
How is it that the downtown law firm of Ball Janik represents Amy
Mitchell against Paulson and the downtown law firm of Ball Janik
represents for Natache as a pro bono matter in the same federal court?
Conflict? How is it that the Cosgrave law firm represents Paulson’s
adversaries and also employs Paulson’s former office manager, with him for
58
ten (10) years. And in possession of Paulson’s law office computer hard
drive. Is it a coincidence that Judge Haggerty becomes assigned to this case
his former law firm is defending. And doesn’t say anything? And rules in
every instance for Mr. Russillo?
A lot of ‘coincidence’ going on here.....??? Nay, it is blatant judicial
misconduct and fraud going on here.
CONCLUSION -- NINTH CIRCUIT JUDGES ARE
TOP-‘SHEETING’
Paulson spent fifteen (15) years working for the insurance industry
across the entire United States. Eventually, Paulson became a senior officer
with a Wall Street insurance company, The Atlantic Insurance Company
that once insured The Titanic, Merrill Lynch and Nike. Paulson eventually
became aware of a management practice known as ‘Top-Sheeting. When a
Claim Manager was confronted with a ‘box-car’ claim file, such as a
maritime disaster or superfund site claim, rather than sifting through the
file, the manager would read the ‘top-sheet’ and attempt to decide what to
do next on the matter. This is what Ninth Circuit judges are doing. In
every single one of these cases. Paulson challenges any judge named here
to swear an oath as to what was read before the ruling ......and.......to
59
identify upon what record the decision was based. Paulson has asked these
judges that question many times in the last two years without any response.
When one looks at each of the Ninth Circuit court Orders, one cannot
find a single instance where the judge manifests that that judge has actually
read the ‘record’. Certainly not on the issue of Standing. In point of fact, it
is just the opposite. Without following any portion of Paulson’s careful
analysis of the facts and the law in his filed pleadings, Ninth Circuit judges
decide that all of Paulson’s particular filings are ‘frivolous’.
A careful examination of extant law on Judicial Misconduct shows
why. Identifying a case as ‘frivolous’ is a safe harbor for all these judicial
decisions. The particular decision is not easily appealed, because
identifying any judicial error is impossible. And at the same time, the judge
doesn’t have to work very hard to arrive at that ‘safe harbor’.
See, IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND
DISABILITY ACT OF 1980, A Report to the Chief Justice. The Judicial
Conduct and Disability Act Study Committee, Justice Stephen Breyer,
Chair, (2006) http://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/
breyercommitteereport.pdf
This is barbaric. It is transparent, wholesale judicial misconduct
being perpetrated by the Ninth Circuit on a grand scale.
Being homeless is never frivolous. Foreclosure is never
frivolous.
60
The rules require that the complainant write the following
statement; “ I UNDERSTAND THAT EVEN IF I successfully
prove that the judge engaged in misconduct, the procedure
cannot change the outcome of my underlying cases.”
I declare under the penalty of perjury that the statements
made in this complaint are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge.
_/S/ Lauren Paulson Date: 11/07/13
"It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the
established authorities are wrong."
-Voltaire
LAUREN PAULSON’S NOTICE OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUDICIAL COUNCIL
Lauren Paulson, 827 C Ransom Ave. Brookings, OR 97415
503-470-9709
laurenjpaulson@gmail.com
November 7, 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. PRELIMINARY..................................................................1.
II. NINTH CIRCUIT COMPLAINT FORM...........................3.
III. ISSUES -- DETAIL........................................................6.
IV. BACKGROUND 2005 to 2010......................................8.
V. ANALYSIS......................................................................16.
VI. JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT...........................................19.
Judge Haggerty ..Conflict 2009..................................19.
Judge Randall Dunn -- Banko April 2009.................20.
61
VI. JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (Continued)
Judge Papak -- Delay July 2010................................21.
Judge Ann Aiken.--Mandamus.2010...........................22.
Judge Michael Mosman -- Removal March 2010......25.
.
CHART OF DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS........26.
Judge Clifton Bybee and Ikuta.....................................28.
NATACHE’S CASE.......................................................29.
and the issue of STANDING
Judges Pappas Hollowell Jury and Markell................30.
FEES.............................................................................30.
Judges Leavy and Bybee..............................................35.
Judges Canby Gould and Tallman...............................36.
Judges Rawlinson Bea and Murguia...........................37.
Judge Dunn (Redoux).................................................38.
Embezzlement in Bankruptcy Court...........................38.
The Record/Judicial Notice........................................38.
Judge Anna Brown.......................................................43.
Judge Mosman (Redoux).............................................44.
VI. BANKRUPTCY COURT CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE.....46.
VII. Judge Fletcher and Callahan.......................................48
62
JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT (Continued)
VIII. SUMMARY.................................................................48.
IX. COINCIDENCES..........................................................54.
X. CONCLUSION--TOP SHEETING JUDGES............... 59.
DATED THIS
7TH DAY OF
NOVEMBER, 2013 /S LAUREN PAULSON
63
No comments:
Post a Comment