Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
BAD JUDGES AND BAD LAW IN NINTH CIRCUIT BRIEFX

BAD JUDGES AND BAD LAW IN NINTH CIRCUIT BRIEFX

Ratings: (0)|Views: 41 |Likes:
Published by Lauren John Paulson
THE NINTH CIRCUIT HAS THROWN THE RULE OF LAW OUT THE WINDOW. JUDGES IN THE WEST COULD CARE LESS ABOUT FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE BECAUSE NOBODY IS WATCHING THEM NOR EVALUATING THEIR ACTUAL DEEDS AND MISDEEDS.
THE NINTH CIRCUIT HAS THROWN THE RULE OF LAW OUT THE WINDOW. JUDGES IN THE WEST COULD CARE LESS ABOUT FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE BECAUSE NOBODY IS WATCHING THEM NOR EVALUATING THEIR ACTUAL DEEDS AND MISDEEDS.

More info:

Published by: Lauren John Paulson on Mar 27, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/14/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Page of 143
Lauren Paulson, Pro Se 827C Ransom Ave Brookings, OR 97415 503 470 9709 Plaintiff-Appellant UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LAUREN PAULSON, ) No. 13-35672 ) ) Civil Case No.: Plaintiff, ) ) 6:13-cv-00175-AA ) v. ) District of Oregon, Eugene ) OREGON STATE BAR, ) )
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S
 SUPREME COURT OF OREGON ) )
OPENING BRIEF
 CHIEF JUSTICE THOMAS BALMER ) ) No. 13-71718 and JEFF SAPIRO, Defendants ) ——————————————————) ) LAUREN PAULSON ) ) Petitioner ) ) THIS IS A CLASS ACTION v. ) ) U.S. District Court For The ) District of Oregon, Eugene ) ) Respondent, , ) Oral Argument Always Requested But Never ) Granted ) ) OREGON STATE BAR; et al., ) ) Real Paries in Interest ) ———————————————————————————————————————
 
Page of 243
.
The Plaintiff-Appellant-Petitioner designates the Entire Record of Proceedings INCLUDING THE JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF  AGAINST HON. ANN AIKEN AND THE JUDICIARY OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT.
 PRELIMINARY
(JURISDICTION) The pregnant unaddressed issue in the Ninth Circuit is whether of not this case requires a Visiting Out-of-Circuit judge under the previously submitted Certificate of Necessity. It is a class action on behalf of 14,000 lawyers in the State of Oregon who bring suit to determine if the Oregon State Bar Regulatory system violates the Oregon and United States Constitution. It is clear that under 28 USC Sec. 291 et seq., that Oregon Chief Judge Ann  Aiken and the Ninth Circuit do not have authority to make that decision. Federal law requires that the appointment, vel non, of an Out-of-Circuit Visiting judge be made by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. 28 USC Sec. 292 (NEW EVIDENCE)
The newly hired 2013 Regulatory Counsel for the Oregon State Bar, John Gleason, (replacing Jeff Sapiro) has recently quit
after less than a year on the job.
 
It is likely, from his official reports (which the Plaintiff requests this Court take Judicial Notice) he quit for the same reasons that underpins this lawsuit——-Oregon State Bar’s Disciplinary system is unconstitutional. Regulatory Counsel Gleeson had called for an American Bar Association intervention in his “Proposal for Discipline System
 
Page of 343
Review” on Oregon’s Disciplinary System dated January 10, 2014 and he was departed shortly thereafter. Discovery is required to determine whether or not he confirms the implacable determination by the Oregon Supreme Court and the Oregon State Bar to violate the constitutional rights of Oregon lawyers. His early termination as Regulatory Counsel is not a good sign for the Bar, for extant lawyers in Oregon and for the Bar’s prospects here. THE COMPLAINT This class action case enumerates twenty three (23) specific denials to Oregon lawyer’s constitutional due process rights under the present Oregon State Bar’s lawyer disciplinary system. This denial of substantive due process results in a consequent denial of their right to earn a living. Since 2008, Americans have a new awareness of the problem of earning a living. It is also a constitutional free speech case. This case seeks to rectify prosecutorial misconduct. It is a denial of equal protection of the laws case. Finally, it is a civil rights case. These wrongs commenced subtly in early 1980‘s and are ongoing to the present day, resulting from a misguided “Regulatory/ prosecutor at the Oregon State Bar, Jeff Sapiro and a misguided process enabled by an ignoring Supreme Court of Oregon. Finally, it is a pathetic case of Judicial Misconduct as is fully discussed below. Hon. Ann Aiken
 plagiarized 
 the Oregon Supreme Court’s Motion to Dismiss in a blatant and unattributed Opinion as discussed below. That alone justifies her removal from the case AND the appointment of an Out of Circuit Visiting judge because Judge Aiken is

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->