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 fives former office manager who has the computer hard drive for that ten (10) year Paulson law-office tenure, 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-toAugust, 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. 08cv-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 JUNE 1, 2010 DOCUMENT AND DOCKET NUMBER PAULSON!S MOT TO REACTIVATE #74 PAULSON!S MOT FOR TRO #75 DISPOSITION DENIED AS MOOT, DOCKET #98 ON JULY 9, 2010 DENIED BY JUDGE HAGGERTY ON DECEMBER 10, 2010 # 137 DENIED BY JUDGE HAGGERTY ON DECEMBER 10, 2010 #137 DENIED BY JUDGE HAGGERTY ON DECEMBER 10, 2010 # 137 GRANTED BY JUDGE HAGGERTY ON DECEMBER 10, 2010 #137 #91 IS TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT BY JUDGE PAPAK ON JULY 29, 2010 # 110. #92 IS DENIED BY JUDGE HAGGERTY ON DECEMBER 10 2010 #137 PL!S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DENIED BY CHIEF JUDGE ANN AIKEN ON JULY 28, 2010 DOCKET # 109
26

JUNE 1, 2010

JUNE 1, 2010

PAULSON!S MOTION FOR SET CONF #76

JUNE 9, 2010

PAULSON! 2ND MOT TRO #77

JUNE 10 2010

DEF MOTSUMJUD #78

JUNE 21, 2010

PAULSON!S MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE POSSESSION #91 AND PLAINTIFF!S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. #92 PAULSON!S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY #104

JULY 23, 2010

DATE FILED JULY 27, 2010

DOCUMENT AND DOCKET NUMBER PAULSON!S APPLICATION FOR IFP #107

DISPOSITION DENIED AS MOOT BY JUDGE PAPAK ON SEPTEMBER 10, 2010 BECAUSE THE FILING FEE WAS PAID. DOCKET #121 PL!S MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE POSSESSION TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT BY JUDGE PAPAK. #110 DENIED PL!S MOTION FOR OUT OF DISTRICT VISITING JUDGE ON AUGUST 9, 2010 BY JUDGE ANN AIKEN. DOCKET #114 DENIED BY JUDGE HAGGERTY ON DECEMBER 10, 2010 #137 AS FAR AS PAULSON KNOWS THIS WAS NEVER RULED ON NOTE --A RECUSAL MOTION IS PROPER FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL DENIED BY JUDGE ANN AIKEN ON AUGUST 24, 2010. DOCKET# 118

JULY 29, 2010

#110

AUGUST 2, 2010

PAULSON!S MOTION FOR OUT OF DISTRICT VISITING JUDGE #112

AUGUST 13, 2010

PAULSON!S MOTION FOR TRO #115

AUGUST 13, 2010

PAULSON!S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF MASTER #115 PAULSON NOTICE OF APPEAL TO 9TH CIR ON RECUSAL ISSUE. #116 PAULSON!S MOTION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL. EMERGENCY EXISTS #117

AUGUST 23, 2010

AUGUST 23, 2010

27

DATE FILED DECEMBER 6, 2010

DOCUMENT AND DOCKET NUMBER PAULSON!S MOTION TO COMPEL #136 PAULSON RAISED THE "STANDING! ISSUE

DISPOSITION 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 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 CASES FILED AND DOCKET # 08-CV-000982 #107 DISPOSITION AND DOCKET # 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

NINTH CIRCUIT CASE# 10-35745 DOCKET #12

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

NINTH CIRCUIT COURT CASE #10-36178 DOCKET #8

A THIRD IFP APPLICATION FILED BY PAULSON FEB. 3, 2011

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. PAULSON!S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE WITH 11-60038 (BAP DECISION) DENIED AS MOOT. JUNE 28, 2011

32

EVENT PAULSON APPEALS THE MAY 10, 2011 BAP DECISION TO THE NINTH CIRCUIT ON JUNE 03, 2011

CASES FILED AND DOCKET # NINTH CIRCUIT CASE #11-60038 DOCKET #3

DISPOSITION AND DOCKET # 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 "BOILERPLATE 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 PAULSON FILES FOR AN EN BANC REHEARING AND DECLARATORY PROCEEDING DATED NOVEMBER 21, 2011

CASE AND DOCKET # 10-35745 DOCKET #16

DISPOSITION ON DECEMBER 05, 2011 DEPUTY CLERK: MF “CONSTRUES” THE FILING AS A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND FILED TOO LATE AS SUCH. ON DECEMBER 05, 2011 DEPUTY CLERK: MF DECIDES THE WRIT OF MANDAMUS WILL NOT BE “ENTERTAINED” ALLEGEDLY BECAUSE PAULSON DIDN!T PAY FILING FEES IN CASE # 11-60038

PAULSON FILES A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DATED NOVEMBER 21, 2011

10-35745 DOCKET #16

40

EVENT 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.

CASE AND DOCKET # STILL PENDING IN DISTRICT COURT IS #08cv-00982 AND IN THE NINTH CIRCUIT CASE # 10-35745, 11-60038

DISPOSITION DISTRICT COURT CASE#08-cv-00982 CONTINUES TO THIS DAY. IN ADDITION, 12mc-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. Trustee Amy Mitchell is guilty of the most egregious dereliction of her duties and criminal favoritism of creditors. Acting Assistant U.S. Trustee Vivienne Popperl has failed to oversee the fraudulent activities of Trustee Amy Mitchell 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. Trustee Amy Mitchell and A.A. U.S. Trustee Popperl failed to require the Debtor Plan under the Chapter 11 proceedings. 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. Trustee Amy Mitchell and A.A. U.S. Trustee Popperl failed to convene a creditor’s committee in the chapter 11 proceedings. Trustee Amy Mitchell, A.A. U.S. Trustee Popperl and U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Randall Dunn failed to require that creditors have legal
46

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

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? 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. 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. 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. 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