Chapter 32 – New Lawsuit

On the Eve of filing our own Rico complaint against Linda Marshall, M and associated friends, the new attorney joining M’s team, Joel Christansen, filed another lawsuit trying to convince us take the blog down. We have not been served yet and I don’t know the details. We will add it to the bar complaint. More to come.

Remember MZ claimed he was fired after complaining about alleged billing fraud, based on a spreadsheet he claims to have received as an attachment to an email. In fact his complaint to the ODJ was not even about that. Following is some of his testimony during the arbitration. My attorney examining MZ. Q. is the question to MZ. A is MZ’s answer:

A. I don’t know, is what I’m saying.
3 Q. Now, of all the e-mails you have copied,
4 all the e-mails that we have in evidence, and the
5 thousands that we don’t, you chose not to keep this
6 e-mail that was allegedly the source of this — this
7 spreadsheet, and you didn’t make note of who it was
8 to, who else it was to —
9 A. Yeah, I don’t know if it was copied to
10 anybody else or not, right.
11 Q. Okay. But you didn’t keep a copy of it
12 for your attorney even?
13 A. No, you’re correct, I didn’t.
14 Q. Okay. And you didn’t — you didn’t
15 present one to Mr. Rote?
16 A. No, I don’t think I did.
17 Q. Okay. Mr. Rote wasn’t one of the
18 recipients of the e-mail, I assume?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Okay. If he had been, you’d have been
21 alarmed by that?
22 A. Yeah, I would be. It’s interesting. I
23 don’t know what, you know, I would have done then,
24 right.
25 Q. And isn’t it fair to say that at the

Q. I’m still struggling with, you know, if
9 you thought that it was some sort of a scheme going
10 on, why the recipients of the e-mail would not have
11 been a critical piece of information for Mr. Rote,
12 for your attorney, for the Department of Justice.
13 You say you don’t remember —
14 A. I don’t remember if — if someone else was
15 copied along with me.

And so it goes. The alleged complaint (not about a crime) to the DOJ was dismissed. The alleged spreadsheet evidence no one else corroborated. It was just MZ’s word. The email from which he claimed to have received the spreadsheet was not provided. The alleged billing adjustment was some $400 out of $400,000 billed that month. Again, it has been our position that MZ created the form but be that as it may it is in and of itself ludicrous and we count on the legal process to separate the meaningful from the ludicrous. To put this in perspective, that same alleged $400 would be as much a suggested crime as going 55.05 miles per hour in 55 mph zone. And not only did we show that we did not bill that $400 but we wrote-off time.

If someone filed a complaint against you for harboring an illegal alien named Darth Vader (from a planet far far away), accused you of something close to a crime (but not really) and then claimed whistleblower protection, and you denied everything about it and no one else saw you do it and everyone else you were with that day and night testified that it wasn’t true, would it be stupid enough to blog about? I think so. And the reason it needs to be bloged about is that this is an example of attorneys manufacturing lawsuits out of thin air, fabricating facts and targeting businesses. Just like a scam artist walking into a restaurant and pretending to slip on a wet spot on the floor and then seeking a lump-sum settlement.

Companies and owners are harmed by false allegations too. Most never really recover.

Mr. Crow reached a conclusion that we did not over-bill clients:

ARBITRATOR CROW:  And I’m prepared to

23          conclude unless someone has additional testimony

24          that NorthWest Direct did not, in fact, over

25          bill clients.

 

Just Prior Mr. Crow made other inquiries:

23     Q.   Is it your testimony that a telemarketing

24          service must bill for every hour that it works

25          and that it may not write-off hours that it

109

1          considers unproductive?  Is that your testimony?

2     A.   I would say yes.

There must be some reason applied to claims made by an angry employee.We cannot accept that any Darth Vader claim made must be accepted as reasonable. MZ did not act on his own behalf. He acted in concert with his girlfriend, Sandra Ware, an attorney. They are sophisticated in this regard.

Judge Egan represented MZ and filed the complaint on his behalf, prior to the time he became a judge. This is what he testified to:

8     Q.   Okay.  So the complaint emphasis was on the do

9          not call violation?

10     A.   That’s what it was about, yes.

11     Q.   That’s what it was about.  Okay.  I am looking

12          for a document in your file.  I’m about to find

13          it, I hope.  That looks like a wrongful

14          termination questionnaire.  Is that, that’s the

15          typical sheet that you use to evaluate?

16     A.   We have a wrongful termination questionnaire.

17          I’m not, I don’t see it here because it’s not an

18          exhibit.  But sure.

19     Q.   It’s dated at the top, ten 29 oh three.  But

20          down below, and it’s not filled out other than

21          the name of the MZ at the top and the

22          employer name and telephone number, but there is

23          a notation in the middle of that worksheet that

24          says S O L ten 27 oh three.  Do you know what S

25          O L means?

In prior testimony it was clear that Mr. Egan filed a complaint on a Do Not Call violation and did so without talking to MZ . He talked to Sandra Ware, who represented herself as MZ’s NJ attorney. The questionaire was not filled out.

The point of this blog is to show case the risks of arbitrating, dissecting testimony that showcased how ridiculous the case was. No part of this is an indictment on Z alone. People will lie, cheat and steal. Not all people. But most will if an attorney told them they could make $1 million on the lie.

We terminated MZ well before he filed his complaint. It should not have mattered that he filed a complaint to try to save his job. But when the arbitrator concludes that we did nothing wrong, that the complaint was not even about over billing and that the source (email) of the evidence was not turned over by Z, it showcases something much more disconcerting. It showcases an arbitrator that wants to set the facts aside and hurt you, because he can. Or it showcases an arbitrator that is so confused that he simply finds in favor of an attorney he knows, which is why I asked him to recuse himself.

When you couple all of this with opposing counsel asking the arbitrator to hurt us because a friend of the arbitrator, a Judge, does not like us for an unrelated matter, then we are talking about a group of people that are telling you they have decided that anyone can make any ridiculous allegation and they will prevail. You will lose always.

This is not a game. If you live here in the Portland metro area, you need to be concerned about this. MZ is incidental to this discussion, not withstanding that there was a tremendous amount of false evidence and our property was destroyed.

About a month ago, someone from the Marshal camp contacted Judge Jones chamber suggesting that one of our blog posts was a statement that I intended to cause physical harm to Judge Jones. I did not. My attorney received a call from the US Marshal’s service and I called them. And it was my attorney on this matter, not counsel on other matters. They were following up on a call made from Judge Jones wanting them to follow up on a concern brought to his attention. These are serious allegations. It’s an allegation that I’m about to commit a crime. They really want this blog down.

Still waiting to be served.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Chapter 31 – RICO

So in our continuing analysis of the Portland Oregon legal community and to summarize our evidence so far, we have an attorney Linda Marshall who entered the M case and have concluded that she was referred to M by either Bill Crow or one of his colleagues, such as The Honorable Robert E. Jones. I don’t reach that conclusion lightly having a great deal of respect for the role of and duties of a Federal Court Judge. I don’t reach that conclusion lightly with respect to William Crow, having preferred reverence over disdain. But here we are.

The tipping point remains that M could not account for how he and Sandra Ware found Linda Marshall. Attorney Marshall in turn decided to poison the well, if you will, with the arbitrator two times & in a few different ways. First she submitted a CD of a phone call between M and a former employee wherein M tried to convince him to testify against my company. This is the same person M claimed sent him the spreadsheet evidence. Second she provided to Crow a court case against a former company of mine wherein we were at odds with Judge Robert E. Jones. In that case we were not so much at odds as strongly disagreed that Judge Jones should take an active role in helping opposing counsel collect an unsecured debt, particularly when we found out the creditor might be related to him. Mr. Crow took that unrelated matter under advisement over our objections. He also received the CD and although we knew the content of it we had already objected to it without the opportunity to cross exam the former employee and to determine if he knew that the telephone conversation between him and M was recorded. Shocking but true. This would never happen in court…although I’m beginning to wonder.

And recently when Judge Jones was going to receive his lifetime achievement award, someone contacted him with my blog post of that day suggesting that it was a threat to harm him. Who gains from that action? Not me. Only Linda Marshall & M do. Judge Jones is not reading my blog. Marshall and M and Joel are and they want Judge Jones’ help.

And of course there is more. Now we have a new attorney working with Marshall. Who is paying his fees? Not Marshall. Not M. Not on contingency. We just found out a few days ago it is someone else from our past. It seems that our community is just getting dirty, low down, second class, reprehensible. Hard to believe this is about $35,000.

Judges calling other Judges on unrelated cases just to share an opinion about someone’s character in the hopes of tainting that person’s or companies litigation outcome? Pretty bad stuff.

I had suspended the blog for a few days when Bill Crow responded and is willing to meet with me on the arbitration. God bless him. His voice needs to be incorporated and I look forward to sharing it with you, good or bad.

I reached out to the Honorable Judge Jones. Nothing back. I suppose we will have to subpoena the source of the contact with his staff or with him about my blog post. I suppose we may even have to take a deposition or two. I would hate to file a complaint with the 9th Circuit.

I have reached out to Judge Jeffery Jones of Clackamas county. Nothing. But the new attorney for Marshall certainly is up in arms about me reaching out.

There does appear to be some messaging to me that if I want to access the judicial system, I’m going to have to shut my mouth and accept the results. Or even when I try, things are not going to goo well. But if things do not go well, why would one be quiet about it. Child molesters don’t do well when a light is shined on them. Judicial molesters do not either. And it is our collective responsibility to shine a light.

And now this brings us to what appears to be a group of people who are working in concert engaging in racketeering activities. Linda Marshall has through her behavior showcased that arbitrator and judicial decisions are for sale here.

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes which they ordered others to do or assisted them in doing, closing a perceived loophole that allowed a person who instructed someone else to, for example, murder, to be exempt from the trial because he did not actually commit the crime personally.[1]

Thank you Wikipedia. Aside from the obvious criminal activity and the original focus on the acts purpose, which was to broaden the criminal statutes and thereby assist law enforcement and prosecutors in shutting down the mob, mafioso, etc. But the act has afforded civil litigants like me a broader opportunity as well. So in addition to the Gambino crime family, “in some jurisdictions, RICO suits have been filed against Catholic dioceses, using anti-racketeering laws to prosecute the highers-up in the episcopacy for abuses committed by those under their authority[citation needed]. A Cleveland grand jury cleared two bishops of racketeering charges, finding that their mishandling of sex abuse claims did not amount to criminal racketeering[citation needed]. Certain lawyers and abuse advocates[who?] have openly wondered why a similar suit was not filed against archbishop Bernard Law prior to his getting reassigned to Vatican City“.

In order to meet the RICO definition, there must exist something called a predicate, there must be several iterations of a predicate act or acts showing a pattern and there must be an enterprise involved. An enterprise may be a group of people acting in concert expecting to benefit from the predicate acts.

“Although some of the RICO predicate acts are extortion and blackmail, one of the most successful applications of the RICO laws has been the ability to indict and or sanction individuals for their behavior and actions committed against witnesses and victims in alleged retaliation or retribution for cooperating with federal law enforcement or intelligence agencies.

Violations of the RICO laws can be alleged in civil lawsuit cases or for criminal charges. In these instances charges can be brought against individuals or corporations in retaliation for said individuals or corporations working with law enforcement. Further, charges can also be brought against individuals or corporations who have sued or filed criminal charges against a defendant.

Anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) laws can be applied in an attempt to curb alleged abuses of the legal system by individuals or corporations who utilize the courts as a weapon to retaliate against whistle blowers, victims, or to silence another’s speech. RICO could be alleged if it can be shown that lawyers and/or their clients conspired and collaborated to concoct fictitious legal complaints solely in retribution and retaliation for themselves having been brought before the courts.

Although the RICO laws may cover drug trafficking crimes in addition to other more traditional RICO predicate acts such as extortion, blackmail, and racketeering, large-scale and organized drug networks are now commonly prosecuted under the Continuing Criminal Enterprise Statute, also known as the “Kingpin Statute”. The CCE laws target only traffickers who are responsible for long-term and elaborate conspiracies; whereas the RICO law covers a variety of organized criminal behaviors.” Thank you again Wikipedia.

Our motion for summary judgment was taken under advisement, meaning Linda Marshall’s interference and intimations have paid off. How terrible. Great movie. Great book. Terrible for our community and the integrity of the Federal Court.

Chapter 30 – Is it Time to Retire?

What is a Federal Judge’s Senior Status worth? About an extra $3 million per judge.

Being a Judge or even an Arbitrator can be complicated. From my perspective, it is not so much the day to day administration of the process itself that makes this task complicated, but rather processing the evidence, filtering out the lies and mis-directions and controlling the amount of judicial discretion they allow themselves. When does it become apparent that mistakes are being made, that attorneys are manipulating you and the evidence is not aligning the way it use to?

Attorneys that just wont retire become arbitrators and mediators. State and County Judges do as well. Many of them go to work for a for profit group or groups that provide services by the hour on cases required to go through court ordered mediation before proceeding to court. Federal Judges work reduce schedules and pull down $200k a year for life doing so. Many of the State Court Judges pull down $120k a year for life. But retired attorneys have only what they have saved and if they retire from a larger law firm what they get in their pension plans.

The Associated Press published an article on this issue and I’m going to publish this is part here:

“SAN FRANCISCO — Now 84, federal appellate court Judge William Canby made the difficult decision a few years ago to mostly stop hearing cases after a 30‐year career. He was sharp and healthy, but didn’t want to risk mental decline that would lead him to make mistakes, he said. “It seemed to me if the goal is to work until you are no longer able, you will work a couple of years too long,” he said.

Canby’s decision reflects one of the unique job hazards federal judges face: age‐related mental decline. Unlike judges in most states, U.S. Supreme Court justices and federal appellate and district court judges are appointed for life. To be removed, they must be impeached by Congress, which has occurred only a few times.

Some judges stick around too long, colleagues and court observers say, prompting complaints that they are showing signs of senility such as forgetfulness, an inability to follow arguments and long delays in deciding cases. Judges say they often enlist peers or family members to quietly and delicately encourage the person to seek help or leave.

But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes federal courts in Oregon and eight other Western states, has taken a more pro‐active approach to the problem of mental decline by trying to get its judges to think about the condition, plan for it and handle it appropriately if it comes up.

The circuit court holds regular seminars led by neurological experts to teach its chief judges about the signs of cognitive impairment. It has set up a hotline where court staff and judges can get advice about dealing with signs of senility in colleagues. It has also encouraged judges to undergo cognitive assessments and designate colleagues, friends or family who can intervene if concerns arise about their mental health.

“We’re an organization that is required to police ourselves,” said Phyllis Hamilton, chief judge in the Northern District of California and head of the 9th Circuit’s wellness committee. “If we wish to retain the goodwill and confidence of the public in our ability to render justice by judges who are unimpaired … we have to take steps.”

The U.S. Constitution guaranteed federal judges lifetime appointments to maintain judicial independence by preventing the easy removal of judges for unpopular decisions.

But life expectancy when the Constitution was signed in 1787 was under 40. It is now about 79.

Some judges serve well beyond that age. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. is the oldest person to serve as a U.S. Supreme Court justice, retiring in 1932 at the age of 90. U.S. District Court Judge Wesley Brown in Kansas was the oldest working federal judge in the country’s history when he died at the age of 104 in 2012.

Critics say the risk of cognitive decline is among several factors that favor imposing a retirement age or term limits on federal judges. Most states require appellate judges to retire between 70 to 75 years old, according to the National Center for State Courts. State judges may also face elections and generally can be removed by disciplinary commissions without turning to the state legislature.

“(Federal judges) could be independent and still have a retirement age,” said Paul Carrington, a law professor at Duke University. “I can’t believe policing themselves is a complete answer to the problem.”

With no requirement that federal judges undergo cognitive tests, it’s not known how many experience mental decline in their later years. Anecdotes from judges and court observers, however, indicate that it may be more than an isolated problem.

Richard Carlton, who runs the 9th Circuit’s counseling hotline, said he gets a handful of calls a year from judges concerned that a colleague may be impaired.

“A lot of these situations resolve themselves pretty quickly,” he said. “It oftentimes turns out to be some kind of physical condition or some new medication somebody’s taken, or they’re in the process of transitioning from senior status to full retirement.”

Over the past five years, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes Colorado and five other Western states and has its own judicial health program, has addressed at least two complaints that could reflect mental decline.

One accused a senior district judge of falling asleep during a court proceeding.

The judge said a tiring family emergency may have been to blame and indicated that he would reduce his caseload and decline trials and lengthy hearings, according to a 2010 order by the circuit’s chief judge.

The second complaint by a judge’s former law clerk accused the judge of forgetfulness and erratic, abusive behavior. The judge underwent psychological screening and was cleared of any mental disability, according to a 2014 order by the circuit’s chief judge.

The judges and complainants were not identified.

Canby encourages his colleagues to get ahead of any complaints by, like him, voluntarily declining to regularly hear cases at some point. In an article in the 9th Circuit’s wellness newsletter, he said impaired judges threaten public confidence in the judicial branch.

“If a great majority of judges are determined to keep on judging until they are no longer mentally able to perform properly, instances of impaired judges still making decisions will multiply,” he wrote. “The consequence of such behavior will be an unacceptably high rate of institutional damage.” See the article here.Court addresses senility among judges head on _ Local _ Eugene, Oregon.

As someone ages there is a natural tendency to find it more difficult to focus, to think critically for a long period of time and some times even for a short period of time. I’ve seen that in my own life and I’m 30 years younger than Bill Crow. And as we age and if we find a case complicated I can only imagine that we drift to believe in people we know from our past business or personal experiences. If those past experiences were positive the more we would drift towards them. That’s why I have to take such a strong stance on past business partners of an arbitrator or Judge, especially senior ones, representing a strong bias threat and compromise to the judicial process.

I’ve taken a strong stance and have the unfortunate benefit of an overwhelmingly strong case for me and non-existently weak case for the bad guys. Those facts showcase that something went horribly wrong. Bias, corruption, influence from another Judge. Take your pick. It’s all darkness. It’s all evil. And it’s all too common.

Judge Canby. Thank you for being honorable to the end. You did not allow any one to manipulate you.

 

Chapter 29 – Oregon State Bar Complaint

I found it necessary to file another Oregon State Bar Complaint against Linda Marshall after someone from Judge Jone’s (correct possessive?) chamber notified the U.S. Marshals that one of my posts presented a threat to Judge Jones. For the record, I have always wanted to revere Judge Jones, but have absolutely no interest in fearing him. Reverence is good. Fear is not. Reverence is a belief in the integrity of the judiciary and a reflection of the public confidence in it. Fear is not a worthy pursuit. Fear is the antithesis of faith, whether that faith is in God or in the institutions of a civilized society.

Nonetheless as I contemplated this series of events and further considered that no one from Judge Jones staff nor Judge Jones would be reading my blog, the road to this interference would likely come from only one source. That source is the M camp. Whether that source was Linda Marshall or Sandra Ware or M or Bill Crow, we don’t know. I have asked the FBI to investigate and have asked the same of the U.S. Marshal’s service. They probably wont, but I think it falls within the mandates of the public corruption task force of the FBI.

We still have ongoing litigation in the U.S. District Court of Oregon and I can only presume that as much as Marshal has asked the court to set the facts aside and rule in her favor, because there is a presumption that Judge Jones does not like me and that then the rule of law should be replaced with the rule of emotion and I should lose…always…whatever the issue. I must admit that I am surprised at the number of judges who think that’s ok. I doubt that the Honorable Robert E. Jones believes that. As much as he hates someone, I suspect he would internally struggle a little but ultimately make a decision that would protect the integrity of the court. And yet this misinformation was directed to him. And he was concerned enough.

And so I incorporated the veiled and close to ex-parte contact to the Oregon State Bar. Judges do talk to each other by the way and no doubt this event made it to the ears of the Judge handling my companies case. I believe the Bar wants to do a good job here. But at the end of the day, they just don’t. Very few lawyers get censored in any form. This how we must do it. By publishing.

The Oregon State Bar is a mandatory membership organization to practice law in Oregon. It serves in part to protect the public from unethical behavior. It serves to protect the franchise of the law…lawyers…judges…and the public confidence in them. It serves as a quasi-government body empowered to protect the citizens of Oregon.

Oregon State Bar protect us from Linda Marshal. Take away her license to practice in Oregon. As I mentioned in my previous post, an attorney can be both competent and operationally unethical. California is a big place. Practice there Linda.

By the way I reached out to Judge Jones’ son, Jeffrey, also a Judge. It appears to be a family business. Judge Jeffrey Jones is a Judge in Clackamas County. I reached out to Judge Jeffrey Jones by phone and email wanting to assure the Jones family that I only use the pen, not the sword. I have not heard anything back. I did not think it appropriate to reach out to The Honorable Robert E. Jones.

One of our motions is coming up for oral argument. In a few posts from now we will review the past three motions and review why they failed and why they should have succeeded. And we have a guest author who will help us with that analysis. Stay tuned.

 

 

Chapter 28 -The League of Former Partners

When I do an internet search, I find that William Crow has been, and recently been, an attorney representing the League of Oregon Cities (LOC). The LOC  provides a number of member services, including training and advocacy. By contrast, Linda Marshall sues cities on behalf of former employees with a grievance.

While I could not find much on Bill Crow on Linkedin, I have found cases filed by him as late as 2003 confirming he was still at Miller Nash before moving to Schwabe. Marshall worked at Miller Nash for 18 years as her Linkedin information indicates. Half of that time as a partner.

Linda L Marshall’s Linkedin page indicates:

 Experience
Owner and principal
Law Office of Linda L. Marshall
July 1997 – Present (18 years 6 months) | Portland, Oregon Area

Problem solving for employees, employment litigation (wage, wrongful discharge, ERISA, discrimination, disability insurance).

Miller Nash LLP
September 1983 – July 1997 (13 years 11 months) | Portland, Oregon Area
Employment law (primarily representing employers), litigation. Partner (7 years) Associate (7 years)

While I believe that Marshall is a competent attorney, my personal experience and opinion has been that she crosses a line falling on the side of unethical. Advocacy probably crosses this line more often than we would like. Fighting a battle against deeper pockets probably influences Marshall’s approach and while I do not endorse it, I see how it happens. Lawyers not understanding where the ethical line lies is probably more common than we would like to admit. Crossing it periodically probably erodes an attorney’s self control. Some clients may like or need that. I would not. You should not.

As much as I would like to change this behavior, former partners carry with them either credibility or the opposite. Being a partner in a law firm with someone is not a minor point. You risk a lot with your partners and they with you.