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.
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. A Cleveland grand jury cleared two bishops of racketeering charges, finding that their mishandling of sex abuse claims did not amount to criminal racketeering. 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.