The Oregon State Bar Professional Liability Fund hired a firm called Hart Wagner to try to dismiss the complaint I filed against the defamers Linda Marshall and Joel Christiansen. One of the points I made to the Bar early on was that I really would like to focus on the merits of the case instead of casting aspersions. WIth Matt Kalmanson at the helm for the Bar, that commitment of keeping things clean did not last long.
My complaint about the PLF’s behavior in this litigation is that they aren’t any cleaner than Marshall and Christiansen. The truth is they are all pretty dirty players.
The issue with Christiansen and Marshall is that they have taken action to try to enlist a Fedral Judge to influence litigation being considered by one of his colleagues. And they are using fabricated and false information to cast me in a false light. Specifically they are alleging that one of my blog posts (Chapter 19) was a veiled threat that I intended to attend Judge Jones lifetime achievement award dinner and cause him some harm. By making this claim they are conveying in no uncertain terms that I am about to engage in a crime. Nothing could be further from the truth.
First and certainly foremost, this is not new. Marshall asked arbitrator Crow to set aside the facts of the arbitration and find in her clients favor because Judge Jones through me out of his chambers and specifically went on record that he had “utter contempt for me.” Judge Jones went on record in his chambers with an audience to say that after I asked him to step away from a case after the trial. I did so in writing. I did so because I had been contacted by someone not a fan of the Judge telling me that the plaintiff in the very case Judge Jones adjudicated was a family member. Same last name. Judge Jones did a very good job during the trial, but the trial was over. Now he was trying to help that family member collect the judgment. Today, if Judge Jones wanted me to come to his chamber to yell at me I would go. I have no disdain for him, nor was I under the impression that he had any remnants of disdain for me.
But then, we started to hear a few things about a more active interest. When the Marshall’s of the BAR reach out to ask a Federal Judge to intervene surreptitiously and leaves a trail of contact, I can only imagine the judge would be upset and for many reasons. First, its an attack on the judges character. Second, its an attack on his legacy. Third, it may be criminal.
So when Marshall instigates and draws someone like Christiansen in, it is because she has convinced him that it worked at least once in the past. Remember the ex parte contact and submitting off the record and behind close doors a transcript of my time in Judge Jones’ chamber. Now in many respects this is intended to tell me that the fix is in, that Judge Jones already intervened. Perhaps he was instrumental in convincing Marshall to take the case of my former employee. I have to treat as credible the actions Marshall and Christiansen take. so when they contact Judge Jones about a very self reflecting comment I make in a blog, you have to measure not just the stupidity of the act but the fact that Marshall was comfortable contacting Judge Jones chamber with something as silly as this. That suggest familiarity.
The first of the Bar’s motions attacks my character on numerous fronts. The purpose of those attacks is to justify Marshal’s contact with Judge Jones. One of the attacks claims that my brother contacted my former employee in 2006 and conveyed I had talked to him about flying to New Jersey to scare him. I am publishing this now because the BAR intentionally published this commentary knowing that it is now public, for all to read. My brother and I have reconciled now, but back then I had to sue him to collect $50,000 and he let his drunken state to get the best of him and he lashed out. My former employee did not take it seriously then, but now, when they can use it, they are. And by the way the BAR published that attack knowing it was false, as I had already provided to them a retraction. By the way, although I won a judgment against my brother, I have made no effort to collect it and allowed him to offset it for money spent on my nephews and niece for college, sports, music and other extra curricular activities as well as braces, etc. I never intended to see a penny of this. And further, that same brother got me into a real estate deal wherein I lost $500,000. The best way for me to let the BAR know that I am not embarrassed by these false allegations is simply to revel them to you. SO bring it on BAR. Attack me, my family, accuse me of all imaginable things, etc., because Marshall and Christiansen still accused me of a crime and I want a piece of them until they stop it. See the Anti-Slapp Motion here.defs-anti-slapp-motion.
The second piece of work was a reply to my comments on their motion, but in that reply they at least spent alot more of their effort not attacking me as much, although it appears the message to me is that I should not write letters to judges. Why not? We should all write letters if we dont like something. Its the least intrusive way to share how silly some of this tremendous waste of money is. For example, the case against my former employee was based on a complaint that the former employee made to the ODJ claiming in essence that one of my employees was going 55.25 miles per hour in a 55 mph zone and his complaint to me was the reason he was fired. Well that’s just silly, but an attorney looks at that and say hey I can make $150,000 on that stupid claim if I get in front of a judge whose a friend or an arbitrator that’s an idiot. My position is that few judges are stupid but a lot of arbitrators are. You can find the second response from the bar here. def-reply-iso-anti-slapp-motion.
The fundamental point to the lawsuit is that Marshall and Christiansen do not want me to publish to you the facts of the arbitration. The arbitrator compromises, corruption, stupidity, whatever it all is, including perhaps judicial intervention, once exposed represents a risk. After all Marshall put on false evidence. She should have been disbarred. The BAR does not do that. They might have an awards ceremony. And like child molesters, they can only get away with it when its not exposed, when its in the dark, when few know.
But now the BAR has shown us that they are wanting to keep it in the dark as well, promoting all of the bad behavior that they are suppose to discipline and remove.
Until next time.