Chapter 117 – When The Courts Take Away The Pen

Taking away the pen in a civilized Republic is the antithesis act of our time. It allows the court to attack those that publish reports of their abuses. It empowers the court to adopt a Henry Weinstein approach to interpretation. It allows the court to weaponize, to abuse discretion. It compromises the check and balances of the court and delivers to us some form of Russian Socialism.

The now court socialism delivers support to litigant’s meeting the mantra of the particular Judge who then feels free to preclude evidence that a jury should hear, to bend the message so that a jury hears a one-sided story, to embrace a litigants rape, pillaging and plundering of an estate.

Over the last few years I have written extensively about the abuse of arbitration, abuses that allow undisclosed personal relationships and bribery to flourish. It is a topic of great public interest. But the court’s do not want this story told. And to suppress this and other examples of abuse will see the expansion of kangaroo courts to deliver the punishment. I have never been so disappointed with the Portland judiciary.

During my trial against former IT Director Max Zweizig, the court would not permit me to put on the forensics evidence backing up my critique of the arbitrator. The facts get lost in the volume of evidence. In a one on one match, the jury favors the employee. There is a lot of research and empirical evidence to support a conclusion that an employer will lose a jury trial against a former employee 75% of the time. And this launches a new class of terrorists.

Plaintiff counsel Joel Christiansen delivered an emotional plea claiming all kinds of things not in evidence, such as that I need to be punished for publishing the account of the arbitration, that I make $4 Million a year and the jury should send a message to preserve their future lottery rights against business and preserve the socialism of our time, that an attack on the arbitration was an attack on the employee, that an attack of his tactics was an attack on the employee. He claimed I had written 96,000 words about this former employee Zweizig, which of course is not true. I wrote about 10,000 words on the evidence and about 86,000 words about other things, including Christiansen.

He sounded like an uneducated idiot. The court allowed him to do it even though these statements by Christiansen are almost always automatic justifications for a new trial. Well that would be true if it wasn’t Portland.

My Motion For a New Trial is attached here as Defendant’s Motion To Set Aside or For New Trial

The plaintiff Max Zweizig carried on an on about how traumatized he was that the blog was written about him and that I wrote horrible things about him. He did not deny he did those things, which included withholding programming, destroying programming, filing a false complaint and subjecting his employer to malware attacks because he just had to download movies, music and porn using a peer to peer program.

I had offered Zweizig anonymity because the story is about the arbitrator and his attorneys unethical, even criminal conduct. He refused anonymity. I redacted his name anyway. That led to some interesting evidence refuting much of his testimony.

I provided evidence that, contrary to the plaintiff’s testimony that he looked at the blog almost daily, he in fact looked at each post an average of 1 time and his attorney looked at each post 1 time. In total 2 times. Even though he had refused anonymity I took action to restrict access, by rebranding, name redaction, no tagging and limiting search engine bots. That evidence was offered to the court. See ROTE Declaration in Support of Motion For Relief of Judgment.

Zweizig and Christiansen are birds of feather. I find that dishonest people often find a way to locate dishonest counsel. Zweizig has been engaged for 20 years to an attorney Sandra Ware. She stopped practicing law some time ago.

Joel is life partner with a doctor working for Providence, Sarah Carter MD. This is according to his website. I bet he will be suing Providence over something pretty soon. Generally this partner type relationship, as opposed to marriage relationships, are more common in the LGBTQ community. Dr. Carter mentions her dogs in her profile, but not Joel.

Zweizig, Christiansen and Ware are not normal people. They pretend to be. These three tear at the fabric of all that is good and find plenty of help with those sharing a similar socialism agenda.

The courts out here in Portland are liberal, bordering on some form of Russian Socialism. We lose our democratic republic from inside the walls. We lose it when the court embraces cyber criminals simply because the criminal shares the same social agenda. We lose it when business can no longer count on a fair and independent judiciary. We lose it when we act in good faith to preserve civility only to find that no jury in a blue metro area will find for the employer.

And now to recap:

1. Zweizig was the head of the IT Department of Employer NDT;
2. He failed to return key data to clients in an attempt to create leverage;
3. Clients informed me and Zweizig attempted to extort a raise;
4. He was terminated under the terms of his contract via an email and lettter, giving him 45 days notice;
5. He had been plotting for six months and in that time destroyed and hid software programming;
6. By his last day the programming had not been found and the company shut down for 10 days;
7. The shutdown forced the layoff of more than 150 people;
8. Prior to his last day Zweizig claimed he had found evidence of over-billing clients;
9. He provided an excel spreadsheet to me showing adjustments of $400 identifying no clients and claiming he had received the spreadsheet via an email. He never turned over the email;
10. He contacted an attorney in Albany and filed a complaint with the ODJ claiming he had been fired for the complaint;
11. The ODJ asked for evidence and none was provided. The investigation closed;
12. He asked me to investigate the spreadsheet but refused to provide to me who sent it. An investigation was done and no one corroborated it;
13. More importantly the $400 of adjustments represented 1/1000th of what was billed that month. It was a childish effort by Zweizig to tarnish his employer;
14. He filed a lawsuit in New Jersey;
15. We filed to move the case to Federal Court and then to compel arbitration;
16. While in Federal Court Zweizig’s girlfriend Sandra Ware met with one of her former law school chums who was Judge Robert Kugler’s law clerk;
17. While meeting with the law clerk Sandra Ware turned over to that clerk a transcript of a hearing involving one of my companies here;
18. Kugler understanding the implication of the ex-parte contact dismiss the case forcing back to New Jersey state court;
19. We found out about Ware’s meeting with Kugler and filed a complaint;
20. Kugler responded to the complaint and attempted to abuse his office and hold Rote in contempt;
21. A hearing was held in front of Kugler, which he demanded, wherein he asked the Department of Justice to prosecute me for the complaint;
22. The DOJ refused to prosecute telling Kugler that Rote right of free speech and complaint cannot be prosecuted. It remains and right of every citizen;
23. The case in NJ State Court was dismissed and sent back to Oregon for arbitration;
24. The arbitration commenced and the arbitrator drug it out for 5 years billing everyone a ling the way;
25. My attorneys billed the hell our of us as well;
26. Six months before the arbitration hearing was to be held Zweizig lost his attorney for the 4th time;
27. This time the arbitrator referred the case to his former partner, Linda Marshall. This was an ethics violation and could have lead to being disbarred;
28. The hearings began and was not until then that we learned Marshall and arbitrator Crow had been prior partners and some calling the relationship intimate;
29. The amount of evidence on Zweizig’s termination was tremendous and his destruction of programming also tremendous;
30. We inquired of the arbitrator why he did not disclose his prior relationship and we did with Marshall;
31. He resigned and Marshall told him he could not. He said OK and came back in;
32. Once he returned to the arbitration, arbitrator Crow dismissed all of our evidence and found in favor of Zweizig. Our evidence was 2000 documents, 8 witnesses, 2 computer forensic experts and reports;
33. Zweizig’s computer forensic expert also agreed with us;
34. Zweizig committed 17 counts of perjury and destroyed more than 3000 documents;
35. His actions constituted a felony under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. He was never prosecuted;
36. The judgment was appealed to the U. S. District Court of Oregon. Judge Papak refused to vacate the judgment even though Crow had not disclosed his relationship with Marshall, she had not disclosed it, and Crow dismissed all of our evidence. Papak refused to vacate out of deference to Crow, a colleague who had ascended to Chair of the Disciplinary Board, a pure act cronyism It was the greatest affront to justice imaginable;
37. Complaint were filed against Marshall and Crow;
38. Those complaint went to the Oregon State Bar Disciplinary Board;
39. Crow had by then ascended to Chair of the Oregon State Bar Disciplinary Board. The complaints were never acknowledged;
40. Crow went into retired status a short time thereafter;
41. This blog was started to showcase the abusive power of the Bar Association, the Oregon and Federal Judiciaries in Portland;
42. Zweizig sued me over the blog claiming he was protected because of his earlier false claims and Crow’s order;
43. The Judge in Federal Court in Portland refused to allow me to put on the computer forensic reports of my experts and those of Zweizig;
44. The jury found in favor of Zweizig, a man who joked about raping my wife, who destroyed programming, who filed false complaints, who shut down my company.
45. This is a true story.