Pray for the victims of child abuse. Take a stand against child predation and against those who support it.
With a few exceptions, the Judges and attorneys named in this blog have demonstrated support of child pornography and other crimes. It’s up to you the reader to decide if that support of child predation (child porn, abuse and trafficking) was accidental, unintended (an indirect result of a conscious action), incidental (liable to happen as a consequence of) or intentional…or. Regardless, the end result of support for child predation was I believe intentional and very predictable.
Moreover, this story about judicial protection has morphed into a story of protection for profit. Most Federal and State Appeals Circuits find that a Judge taking a bribe in a case over which he/she had jurisdiction cannot be sued for damages by the victim(s), only criminally charged. That applies to judicial acts. And even in those cases where the Judges are charged and convicted, those same Judges more often than not keep or have spent the bribe money on legal counsel. Think not? Read the series of cases on Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan in the kids for cash bribe scandal. Bribes of over $6 Million. I cited those cases in my briefing to the 9th Circuit. However ultimately the Plaintiff victims in their case against these two state Judges (Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan) won a $106 Million judgment for the victims and $100 Million in punitive damages after 13 years of litigation with highly skilled attorneys in a case with a lot of public attention. Former judges who sent kids to jail for money must pay more than $200 million _ NPR. However, Federal Judges are not often subject to these same rules and civil rights cases…as was the case here. They enjoy even greater protection. Read on.
News and law enforcements agencies alike (except the Oregonian of course) have asked me if I have a central repository of the evidence in these 20 plus years of litigation with Max Zweizig, New Jersey attorney Sandra Ware (Zweizig’s girlfriend) and the many Judges who have provided protection to Zweizig. Most of that evidence can be found in the media section of this site, as well as other sources online. The following, however, is most of the relevant evidence organized by case in the 10 or so lawsuits filed by Zweizig, by me and/or otherwise related to litigation with Zweizig.
There are numerous pressing issues on public safety addressed in this blog and competing issues on public policy. There is strong public policy to prosecute child predators, not reward them. Read on.
Judicial Support of Child Porn is a National Crisis
This Portland version of the Jeffrey Epstein story is now at its core about Federal and State Judges who in various forms and times provided protection to a small criminal organization run by New Jersey resident Max Zweizig (and perhaps by his girlfriend attorney Sandra Ware). The story is particularly disconcerting because two of those Judges, Robert Kugler and Michael Mosman, were FISA Court Judges at the time the protection was executed. Kugler still is. The United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), also called the FISA Court, is a U.S. Federal Court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to oversee requests for surveillance warrants against foreign spies inside the United States by federal law enforcement. One can only imagine that private knowledge by a foreign power of one or more of these Judges having child porn could result in successful attempts to extort that Judge. Extortion was a common tactic by Epstein. Read on.
But first let me ask a question. Why would any Judge or group of Judges intentionally aid and abet child predation, to assist a distributor of child pornography in garnering a $1 Million judgment? Why would the Judiciary weaponize litigation to support the distribution of child pornography of any kind, let alone child porn with tag words of rape and incest? It appears to me there are a number of plausible reasons, even if horrific. The first possibility is that the Judges identify with the child predator. The second is to cause harm to the person exposing the child predation…and perhaps exposing the Judges connection to the predator, putting the act of retaliation ahead of public and child safety. The third is to reframe policy towards support of various forms of child predation. And of course, it is possible that the true answer is that at the time the protection was provided some or all of the Judges may not have known or believed Zweizig was a user and distributor of child porn, but nonetheless knew of the cybercrime, computer fraud and copyright pirating. Those crimes were well established. Yes, it could be a combination of other possibilities, including doing so for profit. Read on.
For purposes of fair play, Federal Judges Michael Mosman, Marco Hernandez and Robert Kugler have sentenced perps who downloaded and distributed child porn but Kugler has not often followed federal guidelines when sentencing these child predators. He’s been much more lenient and forgiving, adding higher financial penalties and much lower prison sentences. For example, on September 21, 2023, Kugler sentenced a Camden New Jersey man to 80 months in prison, 10 years of supervised post release and $150,000 fine for possessing more than 600 images of child sexual abuse, including images of sadistic or masochistic conduct or other depictions of violence, or sexual abuse or exploitation of an infant or toddler. The federal guidelines for prison time given that volume of images would be closer to 25 years. District of New Jersey _ Voorhees Man Sentenced to 80 Months in Prison for Possessing Child Pornography in Camden County _ United States Department of Justice. Josh Duggar was sentenced to 12 years, assessed a $50,000 fine, and the prosecutors asked for 20 years on a volume of child porn roughly the same as the Camden man and equally horrible types of child porn. Josh Duggar sentenced to prison term in porn case _ The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette – Arkansas’ Best News Source. Ten years ago, Kugler would have sentences that perp to 15-20 years. Mosman has been much stricter in following those federal guidelines more closely, but still weaker than the national average. Man who shared his desire to rape and kill children in child porn case sent to prison for more than 11 years – oregonlive.com. Hernandez also appears to have taken the federal guidelines more seriously and sentenced perps to 14 years. Portland judge asks pimp of 15-year-old girl why he got into sex trafficking – oregonlive.com. I another case, the perp got only 10 years. Still in another case, Hernandez sentenced the perp to 33 years. District of Oregon _ Dangerous Sex Trafficker of Young Women Sentenced to 33 Years in Federal Prison _ United States Department of Justice.
Oregon State Court’s are often taking even stronger action. For example, a Washington County Judge sentenced a fire department lieutenant to 25 years for child trafficking and child porn. Man found guilty of traveling with child into Oregon for sex abuse gets 25 years in prison – oregonlive.com.
As I will explain below, Zweizig downloaded, possessed, viewed and distributed child porn. The latest of the video names found was of a 13-year-old child by the name of Katherine, who was raped by a 40 something year old man. The search tags associated with that video include rape, young teen and incest. We have no way of confirming or refuting that Zweizig created the child porn from his home using the video and audio equipment he has admitted to having. But he certainly downloaded, viewed and distributed that child porn. And it is certainly feasible that Kugler induced Hernandez and Mosman to protect him and Zweizig and that Hernandez and Mosman accepted on faith Kugler’s representation that Zweizig was innocent. Zweizig’s not innocent and this story may be about what can go terribly wrong when abuses of power take a twisted turn…as they often do.
In 2016, the United States Department of Justice wrote “Child exploitation is one of the most reprehensible and destructive offenses confronting America today. It harms the safety and well-being of our young people; it devastates our families and communities; and it degrades our strength as a nation of laws and civic security. No matter what form child exploitation takes—from the creation and circulation of child pornography to the trafficking of children for sex—it demands the full attention of law enforcement, policymakers, community leaders, and service providers, each of whom plays an essential role in combating this unconscionable crime.” See page 6, National Strategy on Child Exploitation Prevention and Interdiction, Report to Congress. 2016_natl_strategy_rpt_-_online_version_updated_final_08_16_2016. That national strategy report is updated every two years and the concerns outlined in 2016 are even greater today.
Summary of Judicial Intervention
The second trial in 2018, was an employee retaliation lawsuit brought by Zweizig over this blog, wherein Federal Court Judge Marco Hernandez one week before trial suppressed all evidence of Max Zweizig’s prior criminal conduct, the very evidence cited and linked in this blog ( as demonstrated in this post). The trial became about using the litigation to send a message to me for linking Federal Judge Robert Kugler to Zweizig and attorney Ware. I explore how below. Read on.
The first trial in 2010, was an arbitration about a fraudulent employment claim by Zweizig to cover up a host of his criminal activities that included downloading and distributing child pornography, cybercrime, computer fraud, pirating of music and videos and other crimes. This cover up scheme was first designed by New Jersey attorney Sandar Ware (Zweizig girlfriend at the time) and then at least initially perpetrated by them in concert in 2003. During the course of the arbitration, that Judge (Bill Crow) invoked Robert Kugler’s connection to Zweizig via Ware, not as a critique of Zweizig or Kugler, but as to me for revealing it in Court. More below.
And now recently there is some new evidence that Zweizig’s litigation has been financed (in part) by one or more these same Federal Judges, one or more of whom may have provided broad judicial protection in exchange for a share of the judgment. As a matter of first impression, that may seem preposterous, but read on.
Disclosure
I am reminded that attacks on liberties such as free speech are often executed in a way to avoid notice or attention, even under the umbrella of worthy motives, that piece by piece destroy what we would never tolerate as a Nation when the sum of those pieces is measured. A critique of the Court is protected speech. The Federal Judiciary is tasked with protecting constitutional rights, not abusing them. Some Judges take the oath of office seriously all the time. Some do not. Some always try to their best. Some do not. The same is true in State Court. The evidence follows.
Periodically, when I write “we” I am referring to me and the other defendants in one or more cases Zweizig brought as Plaintiff. Historically I refer to we, for example, in describing the actions I and my controlled corporations have taken. The use of “we” does not in any way indicate that anyone else but me is writing this blog. For example, Zweizig claimed that my wife was writing this blog because of my use of “we” and then sued my wife to try to use that litigation as leverage to stop me from publishing this blog and exposing him in Federal Court.
I am the sole owner and author of this blog and always have been. No one but me. Read on.
History and Discovery
On August 20, 2001, I hired Max Zweizig to be the IT Manager of a company I owned. Zweizig was recommended to me by the then president of that company (Paul Bower). Zweizig’s employment agreement has been filed in many federal and state lawsuits and is no longer confidential. That agreement has both non-compete and non-solicitation provisions. I have provided only the signature page to show the date of execution. Page 9, Zweizig employment agreement.
On September 16, 2001 (just over 3 weeks later) Zweizig and Bower organized a competing company in Delaware with the design of stealing their employer’s clients, taking some of the employees and if necessary, destroying their employer along the way. Superior Results Marketing. Zweizig and Ware threatened employees with legal action if their plan was exposed. Nothing in the employment contracts restricted employees from setting up a competing company. Taking clients, assets and employees however was not permitted. Taking software owned by my company was also not permitted. The Delaware organization documents were prepared or reviewed by Sandra Ware before Zweizig signed them. Some of the new companies marketing material was designed by Madelynne Ware Pursglove (Ware’s sister).
In September 2002 (one year later), I became aware of this new company plot by one of those threatened employees. I took control of Superior Results Marketing and removed Bower as President of my company. Zweizig begged to keep his job, claimed he was not the instigator and after some reflection I allowed Zweizig to stay.
In December 2002 (3 months later), Zweizig moved from an office in Delaware to his home (NJ), where he worked for the duration of his employment with my company (until November 13, 2003).
In May 2003 (6 months later), Zweizig was deficient in managing his department and became nonresponsive to emails and phone calls. That same month I met with him at his home (NJ) to have him illustrate the use of the programs he was using to process and report to clients our daily marketing and sales results. While at that meeting with Zweizig, his computer and 122 GB hard drive (on the employer issued computer) appeared to crash. I was duped by what appeared to be a locked screen. The meeting was cut short from what Zweizig described as a hard drive failure, which he replaced with a 60 GB hard drive later that same day. This is unrefuted. Evidence provided upon request.
In September 2003 (4 months later), I was informed by one of the employer’s clients that Zweizig had not processed or returned client owned data since April 2003. Zweizig admitted there were some 37 files, roughly 1 million records he had not returned. Ex 1.12 Email to Max on 37 Files past due_Redacted. This document is in the public record.
On September 28, 2003, before Zweizig agreed to process and return that client owned data he demanded a raise. I refused that raise and title change. EX 1.13 Email from Max Demanding a Raise.
On October 2, 2003, after the data was processed and returned to our client, I gave Zweizig his Notice of Termination with a 30-45 day window within which he needed to restore the company owned programming and train his staff on how to use the programs. Ex 2.7 Arb EX_104 Termination Email.
On October 25, 2003, Zweizig sent an email to me claiming he had found evidence of his employer overbilling clients in October 2003. First, since I did the invoicing of clients, I knew the allegation of overbilling was false. Second, no invoices had been issued for October, so it was not even an incidental error. The amount Zweizig suggested was some $400 based on a false allegation of hourly adjustments. And there were many other reasons why the allegation was false. For the record, his employer (I) billed some $450,000 for the October work. Those bills were sent in early November, not October. This false allegation was part of plan to cover up extortion, cybercrime, computer fraud and identity theft of some 500,000 records.
On October 28, 2003 and few weeks before Zweizig’s last day with the company, I received a letter from Zweizig’s attorney (James Egan) demanding that Zweizig not be fired for reporting what he claimed was fraudulent billing practices to the Federal and State authorities. EX 3.11 Arb EX_018 Letter from Egan 10.28.03. Our attorney informed Egan that Zweizig had been given his notice of terminated well before this Complaint was filed by Egan.
Also on October 28, 2003, Jamed Egan (his first Oregon attorney) provided to me the letter Egan sent to the Department of Justice on Zweizig’s behalf. Ex 3.12 Arb EX_017 Letter to Dept of Justice. That letter would allege a scheme of overbilling and racketeering. Later, Egan would testify that he sent those letters on the representation of events by Zweizig’s New Jersey attorney, namely Sandra Ware. Egan testified that he did not know at the time that Ware was also Zweizig’s girlfriend. Soon after being shown evidence of Zweizig’s termination on October 2nd, Egan resigned…presumably deciding that Zweizig and Ware had lied to him. Excerpt Egan Testimony
Throughout the month of October thru Mid-November 2003 Zweizig was ordered to turn over all employer owned programming. None of it could be found in Oregon or Iowa servers or back-up tapes. Ex 4.4 Email ordering the transfer of programs.
Chris Cox, who worked closely with Zweizig in the IT department, claimed in October 2003 that he could not find the programming or was not competent to use the programming. Later he would testify that the programming existed, that it was simplistic…and that he had used it once upon a time. Zweizig and his attorney would attempt to mislead Crow into believing that Zweizig had deposited that programming onto the servers in Oregon and Iowa, even though by Zweizig’s own prior admission no programming was transferred. The forensic experts never found the employer owned programming on any other hard drive other than the 122 GB hard drive Zweizig had reformatted.
Again, Zweizig refused to acknowledge that any programming existed and transferred no programming, processing or data files. Ex 4.5 No Program Transfer.
On November 13, 2003 Zweizig turned over the employer owned computer issued to him, with an installed 60 GB hard drive. No programming was found on that 60 GB hard drive. Jamie Gedye and the other experts hired by company testified that they looked for the Fox Pro programming files and found nothing anywhere. See for example Ex 6.10 Gedye. Justin McAnn, Zweizig’s expert, testified that he found deleted fox pro programming after the 60-gig hard drive was returned by Zweizig on November 13, 2003; however on cross examination he admitted that he was not asked by Zweizig to confirm that programming existed on the 60-gig hard drive before it was returned, an act that again was designed to mislead the arbitrator. McCann Testimony on 60 gig hard drive fox pro files. McAnn testified that he found no programming files (Fox pro) on the 60-gig hard drive that were created prior to November 14, 2003 even though he admitted he was specifically asked to not look.
Zweizig also turned over a 122 (120) GB hard drive he had reformatted on November 12, 2003. Zweizig testified that he had full and exclusive control of the computers and hard drive through noon or so November 13, 2003. The dates and control of the 122 GB hard drive and 60 GB hard drive up to and including November 12, 2003 were unrefuted as pointed out to the Court. See Exhibit 3, page 18 noting date return as November 13, 2003. ROTE DECLARATION and EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION for RECONSIDERATION TO VACATE.
To repeat, none of the programming necessary to process and report daily results was found on the 60 GB hard drive, nor on any of the servers in Iowa or Eugene. My company processed and reported each day on 100,000 bits of data. Historically my company had programming in place to auto process and report that data by midnight each day. That data could not be processed manually in only 3 hours. As a result of Zweizig removing and destroying the programming, my company shutdown for 10 days and more than 100 employees were laid-off while the programming was recreated. There was a reasonable expectation that many of those clients would not return and that those employees would not be returning.
In March 2004, Zweizig filed a lawsuit in New Jersey for unlawful termination, as he had threatened to do and as he and Sandra Ware had planned to do all along.
In 2010, seven years after the litigation started, Zweizig’s claims and those of his employer were arbitrated (a form of litigation that is less formal). The arbitrator was Bill Crow of the Schwabe law firm. The arbitration took place in a conference room at Schwabe.
The Relevant 2011 Arbitration Evidence
The list of exhibits from the arbitration is provided herein. 0001 – TABLE OF CONTENTS. Although a complete list of exhibits has been provided, I will only make reference to the most relevant of these exhibits.
The danger of arbitration, to an unwary litigant, is the lack of independence of the arbitrator (judge), incompetence of the arbitrator and lack of opportunity to appeal. Zweizig and Ware were successful with the help of NJ Judge Robert Kugler at compromising the arbitration, first by threatening arbitrator Bill Crow and then by hiring the arbitrator’s former partner to ensure Crow complied. I was caught off guard by this and so was my attorney. We could not overcome that bias or the threats to Crow. In 2017-2108 Crow and I met several times in my effort to understand what happened. Let’s examine the evidence.
First, on the first day of the hearings we (me and my attorney) discovered that the arbitrator and Zweizig’s attorney were former partners for 14 years. Both the arbitrator and attorney had a duty to disclose that conflict to us and neither did. Also, later Crow would resign from the arbitration over this conflict and then return over my objection (and his frankly as he wanted out). Years later, I met with Crow and he was remorseful. He admitted that at age 79 (late in the 2010 arbitration) he was overwhelmed by the evidence, did not have the capacity to handle the case, was manipulated, was threatened in some way, took that threat seriously and awarded an amount to Zweizig he thought would appease those who threatened him. He was not candid initially but did come around and I bear him no ill will. He always tried to be an honorable attorney. Nonetheless he did admit to serious constitutional violations. Crow would not explain what the threats to him were. Being on the receiving end of those threats, I can affirm that every member of one’s family is a target. Read on.
Second, Zweizig had been given his notice of termination on October 2, 2003, as alleged and that was confirmed by four witnesses and three forensic experts. That termination date made Zweizig’s retaliation claim invalid. I provided my laptop from where the email was sent for forensic evaluation. Police Officer Steve Williams would testify and provide a declaration that Zweizig was given his notice of termination on October 2, 2003. Ex 2.10 Declaration Steve Williams on e-mail. Expert Mark Cox would confirm the same Ex 2.11 Declaration Mark Cox on E-mail. And Zweizig’s expert Justin McAnn, agreed Ex 2.6 McAnn Testimony on Exit time dates. The arbitrator ignored that evidence after asking for it and he remained haunted by his decision.
Third, my company did not overbill an unnamed and unidentified client some $400, a month in which the employer billed $450,000. The arbitrator would agree, there was no evidence of overbilling. Crow Decision that there was no over-billing. Not only had I denied overbilling from the very beginning, but even the posture that this $400 amount represents a scheme is childish and unsophisticated. Zweizig would also testify that it was illegal to write-off time, because it made that company too competitive. The arbitrator noticed that statements with raised eyebrows. Zweizig’s statement would be akin to claiming that an auto dealership commits a crime every time it offers a discount with a plan to sell more cars.
Fourth, Zweizig refused to transfer and return to his employer programming, report and data files owned by his employer. Expert Mark Cox issued a number of reports and testified in that arbitration that these 1,900 programs and files (which Zweizig claimed did not exist) were found on the 120 GB hard drive Zweizig reformatted, then destroying those files. Exhibit 6 Forensic Report Cox on Foxpro Files Destroyed 120-2. McAnn (Zweizig’s expert) would also testify that he found 1,900 program and data files on the reformatted 120-gig hard drive that Zweizig destroyed. McAnn Report. The Expert hired to find the programming on the 60-gig hard drive returned by Zweizig was Jamie Gedye, who testified that he could not find any programming of any kind on the 60 GB hard drive Zweizig returned to his employer nor could he find programming on the Eugene or Iowa servers. Ex 6.10 Gedye. But the arbitrator did not care.
Fifth, Zweizig testified that he used the newer 60 GB hard to send and receive email, but those emails were never found. We went looking for the October 2nd termination email sent to Zweizig in the Outlook email file he created on the 60 GB hard drive. There was no email file of any kind created before November 13, 2003. All of the emails sent to Zweizig and received from Zweizig were maintained on a separate and personal D:\drive, which Zweizig had not turned over on his last day. McAnn testified that there was no evidence that Zweizig used the 60 GB hard drive to send and receive emails. Excluded Testimony Gedye and McAnn, page 143. Mark Cox issued a report and testified that an email account was set up by Zweizig for the first time on November 13, 2003, the very day Zweizig returned that 60 GB Hard Drive. 60 GB Hard Drive Recovered Files Relevant Dates. And Forensic Cox 60 gig Report 120-3.
Although Zweizig provided hard copies of some of the emails sent and received by him after he claimed the 122 GB hard drive had crashed and was reformatted, from May 12, 2003 through his last day of November 13, 2003, those were only the emails he wanted us to see. He withheld and then destroyed that hard drive evidence containing those emails, which allowed him to testify that he never received the termination email I sent him. By contrast, my computer, the 60 GB hard drive and other server hard drives were made available for all the forensic experts to evaluate. Under Oregon law when a party like Zweizig destroys evidence, there is a legal presumption that the evidence would be unfavorable to that party. But the arbitrator didn’t care. He had been threatened.
Zweizig also testified that he received evidence of overbilling via an email. But did not produce that email. Ex 3.5 Max testimony on not keeping the alleged email. There was no such email. That entire allegation was fabricated. But the arbitrator didn’t care.
In 2005, we went looking for programming files that we knew must exist. Again, my company processed and reported daily on 100,000 bits of data also acquired daily. We hired Steve Williams to find that evidence. Williams found the destroyed programming as outlined above. In that forensic process, the experts discovered a lot of evidence of titles of porn and child porn videos downloaded, viewed and distributed by Zweizig. Steve Williams testified and provided a report, identifying a dozen or so titles of videos indicating child porn. Forensic Report Williams on 120 gig 120-18. And so did Mark Cox. Forensic Report Cox on 120 gig Doc 116-5. And Forensic Report Cox on 120 gig 120-17 . Zweizig’s expert McAnn testified during the arbitration that he found a lot of titles indicating porn and child porn but could not recover the videos and images. See page 148.Excluded Testimony Gedye and McAnn.
In November 2023 I had another forensic evaluation done on the 122 GB hard drive. Garden variety porn has now been recovered and more age specific child porn titles have also been recovered. The porn was viewed on the c:\drive, while the child porn was viewed form d:\drive or external drive. See Chapter 217 and below on new evidence. Read on.
The Relevant 2018 Trial Evidence
In April 2015, I started this blog criticizing the arbitration process (it took seven years) and the arbitrator for ignoring relevant and material evidence. Bill Crow had a distinguished career as an attorney, and he was an honorable man. Some seven years after the arbitration Bill Crow and I met few times at our local Starbucks. Again, he admitted to me then that he did not have the capacity to review or understand all of the evidence at the time of his opinion and order in 2011. At that same time Bill admitted that he was only doing half day mediations and had not done anything this complicated or voluminous. The case was not that complicated. Zweizig and his attorney made it that complicated to take advantage of Crow. When I asked if he recalled that Zweizig’s allegation was overbilling of $400, he said no and teared up. But again, as I later explore, he was threatened. I wrote about the arbitration implicating Kugler and the other Federal Judges who attacked me via the 2018 litigation for publishing my research.
All of the above evidence, all the testimony, all of the forensic reports, all of the transcripts and more from the 2011 litigation were suppressed from the jury in 2018, all but one item and that was the letter I wrote to Federal Judge Robert Kugler. Sandra Ware had met privately with Kugler and one of his law clerks while Zweizig’s 2004 case was still in Federal Court Camden New Jersey and assigned to Kugler. That made some sense since Kugler, the law clerk and Ware were Rutgers law alumni and had met and socialized at and after those alumni functions. Zweizig testified to that.
During the arbitration, Crow also intimated that Kugler had contacted him prior to the first hearing in May 2010. On the record, Crow specifically raised my letter to Kugler as an issue to him, even though it had nothing to do with the case. Crow comment on Kugler letter. It became clear that the arbitration was going to be used by Crow and Kugler to punish me for the Third Circuit complaint I filed against Kugler. I reminded Crow that neither Ware nor Kugler’s staff ever refuted my allegation that they met secretly. And my attorney strongly objected to Crow’s insertion of this irrelevant event. Kugler had already forced me to appear with counsel at a hearing in NJ Federal Court at a cost of more than $10,000. I wrote about my meetings with Crow and the confirmation of Kugler’s interference. In retrospect it is clear that this 2018 trial was a joint effort between Zweizig, Ware, Kugler and Hernandez.
After the 2018 Trial, Crow met with me (as I explained earlier) and confirmed the same, that he had capitulated to Kugler’s request during the arbitration. Crow also noted that he knew Mosman from his time at Miller Nash. I don’t know if that is true but do know that Crow had some faith in Mosman and that led him to believe in Kugler. You will note Exhibit 63 in the Table of Contents is the letter to Kugler. That letter was allowed into the 2018 Trial while none of the corroborating forensic evidence (also in the Table of Contents) of Zweizig’s porn, child porn, pirated music and videos, cybercrime and computer fraud were permitted. Hernandez made it clear that because I had published a critique of Kugler, the Federal Court would assist Zweizig by suppressing that critical evidence. And Zweizig and his attorney Joel Christiansen (Zweizig’s attorney) asked the Court to suppress that key evidence. See Motion in Limine, 48-3. And so, Zweizig lied about his criminal activity including the destruction of evidence, porn and child porn. He lied about even the existence of that evidence. That was nothing less than Court sanctioned perjury, sponsored by Kugler and Hernandez.
The 2018 Trial Transcript is here. 01-16-18 Zweizig v. Rote – Trial Day 1. And day 2 closing arguments.01-17-18 Zweizig – pltf’s closing argument. Zweizig specifically asked the jury to award more because I had publicly critiqued a federal judge and presumably this was scripted at the request of Judges Kugler and Hernandez. You will also note that Joel Christiansen specifically, in his closing argument, raised the ex parte meeting between Ware and Kugler’s clerk and/or Kugler, not denying that it happened. There was no reason for him to even touch on this point.
Zweizig also asked the jury to award him $2,000,000 because he alleged I was a rich person. That solicitation should have resulted in a reversal. When the transcript was produced however, those closing argument solicitations were missing. The Federal Court makes a recording of every trial. In addition, Court reporters assigned to the trial also record the trial using their separate audio recording equipment and transcribing equipment so as to prepare an official transcript. I issued a subpoena to the Court and Court reporter for the recordings to prove the transcript as published was inaccurate. SUBPOENA FOR RECORDINGS. Subpoena Nancy Walker v2. Intentionally publishing an inaccurate trial transcript is a crime.
I also went to the federal courthouse to get the Court’s recordings and had been told by the Court clerk that the Court’s recordings (not the court reporter’s) had been deleted by order from…someone, plausibly either Mosman or Hernandez. Not a long list of who could have done that. Joel Christiansen filed a Motion to Quash my subpoena of both sets of recordings. See 304. The Court granted that Motion to Quash in that case (3:15-cv-2401) and subsequently in my Civil Rights case alleging abuses of due process. There are no other checks and balances in place to ensure that the transcript is accurate; so nothing short of having your own court reporter will protect you. Even then, the Court can deny a Motion to allow you to have your Court Reporter during a trial.
Efforts to Vacate the Judgment
Still pending is my 9th Circuit Appeal attempting to set aside that judgment. See Filed Opening Brief. In that Brief I identify numerous recovered names and titles indicative of child porn as well as large volumes of garden variety porn. I also cite to Zweizig’s subsequent admissions of these crimes in other cases, such as his December 21, 2020, deposition. And recently Zweizig testified by declaration that child porn was heinous and that there was no evidence of recovered child porn. But so we are clear, Zweizig did refute that he downloaded, possessed, viewed and distributed child porn, only and carefully that there was no evidence. Even then there was more evidence of child porn found on Zweizig’s hard drive and viewed by Zweizig than former Judge John Michael Mann had in his possession. Mann was sentenced to three years. The difference between these two cases is only chain of custody, not of the existence of the evidence of criminal behavior. See more on Mann below.
Although this may not be hard for you to imagine, Zweizig then sued me and my wife (who has nothing to do with this blog) for me publishing the blog and the forensic reports with the 9th Circuit. That is a filthy act. Publication in Court are absolutely immune, but it is a larger transparent statement of expectation that Clackamas County Court will do what the Federal Court did and come to Zweizig’s aid. Thus far and to Clackamas County Court’s credit, they have refused to suppress the blog.
The evidence provided to the 9th Circuit and to Hernandez in my Motion to Vacate is as follows:
Excerpt of Record I. Excerpt of Record II. Excerpt of Record III. About 600 pages of evidence and it includes the forensic reports, Zweizig’s admissions, the new evidence and admissions by omissions.
The New Evidence of Zweizig’s Child Porn
I announced in November that images, videos and links have now been recovered from that 122 GB hard drive through new and enhanced forensics. That hard drive was used exclusively by Max Zweizig, from his home, while employed by one of my controlled companies. I had no idea what he was up to. More than 59,000 images and 320 videos, previously thought unrecoverable, have now been recovered. The recovered images and videos include a garden variety of pornography. PRESS RELEASE 11.17.23
The new forensics confirms, as before, but with greater clarity that the videos, images and LNK files were date stamped to a time that Zweizig admitted to having full and exclusive use of the employer issued computer and 122 GB hard drive, used from his home in Woodbury New Jersey. No one else at any time but Zweizig used that 122 GB hard drive. Much of what I publish here comes directly from that new forensic report.
Final Report for Examination Case 2773 (1)_Redacted. Note in particular page 2, Figure 1, dates of viewing of March 28 & 31, 2003 and last accessed of April 15, 2003. Yes, it’s a long time ago, but Zweizig’s perjury on this very issue was important in the 2011 and 2018 trials and just refreshed by him in August 2023 wherein he states in his Response that he did not download, possess, view and distribute child porn. See page 2, 2023.08.29 – Final Draft Response to Def’s Motion to Strike. However, in his Declaration (sworn testimony subject to perjury) of September 11, 2023, he only claims he did not admit that he downloaded, possessed, viewed and/or distributed child porn using the employer issued computer and 122 GB hard drive while they were in his possession. He returned that computer and hard drive on November 13, 2003 (unrefuted).
The new forensic report on Zweizig’s use confirmed that evidence of child pornography was also found through LNK and Prefetch files that were carved from unallocated space. LNK files are shortcut files that link to an application or file and can be generated when a user opens a local or remote file or document. Windows creates Prefetch files when an application is first run. These files can show the file names that are opened by a program such as Windows Media Player. The file names associated with these LNK and Prefetch files were indicative of child pornography.
These files are linked to a volume labeled D: with a Volume Serial Number of 70AE6E52. “Volume D” was used to store various files and folders. It should be noted that the “INCOMPLETE” files are commonly seen in peer-to-peer file sharing software programs and are video files that are in the process of being downloaded. Although the files are not fully downloaded, they can in some instances be played. Evidence of WINMX was found installed on the 122 GB hard drive and registered to Zweizig. WINMX is a peer-to-peer file sharing program. Peer-to-peer programs and networks are used by child predators to share child pornography.
On this new information and with greater clarity, the child porn viewed by Zweizig was saved and stored to a D:\ drive and then that D:\ hard drive was removed by Zweizig before he returned the reformatted 122 gig hard drive (C:\drive) to me. That D:\drive may have been an external drive. Viewing garden variety pornography downloaded to a C:\ drive while viewing child pornography from a D:\ drive displays legal forethought and consciousness of guilt. Law enforcement agrees with this conclusion.
One example of the newly recovered file names associated and linked with the D:\ drive is “Katherine… young 13-year-old pre-teen Lolita bounces on a much older mans love muscle” [with search words of incest, rape and teen hardcore sex]. This video was viewed by Zweizig a number of times and was made available to the public by Zweizig using the D:\shared drive. There are many other similar video file names indicative of child porn.
Federal law prohibits the production, distribution, reception, and possession of an image of child pornography using or affecting any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce (18 U.S.C. § 2251; 18 U.S.C. § 2252; 18 U.S.C. § 2252A). Specifically, Section 2251 makes it illegal to persuade, induce, entice, or coerce a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for purposes of producing visual depictions of that conduct. The age of consent is 18 years old. Oregon and New Jersey law are similar.
Unlike the US District Court of Oregon, the FBI appears to be doing its job. For example, on November 7, 2023, FBI Portland announced that a Missouri man was sentenced today to life in prison for running four websites dedicated to sharing images and videos of child sexual abuse. One of the named co-defendants resides in Damascus Oregon and was also sentenced. See Office of Public Affairs _ Man Sentenced to Life in Prison for Running Four Dark Web Child Exploitation Websites _ United States Department of Justice.
Oregon’s former chief administrative law judge, John Michael Mann, pleaded guilty to 10 counts of encouraging child sexual abuse and on May 12, 2023 was sentenced to three years in prison. A slap on the wrist. As chief administrative law judge, Mann managed more than 60 administrative law judges who hear disputes about actions of state agencies against people and businesses. According to the indictment, Mann “unlawfully and knowingly” possessed, accessed or viewed a “visual recording of sexually explicit conduct involving a child,” and he allegedly intended to publish, disseminate or sell the pornography. File names included the names of children and references to an 8-year-old, a 4-year-old, a 5-year-old, and sexual terms, including “anal.” This has been widely covered by news media. See also JD Journal Article.
The volume of child porn Zweizig viewed from his D:\drive appears to greater than the amount John Mann had in his possession. Zweizig was also however sharing it through a D:\shared drive and partition. Thus, that activity of distribution is more like the FBI case, worthy of 12 years to life in prison.
I reference for the reader that using an employer computer from a home office to view child porn from an external hard drive is a very common tactic, described at length in the Josh Duggar trial. Josh Duggar Trial_ Computer Analyst Tells What He Saw on Computer _ PEOPLE.com. Duggar’s approach mirrored Zweizig’s.
Also its noteworthy, that Zweizig’s testimony during his December 2020 deposition was an admission of guilt to perjury, to subornation of perjury by his attorney and to the possession and distribution of child porn. Zweizig then attempted to suppress that deposition. It’s also an admission that some of his attorneys believe Zweizig has and is engaging in this criminal conduct. Zweizig testified therein that Ward Greene resigned no longer wanting to be associated with Zweizig. It was clear that Greene was having trouble convincing staff to work on the case. It is also clear from the deposition that Zweizig was represented by the PLF without him asking the PLF for that representation. The PLF’s representation of Zweizig and Ware is filthy.
This 20-year history of litigation is a travesty in so many ways, but from a public safety perspective it is intolerable because of the pronounced risk to children. There are many articles about child predators hiding in plain sight. Hiding in Plain Sight_ How to Spot a Child Predator _ Psychology Today. I had no idea what Zweizig was up to. At some point though his attorneys must have and certainly Sandra Ware did…again at some point. How long Zweizig hid this child porn from Sandra is unclear. While Zweizig claims they are no longer together, Ware’s public information still shows Zweizig’s home address in Woodbury New Jersey.
Over the last year I asked Zweizig’s attorneys Joel Christiansen and Shenoa Payne if they would denounce child porn, without admitting anything about Zweizig. Both refused to do so. Christiansen no longer practices law.
The Civil Rights Lawsuits
Now, realizing that I was a target of Constitutional violations by the US District Court of Oregon and then following by the Oregon Judicial Department, I thought it important to bring these issues to the public. As more Oregon Judicial Department Judges became more brazen, going on the record during hearings, the violations grew and the need to add new defendants also grew. When the Oregon State Bar Professional Liability Fund (“PLF”) decided to provide free legal services to Zweizig (estimated to be $100,000), then they too were added as Defendants. The PLF is a tax-exempt organization organized under the umbrella of the Oregon Judicial Department. The PLF generates about $6 million a year in tax free income.
My Civil Rights lawsuits are as follows:
Second Lawsuit 3:22cv00985 9.4.22
Third Lawsuit 3:23cv1016 7.12.23
Recall that Zweizig admitted in a December 21, 2020 deposition that he did not solicit the PLF representation. Zweizig also admitted that his prior attorney Ward Greene no longer wanted to represent Zweizig and the raping of children. 2020-1221-MAXZWEIZIG. I published that deposition. Soon thereafter Zweizig filed a Motion to suppress that same deposition and this blog. PETITION FOR PRETRIAL ORDER. Clackamas Circuit Court refused to suppress the blog or deposition. In 2018, the Federal Court also refused to suppress the blog. At one point Greene claimed in a Court filing that it was hard to find staff that wanted to work on Zweizig’s case because of the child porn.
The Federal Judiciary in Oregon (Hernandez and probably Mosman) operated like a protection racket and over time additional information has come to light. Recently I acquired some new evidence from Zweizig’s attorney that intimated someone else has been financing Zweizig litigation (presumably as early as since 2010), such as Federal Judge Robert Kugler. In fact, he did not deny it was Kugler when asked. It’s not a crime for Kugler to finance Zweizig. Arguably it would be unethical if it’s true. And certainly, unacceptable and unconstitutional for Kugler to influence the outcome of a case in which he has a financial interest.
I have from the beginning believed Kugler solicited Hernandez and Mosman in the Zweizig Federal case (3:15-cv-2401) from 2015-2018 and solicited arbitrator Crow in the arbitration in 2010. Kugler retired a few weeks after Judge Hernandez published his order and Judgment of $500,000 in case 3:15-cv-2401, late in 2018. Kugler (FISA 2017-now) and Mosman (FISA 2013-2020) met no later than while on the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Court. Zweizig previously testified that Kugler and Ware met first at a Rutgers Law alumni function and that Zweizig had socialized with Kugler. Both Kugler and Ware are alumni of Rutgers Law.
It is likely that Hernandez and Mosman colluded with Kugler in the 2018 Trial because I filed a 3rd Circuit ethics Complaint against Kugler in 2005 and subsequently blogged about Kugler’s effort to have the DOJ pursue me legally for sending Kugler a letter about Zweizig. Mosman may have been no more than a middleman. I addressed Kugler’s early attack on me in Chapter 41 of this blog. After the 3rd Circuit complaint, Kugler held a show cause hearing to decide if I should be held in contempt for bringing to light Sandra Ware’s ex parte meeting with the Court (meeting while the Court had jurisdiction of the case). This was in 2004-2005 and Ware has never denied that and other subsequent ex parte meetings. Nor has the law clerk. I wrote my letter to Kugler after he had transferred the case back to state court. Kugler no longer had jurisdiction in that case after transfer and there was nothing illegal or inappropriate about me writing him a letter stating my concerns. You will note on page 6 of the response that Kugler then communicated to Zweizig’s attorney without copying me on that correspondence. Kugler Letter and Exs. See also Page 4 of the letter which shows the 2005 and first forensics report on Zweizig’s use of the employer’s computer to download, possess, view and distribute child porn from a d:\shared drive. That page and all of the forensic reports were suppressed in the 2018 trial and the only evidence admitted besides the blog was this letter to Kugler. I think the reader would agree that allowing the letter in was an undeniable message from the Federal Court.
A little more history. As I wrote, during that show cause hearing in New Jersey, Kugler asked the Justice Department to bring charges for the letter I wrote to him. The Justice Department refused to do so. TRANSCRIPT of Kugler Show Cause Proceedings. The reader could glean easily that I was threatened by Kugler with the intent of retaliation for my complaint against him. It should not surprise you then that Kugler took additional action.
Whatever the US District Court of Oregon’s intent was, it carried out the Kugler threat by suppressing the forensic reports and all other evidence. Zweizig and Joel Christiansen then increased the damages claim from $150,000 to $2,000,000 (again only after the forensic reports were suppressed by Hernandez). I have concluded that this escalation in the damages demand was not the Court’s intent. That portion of the trial got away from Hernandez. And after that trick, Zweizig has not returned to Federal Court. His attorney, Christiansen abandoned law to become a software developer. Zweizig has chosen to stay in Clackamas and Deschutes Circuit Courts with an ongoing expectation that the Court’s will treat him preferentially. Some of the State Circuit Judges have treated him preferentially. Many have not. But he always continues to ask.
Status of these Cases
The 3:19cv01988 case against the Federal and State Defendants was dismissed and an Appeal of that case was timely filed.
A few days ago, the 9th Circuit denied my petition for a rehearing to hold the US District Court of Oregon and Oregon Judicial Department defendants accountable for civil damages. Document 52 case 22-35261. From S.R. THOMAS, McKEOWN, and HURWITZ. And so, it appears we (the community who cares about protecting children and critical civil rights of due process) are at war with the 9th Circuit on at least this question on whether United State District Court Judges may without recourse use the litigation process unlawfully to retaliate against a litigant who links one of the Judges to the distribution of child porn. The 9th says they can, no doubt to protect the institution. Worse things have been done by a Circuit to protect its institution. But that is the very definition of a crisis of public policy. I have been waiting for that opinion and expecting it as written. Now that it’s been filed, I will publish this post. I argued that the actions taken by the Federal Judges, State Judges and PLF were far outside the scope of Judicial immunity. Opening Brief 22-35261. I might file with the Supreme Court. Not sure yet. The 9th is reversed about 80% of the time, but only 5% of the cases are considered by the Supreme Court. Justice should be fair, honest and blind. Read on.
When the Defendants in my first Civil Rights action moved to Dismiss the case, the Court evaluated those Motions with a presumption that the allegations against the Judges, Nancy Walker and PLF defendants were true and would be provable. No discovery was done. The key allegations are that Kugler, Mosman and Hernandez colluded and with others to suppress the evidence of Zweizig’s child porn and other criminal behavior for one or more reasons that included retaliation (constitutional violation of due process) and financial gain, ordered trial recordings destroyed (criminal act), the official transcript changed (criminal act) and solicited the State and PLF defendants to come to Zweizig’s aid (which included free legal services from the PLF). Immunity as to the Judges was the only real issue. No immunity exists for Walker, the PLF defendants or for activities outside the scope of typical judicial duties.
The position of the Defendants and 9th Circuit closely aligned with a series of well-known cases from a juvenile detention bribery scheme involving a number of Pennsylvania State Court Judges.Amended-Master-Complaint-August-27-09.
In those Civil Rights cases, Mark Ciavarella, a former state judge, was convicted by a jury in the Middle District of Pennsylvania of racketeering, honest services mail fraud, money laundering conspiracy, ling false tax returns, and several other related crimes. The charges resulted from the so-called “Kids for Cash” scandal that erupted in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania in late 2008. Ciavarella and his fellow judge, Michael Conahan, were accused of receiving over $2.8 million in three years from a commercial builder, Robert Mericle, and an attorney and businessman, Robert Powell, in exchange for helping to construct and operate juvenile detention centers and placing juvenile offenders there. Ciavarella complains that the District Court Judge overseeing his case was biased and should have recused himself early on, when Ciavarella asked him to do so. Ciavarella also assigns numerous trial and sentencing errors, which we discuss in detail below.
Over the course of several years, Ciavarella committed hundreds of juveniles to detention centers co-owned by Powell, including many who were not represented by counsel, without informing the juveniles or their families of his conflict of interest. By the summer of 2008, Ciavarella and Conahan, aware that they were under criminal investigation, met with Mericle and Powell to collaborate on their stories, discuss how to mitigate the effects of damaging witnesses, and encourage the destruction of records. Unbeknownst to them, Powell was wearing a recording device during these meetings, exposing Ciavarella and Conahan’s efforts to obstruct justice.
By early 2009, law enforcement officials gathered sufficient evidence to charge the two judges. Ciavarella and Conahan subsequently entered into an agreement with the Government under which they pled guilty to an Information charging them with wire fraud and conspiracy in exchange for an agreed 87–month sentence. Noting that the stipulated sentences were significantly lower than the advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines for the charged offenses, the District Court rejected the plea agreement, and Ciavarella and Conahan withdrew their guilty pleas. Shortly thereafter, a grand jury returned a 48–count Indictment. Ciavarella proceeded to trial, was found guilty of twelve counts against him and was ultimately sentenced to 336 months’ imprisonment, as well as restitution, forfeiture, and a special assessment.
Plaintiffs in that Civil lawsuit filed suit in 2009 against numerous defendants, including Ciavarella and Conahan. The operative complaints allege constitutional violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962, et seq., civil conspiracy, and false imprisonment. (See Docs. 134,136). In October 2013, the clerk entered default against Conahan for failure to plead or otherwise defend. In December 2013, the court granted plaintiffs’ application for default judgment against Conahan on all issues of liability for which he had not been afforded judicial immunity. In January 2014, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment against Ciavarella, also on all issues for which he was not protected by judicial immunity. The court determined Ciavarella and Conahan were both liable under Section 1983 for violating plaintiffs’ right to an impartial tribunal as well as conspiracy to violate plaintiffs’ right to an impartial tribunal. (See Docs. 1500, 1510, 1511). Judge Caputo deferred his determination on damages for both defendants. That of course has now been entered. His Memo follows: Wallace v. Powell, Dist. Court, MD Pennsylvania 2022 – Google Scholar Memo.
My Complaint was also a Civil Rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983, violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962, et seq., civil conspiracy. I modeled my Complaint after the Plaintiffs in the Ciavarella and Conahan case.
Although eventually convicted of crimes and now serving a shorter sentence that indicated above, likely to be released after 24 years, Judges Ciavarella and Conahan who took these bribes were not at first held financially responsible for the damage they caused (except for a small fine), the Court finding that these now convicted Judges were for the most part performing judicial duties when the children were unlawfully sentenced to juvenile detention; however eventually and some 13 years after the case began the victims were awarded more than $100 Million A good evaluation and order from that case is 336 – Memorandum and Order, Motions Terminated, Motion to Dismiss Filed by Ciavarella. Ciavarella and Conahan were able to keep most of the $6 million in bribes they received, although they were denied their Judicial pensions by the State Pension and spent their remaining estate on legal fees. Doubtful there will be any money remaining.
All three of these 9th Circuit Justices identified above in my case have senior status and are respected. Thomas is the former Chief Judge of the 9th Circuit. All are democrats, two nominated by Clinton. The judicial actors supporting child porn are not from one party. They are everywhere. Previously, I addressed the strategy of assigning senior status Judges in order to avoid their impeachment for being involved in criminal conduct. Senior status emboldens a Judge to make decisions that he or she would not otherwise make. I’ve seen this time and time again. I’m not challenging the integrity of these 9th Circuit Justices, but there are politics involved and this is one area where political influence played an important role.
Their ruling means Federal Judges and those that collude with those Judges really are above the law. That is true at least as to any Civil damages for bribery, aiding and abetting in the distribution of child porn, etc., anything and any act that can in any way be connected to conduct in their roles as a judicial officers. That judicial role will be interpreted broadly by the Court, to the detriment of victims and in this case to the detriment of anyone who opposes child porn.
Again, I believe the Court failed to put public safety ahead of protecting its institution.
I agree it is time for a new and different approach.
The Malpractice and RICO Lawsuits
Clackamas Case 18cv45257
I filed a Legal Malpractice and RICO against Defendants Andrew Brandsness and a number of PLF Defendants (including then CEO’s Carol Bernick and Nena Cook, who approved and provided free legal representation of Zweizig).
The legal malpractice and other related claims arose from the 3:15-cv-2401 case. See 18cv45257 Lawsuit_Final 8.2.21. The malpractice claim arose over my attorney failing to file a Motion to Compel arbitration. I concluded that one of the principal reasons the PLF represented Zweizig in numerous other lawsuits was to influence and control his testimony in this 18cv45257 case. This case was removed from State Court by Mosman, to Federal Court and then the claims dismissed by him even though he did not have the authority to do so. Doc #1 Notice of Removal. I prevailed in the 9th Circuit in reversing that dismissal. Fed Court Remand. I had also alleged in this case that Nancy Walker had intentionally published an incorrect transcript. I had also discovered and reiterate here that the Court’s trial recording had been deleted after I had issued a subpoena to the US District Court of Oregon. The US Justice Department has not denied that the Court’s trial recordings had been destroyed. Hernandez quashed my subpoena of Nancy Walker’s recordings. The record shows this protection racket extended to the trial transcript. Whatever your political leanings, you should feel threatened by the Court’s belief that it will exercise exclusive control over the content of the official transcript in a case. The only choice one then has is to bring your own Court reporter, which would require Court approval.
The Malpractice and RICO claims against Brandsness have also now been dismissed and that too will be appealed. In spite of overwhelming evidence of Malpractice against Brandsness, Senior Judge Marilyn E. Litzenberger granted his Motion for Summary Judgment and denied my cross-motion. Brandsness was represented by the PLF, namely Bernard Moore. My opposition to the MSJ in this case, that has now been open for 5 years, follows: Filed PLAINTIFF RESPONSE AND CROSS MOTION 6.14.23. Plaintiff’s Declaration in Support of Response. PLAINTIFF REPLY 7.14.23. Plaintiff’s Declaration in Support of Reply.
The New Evidence of Child Porn discussed above should have affected the 18cv45257 case, particularly the Legal Malpractice (potentially eliminating it if the judgment is reversed) and Oregon RICO claims (expanding it). But it did not. I had asked for that case to be stayed pending the results of the 9th Circuit Appeal. The PLF opposed that motion and I withdrew the Motion only recently as it is now moot.
The portion of the case against the PLF Defendants had already been dismissed and that dismissal was upheld by the Oregon Supreme Court. I’ll explore that portion of the case against the PLF defendants in greater detail in the next Chapter.
Since the organization of the PLF in 1977 by the Oregon Judicial Department, the State has devolved to where very few legal malpractice claims get to a jury. The Oregon Judicial Department dismisses most of these claims. Today Oregon has one of the lowest %s in the country of malpractice claims making it to a jury. The PLF has not served the interest of Oregon citizens and wields a great deal of influence with the Courts in the Portland Metro area.
You the reader should be concerned about this. It is now hard to find attorneys to represent Oregon victims of legal malpractice.
Related Other Cases
Federal Case 3:14-cv-1406
Zweizig had a small judgment from the arbitration against his former employer and pursued me personally in that case. He was offered a settlement of that judgment, the amount less that cost of defeating his attacks on me personally, but he has refused to accept that. Federal Case 3:14-cv-0406. Nonetheless, I prevailed in that case. See Opinion and Order Case # 406.
Clackamas Case 19cv01547
Zweizig then pursued me and my wife’s separate assets in Clackamas case 19cv01547 for his judgment in the 3:15-cv-2401 case. I offered Zweizig property valued in excess of his judgment but he refused it. I (we) prevailed in that 19cv01547 case as well. See Signed Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment_SIGNED. Zweizig Appealed that judgment and lost on Appeal. Opinion – Affirmed Without Opinion Summary Judgment. He then filed a Motion for reconsideration. As throughout this case, he again claimed he should be entitled to take my wife’s property because he self-identified as a whistleblower. Petition – Reconsideration of Department Decision. The Appeals Court denied that Motion for Reconsideration. Order Reconsideration Denied 3.21.22.
Although I (we) prevailed in that 19cv01547 case, early on I had filed counterclaims arising from damage Zweizig caused when he put a lien on a property I did not own and attacked my wife and me without cause or justification. That lien caused a sale of that property to fail. I filed those counterclaims on the advice of counsel.
Ann Lininger of Clackamas Circuit Court granted Zweizig’s anti-SLAPP Motion to Strike and awarded his attorneys some $20,000 in legal fees. And again, one year later I (we) would win the case entirely. There are two points I want to make here.
The first point is that once a Judge has an impression of you that is negative, that Judge is likely to be influenced by one of the attorneys in the case; so, in Zweizig’s anti-SLAPP action the Judge awarded fees adopting language by Ward Greene (Zweizig’s attorney), which included ” Rotes have acted willfully, maliciously, and in bad faith to harass and intimidate Mr. Zweizig because Mr. Zweizig is trying to collect on a judgment against the Rotes, to force him to incur large attorney fees, and to delay resolution of his claim that the Rotes have fraudulently concealed assets to avoid paying on the judgment.” What that really means is that I (we) defended against Zweizig’s efforts to unlawfully take property owned by my wife, something that is my (our) legal right to do. Lininger punished me (and my wife, we) just for defending the claim and of course we prevailed one year later. Ann Lininger Order. Only 1/3 of the fees were related or reasonably connected to the anti-SLAPP action. The award of anymore than that 1/3 was and is unconstitutional and led to a Civil Rights Lawsuit.
My second point is those counterclaims were the idea and recommendation of an attorney I hired to provide professional advice and to represent a holding company named in that case. Even though his recommendation constituted professional malpractice, he skated on those damages. The attorney who advised me (us) to file the counterclaims (Michael Montag) was represented by the PLF. The malpractice claim was dismissed by a Judge visiting from Multnomah County. More importantly, that result means that Judge was holding me (we) to a higher standard and different standard than the attorney who provided that erroneous legal advice. Lininger awarded attorney fees against me (us) on the anti-SLAPP but this other Judge Robert Manicke found that an attorney not advising a client about counterclaims being subject to anti-SLAPP did not constitute malpractice. These legal rules when applied to attorneys are bent and broken. My point is that the Court was harsh with me on the anti-SLAPP when awarding fees for Zweizig but then Manicke disregarded those finding when allowing Montag to skate on the malpractice. The PLF has powerful allies.
You will note thar Sandra Ware was represented by PLF appointed attorney Tracy Frazier, former of the Chock Barhoum law firm. Transcript page 2 hearing 7.13.20. Like as with Zweizig, the PLF took up the representation of Ware free of charge. Barhoum also represented Zweizig free of charge for a time in this case and other cases.
As you might imagine, but hoped not, Judges do talk to each other about litigants and that talk may affect the outcome of a case, bias or prejudice forming from those conversations. See Email Ann Lininger to the Clackamas Court. I’ve secured hundreds of emails like this, emails that are much more revealing. Anyone can get these emails through a state Freedom of Information Act request. The downside is that the state Judicial Department screens the emails and charges a substantial amount to go get them for you.
Just to reiterate, two years into case 19cv01547, and after discovery the Court opined that Zweizig presented no evidence to support his claims of fraudulent transfer. A175781_transcript_2021-03-09_HortonEllisN. Again, Zweizig rejected my offer of property worth more than his $1 Million judgment just to pursue my wife’s property. That should inform the reader that he is not a victim. I imagine that few of the readers believe a litigant should sue a spouse to get to the real target, in this case to get to me.
Clackamas Case 22cv17744
Zweizig’s malice as well as the support he received from the Federal court led Zweizig to file cases he had no chance of winning, alleging false facts to try to create a case out of thin air. I alleged Zweizig’s unsubstantiated claims in a Malicious Use of a Civil Proceeding case I brought against Zweizig after case 19cv01547 ended (Clackamas case 22cv17744). The only element of the case in dispute is whether Zweizig pursued his claim out of malice and when those facts are in dispute it is the exclusive jurisdiction of a jury…not a Judge. However, Judge Leslie Roberts granted Zweizig’s Motion for Summary Judgment and denied my Motion in this case and went one step further by encouraging Zweizig to file a defamation lawsuit on behalf of the Judges named in the Civil Right’s lawsuits I had filed. Rote v Zweizig_2023-04-05_KR Transcription 22cv17744. That case has been Appealed. My Opening Brief is filed herein. Amended Appellant’s Opening Brief A181660. One would think that a Judge who has 12 children (9 adopted) would follow the law strictly especially given Zweizig’s history of child porn. Instead, she provided lopsided support of Zweizig. Judges Roberts and Van Dyk have been named in my latest Civil Rights lawsuit. The law is so very clear that Roberts should not have granted Summary Judgment.
Clackamas Case 23cv28582
Zweizig then in response to Leslie Robert’s encouragement did file another lawsuit, case 23cv28582, against me and my wife. Complaint 23CV28582. The argument by Zweizig is that he wants to pursue my wife’s property again because he self-identifies as a whistleblower, from 2003 forward, because I am reporting his child porn activities to the 9th Circuit and because I continue to blog. Filings in a Court case are absolutely immune and protected. If you read this material, you would recall that Zweizig alleged overbilling of $400 (October billings of $450,000) after he was terminated, and the arbitrator found there was no overbilling. He is not a whistleblower. In addition to damages, Zweizig again seeks to have this blog taken down. I’m not sure why he focuses on the blog.
The emphasis on the blog from the very beginning is interesting and grandstanding. The Court filings have a much broader distribution than this blog, arguably 10,000 more viewings. What I write here I also write in my court briefs.
One could reasonably deduce that Zweizig and his attorneys believe they have the support of the judiciary, to bring a lawsuit that is completely devoid of factual and legal support. This again is another area of proof that he believes he has enjoyed judicial protection many times in the past. And he has.
In order to attack my wife in this new lawsuit, Zweizig alleged falsely that I am not the sole writer or owner of this blog. He also alleges falsely that my wife is also the publisher or owner. That of course is not true and again is designed by him, and presumably Sandra Ware, for the sole purpose of attacking my wife to get to me. I repeat, this is a very despicable plan. It is even more despicable if this plan was encouraged or endorsed by Kugler, Hernandez and other Judges.
I filed an anti-SLAPP Motion and Motion to Dismiss. Filed Defendant Timothy Rote Anti-SLAPP Motion to Strike 23cv28582. My Declaration and Exhibits are also attached. Filed Declaration and Exhibits In Support of Timothy Rote’s Motion to Strike 23CV28582. My wife’s attorney also filed a combined anti-SLAPP Motion to Strike and Motions to Dismiss.
Zweizig is now represented in this lawsuit by two new attorneys from Grants Pass, Chase Beguin and Chris Cauble. In this new case Zweizig also alleged that my wife had made some statements about my blog, statements made during or after a hearing in case 19cv01547. Beguin represented Zweizig during the hearing and should have known better than to allow that false assertion. When Beguin was asked by the Judge how Zweizig claimed to have heard a privileged and private conversation between me and my wife, Beguin claimed it happened outside the Courthouse in Oregon City. Zweizig never attended hearings in person. He lives in New Jersey and attended these hearings remotely using the Court’s remote hearing system–such as Zoom. The conversation he alleged never happened. But what’s more important is that he was caught again in a lie. He could not have heard any conversation outside the Courthouse from a microphone in the Courtroom.
Zweizig further alleges that my wife was also his in-effect employer some 20 some years ago. I had not even married my wife until well after Zweizig’s last day on November 13, 2003. At the time of his termination my soon to be wife was not a manager of my company and was not at any time an owner of my company. Again, Zweizig’s willingness to lie, to commit perjury in his Declarations speaks volumes about his pathological behavior. But it also speaks to him having been successful in telling many other lies, committing other acts of perjury that even without evidence to support those lies were used by the Courts for a variety of self-interested purposes. Whether by design or accident, ultimately the Court’s unconstitutional support also sponsored and financed the distribution of child porn.
The anti-SLAPP hearing was held on December 18, 2023. To the Judges credit, he granted my wife’s anti-SLAPP Motion and mine as well except perhaps as to these blog posts. The record is a little unclear as to me. As I have always maintained, Zweizig can sue me all he wants, for my blog posts, for whatever but he needs to leave my family alone. I also appreciated the Judges concern that various forms of litigation have been going on for 20 years and it has taken a toll on a lot of people. If I could find a way to end it, I would, but it takes two parties to agree. Perhaps this Judge can mediate a settlement. Zweizig has no interest in stopping. And I have no interest in funding his distribution of child porn. If the Court signs the proposed order now filed for three weeks, then it’s a message that Clackamas will again not be induced by Zweizig to abandon the law. If not, then something else is going on.
In keeping with past traditions, Zweizig uses his attorneys as long as he can, including (in the initial stages) duping the attorneys into making false statements on his behalf or taking actions that later they hope to reverse. For example, Zweizig’s false allegation there are no forensic reports showing his child porn activity is something that could have been verified easily by his attorney as false and inaccurate. Zweizig’s attorneys then should not be associated with that false assertion and have a duty to only file a lawsuit with the requisite proof. Later and typically Zweizig’s attorneys find out that Zweizig led them astray but by then it is a bit late to get out of the lawsuit. Former Zweizig attorneys Ward Greene and Anthony Albertazzi resigned from this case, respectively in 2020 and 2023.
Deschutes Case 19cv00824
A few other noteworthy points. While in the Deschutes Circuit, Zweizig asked the Court to put me in jail for resisting his efforts to take property I do not own. Zweizig alleged and I quote that “He [me] has posted numerous “articles” falsely claiming that I am a child predator and pedophile.” I was somewhat taken aback by Zweizig’s testimony. He provided no evidence in his declaration in support of his allegations that I did anything but defend against his unlawful taking of property. I have most certainly alleged Zweizig downloaded, possessed, viewed and distributed child porn. His declaration did not deny any of that. I have also alleged Zweizig engaged in pirating music and movies, cybercrime, computer fraud and perjury. He did not deny any of that in his 9.13.22 Declaration.
As you will recall, in 2019 I offered Zweizig property with a value far exceeding his judgment. He refused that property. I offered that property to him again and multiple times, a property still worth more than his judgment. He rejected those offers again. He then also interfered with my ability to sell that property. Later he tried to take that $1 million property for $1,000. His effort succeeded in part with the help of the Deschutes Circuit Court, in taking stock in a company I did not own any longer. And it failed as well for the same reason.
Game Theory Analysis
Game theory is the science of strategy, or at least the optimal decision-making of independent and competing actors in a strategic setting. Anyone with game theory analysis experience would tell you that Zweizig’s attorney Joel Christiansen would not have taken on Zweizig’s case or 2018 trial for a contingent fee without an expectation of suppressing from the jury the vast amount of evidence implicating Zweizig in criminal activities. Since that evidence speaks to what Zweizig has labeled as false allegations it would be necessary for Zweizig to not sue for defamation if he hoped to keep that evidence out. Regardless, it is a reasoned conclusion that Kugler had guaranteed Christiansen as early as December 24, 2015that this body of incriminating evidence would not get into the 2018 trial. The only way Kugler guarantees that is by reaching out to Hernandez and Mosman. The case was assigned to Hernandez by Mosman.
Zweizig is again trying to use the same gameplan in his latest lawsuit, where Beguin argues that Zweizig’s lawsuit for defamatory statements is not a lawsuit for defamation. 2023.08.29 – Final Draft Response to Def’s Motion to Strike. This latest law firm type tactic confirms Zweizig’s and Ware’s long held belief that this is the method by which the child porn and other criminal type evidence is kept out of a trial. I attribute that tactic to Kugler.
Public Policy Issues
There are competing issues of public policy, all being tested in these 20 years of litigation. On the one hand it would at first be perceived to present a question of protecting an employee whistleblower from his employer’s response. On the other hand, endorsing support of child porn and other crimes to support an employee who claims to be a whistleblower presses a Court or jury to decide which is the more serious issue in those circumstances. A jury can only make that decision if provided with the evidence of Zweizig’s criminal conduct. The jury in 2018 was not given that chance. The ease with which the Court suppressed the key evidence should concern every American.
There has not been an ounce of truth on any of the allegations or assertions by Zweizig against me or his employer, not in 20 years, and we proved that, but for the most part the Courts did not care. The Court with full knowledge of Zweizig’s crimes, ignored those crimes in favor of punishing critiques of the judiciary but under the umbrella of employee protection. That too should concern every American.
In the United States, child pornography is illegal under federal law and in all states and is punishable by up to life imprisonment and fines of up to $250,000. U.S. laws regarding child pornography are virtually always enforced and amongst the harshest in the world. Federal sentencing guidelines on child pornography differentiate between production, distribution, and purchasing/receiving, and also include variations in severity based on the age of the child involved in the materials, with significant increases in penalties when the offense involves a prepubescent child or a child under the age of 18. Judicial support of child porn should concern every American.
A right to counsel in criminal cases is guaranteed. No such right exists in civil litigation. Zweizig has often argued that the publication of his child porn activities has in effect denied his access to legal Counsel. That is an admission that attorneys have refused to work with him because of the child porn. At last count, some 15 attorneys have represented him. All but one have resigned.
Zweizig is correct that this new evidence of his child porn and the recovery of the images and video of garden variety porn has a measurable impact on how one might view these last 20 years of litigation. And he is correct it should reverse his judgment. The new evidence is more and younger age specific, 13 and younger. The earlier evidence indicated children 16 years and younger. Time will tell. Regardless, what will forever linger is the blind and often highly prejudicial support he received from the Federal Court, some State Court Judges, the PLF and many attorneys, all knowing and being fully informed about Zweizig’s child porn and other criminal activities. That history is now written in stone.
And if that history is not about the Judges and attorneys named wanting to decriminalize child porn, then what is it about? Again, I ask why would any Judge want to help Zweizig secure a $1 Million judgment, a judgment that would likely be used to expand the collection and distribution of child porn, unless that Judge or those Judges want more access to child porn? Why were the CEOs of the PLF (Bernick and Cook) so interested? Why does Zweizig believe they all want to help him? The Public Trust has been violated.
If you are inclined to argue that employees need to be protected at all costs and under all circumstances to ensure that they continue to be protected as whistleblowers, I beg to differ. Not at all costs and not with a blind eye. Some claims are fake and should be evaluated on the credibility of the evidence. This blog addresses the Court’s strong and historical strategy to ignore the evidence, which comes with a number of inferences. You don’t need me to tell you what those inferences are.
And let me just point out that Zweizig was part of the management team. When he shut down the company, 100 employees were laid-off. He did so to create a competing company, not for any worthy or protected reason. Almost all of the $450,000 of the legal fees it took to defend against Zweizig’s false claims was intended for nonmanagement employee benefits–bonuses, retirement and group health insurance. The average small business would have been bankrupted by just being forced defend against Zweizig’s false claims. Protecting businesses from cybercrime is not preferential treatment. Protecting the business protects the jobs.
The LGB Community Needs to Oppose Child Pornography
I often wonder if Zweizig and some members of the Court believe that watching child porn but not acting on it with a child somehow makes the watcher an innocent person, someone who is just a minor attracted person. I wonder if the PLF management believes the same. In Zweizig’s downloaded video about the 13-year-old Katherine, that child was videotaped while being raped by an adult, for Zweizig’s and others’ sexual pleasure. The search tags included rape. As noted above, even possessing child porn is a criminal act. I would also point out that Zweizig made critical omissions in his declarations in 2022 and most recently in September 2023 to try at least to suggest that he is not a child predator while remaining silent about watching the child porn. A lie is an intent, whether by omission or commission, to deceive or misdirect. Hiding the truth about something with the purpose of deceiving or manipulating a person is a lie and when you tell that lie in a declaration it is subject to penalty for perjury.
Some of the litigants, Judges and attorneys associated with Zweizig, identify with the LGB community and may have first rallied to Zweizig believing he was just an oppressed member of their community. There was however plenty of time to shift direction. None would. It is incumbent on the LGB community to maintain a separate identity, to not allow factions to conflate the LGB community’s worthy agenda of equal rights with that of child predators who want to decriminalize sexual relations with a minor.
An organization like Gays Against Groomers is dedicated to that necessary separation, strongly and vocally opposing child predation.
Final Thoughts
Whether you agree or disagree with me, I like all Americans have Constitutional First Amendment Rights of Free Speech. And we have a right to Due Process, to a Fair and Unbiased Court.
With the addition of the new forensic report showing with greater clarity what child porn Zweizig was accessing and how he was accessing it, there is little moral room for a settlement. His addiction to child porn will likely lead to his arrest if he is still active…one would expect that he will one day be caught. The core of this story should not be discounted. Many of the Federal and Oregon Judges and attorneys who came to his aid were well informed about not only the child porn but about all the criminal acts not related to child predation. But they did not care.
The Federal and State Courts in Oregon have already opined and informed Zweizig that this blog is a protected medium of free speech; so, his incessantly renewed Motions to take down the blog is noteworthy. I suspect that most of that interest is from a few members of the judiciary identified herein, which Leslie Roberts confirmed on the record in case 22cv17744. Whenever it becomes acceptable to use the judicial pulpit to punish critiques of the Judiciary, as it has in the Portland Metro area, trust and confidence in the judiciary quickly erodes. We are witnessing an all too often failure of the Courts to live up to established ethical standards and institutional refusal to hold judges and attorneys accountable for misconduct. There are a lot of good Judges in Oregon and they need to take a more active role in policing their fellow Judges and attorneys. The Commision on Judicial Fitness rarely takes action to remove a sitting Judge, nothing but window dressing.
On December 31, 2023, Judge Hernandez stepped down as Chief Judge of the US District Court of Oregon. In June 2024 he will retire. At that point all three Federal Judges who supported and/or sponsored Zweizig will as a matter of practice be beyond the reach of impeachment, retiring for life on a pension of $250,000 a year.
Paraphrasing from recent public conversations on the many crises we face as a Nation, speaking truth to power often comes with a brutal reminder that a dear price is too often paid for searching for and defending the truth. Zweizig’s lawsuit and judgment in case 3:15-cv-2401 arose from this blog, chapters 1-90. I have not stopped trying to shine a light on the Court’s unconstitutional attack on me and on the abuses of power by the many judicial actors linked to child predation.
Just a few weeks ago Zweizig called my wife attorney’s office, to hire that law firm and/or create a conflict of interest. That is very sophisticated; so, I presume Sandra Ware is still involved. Beguin did not appear to know about the call and did not respond to my email about that call. Zweizig is a predator in so many ways…and not a victim in any way.
January is National Human Trafficking Prevention Month. In a recent article by Elkhorn Media Group, referenced to the FBI Portland Facebook page, FBI Supervisory Special Agent Travis Ostrich stated during the interview that “We have a lot of agencies working together, collaborating, using our tools and resources to be proactive in the community and raise awareness”. “All law enforcement knows just how large and horrible of an issue this is in the Pacific Northwest.”In Plain Sight_ FBI Agent reveals disturbing trends in human trafficking in Eastern Oregon – Elkhorn Media Group. As you might imagine the issues are even more serious in the Portland Metro area.
If you or someone you know has information on Crimes against children, contact law enforcement. The FBI updates it’s prosecutions daily. The latest Department of Justice report on child predation is 814069.
Again, for Zweizig’s attorneys who are always looking for another defendant, there is no one else. I am the sole owner and author of this blog and always have been. No one but me.
When Justice Fails 