Chapter 128 – Zweizig’s Attorneys Appear to Support Child Porn

Zweizig downloaded child porn on his 120 gig hard drive, using a peer to peer program registered to him. Much of this was focusing on incest, brother to brother and sister to sister. A criminal complaint was filed.

Zweizig’s had  a steady stream of attorneys working for his ultimate success on fraudulent employment claims and doing so for no current fee. In every case these people have known about the child porn and have tried to conceal it for economic gain. Almost all of them identify as LGBT. Lets list the attorneys.

Linda Marshall (idiot and sympathizer), aided and abetted in 15 counts of perjury and the destruction of evidence;

Bill Crow, arbitrator, referred Marshall to Zweizig, just came out of the closet;

Paul Papak, Judge, confirmed an award that by law should have been vacated, clearly sympathetic with pedophytes;

Joel Christiansen, openly concealed the child porn from the jury and engaged in six counts of perjury, bi-sexual, believed to be engaged in porn business;

Carol Bernick, CEO PLF, openly assisted Christiansen because I brought a case of fraud against her and the PLF, with irrefutable evidence, openly bi-sexual;

Shenoa Payne, Appeals Attorney referred to Zweizig and Christiansen by Carol Bernick, openly bi-sexual.

Ward Greene, appears to have been hiding under our noses for years.

I should point out that the Lesbian and Gay community oppose the pedophilia elements that try to identity with that community.

Let me emphasize that in every case these attorneys provide current services for free (no hourly fee), while pursuing fraudulent claims for employer retaliation and with the full knowledge that Zweizig downloaded child porn and destroyed software programming while attempting to cover up the porn.

It stands to reason that these attorneys support the downloading of child porn or are indifferent to it. No one should be indifferent and no one should be rewarded for that indifference.

From a public topic of importance, this is an issue of grave concern and needs exposure.

A community of attorneys working together to perpetrate fraudulent employment claims with the design of enriching a small subgroup of the LGBT community, in essence sacrificing the safety of our children for economic gain, is not distinguishable from them disseminating child porn for profit.

Child porn seeking behavior is in fact powerfully associated with the same sort of sexual arousal patterns (turned on by children instead of adults) associated with convicted pedophiles. There is mathematical evidence that this association works for child porn and pedophilic behaviors. The presence of child-porn-seeking behavior does not prove pedophilia, but when it is present, pedophilia is statistically more likely to be the case then not. See Article by Mark Dombeck, Ph. D.

I’ll add a few articles supporting this contention.child porn predicates.

dailey on homosexuality

chabad research 3

Pedophiles rebranding pedophiles rebranding under the LGBT umbrella.

We can’t support a litany of attorneys providing free legal services, attorneys indifferent to child porn and probable pedophilia activity of its clients, the collective effort to enrich that community by using the legal system to pursue fraudulent employment claims…or any other claim for that matter. But it seems clear that this group of quiet supporters of pedophilia have drifted to and are now firmly rooted in fraudulent employment claims.

Chapter 124 – Hey Joel, the Arbitrator Ruled There Was No Over-Billing!

Joel, lets not misrepresent the record. The arbitrator ruled there was no over-billing.

Let me remind you of the record.

Max was terminated on October 2nd after several job critical errors, refusing to turn over software and attempting to hold to use that leverage to garner a raise.

Three weeks later he filed a complaint with the ODJ. The ODJ asked for evidence. None was provided. The ODJ closed the investigation.

At the same time Max contacted me and alleged over-billing, providing an excel spreadsheet as evidence. The spreadsheet showed about $400 in time adjustment. He claimed he received it via an email. He refused to provide the email. He refused to identify who sent the email. The spreadsheet did not identify clients or projects of any kind. I investigated and found the claim to be ludicrous, that the spreadsheet was likely created by him, and closed my investigation.

No one corroborated the spreadsheet but Max and did not at any time turn over the email from which he claimed to have received the spreadsheet. The amount in question, $400, was nominal…tantamount to going 55.05 MPH in a 55 MPH Zone.

During the arbitration and after my testimony and evidence that the spreadsheet did not agree to invoice or reports, the arbitrator ruled that there was no evidence that NDT over-billed clients.

Unfortunately the arbitrator was going on 80 and did not have the stamina to look at the evidence. And he was mislead by a person he trusted, Linda Marshall.

And lets not forget that Max did not at any time turn over the software and after his last day his employer NDT had to shutdown for 10 days to recreate the programming.

 

 

Chapter 121 – Vogele and Christiansen

According to the Oregon Secretary of State, Vogele and Christiansen is just an assumed business name, which means that Joel and Jim are not actually partners in a firm. Instead they are just separate attorneys representing themselves as a firm, which I think violates the Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct. I’ll reach out to the Oregon State Bar to find out.

You can find their website here, but again I caution you to not be mislead on this point. See the Oregon Secretary of State document attached here vogele and Christiansen. 

The document shows they have not renewed their assumed business name even and it is now late.

I’ve written about Joel a great deal and have refreshed my lawsuit against him and Linda Marshall. Joel’s bio is here. You’ll note Joel has changed his win against me in Federal Court. My issue with Joel is simple, he’s a liar. There is a huge difference between advocacy and lying. But for those of you looking for an attorney that will lie for you, he may be just the one.

My amended complaint against Joel is here. accepted first amended complaint for defamation and malpractice (1). In that case I very allege that Joel perpetrated a fraud on the court, committed perjury by reference to a declaration he filed. You’ll not that I also filed a complaint against the Oregon State Bar Professional Liability Fund.

The issue for all of us as citizens is the PLF serves two purposes. First it provides malpractice Insurance which practicing Orgon attorneys must purchase in order to practice. Second, it serves the public interest by assuring us that there is an opportunity to recover for malpractice, which happens a lot here.

Unfortunately, the PLF is paying for attorney representation even when attorneys engage in defamation and fraud. That’s beyond the pale of reason. I’ll explore this in more detail later.

 

Chapter 118 – Is Joel Christiansen a Pedophile?

As I contemplate the forensic reports on his client Max Zweizig and the many many lies Joel told to the jury, his preposterous claims that I was planning the assassination of a judge, presumably to cover up the child porn, I’m left thinking the child porn part was personal for him. I’m not sure how Joel and Max met, but I suppose its possible that Max got his name from some directory of like minded men.

Lets look at the titles of porn Max downloaded to a 120 gig hard drive exclusively used by him. A forensic expert found this material and yes Max admitted to reformatting the hard drive. Some of the titles are as follows:

A. “Older Muscle Guy Fucks Young Twink”;
B. “older sisters get lesbian with little sister”;
C. “Older teen kisses, sucks and fucks hairless brother”; and
D. “Let daddy do it”.

I think you’ll agree that these are filthy videos and worse they were downloaded using a peer to peer program registered to Max. The forensic file is a public document in case 3:11-cv-911-pk, and in addition can be found elsewhere as media in this blog.

But lets focus a bit on Joel. In order to deflect attention away from Max, Joel decided to publish that I was going to attack a Senior Federal Judge. I’ve often wondered why an attorney, even one as lowly as Joel, would choose to fabricate an allegation like this and then with an expectation of confidentiality convey all manner of other things he has conjured up to support it? And then he lied about what he’d actually said, in declaration, in Federal Court, subject to perjury.

Joel lied about what he had said to deputy clerk to prevail on a motion to dismiss. I believe his attorney eventually discovered that Joel was lying and my silence joined the deception. That attorney, Matt Kalmanson, was hired by the Oregon State Bar PLF to represent Joel in a defamation lawsuit I filed against Joel.

Chief Judge Herndon believed Kalmanson and Joel and dismissed the defamation case. Having sent the forensic reports and new evidence from the U.S. Marshals Service to Judge Herndon, I’m confident he feels he had been duped by these attorneys, Kalmanson in particular. An attorney lying to the court is considered to have perpetrated a fraud upon the court and this is what Joel did. Kalmanson on the other hand had a duty to be transparent with the court about Joel’s lie and did not do so. It’s not the same as what Joel did, but close. Lets see if the court does anything about it. Kalmanson is a partner in the law firm of Hart Wagner.

On the one hand Joel wants special treatment as an officer of the court, calling on Judges to act in a biased way. Soliciting an abuse of a public office is of course a crime just like the abuse of a government office is. But Joel continues to do it and  he offers a transcript back in 2001 wherein I was thrown out of a Judges Chamber. The Judge was right to do so and I have apologized to the Judge in person, as an adult should do. Joel please take note.

On the other hand Joel has no problem submitting a declaration which omits the true content of his statement to a deputy clerk, showing his disdain for both the law and the truth. He’s been caught lying, committing perjury, multiple times.

Why is the re-publishing of a forensic report, already a public document, motivation enough for Joel to set decorum aside and launch a highly personal attack against me? Yes it has to do with some pretty filthy stuff downloaded by his client and yes a jury should have been able to see this information. I’m polling the jury even now to determine if it would have effected their decision in a recent case. I suspect the answer will be yes.

One theory as to Joel’s behavior is that he identifies with the child porn client and wants to use the legal system to attack people like me who dedicate their lives to saving children. He masks claims in other areas but he may really be seeking to punish the anti-pedophilia community. It’s one theory and a solid one. Why the PLF, Carol Bernick and others continue to fund his defense, given that it is not malpractice, is a mystery but raises questions of its own?

And it makes you wonder if Joel is connected to like thinking men and women who think having child porn is ok. And when he is asking for help from one attorney or another, if he is reaching out to people in this confidential community. Certainly, attorneys who file the same documents as Joel would seem to be in the same category of immoral adults, seeing no lines, evolving from child porn to pedophilia.

Joel’s behavior seems to consistently fall into areas of moral turpitude, an act or behavior that gravely violates the sentiment or accepted standard of the heterosexual, gay and lesbian communities. He lies, he cheats, he tries to steal, he commits perjury, conceals evidence and does not appear to take his officer of the court status seriously. And it does not appear to be just about money. If moral lines mean nothing to you Joel, where will you stop?

Thankfully for Portland, Joel has moved to Walla Walla, maintaining an office in Pendleton. I passed on the forensic reports to the Pendleton and Walla Walla police departments just so they would know who has moved in. Birds of feather flock together as it were.

I don’t think Joel’s a pedophile. Having child porn is a crime too. He has no children. He acts odd. He wont take a meeting even under the supervision of the police department. He does not work much. What does he do all day? Joel, if you have been abused get help before it is too late. Don’t hurt the children and don’t advocate for clients who do.

Find out more about child abuse statistics at https://americanspcc.org/child-abuse-statistics/.

Note:

And yes Joel I see that you and your attorneys have been madly viewing and downloading associated media. I though you would. It does not feel very good when someone attacks you does it? I still recall so very clearly the Oregonian publishing Joel’s statements to Maxine, that I said filthy things about his client. Yes, accurate things. Joel did you mean to intimate that they were lies? Because, that’s what you did and that’s what Maxine published.

Carol Bernick, the PLF should not be funding the defense of an attorney who is being sued for perpetrating a fraud on the court. That is just nonsense. Pull off your dogs or you just might be sued for racketeering.

Judges of Clackamas County the record is clear. You cannot trust that the attorneys hired by the PLF are going to be honest with the court. The Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct demand that they be honest with the Court even to the detriment of their clients.

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.

Chapter 116 – Rote Prevails against Zweizig on Fraudulent Transfer Claims

For more than 4 years now, former IT Director Zweizig pursued his former employer “NDT” and owner Tim Rote on a judgment he procured based on false testimony and the destruction of evidence.

The arbitrator that awarded the judgment has subsequently admitted to referring the arbitration to his former partner Linda Marshall (Zweizig’s attorney). The arbitrator was challenged for not disclosing the relationship with Marshall and resigned from the arbitration. Shortly thereafter however the arbitrator rejoined the arbitration as Judge, over Rote’s objection.

Once the arbitrator rejoined he summarily dismissed all the evidence presented in the trial by employer NDT. That evidence was comprised of more than 2,000 documents, 8 witnesses, 2 computer forensic experts and dozens of forensic reports. Zweizig had only himself as a witness.

Employer NDT’s evidence showed that Zweizig plotted over a six month period to withhold and destroy programming. After being fired by NDT for attempting to extort a raise, Zweizig executed his plan which led to the shut down of his employer. The shut down led to more than 150 people being laid off for a week.

Zweizig never apologized for this assault.

The arbitrator has shown remorse however and has provided to Rote evidence of his inability to follow the evidence and ultimate decision to publish the opinion and award written for him by Linda Marshall. He has been forgiven.

U. S. District Court Magistrate Paul Papak refused to perform the necessary checks and balances left to the court and the judgment was confirmed. This refusal by Judge Papak was and remains an affront to justice.

In 2009 Silicon Valley Bank hired hackers to break into NDT’s computer network and shut down the software, after being ordered not do so by U.S. Federal Judge Anna Brown. Silicon Valley Bank refused to return and reinstall the software. NDT sued and U.S. Federal Judge Blackburn ordered Silicon Valley Bank and Touchstar to turn on and reinstall the software. They refused.

The actions of Silicon Valley Bank and Zweizig are cyber crimes defined under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Protracted litigation ultimately destroyed NDT and its affiliated companies.

Those parties that aided and abetted Silicon Valley Bank and Max Zweizig will be brought to account, if by no other means than public exposure.

Many Judges have over 20 years ruled in our favor and ruled against us. Judge Papak and the arbitrator are the only Judges we have ever had on a case that completely ignored the evidence. The arbitrator has apologized and we consider that done.

What will never be acceptable is for a Judge to ignore the facts of a case out of solidarity with another with whom we have taken issue.

Judge Jones and Brown have ruled against us and we have no disregard for them or their opinions. We are not always right. Neither are we always wrong.

This win is the first step to accountability.

The Opinion by Judge Hernandez is here Opinion and Order Case # 406

Chapter 110 – Calling on The Honorable Robert E. Jones to Denounce Attorney Misconduct

In 2010 Linda Marshall submitted a document that was accepted by arbitrator Crow, that document a transcript of a status conference wherein Judge Jones recused himself from a post-judgment action. The status conference was 10 years earlier, was irrelevant to the arbitration and was offered for the sole purposes of encouraging the arbitrator to set aside the facts and find in favor of her client. More specifically, introducing the transcript was designed to prey on the fear of the arbitrator, who was then aware that because of age his cognitive skills had deteriorated and was in need of support from legal counsel to guide him in the execution of his duties. Marshall took advantage of that circumstance to the embarrassment of the arbitrator and to the compromise of justice. Neither the US District Court of Oregon nor the Oregon State Bar intervened. See Ex 567 Recusal.

During the course of the arbitration the claimant raised the Arbitrator’s and Marshall’s failure to disclose their prior partnership relationship and the resulting compromise to the arbitration. The arbitrator recused himself. Marshall told his he could not and the Arbitration Service of Portland was asked to opine. Arbitrator Crow sent an email to Marshall wanting her to make sure she submitted the Jones Recusal to the ASP. See Ex 568 Crow Email.

After the ASP allowed Crow to rejoin as arbitrator, Crow summarily dismissed the claimant hundreds of documents in evidence, the testimony of eight witnesses and the reports and testimony of three computer forensic experts. Crow found in favor of the Respondent awarding him back wages.  The Respondent had withheld and destroyed computer programming leading to the shut down of the Claimant (former employer).

In 2011 Linda Marshall submitted a declaration in the confirmation proceeding wherein she conveyed to Judge Paul Papak that Timothy Rote had filed a complaint against Bill Crow for Crow’s failure to disclose his prior partnership relationship with Marshall. A complaint was also filed against Marshall for failing to disclose her prior partnership relationship with Crow and for subornation of 17 Counts of perjury and evidence destruction. The declaration was submitted in support of confirming in part and vacating in part the arbitration award. Marshall wrote “After Crow issued the Arbitration Award, Rote filled a complaint against Crow with the Oregon State Bar. I have checked with the investigator handling the complaint, and the Bar complaint against Crow is still under investigation.” There is no way Marshall would have known about such a complaint without Crow telling her. Crow ascended to Chair of the Disciplinary Board of the Oregon State Bar shortly thereafter. See Ex 569 Marshall Declaration.

In 2014, The Jones Recusal was submitted ex-parte to Judge Elizabeth Weishaupl, Denver State Judge, just before a trial involving the former Claimant (in the arbitration) NDT and Silicon Valley Bank. I only recently discovered this and was able to confirm who submitted it to Weishaupl.

In spite of Silicon Valley Bank admitting to breaking into NDT’s network and destroying software (a Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Violation), Weishaupl found in favor of SVB. Prior to receiving the Jones Recusal, Weishaupl had found in favor of NDT on all pre-trial issues on Silicon Valley Bank liability for breach of contract from the break in. Thereafter, Weishaupl found in favor of SVB. The FBI investigated the break in by SVB and recommended prosecution of this cyber crime to the U.S. Attorneys Office. The U.S. Attorneys office however decided to not pursue a criminal indictment against SVB as NDT had a civil litigation (lawsuit) opportunity.

In 2015, Christiansen and Marshall contacted Judge Jones Chamber. Christiansen claimed that “After reviewing Rote’s comments contained in Chapter 19, Linda Marshall (Plaintiff’s counsel in another matter) and I contacted Judge Jones’ courtroom deputy and informed the court of Rote’s publication concerning Judge Jones, which: (1) identified Judge Jones’ physical location at a specific time and location to receive a lifetime achievement award, (2) evidenced Rote’s belief that there would be media presence at the event, and (3) commented that “[p]erhaps more often than not our legacies are not what we wanted them to be.” See Ex 570 Declaration by Christiansen.

Late in 2016 I subpoenaed the file on Christiansen’s contact with the Judge’s clerk. It turns out that Marshall and Christiansen had cited the blog but they buttressed this false concern with fabricated allegations and expunged records (which somehow they got their hands on). The presumption is that they knew their client was a cyber criminal and needed to repair his and their image.

In 2016, Joel Christiansen, a successor to Marshall in a separate lawsuit action, filed a declaration citing the Jones Recusal. Joel wrote “Attached hereto as EXHIBIT 4 is a true and accurate copy of the transcript from the March 18, 2001 Status Conference in the United States District Court, District of Oregon Case Jones v. North West Telemarketing, Inc., Case No. CV 99-990.” The citation was intended to influence the outcome of the litigation, calling on the court to consider this irrelevant evidence and find in favor of his client. See Ex 570 Declaration by Christiansen.

Judges play an important role in the enforcement of ethics. The aforementioned violations of Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 8.4, remain unpunished and arguably had a material impact on the outcome of three separate lawsuits.

This author is calling on Judge Jones to denounce the behavior of Marshall & Christiansen and call on the Oregon State Bar to reprimand them for implicating Judge Jones in their misconduct.

Chapter 106 – The Recusal Transcript

In the arbitration, Linda Marshall introduced evidence that was a transcript of a hearing from ten years earlier, involving one of my companies. That hearing was the recusal of Judge Jones. I had asked him to step down on an abundance of caution believing at that time that the plaintiff was an extended family member. This issue was identified after the jury verdict and judgment. And it was not well founded.

After his recusal, the judgment was properly transferred to Multnomah County, after which we pursued damages for plaintiff counsel filing knowingly inaccurate garnishments against members of the same affiliated group. The attorney Bud Bailey was suspended from practice a short time thereafter, for six months. After dealing with Bailey we paid the judgment in full.

Although unrelated to the arbitration, Marshall filed this linked transcript with the design of influencing the outcome of the arbitration and one would presume that it served that purpose. That is prima facie evidence of attorney misconduct. See the recusal transcript here.Ex 567 Recusal .

At the top of the page of the transcript, there is a fax header. That header shows that Sandra Ware acquired the transcript well before Max filed his lawsuit in New Jersey and faxed it onto some party, presumably the attorney representing Max. Sandra worked for the firm of Blumberg and Lindner at that time. See the fax header?

Over my objections, Marshall actually examined one of my former attorneys on this matter. Her point was that I sent a letter to effect the outcome of litigation. She must have been thinking that at some point her undisclosed past relationship with Crow would rise to the forefront of the conversation.  She was hedging her bet as it were. The testimony is here. Weil Cross.

In like manner Joel Christiansen filed in his lawsuit the same transcript, specifically calling on the USDC of Oregon to continue to persecute and punish me for the Judge Jones letter. See Christiansen’s Declaration here. Ex 570 Declaration by Christiansen. Why would legal counsel engage in this behavior? One would think that both Marshall and Christiansen believe that this works.

Its a shame for legal counsel to consistently file documents which confirms that they believe a few Judges of the USDC of Oregon have and will set the facts aside to assist one of the parties. Perhaps it is simply to activate the bias of a judge. But whatever it is intended to be or do, the undeniable conclusion is that these attorneys believe the use of a transcript on a prior unrelated case will influence the outcome of their case. It is time for the Judges to tell them to stop.

But there’s more. Marshall filed a declaration with Judge Papak claiming that a complaint was filed against Bill Crow. Ex 569 Marshall Declaration.  The last sentence of the declaration is an appeal to the Judge to find in their favor over the complaint. Ideally, if the BAR did its job, no complaint would be necessary. But here’s a question…how did Marshall know I had filed a complaint against Crow unless he told her?

And of course these two knuckleheads (Marshall and Christiansen) contacted Judge Jones’ chamber & claimed I was going to do him harm at the Judges lifetime achievement award. Over a blog post comment congratulating the Judge for the award! I’m guessing this was really an attempt at nefarious contact. Unfortunately for them, the US Marshals Service got involved. M&C lied about the content of their communication of course.

I sued M&C over this in Clackamas County Court, but Chief Judge Robert Herndon decided to set the facts aside and find in favor of these two nuts. They were represented by the Bar PLF.  And to suggest that the decision was intended to support blanket bad behavior of some of our Judges and attorneys is an understatement.  Protecting the unethical behavior of M&C, a call for preferential treatment because a Judge in someone’s past did not like him or her (in this case me) is not in the public’s interest. Exposing it is in the public’s interest.

Should an attorney contact a Judge he or she believes is genuinely at risk? Of course. But there must be a voice of reason. We cannot allow attorneys to fabricate these claims only to gain some advantage in a lawsuit, to endear themselves to a Judge or group of Judges on a false narrative.

Perhaps in years past attorneys really did see themselves as officers of the court. Those days are gone. Plaintiff counsel for employees, at least the one’s I have met, do not care about the truth. They see it as an opportunity to participate in a lottery win. That’s all. In their minds, perjury and the destruction of evidence is part of a strategy.

And as far as I can tell this all looks back to the Judge Jones recusal. I am sorry I had to send the letter. I am sorry Judge Jones did not disclose that the plaintiff was an extended family member, if he was. At this juncture I do not believe plaintiff Jones was a family member. I do not believe Judge Jones acted in any way but one to effect the outcome of that jury trial. His surprise instructions to the jury nullified our counterclaims and that was unacceptable. I was a major fan of the Judge through the trial and remain so today.

It’s a shame that I had to raise this issue with Judge Jones. I offended him. I’m sorry for that. I wish I could take it back and write a different letter, or none at all, but I cannot. I did apologize to Judge Jones in person, as it should be done. And Judge Jones was very gracious and friendly towards me.

Still, if attorneys are basically invited to use this recusal transcript as an invitation to persecute, then perhaps my letter of 16 years ago was well founded. Certainly the events surrounding its use, the abuse of using the recusal, should be a concern to everyone.

 

 

Chapter 103 – Fifth Circuit Upholds Conviction for Insider Misuse Causing Damage Under CFAA

Reposted by permission.

Posted on February 19, 2018 by Shawn E. Tuma

The United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a jury verdict finding Laoutaris guilty of two counts of computer intrusion causing damage, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A) and (c)(4)(B)(i) of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Laoutaris had been an IT engineer for Locke Lord, LLP, a Dallas Texas Law Firm; following the termination of his employment, he accessed the firm’s computer network and issued instructions and commands that caused significant damage to the network, including deleting or disabling hundreds of user accounts, desktop and laptop accounts, and user e-mail accounts. This post-termination access was without authorization. He was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $1,697,800 and sentenced to 115 months’ imprisonment.

On appeal, Laoutaris argued that “the evidence at trial was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict for both counts of conviction because there was no proof he was the person who accessed Locke’s network and caused the damage that occurred on the relevant dates.” The Fifth Circuit disagreed and found “[t]he evidence at trial shows a rational jury could have found each essential element for the § 1030(a)(5) (A) offenses charged against Laoutaris, who elected to testify. Contrary to his assertions, there was
ample circumstantial evidence identifying him as the perpetrator of these offenses.”

Now this is the way cyber criminals should be handled, being held accountable for the crimes they commit. Here in Oregon, however, they get off with barely a hand slap. The U.S. Attorneys Office could care less about prosecuting and of course in the rare occasion when they do, a company like Columbia Sportswear lets them off the hook to save face. Perhaps it is embarrassment.

Here in Portland, you can call the FBI, but they wont take your calls. You can file a complaint on line, but it is not acknowledged. You can contact the U.S. Attorneys Office, but they are disinterested. If we don’t get this apathy fixed and find a way to place credible players in these government positions, we will lose our city. Maybe we already have.

Until next time.

Chapter 102 – OregonLive’s Social Context of Deception

Recall that I had asked The Oregonian and Maxine Bernstein to make a commitment to the truth and publish facts they had previously omitted. Based on my call with Maxine it does not sound as if they will.

Maxine published that in 2004 Max Zweizig filed a lawsuit against Rote for retaliation. Maxine withheld that the case was dismissed with prejudice.

Maxine did not publish the Zweizig’s former employer sued him for withholding programming leading to a shutdown of his employer.

Maxine published that the original lawsuit alleged over-billing, but Maxine did not clarify that the arbitrator opined that the employer Northwest Direct Teleservices did not over bill clients.

Maxine published that Zweizig filed a lawsuit after he filed a complaint with law enforcement. Maxine did not clarify that Zweizig did not provide evidence after his complaint and the investigation was concluded in less than a week. The complaint was not made in good faith.

The article appears to publish testimony from Joel Christiansen, but Maxine refuses to confirm that in spite of my repeated requests.

And I could go on.

The article published by the Oregonian, by Maxine Bernstein is filled with omissions designed to mislead the reader, to pander to what the Oregonian must feel is its audience.

George Orwell published that “Omission is the most power form of lie”. It’s also an insult to the intelligence of the reader.

“Half a Truth is Often a Great Lie” says Benjamin Franklin.

And now I read every article published by Maxine questioning the truth of what she is publishing, looking for the omission…and through the omission the lie.