Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Siletz news letter. (Siletz, Oregon) 1989-1997 | View Entire Issue (July 1, 1995)
jainaas have to get rid o f those people or Council members.” H er comments were clearly directed This conduct would possibly b e . a criminal violation under Oregon law . I t would certainly result in immediate removal o f the judge from the follow ing day was clearly orchestrated and opinion reflected deep personal animosity towards those persons. I do not think those the o ffic e .. 5. A n hour before the hearing, I received information that telephone calls had been made Council members could ever receive a fair hearing in front o f Judge Viles. Judge Viles would have a conflict o f interest in any court I have ever practiced in. c. I t was a gross violation o f judicial ethics fo r other judges not involved in a case to be to Sharon N ewm an and W a lt Klamath, informing them that they had been subpoenaed. I asked whether anything had been served in writing, and at specific Trib al Council members, and in m y 3. The next occurrence is perhaps the most extreme that has occurred in this case. First, remember that the only pleading filed by Pat M o rrell in this case was a motion fo r an order o f restraint - to prevent certification o f the election, and to prevent destruction o f certain election records. N o request exists anywhere asking that any records be turned over to Pat M o rrell. Under court rules o f procedure, such requests must be made in writing, and sent to counsel fo r a party. I f a party objects to such a request, or wants to narrow it down, they can ask for a hearing. You present at any proceeding o r other action in a case. I t is a violation o f impartiality and objectivity fo r them to be involved. I t is particularly objectionable that two judges with clear conflicts o f interest (Diane had just admitted hers to me two hours earlier) to be sitting in a room attempting to intimidate a person into taking specific action. I f you do not think that three judges, including die C h ie f judge o f the legal system, appearing with the opposing party, attempting to assist the other party in getting what she wants, and trying to stop the person from consulting with her lawyer is not intimidation, then I do not know what intimidation is. must first have a claim for re lie f - specific instances o f wrongdoing which you say occurred. Y ou are not allowed to go on a fishing expedition - filing a case and then looking for, and hoping to find, dirt that w ill help you come up with a claim. O n February 21, 1995, (it might have been the 22nd), I received a phone call from the tribe that Judge M a ry V iles and Pat M o rre ll had gone over to Sharon Newm an’s office that morning and demanded that Sharon turn the election records over to them. I immediately called die tribal court to find from Ken Blacketer what was going on, since I had not received any notice o f this action. Diane Robertson answered the phone (she was supposedly still on vacation, which is why the case had been assigned to M a ry). Diane professed ignorance o f anything going on. I relayed what was going on, and m y anger at the conduct o f M a ry in making ex parte contacts without m y knowledge and without contacting d. The judges were o f f making their own rules and law. As I stated earlier, there is no because she was related to Pat M o rrell. I asked her whether she had entered a disqualification W a lt that I did not believe they had been subpoenaed. They apparently took die rest o f the day o ff. A t the hearing we waited for a h a lf hour, with no explanation. W hen I asked M a ry why we were waiting, she said they were waiting for W a lt and Sharon. A t 1:30 M a ry stated that she was postponing die hearing to subpoena them, and now had to decide “what to do to them .” H old them in contempt. W hen I, asked what she meant, M a ry said they had been subpoenaed. A fter I questioned M a ry , she finally admitted they had never been served w ith anything in writing, and backed o ff from sanctioning diem. released. 6. up, and to act on their ow n initiative for one party. B y traveling outside the courtroom and demanding that Sharon turn over records that had never been requested, the judges were'making up their own law. e. The judges deliberately excluded me from providing advice to m y clients. The judges attempted to prevent Sharon from talking to me. The judges made specific statements that they would not contact me about this matter, advise m y clients, o r make any arguments on behalf o f my clients. This conduct is an express violation o f the Indian C iv il Rights A ct (to have assistance o f counsel) and might constitute a federal I then raised the question o f jurisdiction. As I stated in m y pleadings, no complaint or notice o f appeal has ever been filed. Under the court’s own rules ( I detailed these rules in m y previous memo), the court has no jurisdiction to do anything until one o f these two pleadings has been filed. In addition, even i f by some w ild reasoning die motion fo r a restraining order filed by Pat M o rre ll could be considered to give die tribal court jurisdiction, die court still had no case to hear on M arch 7 , 1995. This is because the court rules, x 3.4 0(b ), states that a restraining order “ shall expire by its terms within such time after entry, not to exceed fifteen (1 5 ) days as the court fixes, unless within the time so fixed, the criminal violation. order, fo r good cause shown, is extended fo r a like period or unless the party against whom the f. I t is an express violation o f judicial ethics for a judge who has disqualified herself to order is directed consents that it m ay be extended m e. Diane said she would check into it. I asked Diane whether she was taking the case back now that she was back. She said ho, was told that nothing in writing existed. I looked at die court rules, which state that subpoenas must be in writing, and informed Sharon and document in existence from Pat M o rrell or anyone else asking fo r the election records to be Judges are not allowed to make things have any involvement in a case. A fter Judge Robertson disqualified herself, she then went down and put herself in a physical situation order, and form ally assigned the case to M ary. where she was showing an opposing party that She said no. she supported Pat M o rrell and knew what was fo r a longer period.” The restraining order was not extended, and a brought this point up to Judge V iles. The restraining order had expired in mid-February, and the court had no basis fo r jurisdiction. M a ry said no, she had set the matter fo r hearing and she did not care what die court rules said and was going on. A n hour later I received a phone call ( it was 4 or 4:30 p .m .) that M a ry V iles, Gladys Bolton, Diane g. Robertson and Pat M o rrell were all down at Sharon Newm an’s office trying to ititimidate clearly knew what was going on when she professed ignorance o f M a ry ’s actions to me. I not set the M arch hearing until 15 days after the restraining order was entered, again in violation Sharon into turning over election records. Nelsen was down there and apparently asked M a ry whether she had contacted me. M a ry said have been told that M a ry and Diane have consulted numerous times in this case. A n hour after I spoke with Diane, she was in Sharon o f court rules. The court’s order setting a hearing no she had not, and did not need to because she Newm an’s office building and attempting to intimidate Sharon into improperly releasing Diane Robertson lied to me. Diane going to proceed with this matter. did not set a date. issued in writing. The court did N o hearing date was ever records. 7. I handed Judge V iles a copy o f the Siletz Appellate Court’s Order, ejjjoining the T rib al Court from proceeding w ith this case. on. It is clear from this incident that the judges are M a ry refused to accept it, stating that since M ik e Dowsett was a non-tribal member, the Appeals There are n u m e r o u s problems with this scenario: acting in concert, have a preordained result clearly in m ind, have no interest in court rules or already knew m y position on this case. Pat M o rrell and Diane were sitting outside Sharon’s office, but were clearly visible to what was going a. I t is a violation o f every known judicial canon for a judge to make ex parte contact o f any kind with a party in a case, particularly when (he procedures o r ethics, and plan to do whatever is Court was not valid. I then handed the pleadings necessary to reach the desired result. There is no chance for a fair hearing in tins case. The court is acting im properly in this case. to Court C le rk Ken Blacketer, and announced judge knows the party is represented by counsel. b. I t is even worse violation for a judge to make an ex parte contact w ith a party in a case, deliberately excluding that party’ s legal counsel, for the purpose o f influencing a result in the case. 4. N o w we come to the hearing o f M arch 7 , 1995. I have heard that a ll o f die judges, and perhaps Pat M o rre ll, m et the evening before to discuss the upcoming hearing. This is a violation o f judicial ethics as set forth above. The hearing 21 h a d been planned beforehand. publicly that I was filing these documents. The Tribal Court rules contain no specific requirements for appointment o f appellate judges. The qualifications fo r C h ie f Judge do not require tribal membership; the requirements for Associate Judge do require tribal membership. T rib al Ordinances can be amended by Tribal Council Resolution. W hen the Trib al Council ' N U T 1 S
