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