Is the ruling by judge Edward M. Chen fair?

[Dank]

Edward M. Chen was nominated to the U.S. federal court. However, Chen’s biased judicial style has come to our attention through legal cases publicized on the Internet.

Chen's ruling in the Netbula v. Symantec litigation shows his judicial philosohpy. In 2006, Netbula, LLC, a small software company sued Symantec Corporation for copyright infringement. Symantec made umerous misrepresentations to the Court. Even the presiding judge had found that Symantec mischaracterize[d]” the record. However, when Netbula requested a Court order to force Symantec to correct its court filings, instead of upholding the integrity of the judicial process, Chen denied Netbula's request and ordered Netbula to pay $20,000 to Symantec. The following is but one example of how Chen distorts the record.

On May 15, 2006, Netbula and Symantec held a confidential private meeting. Netbula brought a stack of paper documents, and the parties and attorneys discussed them. At the end of the meeting, Symantec
declined to take the Netbula documents. Then, it alleged in a Court filing that “Symantec … provided the materials requested of them... Netbula, on the other hand, did not provide any of the materials
requested of them.”

After Symantec refused to correct their misrepresentations, Netbula's lawyer (a young black lady) filed a motion for Rule 11 sanctions. Faced with indisputable evidence, Symantec finally admitted that Netbula did bring some documents to the meeting.

Magistrate Chen heard the motion. After noting Netbula small and its attorney a solo practitioner, he distorted the record and ordered Netbula to pay $20,000.00 to Symantec. Chen wrote: “[Symantec’s]
statement was not misleading. Netbula had not produced all the documents requested.”

To justify his ruling in favor of Symantec, Chen writes: “The factual investigation [Symantec] needed to respond to [Netbula’s] Rule 11 motion on the merits was not a task that could quickly be accomplished. For example, a fair amount of time was reasonably expended [by Symantec] to look into the history of events surrounding the May 15, 2006, settlement meeting… the Court concludes that an award of $20,000 [to Symantec] is reasonable.”

In fact, three Symantec attorneys had an email discussion on May 16, 2006 about the documents Netbula brought to the meeting the previous day. Chen awarded Symantec attorneys for making a false statement that was refuted by their own email.

The above is just one example of Chen’s contortionist jurisprudence. For more details, please review misconduct complaint No. 07-89078 filed with the Ninth Circuit. The Netbula v. Symantec case information
can be found on the web site American-Justice.org -- An Equal Justice Organization

Chen’s judicial philosohpy raises serious concerns on whether he can be true to the oath of a judge -- to "do equal right to the poor and to the rich."

Oppose the Nomination of Edward M. Chen to Federal Bench Petition
Oppose the Nomination of Edward M. Chen to Federal Bench Petition

Originally Posted by Dank Edward M. Chen was nominated to the U.S. federal court. However, Chen’s biased judicial style has come to our attention through legal cases publicized on the Internet. Chen's ruling in the Netbula v. Symantec litigation shows his judicial philosohpy. In 2006, Netbula, LLC, a small software company sued Symantec Corporation for copyright infringement. Symantec made umerous misrepresentations to the Court. Even the presiding judge had found that Symantec mischaracterize[d]” the record. However, when Netbula requested a Court order to force Symantec to correct its court filings, instead of upholding the integrity of the judicial process, Chen denied Netbula's request and ordered Netbula to pay $20,000 to Symantec. The following is but one example of how Chen distorts the record. On May 15, 2006, Netbula and Symantec held a confidential private meeting. Netbula brought a stack of paper documents, and the parties and attorneys discussed them. At the end of the meeting, Symantec declined to take the Netbula documents. Then, it alleged in a Court filing that “Symantec … provided the materials requested of them... Netbula, on the other hand, did not provide any of the materials requested of them.” After Symantec refused to correct their misrepresentations, Netbula's lawyer (a young black lady) filed a motion for Rule 11 sanctions. Faced with indisputable evidence, Symantec finally admitted that Netbula did bring some documents to the meeting. Magistrate Chen heard the motion. After noting Netbula small and its attorney a solo practitioner, he distorted the record and ordered Netbula to pay $20,000.00 to Symantec. Chen wrote: “[Symantec’s] statement was not misleading. Netbula had not produced all the documents requested.” To justify his ruling in favor of Symantec, Chen writes: “The factual investigation [Symantec] needed to respond to [Netbula’s] Rule 11 motion on the merits was not a task that could quickly be accomplished. For example, a fair amount of time was reasonably expended [by Symantec] to look into the history of events surrounding the May 15, 2006, settlement meeting… the Court concludes that an award of $20,000 [to Symantec] is reasonable.” In fact, three Symantec attorneys had an email discussion on May 16, 2006 about the documents Netbula brought to the meeting the previous day. Chen awarded Symantec attorneys for making a false statement that was refuted by their own email. The above is just one example of Chen’s contortionist jurisprudence. For more details, please review misconduct complaint No. 07-89078 filed with the Ninth Circuit. The Netbula v. Symantec case information can be found on the web site American-Justice.org -- An Equal Justice Organization Chen’s judicial philosohpy raises serious concerns on whether he can be true to the oath of a judge -- to "do equal right to the poor and to the rich." Oppose the Nomination of Edward M. Chen to Federal Bench Petition Oppose the Nomination of Edward M. Chen to Federal Bench Petition

Based on the above, Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen is a wicked, primitive crook, or worse than that. He lacks the basic character required for a decent member of the society, let alone a U.S. District Judge. Don't let such scum screwed the laws of the U.S. Say no to Chen!

Originally Posted by Unregistered Based on the above, Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen is a wicked, primitive crook, or worse than that. He lacks the basic character required for a decent member of the society, let alone a U.S. District Judge. Don't let such scum screwed the laws of the U.S. Say no to Chen!

please sign the petition
Oppose the Nomination of Edward M. Chen to Federal Bench Petition
Oppose the Nomination of Edward M. Chen to Federal Bench Petition

No doubt, Judge Chen lied or committed fraud in the ruling above by lying. The question is why he lied to kiss the fat ass of big money? Did he take bribes, or try to get benefits from the big money?

The US congress should not let a fraud like Chen to take the important position just fill a racial quota.

Originally Posted by Unregistered No doubt, Judge Chen lied or committed fraud in the ruling above by lying. The question is why he lied to kiss the fat ass of big money? Did he take bribes, or try to get benefits from the big money? The US congress should not let a fraud like Chen to take the important position just fill a racial quota.

Whether Chen gets the robe of a U.S.D.J., he have gotten the favor from large U.S. corps, and can be sure that his family will be taken care of due to the favors he gave the big corp.

Glenn Taggart oppose the nomination
229. Eric Orchard Oppose Edward Chen for federal branch
228. Dell H. Bean I oppose this nomination PO Box 1277 dell@blackelkoutfitters.com
227. George Matteson I oppose the Nomination of Edward Chen Avon Park, Florida 33825
226. Robert Rodi I oppose the nomination of Edward M. Chen to the Federal Bench
225. Shaomin Xing It is sad that minority against minority Massachusetts
224. Yongping Zhou Edward Chen has no basic qualification to be appointed, his dishonesty to the law is the reason to keep him out. Out, Edward Chen
223. Woodrow Crook bad, bad approval people!
222. Fake Name Bogus Petition by Idiots Not a Real Person
221. Richard O. Koenig This person is not suited for this position! Beaufort, SC
220. Colleen Crook I am against Edward M. Chen rising to the Federal Bench.
219. Eva Anda Please consider these concerns 5142 Hollister Ave #147 anda@west.net
218. David L. Cox Typical of Obama's actions
217. Barbara Williamson oppose Judge Chen
216. Colin Nicholas we need judges of integirty and honesty
215. Debbie Darnold Not a good choice Hannibal
214. Bill Sparks Do not vote for E.M. Chen to Federal Bench bsparks@sparks-co.com
213. Carl Grula Opposed Lansdale PA
212. David Colacchio Truth and Justice
211. Doris Ulrich Please remove Chen
210. Christine Chang I "OPPOSE" the nomination of Chen to Federal Bench because my own painful experience of Chen's extremely bias and prejudice judgments against plaintiffs despite mounting evidence of disabled plaintiffs who are injured tremendously by the defendants. I "OPPOSE" the nomination of Chen who disallowed plaintiffs taking discovery then abruptly judged against plaintiffs without reinstating discovery helping the defendants take advantage of plaintiffs who are lay persons. I "OPPOSE" the nomination of Chen who is extremely bias and prejudice against plaintiffs and could not uphold law and U.S. Constitution.
209. Dayne Penney Please oppose this nomination
208. bill dillon yet another non transparent
207. Fang Lin I Oppose the Nomination of Chen
206. Peter Huang The improper practices by Chen in Federal District Court highlight problems in the judicial system, which need to be changed. The absolute immunity is required for the benefit of the public, not for the protection of malicious or corrupt judges.
205. Edmund Gruebele I Oppose the attached petition.......
204. Gaiwen Shih
203. Xukai Li I oppose the nomination of Chen after reading a litigant's complaint against Chen's misconducts. Redwood, California
202. Debra Biffert I oppose Ed Chen's nomination to Federal Bench
201. Dalene Cornelia Say "NO" to Chen
200. Debbie Diefenderfer No way this should happen
199. Arthur Gnaegy No way this should go through at all 7399 club Drive
198. Darlene Crawford Please watch who gets on the bench. We are depending on you. darlene@dcrawford.org
197. Darlene Crawford Please watch who gets on the bench. We are depending on you. darlene@dcrawford.org
196. Doyle F. Harrell Any judge should represent all parties equally. Obviously this is not the case with Mr, Chen.
195. Doyle F. Harrell Any judge should represent all parties equally. Obviously this is not the case with Mr, Chen.
194. Bill E. I neither oppose nor support this nomination. I am not a supporter of President Obama, or of the current majority party in Congress. But I can see nothing in the information provided here which shows bias or shows this person is in any way unfit for a judicial appointment. Obviously any court case involves a dispute as to the facts, and a judge has to make a decision to place more weight on one set of evidence than the other. I know nothing about this judge and nothing about this court case other that what I have read here, but from what I can gather, this petition is being organized by people who may be connected with the loosing side in this particular court case. That is no reason to disqualify someone from a judicial appointment.
193. Benton Bain Oppose the Nomination of Edward M. Chen to Federal Bench
192. Andrew Liqun Li Oppose someone with a trace recorde like Mr Chen's to be on the federal bench
191. LiKai Wang
190. Wang, Jun Don't let Chen to manipulate his status as a minority to appear as though he is furthering civil rights, California
189. Wenhua Zhu
188. Ying Liu
187. Bin Yang We are concerned about basic human rights violated by this corrupt judge.
186. Xiangling
185. Wen Zhao Chen is not a right man
184. Cindy Liu Chen is actually purposely ruling on behalf of parties with money and power, thereby eliminating the rights of all citizens. San jose, California
183. Qiming Li
182. Jack Chen
181. Fengmei Yu
180. Lily
180. Lily Fan
179. Jing Fei Zhu Say no to Chen
178. Liang Feng Keep him out. Massachusetts
177. AGBA Leon an
176. Ari Cohn hello 1514 Alta Glen Dr. #25; San Jose, CA 95125 acohn@majicom.com
175. adolph rubio I DON'T THINK HE'S THE RIGHT MAN
174. Lanfang He Based on Chen's ruling in the Netbula v. Symantec, I and my family oppose the nomination of Chen.
173. Fang Liu
172. Sihong Chen I cannot blindly support Chen because he is Chinese.
171. Meiling Poon I can't believe he's even a judge
170. Shuzo Yamagami
169. Maria Kotak
168. Michael He
167. Lawson Gabtuck
166. Dan Pasahan
165. Ramya Syed what an awful man
164. ray ip
163. Zihao Wu
162. Carrie Sok
161. barry liu
160. Sasha Karrach
159. Mason Li
158. Rose Zhang
157. Brandon Gupta
156. Marilyn Nakamura Keep Chen out of our courtrooms!
155. Larry Fell
154. Lisa Chhi
153. Stella Lin
152. Bob Shieh
151. Ping Zhu This system is full of flaws and liars, how could we expect to get a qualified judge from the liars?
150. Andy Liu I don't want to pay my tax money to Chen because he has manifested bias.
149. Qiling Li
148. Xing Li I oppose the nomination of Chen
147. Li Yue Chen's ruling in the Netbula v. Symantec litigation, Chen is not good Judge.
146. Liping Yang Keep Chen out !
145. Bo Wen
144. Yuming Lu
143. Pingyiang
142. Yiang Yu
141. Tianming Lu
140. Kai Li
139. Qing He Look at the case Netbula v. Symantec, I cannot trust him in any other cases.
138. Qiang Wei
137. Peter Wong Chen made clear errors in the case Netbula v. Symantec because he was able to abuse the doctrine of judicial immunity. CA
136. Lisa Wu Chen is not good as a magistrate, how can he become a District Judge ? California
135. Aljerin Butler, Jr. It does happen some time. Framingham, Massachusetts
134. Penny Woo Judge of the U.S. District Court should be a person who can constantly exercise objective judgement.
133. Andrew Lee I oppose the nomination of Edward Chen because he made a biased judgement toward a small company. How can I trust him in any other cases?
132. Michael
131. Yiming
130. Andrew Xia
130. Andrew Xia
129. Xinglian Zhao Chen’s contortionist jurisprudence make me sick
128. Tao Li No to Chen, He can not do equal right to all based on the Netbula v. Symantec case
127. Jin Lin
126. Wenke Wang
125. Ye Chen
124. Chi Zhang I oppose Chen's nomination and confirmation.
123. Joy Zhao Chen’s judicial philosohpy raises serious concerns on whether he can be true to do equal right to the poor and to the rich.
122. Eric Zhou Based on the errors made by Chen in the cases of 2006, I oppose the Nomination of Chen.
121. Yong Ping
120. Yang He
119. Guo, Hongying
118. Xiaohua Shih
117. Ying Zhang
116. Chunbo Zhang Distrot the records and bully a small compmny, Chen's integrity is questioned.
115. TAMARA
114. Robert Bensley Keep him out Boston Massachusetts
113. Tao Zhao I am a Chinese American. I oppose the Nomination of Chen becaue we need justice.
112. Qiling Yang
111. Robert Lackman Proverbs 18:5 It is not good to be partial to the wicked or to deprive the inocent of justice
110. Beverly Wong
109. Lucy Liang
108. PAUL I read a litigant 's complaint against Chen, I have concerns about Chen's integrity.
107. Meiyun Lin I have concerns about Chen's judicial philosophy
106. Jack Zhang
105. Scott Li
104. Wenping Feng
103. Dr. Bojun Song Corruption in the judiciary negatively affects the implementation of the principles of fair trial and erodes the rule of law
102. Longjun Wu
101. Yawen Chen
100. Yin Lu
99. Gary Multer There is no evidence showing that Chen was a good magistrate.
98. JAMES
97. Boping Song
96. Hong Sun
95. Dr. Wendy Xia If a judge abuse the doctrine of judicial immunity, there will be justice for no one.
94. yongping zhu
93. Zhu, Ping I am concerned my human rights
92. Bowen zhang Chen is not qulified to be a judge
91. Eric Li No to corruption in judicial system
90. Dalun Zheng I don't trust Chen
89. peter Lin please replace him
88. Zhiquang lei Chen made clear errors in the past cases, I oppose the Nomination of Chen.
87. Edward Zhang Chen can be replaced by any one if we don't care an nominee’s integrity
86. Baichao Li Based on Chen's record, I don't trust him.
85. Zilan Bai Chen demonstrates a poor judicial conduct.
84. Lucy Yang We need justice.
83. Ting Zhang No to Chen.
82. Mike L. Tran I don't believe Chen based on his record.
81. Huang Ping choose another candidate instead of Chen.
80. Li Kai I oppose Chen
80. Li Kai I oppose Chen
79. Mingjun Zhao I oppose Edward Chen.
78. Shihong Chen No to Chen
77. Nancy Liang I don't fell safe with Edward Chen.
76. Qing He No to Injustice. No to Chen.
75. Ailan Shih The nomination of Edward Chen to Federal Bench is a big mistake
74. Xiao Hua No to Chen.
73. Ming Hua I am not happy when Chen was appointed to the Federal Bench.
72. Sondra Clark We need to know Chen's birthplace , if he was born outside the United States, he can't become a U.S. Federal judge.
71. John Stevens Obama needs to choose another prominent candidate to fill Seat.
70. Shelton Liu As a Chinese American, I oppose the Nomination of Chen. San Jose
Ronald E. Jenks, Sr. Take America back!
68. hanjuan jin We need real justice in the system
67. Randy Pentico He can not be trusted.
66. li ying she(chen) tooo bad to chinese
65. Jon Steele Obey and defend the Constitution or its treason
64. Yue Bai I oppose the nomination of Edward M Chen
63. Ming Shi I Oppose the Nomination of Edward M. Chen to Federal Bench
62. Kevin Thompson Judicial corruption is out of control in this country. The Catholic priest scandal has nothing on the betrayals of public trust occurring in our courts, which are accountable to no one. How much longer are our legislators going to ignore the problem?
61. Xiaoling Please reconsider the Nomination of Chen.
60. haiqun yun Chen’s judicial conduct is poor.
59. Linda Lei We are concerned about basic human rights violated by this corrupt judge. Milpitas California
58. Jin Fan No to injustice !
57. Kunyang Chen No to a corrupt judge
56. Yong Yang we need JUSTICE not injustice.
55. fang Shih No to Edward Chen
54. John Durham I am a parent, and I am very glad my son did not choose to go into law. It's people like Edward Chen that make the entire US corrupt.
53. B Garcia CHEN - LEAVE OFFICE!
52. Hong Zheng Chen will be punished
51. Ju Xia Chen - God will punish you
50. Alexander Chen EDWARD CHEN MUST RESIGN NOW!
49. Xing P. I hope Obama regrets nominating Edward Chen and immediately retracts it!
48. Susie Chen edward chen is social injustice at its peak
47. Lina Tao obama was supposed to help civil rights, not remove them by nominating edward chen
46. Jason Gupta i fully support this petition
45. Xu K i wonder if he still considers himself human
44. Gary Lin How does he sleep at night?
43. Qin Feng What an awful person!
42. K Wang This man is the epitome of injustice
41. Meena Sampath How could the state bar even give Edward Chen a license?
40. Lucy Sharma As an Asian American, I'm especially angered to see this man be appointed. What will happen to my rights?
39. M Ronald NO TO CHEN!
38. Wilson Jose chen's actions offend all minorities
37. Henry our court system's blatant lies are finally revealed here
36. Paul K i can't believe he thought he could get away with his actions
35. Mary Fisher this magistrate's behavior is an abomination
34. Ken Zhang Edward Chen - RESIGN NOW!
33. J Qian remove chen from office immediately
32. Ting G Edward Chen is a liar
31. Joy Z. I hope this man is punished
30. Eric Zhu Chen is a disgrace to all Asians
30. Eric Zhu Chen is a disgrace to all Asians
29. Jack Meyer I've lost hope in the judicial system.
28. Huilan Yang against corruption in judicial system
27. lisa Fen Chen is NOT qulified to be appointed.
26. Ming Qin opposition
25. Sharon Chen Chen should be removed from the Court due to his misconducts at legal cases.
24. Lishen Ying Remove Chen from the Court and protect human rights.
23. Ping Zhao Remove Chen from the Court
22. Michael Lin Obama must remove Chen as a magistrate, not promote him to be a District Court judge.
21. Fengling Zhen I oppose injustice.
20. Bin Zhang Please remove Chen from the Court.
Qin Wang Chen can not represent justice California
18. Hong Jun I oppose injustice.
17. Xiangling Li Chen is not good as a Judge.
16. Peter Lin No Edward Chen !!!
15. Ying Lu The courtroom door is open to all
14. Kao Li justice for all
13. Ben Wang I oppose his appointment
12. Zhiying Lao I am not happy with his appointment.
11. Bin Xie I am an Chinese American, but I strongly oppose the Nomination of Edward M. Chen to Federal Bench
10. Mike Tran I oppose the Nomination of Chen.
9. Peter H. J. Chen demonstrated a pattern of bias and prejudice, he should be removed from Court.
8. linda wong No Edward Chen !!!
7. Weidian Ma Biased judicial style
6. Lily Fan remove Chen from Federal Court !
5. Feng Ying I oppose his nomination.
4. Bo Liu Please don't appoint Edward Chen. His integrity is questioned. Redwood City, California
3. Yong Li This judge mistreated his own race. From "did not provide ANY document" to "not provide All document" trick game and shame!
2. Steven Li I am concerned about basic human rights violated by such corrupt judge. I oppose his nomination. Santa Clara, California
1. carol Shi Edward Chen does not represent the Asian American community, nor does he represent justice in the court room. He bases his rulings completely on whichever party has the most money and power, not on legal standards. We cannot blindly support Chen because he is Chinese. He does nothing for the Asian community, and if you look closely at his rulings, he purposely rules against Asians, regardless of whether they are legally correct. Obama must remove him as a magistrate, not promote him to be a District Court judge. Fremont, California

Edward Milton Chen will get appointed exactly because he will serve the interest of the corporate America and screw the people. There are many more qualified white judges, but he will get the job because of his race card. He is the friend of the Falun Kung spiritual movement, and a strong anti-China judge. Obama may eventually appoint him to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Proof that Edward Milton Chen is a Fraud

Edward M. Chen (Chinese name: 鄭一芳) is a Magistrate Judge in the Northern District of California. President Obama recently nominated Chen to the federal bench, and Chen’s confirmation is pending before the U.S. Senate. Though Chen is a powerful figure, as responsible members of the society, we shall provide rigorous objective proof that Chen is a fraud.

A fraud deceives by telling lies. A lie is a knowing statement of falsehood. To prove Chen a fraud, we need to provide some background information. The purpose of providing this background is not to re-litigate the underlying dispute, but to lay the factual basis of our proof of Chen’s fraud.

Since Chen is a Magistrate Judge, his shows personal character in cases he handled. Our case was a copyright lawsuit between a small software company named Netbula, LLC and Symantec Corporation. In 1998, Netbula issued a “one use dev” license to an Israeli company. Years later, Symantec obtained the Netbula software via a series of acquisitions, and distributed it all over the world without Netbula’s authorization. Eventually, Netbula sued Symantec for copyright infringement. The case number was C06-0711-MJJ (N.D. Cal).

The case looked like a run-of-the-mill software piracy matter, except perhaps, it was a small entity sues a big company for copyright theft, instead of the usual way, in which Symantec sues small guys for stealing its software.

Before Symantec answered Netbula’s complaint, the parties agreed to have a private confidential meeting to see if they could resolve the dispute. Each side asked other side to bring documents to the meeting. Symantec asked Netbula to bring its pricing records; Netbula asked Symantec for nine categories of documents. On May 15, 2006, the parties met. One Symantec executive and three Symantec lawyers, met Netbula’s owner Dr. Yue and Netbula’s former attorney. Dr. Yue brought a stack of paper documents with licensing and pricing information, and put them on the conference table. The parties discussed the Netbula documents. At the ending of the meeting, Dr. Yue asked the Symantec executive whether he would like to keep the Netbula documents, he declined.

The meeting did not result in a settlement. Symantec answered the complaint and the Court was setting discovery plans. In the Court filing, Symantec alleged that in the May 15, 2006 meeting “Symantec … provided the materials requested of them... Netbula, on the other hand, did not provide any of the materials requested of them.”

Symantec, in its affirmative defenses, also accused Netbula of “unclean hands.” Netbula’s copyright certificate stated that Netbula published it software in September 1996. Symantec claimed that Netbula did not exist until a year later. This, said Symantec, showed that Netbula cheated the U.S. Copyright Office. However, Symantec did not provide any factual basis for its accusation that Netbula did not exist until 1997. In fact, a simple free online check with Delaware Corporate Division can verify that Netbula was registered in July 1996, before the publication of the software. Netbula had no idea why Symantec made the false accusation. In its Court papers, Netbula pointed out that Symantec’s allegation was without basis. But Symantec ignored Netbula’s protest, and continued to make the similar accusations in its affirmative defenses filed with the Court in December 2006.

Moreover, Symantec continued to tell the Court that Netbula did not bring any documents to the May 15 meeting. Frustrated, on March 14, 2007, Netbula’s new lawyer, a young black woman, served a Rule 11 motion on defense counsel.

Under Rule 11 of the FRCP, after receiving the motion, Symantec’s lawyers had a 21-day “safe-harbor” period to withdraw their misrepresentations. After 21 days, the violations are complete for the purpose of Rule 11.

Symantec’s counsel refused to correct or withdraw their prior court filings. On April 6, 2007, after the expiration of the safe-harbor period, Netbula filed the Rule 11 motion with the District Court. The Docket No. was 103.

In Netbula’s motion, it listed five specific violations, including the two violations above: (1) lying about the May 15, 2006 meeting; (2) baseless accusation that Netbula cheated on its copyright certificate. We chose these two violations here, because their handling best demonstrates Chen’s judicial fraud.

In the briefing of the Rule 11 motion, Netbula showed a May 16, 2006 email sent by Symantec’s lawyer Jedediah Wakefield, in which he discussed the documents Dr. Yue brought the previous day. That email was copied to two other Symantec lawyers. Faced with this evidence, Symantec admitted that Netbula did bring documents to the May 15 meeting.

Symantec also admitted that it was mistaken about the year of Netbula’s formation. Their lawyers explained that they only checked California records, but not Delaware records. However, in all their prior court filings, they typed Netbula, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company. Even California records indicated that Netbula, LLC was formed in Delaware.

Edward M. Chen, as the Magistrate Judge, heard the Rule 11 motion on June 7, 2007. After he saw Netbula’s lawyer was a young solo practitioner and the other side is the big company, he immediately stated that he was inclined to deny Netbula’s motion.

On June 11, 2007, Chen issued his ruling. He denied Netbula’s motion, and fined Netbula $20,000.00 for filing the motion.

Rule 11 of Federal Civil Procedure does not set any time limit. In its motion papers, Netbula cited cases where Courts granted a Rule 11 motion a year after the violation. Chen disagreed with the cases. Chen wrote:

Netbula’s Rule 11 motion was untimely because it was not filed until many months after Defendants’ offending contentions were made… The instant case involves contentions made in motions, and not pleadings.

(Quoting from Chen’s Ruling, Docket No. 193, p.3)

Netbula sought sanctions for Symantec’s false statements in its Affirmative Defenses. Affirmative defenses are pleadings, not motions. Chen got the exact opposite of the definition of “pleadings.” If Chen did not make this mistake on purpose, he was not well versed in basic legal terminology.

What Chen wrote next shows his fraud. On the May 15, 2006 meeting, Chen wrote:

In any event, Defendants’ statement was not misleading. Netbula had not produced all the documents requested.

Now, this is a big fat lie. Symantec accused Netbula of not bringing ANY document. But Chen twisted it around, as if Symantec’s accusation was that Netbula did not bring ALL documents. Chen’s lie was designed to turn Symantec’s false statement into truth.

On the issue of when Netbula was founded. Chen wrote:

although it appears that Defendants’ could have easily determined the date Netbula was organized in Delaware and thus presents the strongest case for service of a Rule 11 motion, this issue illustrates why the safe harbor provision is important… Netbula should have asked Defendants to withdraw the contention because Netbula was incorporated earlier in Delaware. It could have easily document such to Defendants’ satisfaction. Netbula did not do so. In fact, even in its reply brief, Netbula failed to bring this corrective information to Defendants’ and the presiding judge’s attention.

See Chen’s twisted logic and how he acted as Symantec lawyer? As stated above, when Symantec made the false accusation, Netbula had no clue why Symantec made it. Netbula had no duty to tell Symantec not to make false statement to the court, but it actually did so in court papers by pointing out that Symantec failed to provide supporting facts for that allegation. Yet, Chen ruled that Netbula should have told Symantec that it was founded in Delaware. But, Netbula did. From day one of the case, Netbula presented itself as “a Delaware Limited Liability Company.” Defense counsel typed those words in the caption of their court papers. Moreover, Netbula filed the Rule 11 motion ONLY AFTER Symantec refused to correct its wrong.

After putting the blame on Netbula by the above lies, Chen wrote why Symantec should be awarded $20,000.00:

defense counsel’s credibility had been attacked, and they were entitled to defend against the charge that they had acted frivolously, a grave charge… the factual investigation needed to respond to the Rule 11 motion on the merits was not a task that could quickly be accomplished. For example, a fair amount of time was reasonably expended to look into the history of events surrounding the May 15, 2006, settlement meeting. Given the circumstances, having reviewed the opposition brief and affidavit, the Court concludes that an award of $20,000 is reasonable.

Basically, Chen lied to turn into Symantec’s lie into the truth, then awarded Symantec $20,000.00 for looking the history of the lie that was refuted by their own email dated May 16, 2006. Chen awarded Symantec $20,000.00 largely for checking their own emails sent the next day. Chen’s fraud is undeniable. He reviewed the briefs and affidavits, he knew these facts, yet he twisted the facts, he even invented lies to cover defendants.

After Chen’s order, Netbula filed an Objection with District Judge Martin J. Jenkins. On August 6, 2007, Jenkins agreed that Chen got the definition of “pleading” wrong. Jenkins ruled that Netbula’s motion was too early, rather than too late:

Plaintiff points out that the magistrate judge erroneously found that the Rule 11 motion did not involve pleadings, since Plaintiff did request that the Court impose sanctions on Defendants for claimed mischaracterizations in their second amended answer. However, this argument does not undermine the conclusion that the motion is untimely… Rule 11 motion for sanctions arising from Defendants’ pleading was untimely because Plaintiff filed it too early by not awaiting the end of the case.

Dr. Yue criticized Chen’s ruling in a blog article and filed a judicial misconduct complaint against Chen at the Ninth Circuit. After Jenkins learnt about the article, out of retaliation, he dismissed Netbula’s lawsuit on August 31, 2007, under the Jenkins-Laporte Doctrine.

Not all judges are as fraudulent and biased as Edward Milton Chen. For instance, another Magistrate Judge had the following to say about Symantec lawyers and the May 15, 2006 meeting:

THE COURT (asking Symantec lawyer): Were you at that meeting, May 15th?

MR. WAKEFIELD (Symantec lawyer): I was, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. And they said -- they say they produced a bunch of documents, showed, disclosed, offered for you guys to keep. No, no, we don't want them piecemeal. We want the whole 9 yards, otherwise we don't get paid enough money.

…

THE COURT: …Most litigants cannot come here because the profit per partner is $900,000 a year. This is a mirage of an institution for everybody except general motors. And that's shameful to our society. So that's -- that's the context here.

To: U.S. Congressmen and President Obama

It will be an irreversible mistake if Edward M. Chen is nominated to the Federal Bench.

Recently, Mr. Chen pulled off a Catch-22 on the plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court case No. 3:07-cv-04005-EMC, which Mr. Chen mentioned in his answer to the Senate Judiciary Questionnaire. On November 14, 2007, Mr. Chen ordered: “No formal discovery and no initial disclosures until further order by this Court.” See Docket Entry No. 80. Three months later, Mr. Chen dismissed all of plaintiffs’ claims, blaming plaintiff not offering any evidence to the contrary. See Docket Entry 110.

I was the pro se plaintiff representing myself and my son in the case above, against the University of California at Berkeley and its officials (“U.C. Berkeley”). We, mother and son, are disabled, due to the aggravated assault and battery by U.C. Berkeley employees, and their continuing stalking and harassment. We filed suit in state court. After the state court judge was compromised by defendants’ ex parte communications, we filed federal claims in the U.S. District Court. Judge Chen took the case.



U.C. Berkeley defendants did not dispute our allegations: its employees’ aggravated assault and battery, stalking and harassment, perjury in the state court procedures, ex-parte communication with the state court judge, and conspiracy between U.C. Berkeley and defendants. These were indisputable, based on state court trial transcripts and hearing testimony.

After forbidding us to conduct discovery, Mr. Chen labeled our injuries a theoretical matter, fantastic or delusional scenarios, sheer speculation lacking plausibility, fantastic conspiracy, patently fanciful and insubstantial. Mr. Chen exonerated the U.C. Berkeley employees who filed affidavits, but avoided to mention the employees who did not file affidavits. He twisted the facts about employee defendants’ perjury, fraud, and ex parte communication with the state judge, which were indisputable based on state court record. See, Chen’s order dated February 13, 2008, Docket Entry No. 110.

I filed a motion for recusal and a supporting affidavit. Mr. Chen refused to recuse himself from the case, Docket Entry No. 151, 152, 154. In his answer to the Senate Questionnaire, Mr. Chen stated that he “denied the request because the plaintiff was claiming bias based solely on an adverse ruling I had issued.” However, as I found out recently, Mr. Chen received a B.A. from U.C. Berkeley in 1975, and J.D. from U.C. Berkeley School of Law in 1979. A search of Chen’s name at Berkeley Law - Home reveals that Mr. Chen has been giving seminars at the defendant school, and presumably been receiving compensation for his work at defendant school. Mr. Chen was also listed as a significant donor to U.C. Berkeley law school in 2007-2008. In his answer to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Chen concealed the fact that U.C. Berkeley and its officials were named defendants in my case, represented by Gaylynn Kirn Conant, also a U.C. Berkeley graduate.



Mr. Chen’s biased, prejudiced, oppressive and crooked behavior against the poor and powerless is shocking. He rules in favor of the rich and powerful, from whom he receives praises and recommendations. Mr. Chen will not uphold the laws and U. S. Constitution. It will be a tragic mistake if Edward M. Chen climbs up to the lifetime tenure of the federal bench.

Christine Chang _

Plaintiff of Case No. 3:07-cv-04005-EMC

CHRISTINE CHANG, et al., v. ROCKRIDGE MANOR CONDOMINIUM, et al.,

From 1991 to 2003, Plaintiffs lived in the Rockridge Manor Condominium.

At the time that Plaintiffs moved into the Condominium, Mr. Sun was only eleven years old. During the relevant period, Eva Ammann was the manager of the Rockridge Manor Homeowners Association and Charles Blakeney was the president of the Board of Directors of the Homeowners Association.

In 1997, Ms. Ammann and several Board members invited Ms. Chang to serve on the Board. Ms. Chang served on the Board from 1997 to April 2000. During that time, Ms. Chang realized that Ms. Ammann and the Board were embezzling from and extorting the Homeowners Association. Ms. Chang decided not to run for re-election in April 2000 because she disagreed with the embezzlement and extortion and because she was treated poorly by the other Board members -- e.g., she was yelled at or voted down if she made objections or suggestions.

The new Board member who replaced her ended up “fighting furiously” against the other Board members and Ms. Ammann, and so these Board members and Ms. Ammann pressured Ms. Chang to serve on the Board again in place of the new Board member. Ultimately, these Board members and Ms. Ammann began a campaign of persecution against Plaintiffs for the purpose of “continuing their embezzlement and extortion,” and to retaliate against Ms. Chang for not serving on the Board .

Most notably, in September 2000, Ms. Chang was on vacation, leaving Mr. Sun at the Condominium, and Ms. Ammann -- aware of this fact -- called social services and the police, claiming that Mr. Sun was dangerous and had a gun in his possession. Ms. Ammann knew that Plaintiffs did not have a gun on the premises, that Mr. Sun was not a violent person, and that he had mental and physical disabilities.

As a result of Ms. Ammann’s actions, the police officers forced their way into the unit and restrained Mr. Sun, and Mr. Sun was locked up in a psychiatric institution. Ms. Ammann told Mr. Sun that “she was merely executing the Board of Directors’ [sic] order.” Similarly, Mr. Blakeney, the president of the board, told Ms. Chang that Ms. Ammann had been following an instruction by the Board to call social services because the Board was concerned about him. Mr. Blakeney further sent a letter of all homeowners of the Condominium, stating that “the Board was taking actions against Plaintiffs to protect all the homeowners.” Subsequently, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against (it appears) Ms. Ammann, the Board, and the Homeowners Association.

On December 10, 2001, the Homeowners Association issued a statement to all of the homeowners in the Condominium, notifying them of Plaintiffs’ lawsuit. On that same day, one of the Board members (now deceased) caused one of the homeowners, Constance Pepper Celaya, to assault and batter Plaintiffs. Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed suit against Ms. Celaya as well. Ms. Celaya perjured herself in her answer and cross-complaint against Plaintiffs. She also lied during her deposition.