Did Judge Edward M. Chen lie to the Congress?

[copyright]

To- U S Case: 08-16753 Pr09/14/2009ia Page: 10 of 10 DktEntry: 7062976

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 http://www.law.berkeley.edu 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.
EXHIBIT 1
Christine Chang, Plaintiff of Case No. 3:07-cv-04005-EMC

[copyright]

To: Senate Judiciary Committee

Recently I have learned that Mr. Edward M. Chen is a candidate to be
nominated to the Federal Bench.
I write to you to register my strong disagreement to the nomination of
Mr. Chen, because my first hand
knowledge and experience of Mr. Chen’s extremely bias and prejudice
against Asian minority.

My son and I are permanently disabled and loss of our home caused by
the University of California at Berkeley and its officials (“U.C.
Berkeley”). We were pro se plaintiffs in Mr. Chen’s courtroom facing
scores of prominent defendants and defense law firms. Even though we
provided ample of evidence (state court deposition and trial
transcripts) and pleadings, which were undisputed by U.C. Berkeley and
defendants, Mr. Chen ruled:

1. No formal discovery and no initial disclosures until further order
by this court.
2. Dismiss all of plaintiffs’ claims blaming plaintiffs not offering
evidence to the contrary.
3. Denied plaintiffs’ motion and supporting affidavit for recusal.
4. Denied plaintiffs’ pleadings for discovery and reconsideration.
5. Accordingly to the answers of U.C. Berkeley defense attorney (U.C.
Berkeley School of Law
graduate, Gaylynn Kirn Conant) and defendants, to dismiss and
summary judgment on behalf of
all defendants.
6. Against plaintiffs’ complaint refuting for the defendants with much
insults to plaintiffs.

Please see the attachment “To: U.S. Congressmen and President Obama”,
as evidence of above.

Mr. Chen refused to recuse himself after plaintiffs’ motion and
supporting affidavit. However,
as I found out recently from the website http://www.law.berkeley.edu,
Mr. Chen received a B.A. from U.C. Berkeley in 1975, and J.D. from
U.C. Berkeley School of Law in 1979. Mr. Chen has also been giving
seminars and donating to U.C. Berkeley as a significant donor in
2007-2008. When answering to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr.
Chen concealed the fact that U.C. Berkeley and its officials were
named defendants in our case. Plaintiffs’ case was filed in the
District Court On August 3, 2007.

Mr. Chen is extremely bias, prejudice, and oppressive against Asian
minority. He violated the laws, deprived plaintiffs’ rights of Due
Process, and wasted judicial economy. Please see the “Petition for
Rehearing En Banc” to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, page 1, 5
and 6. Mr. Chen rules in favor of the rich and powerful to receive
praises and recommendations, in order to climb up to the lifetime
tenure of the Federal Bench. It will be an irreversible and tragic
mistake if Mr. Chen be nominated to the Federal Bench. He will not
uphold the laws and the United States Constitution.

Please consider the other qualified Asian candidates who will uphold
the laws and the United States Constitution and be a truly
representative of Asian minority in the Federal Bench.


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

[copyright]

Civil litigation
[edit] Netbula LLC v. Chordiant Software Inc.

In a 2009 case called "Netbula, LLC v. Chordiant Software Inc.",
defendant Chordiant Software Inc. filed a motion to compel Plaintiff
Netbula to remove the robots.txt file that has been in place since "[s]
everal years ago." A person from Internet Archive filed a declaration
stating that it could not produce the web pages "without considerable
burden, expense and disruption to its operations." Netbula objected on
the ground that defendants' motion was not a motion to compel but the
motion to alter record, similar to an injunction. Plaintiff also
contends that it has exclusive property rights to its copyrighted web
content[15], which could be affected by the Field v. Google case.
Magistrate Judge Howard Lloyd in the Northern District of California,
San Jose Division, rejected these arguments and ordered that
"Plaintiffs shall, within three days from the entry of this order,
disable the robot.txt file from its website and promptly advise
defense counsel when that has been accomplished." [16]

http://www.american-justice.org/index.cgi/Page/116/OPPOSITION-TO-MOTION-TO-COMPEL-REMOVAL-OF-ROBOT-TXT-FILE-FROM-WEBSITE/

[edit] Telewizja Polska

In an October 2004 case called "Telewizja Polska SA v. Echostar
Satellite", a litigant attempted to use the Wayback Machine archives
as a source of admissible evidence, perhaps for the first time.
Telewizja Polska is the provider of TVP Polonia and EchoStar operates
the Dish Network. Prior to the trial proceedings, EchoStar indicated
that it intended to offer Wayback Machine snapshots as proof of the
past content of Telewizja Polska’s website. Telewizja Polska brought a
motion in limine to suppress the snapshots on the grounds of hearsay
and unauthenticated source, but Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys
rejected Telewizja Polska’s assertion of hearsay and denied TVP's
motion in limine to exclude the evidence at trial.[17] However, at the
actual trial, district Court Judge Ronald Guzman, the trial judge,
overruled Magistrate Keys' findings, and held that neither the
affidavit of the Internet Archive employee nor the underlying pages
(i.e., the Telewizja Polska website) were admissible as evidence.
Judge Guzman reasoned that the employee's affidavit contained both
hearsay and inconclusive supporting statements, and the purported
webpage printouts themselves were not self-authenticating.[18]
[edit] Healthcare Advocates, Inc.

In 2003, Healthcare Advocates, Inc. were defendants in a trademark
violation lawsuit wherein the prosecution attempted to use archived
web material accessed via the Internet Archive. When they lost that
suit, the company turned around and attempted to sue the Internet
Archive for violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and
the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. They claimed that since they had
installed a robots.txt file on their website, it should have been
avoided by the Internet Archive’s web crawlers but was not.[19] The
initial lawsuit was filed on June 26, 2003, and they added the
robots.txt file on July 8, 2003, so pages should have been rendered
unavailable retroactively. The lawsuit with Healthcare Advocates was
settled out of court.[20]

Robots.txt is used as part of the Robots Exclusion Standard, a
voluntary protocol the Internet Archive respects that disallows bots
from indexing certain pages delineated by the creator as off-limits.
As a result, the Internet Archive has rendered unavailable a number of
websites that are now inaccessible through the Wayback Machine. This
is sometimes due to a new domain owner placing a robots.txt file that
disallows indexing of the site. The administrators claim to be working
on a system that will allow access to that previous material while
excluding material created after the point the domain switched hands.
[citation needed] Currently, the Internet Archive applies robots.txt
rules retroactively; if a site blocks the Internet Archive, like
Healthcare Advocates, any previously archived pages from the domain
are also rendered unavailable. In cases of blocked sites, only the
robots.txt file is archived. This practice would appear to be
detrimental to researchers looking for information that was available
in the past.

However, the Internet Archive also states that, "sometimes a web site
owner will contact us directly and ask us to stop crawling or
archiving a site. We comply with these requests."[21] They also say,
"The Internet Archive is not interested in preserving or offering
access to Web sites or other Internet documents of persons who do not
want their materials in the collection."[22]
[edit] htpCompany.com

In October 2005, htpCompany was a defendant in a U.S. small claims
case. The plaintiff of the case had purchased online advertising from
the defendant and claimed that the ads had been pulled prior to the
end of the paid-for advertising period whereas the defendant claimed
in court that the ads had stayed up for the full period. The plaintiff
produced printouts of archive.org showing that the ads had gone up and
then had disappeared before their expiration. The judge allowed the
printouts as evidence and decided the case in favor of the plaintiff.
However, because this was a small claims case and the evidentiary
rules were not as strict, it was considered unlikely to set any
precedent for civil cases in Supreme Court.[23]