We write to you to register our serious concerns about Edward M. Chen抯 nomination to the U.S. federal court. Chen抯 biased judicial style has come to our attention through legal cases publicized on the Internet. As tax payers who pay judges to do justice, We oppose his nomination and confirmation.

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 numerous misrepresentations to the Court. Even the presiding judge had found that Symantec 搈ischaracterize[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 揝ymantec ?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: 揫Symantec抯] statement was not misleading. Netbula had not produced all the documents requested.?

To justify his ruling in favor of Symantec, Chen writes:
揟he factual investigation [Symantec] needed to respond to [Netbula抯] 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抯 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 http://www.american-justice.org

Chen抯 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."

For this reason, we request Your Honor not to appoint Chen to the lifetime tenure of Article III Judge of the United States.

This comment by anonymous appears to be part of an astroturf campaign by a person or persons with ties to Netbula, a company by the way that "has been profitable since 1997" (so I don't know how the poor-rich oath quote fits).

I actually don't know if this would be considered astroturf... sounds like a grudge to me.

Netbula was formed in July 1996. (JSUF at  1.) Mr. Dongxiao Yue ("Yue") is the owner and only employee of Netbu-. la. (Id.)

and

When discovery extended longer than expected in this action, on May 18, 2007, the Court considered the parties' Request to Extend
Dates for Discovery, Dispositive Motions, and Trial. At that time, the Court maintained the prior trial date of October 1, 2007, and set a firm deadline of August 21, 2007 for hearing dispositive motions. (Minute Order, Docket No. 140.) Given that Order, Plaintiff had the responsibility to adhere to Local Rule 7-2(a) and file any motion for summary judgment at least thirty-five days before the Court's August 21, 2007 deadline for hearing dispositive motions. See Civ. L.R. 7-2(a). Indeed, Civ. L.R. 56-1 expressly provides that "motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication must be noticed as provided in Civil L.R. 7-2 and 7-3." Here, the applicable filing deadline of July 17, 2007 passed two weeks before Plaintiff filed its cross-motions.

...what did Netbula expect the judge to do?

Although I do sympathize...

Netbula expected the judge could stop Symantec making false statements. The judge could simply deny Netbula's motion. But ordering Netbula pay Symantec attorney FEE is unjust, because it was Symantec lied, not Netbula.

Oh, is this to me?

Because the order denied sanctions based on the untimeliness of Plaintiff’s motion, the Court does not reach Plaintiff’s objections to Magistrate Judge Chen’s dicta on the merits of Plaintiff’s claims for sanctions.

 

(D. Mass. 1994). Since Defendant was the prevailing party on the Rule 11 motion, the magistrate judge had discretion to award it attorney’s fees. The award was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.

I would take the issue up with Netbula's attorney and not the judge here... perhaps going with 1 young attorney against a team of Symantec corporate lawyers was a bad idea.  (What can you do?)

Again, I sympathize.  I really do...

The Nebula base is over. The current question is about Edward Chen's intergrity.

Whenever someone nominated, people would check through the past. Only at this time, a judge is judged by others.

Right.  I'm saying Judge Chen followed precedent, which is usually how the law works in this country.  I'm sorry; your case is no example to judging anyone's integrity.

The case only shows the ineptitude of Netbula's attorney and the ability of huge corporations to hire good attorneys.  Am I wrong?

This is clearly a problem of someone confusing dissatisfaction with one aspect of the case with the outcome of another.  Whether or not Symantec lied with respect to the discovery request is irrelevant to the award of reasonable attorneys' fees to the prevailing party on the Rule 11 motion.  The Rule 11 motion was clearly untimely, which means that the party opposing the motion, Symantec, prevailed, thus allowing them to be rewarded attorneys fees.

One supposes that our anonymous commenter finds the notion unjust because he/she assumes that IF the motion had been timely, Symantec would have been sanctioned.  Thus, it was unfair to award attorneys fees because Symantec had been a bad actor in one sense.  But even taking such an assertion as true, it does not matter legally speaking how badly Symantec may have acted if the motion was obviously untimely.  A party doesn't get to avoid attorneys' fees just because the other party did something wrong in another part of the lawsuit.

For better or for worse, the practice of law is transcribed by technical rules.  The even enforcement of those rules may not always result in what satisfies our larger notions of "justice."

judge Chen turned "[Netbula] did not provide ALL material" to "not provided ANY documents", and that is twisted the fact. This is something about intergrity.

The public hearing will welcome everyone to address opinions.

The oppose party, e.g. Republic senators will focus on the problems.

How would the situation have changed if the judge did do so?  It's true that not all requested documents were produced, right?

Symantec accused Netbula did not provide ANY docs. Netbula filed Rule-11 motion and requested saction. On the hearing, Symantec admitted that Netbula did provide docs, but then changed a topic and accussed Netbula did not provide ALL docs.

Judge Chen wrote “[Symantec’s] statement was not misleading. Netbula had not produced all the documents requested.”

Get it? twisted the fact by changing topix.

Did you... did you just change your website to omit the court findings that are prejudicial to your cause?

the website stayed there for years.

http://american-justice.org/

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!

As you can read from the related case documents, the May 15, 2006 meeting in the Netbula v. Symantec case was a private meeting between the parties before Symantec answered the complaint. None of the parties had any obligation to bring ALL documents -- the case did not even have discovery plan yet. And the meeting was confidential.

Before Edward M. Chen's ruling, former Magistrate Judge Wayne D. Brazil chided Symantec in a hearing about that meeting:

//////////

THE COURT (JUDGE BRAZIL 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.

//////////

Now, it's worth noting that someone as frank as Judge Brazil got no Article III appointment.

Edward M. Chen's fraud is apparent to a 3-year old. Symantec accused Netbula for not bringing ANY documents to the May 15 meeting. Symantec did so to gain advantage in discovery. With the evidence (their own email), Symantec later admitted that they lied.

Edward M. Chen wanted to award Symantec. But he could not do so if Symantec was the liar. So he had to twisted Symantec's words to make them not a lie. That's why he mischaraterized Symantec's written statement to the Court, from accusing Netbula of not bringing "ANY" documents to not bringing "ALL" documents.

Edward M. Chen also seem to lack the basic understanding of the legal jargon. Netbula's rule 11 motion was filed 3 months after the alleged violations in their affirmative defneses filed in the Court.

In Chen's ruling against Netbula, Chen wrote: "The instant case involves contentions made in motions, and not pleadings." And then Chen concluded that Netbula's motion was too late. (Check rule 11, there was no time requirement).

Apparerntly, Chen did not that Affirmative defenses are pleadings. How can he be a judge if he does not understand the legal teminology?

Another part of Chen's fraud was the following. Symantec accused Netbula of cheating the office by claiming that Netbula was founded in 1997 but its copyright said 1996. But one can easily verify Netbula was founed in 1996.

Chen admitted that Symantec was wrong. But then he twisted the record. He wrote: "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."

That's blatant lie made by Mr. Chen. Netbula's certificate of service clearly showed that Netbula served the Rule 11 motion 23 days before filing it, giving Symantec  more than 21 days to correct its false statements. Netbula filed the Rule 11 motion only after Symantec refused to withdraw their false statements from the court record.

Both Edward M. Chen and Martin J. Jenkins were accused of judicial fraud. There were judicial misconduct complaints filed against these two for their fraudulent rulings. Search "martin j. jenkins judicial misconduct" on Google, and you will see the documents.

The story was that Edward M. Chen lied to cover Symantec. Netbula's owner criticized Chen in a blog. Jenkins saw the blog and retaliated against Netbula by using the so called Jenkins-Laporte Doctrine.

It is all dirty business.

Whether the motion was untimely has nothing to do with whether Edward M. Chen was a liar.

The untimeliness of any motion is not an excuse for Edward M. Chen to lie about the basic facts underlying the dispute.

Edward M. Chen's conclusion was that Netbula's motion was too late -- it was filed 3 months after the alleged violation in defendant's Affirmative Defenses. Chen based this conclusion on his misundetstanding of the legal term "pleading." As it is known to an educated person, "affirmative defenses" are pleadings not motions. So Chen screwed up by his failure to check his law dictionary.

Even if Netbula's motion was late, it does not make it automatically sanctionable for a $20 fine. Chen had to twisted things around to make Netbula look bad.

District Judge Martin J. Jenkins affirmed Chen. But Jenkins admitted that Affirmative defenses are pleadings, but then he say Netbula should bring the motion at the end of the case. So Netbula's motion was too early.

From Chen's "too late" and Jenkins's "too early", that is affirmation on other grounds.

But that's not the issue here though. Let's not divert the attention from the legal dispute of whether Netbula's motion was too late or too early. But focus on whether Edward M. Chen lied.

To Keith Kamisugi, we cannot blindly support Chen because he is an Asian. We need to examine his character. There are a lot of qualified Asian persons for federal judgeship. A biased Asian judge will disgrace all Asians.

From some of the posting here, some of the defenders of Chen seem to be attacking Netbula's small size. That's so wrong. Chen ruled against Netbula exactly because  Symantec was big. Asian minorities often face injustice because their small numbers and lesser resources. We don't need a  snobbish Asian judge. Some of you here know Mr. Chen, so ask him why he lied.

I would certainly like to have the oppurtunity to question him why he lied.

FYI, if you don't know what Rule 11 of the FRCP is, please check

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule11.htm

By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper — whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it — an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.

(4) Nature of a Sanction.

A sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated. The sanction may include nonmonetary directives; an order to pay a penalty into court; or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of part or all of the reasonable attorney's fees and other expenses directly resulting from the violation.

More to Keith Kamisugi, you wrote Netbula was "'a company by the way that "has been profitable since 1997' (so I don't know how the poor-rich oath quote fits)."

Many small companies are profitable. But that does not mean they have the billions to available to buy off judges or their families. In fact, before Judge Martin J. Jenkins knew Netbula was a small company, he ruled in favor of Netbula, and ruled that defendants "mischarzterize" record.

Jenkins made a 180 degree turn, essentially slapping his own face, after learning that Netbula was small and Netbula's owner critized Chen.

The only protection we minorities can have is the law. That's the only protection we can get.

We don't need judges that is untruthful to the law and don't need judges that distort the facts.

Did Magistrate Judge Edward Chen commit fraud

Yes, Edward Chen committed fraud not recusing himself from the case (3:07-cv-04005-EMC). Mr. Chen graduated from a law school of U.C. Berkeley and  has financial and non-financial ties with U.C. Berkeley all the time. In the case 3:07-cv-04005-EMC,  U.C. Berkeley  was defendant.  He never disclosed his associations with the defendant Berkeley and completely sided on Defendant. He disallowed Pro se plaintiff to do any discovery without his order. He contradicted  himself by stating that plaintiff did not bring any evident. He clearly know what he did and what his purpose is. He recklessly deprived plaintiffs Due Process rights of the Constitution and sided with the rich and powerful for his stepping stone. It is clearly that he does not uphold the laws or the Constitution for people.

Yes, you are wrong. Read other case before Edward Chen.

Did Magistrate Judge Edward Chen commit fraud ?

Yes, Edward Chen committed fraud not recusing himself from the case (3:07-cv-04005-EMC). Mr. Chen graduated from a law school of U.C. Berkeley and  has financial and non-financial ties with U.C. Berkeley all the time. In the case 3:07-cv-04005-EMC,  U.C. Berkeley  was defendant.  He never disclosed his associations with the defendant Berkeley and completely sided on Defendant. He disallowed Pro se plaintiff to do any discovery without his order. He contradicted  himself by stating that plaintiff did not bring any evident. He clearly know what he did and what his purpose is. He recklessly deprived plaintiffs Due Process rights of the Constitution and sided with the rich and powerful for his stepping stone. It is clearly that he does not uphold the laws or the Constitution for people.

Don't be silly.  You do not have a grasp of Rule 11 sanctions.  1.  They are not mandatory.  Judge has discretion.

Fraud--Do you know what fraud means?  It means perpetrating a lie of some kind. 

Lastly, when one does not agree with a judge's ruling, you can appeal it.

So, no, your basis for arguing against his appointment is absolutely silly and preposterous.

Judge Chen committed no fraud.  However, if his rulings were not based on law or the record.  Then the losing party can appeal such rulings.  That is how it works.

Great, it looks like we need to better educate Americans on critical thinking and analysis!

Stephanie has it exactly right, "when one does not agree with a judge's ruling, you can appeal it."  I had Judge Chen for discovery matters, and although I did not agree with all of his assessments, I found that most were within the discretionary boundaries allotted to judges.  Consequently, I told the presiding judge that I thought Judge Chen did an excellent job of handling discovery matters.

If indeed, at some point these disagreements become prejudicial in the outcome, I know I have the right to appeal it.  If not, then Judge Chen is entirely correct in saying  (paraphrased) "don't sweat the small stuff if you've already made your point."

Honestly, I did think that he was a bit more demanding of my effort because I'm Asian, but ultimately he treated me fairly and was incredibly patient and diplomatic throughout.  I would love to see him become a Title III judge.  It is clear that his peers think the world of him, and that the unprepared fear him. 

Correction: Article III, not Title III judge

Glad that the U.S. Senate stopped Chen the crook. His unAmerican words were really shocking. Come on, he was appointed a magistrate judge, yet he harbored so much hatred to the U.S. He is a manchurian candidate for sure.

The people here did a great thing by exposing Chen the manchurian candidate. It is good that the Chinese Americans had the courage to expose Chen for the greater good of the American society. But it makes us wonder why Chen is still sitting on the bench as a magistrate, instead of being taken away.

To C. Yee, appealing a judge's decision is not a subitutute to exposing the fraud. Litigants are in the court to seek justice. When crooked folks like Chen punishes the injured people for exposing wrong doing, years of appeal will not serve justice, but the punishment of this crookedness will. Watch the movie Law Abiding Citizen? The American people are tired of crooked judges who impose injustice on the people.

Fortunately, the U.S. Senate exposed Chen. So he will not have the chance to do more damage.

Glad that the U.S. Senate rejected Chen yet again. The Asian community should not blindly support Chen simply because of his skin color. That will make Asians racist. Chen is anti-America. He harbors strong resentment towards the system. Senator Kyl said Chen is very very troubling. Senator Sessions says Chen's philosophy unhealthy. Those are strong words. Keep siding with Chen-the-goner will harm the interest of Asians. Chen has no integrity.