Moore Claims She’s Not a Complainant in Latest Special Committee Order on Newman Investigation

“Regardless of whether [Moore] is a complainant or not, based on the allegations, she still needs to be a witness. You can’t be witness, investigator and judge under the American system.” – Gene Quinn

The Special Committee of the Judicial Council of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) that is investigating Judge Pauline Newman over allegations she is unfit to serve on the court issued a redacted order yesterday specifying the behavior they say warrants the probe.

Amid calls from Newman’s attorneys and ethics experts to transfer the complaint to a different circuit, a footnote on page one of yesterday’s order somewhat confusingly notes that Chief Judge Moore “did not file a complaint nor is she a complainant. Instead, Chief Judge Moore identified a complaint pursuant to Rule 5, which allows a Chief Judge to initiate the complaint when others have presented allegations establishing probable cause to believe a disability exists.”

The order goes on to make numerous claims that indicate “overwhelming evidence raising concerns about whether Judge Newman currently suffers from a disability that makes her unable to efficiently perform the duties of her office.”

In addition to repeating allegations about significant delays in completing cases and insisting she submit to testing and provide medical records, which Newman refused in her recent response to Moore’s initial order, the order details a number of scathing complaints made by staff. These include that Newman is paranoid and convinced that people are hacking into her computer; that she her phones were being bugged; that she has mentally deteriorated to the point of not remembering how to log on to her computer; that she repeatedly failed a simple security awareness training test; that she often forgets to bring necessary materials to court; “seems lost and confused”; that she disclosed a confidential employee matter to 95 people on the court; that she forgot her law clerk ended their service with her chambers and demanded the clerk be returned to her chambers; that she was abusive to a former clerk and then threatened to have him arrested; and that she generally “seems confused and suspicious and to be struggling to comprehend what she is being told.”

In response to Newman’s refutation of the concerns about her reduced workload in the complaint she recently filed in district court, the order also claims that Newman only authored 10 majority opinions compared to an average of 58 for other active judges between October 1, 2021, and March 24, 2023. “Even accounting for dissents and concurrences, during this time period, the average active judge authored 61 opinions, whereas Judge Newman authored 28. At the same time, Judge Newman took more than three times as long to issue her opinions.” The order includes the following chart showing Newman’s time to issuance compared with her colleagues.

Many have weighed in to support transferring the investigation to a new circuit, since, despite the disclaimer in yesterday’s order, Moore’s involvement in the process arguably seems objectively biased. IPWatchdog CEO and Founder Gene Quinn, who broke the initial news about Moore’s identification of the complaint, said Moore’s contention that she isn’t a complainant is bizarre.

“I find it very convenient that suddenly Judge Moore claims to no longer be the complainant when the original complaint was authorized under her name and written in the first person,” Quinn said. “And regardless of whether she’s a complainant or not, based on the allegations, she still needs to be a witness. You can’t be witness, investigator and judge under the American system.”

In a separate order issued yesterday, the Special Committee responded to Newman’s allegations of First Amendment violations related to a “gag order” requiring Newman to keep the proceedings confidential. According to the order, “the suggestion in the first sentence of Judge Newman’s letter brief that the Confidentiality Order directed her and her counsel to ‘cease making public statements regarding the above-referenced matter,’ misstates the requirements of the order. To the extent Judge Newman and her counsel wish to publicly discuss aspects of this proceeding that have already been made public, the Confidentiality Order placed no restriction on them.”

Attendees of IPWatchdog’s Patent Litigation Masters 2023, which ends today, told IPWatchdog the entire matter is unfortunate and doing real damage to the image of the court.

Image Source: Deposit PHotos
Image ID: 8323866
Author: iodrakon

Share

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com.

Join the Discussion

13 comments so far.

  • [Avatar for Anon]
    Anon
    May 19, 2023 04:01 pm

    B,

    Now “LeBraun” strikes me as someone who has flitted across numerous monikers and likely has been banned (at least once).

  • [Avatar for B]
    B
    May 19, 2023 03:09 pm

    @ LeBraun “Being ignorant of how this procedure works will never stop Gene from giving us his “hot take” or getting personal (even insulting judges).”

    Some judges need insulting – often – but there is a difference between criticizing the specific actions of a judge and ad hominem attacks.

    Gene has been very specific with his criticisms

    You, on the other hand provide only ad hominem attacks without evidence or argument

  • [Avatar for Anon]
    Anon
    May 19, 2023 08:05 am

    I agree with Pro Say.

    There is a huge difference between a “hot take” from an informed source, and an emotionally steeled, wooden “must accept accusations as true” cold take from someone who has NOT established that their opinion is anything BUT an opinion.

    While I certainly respect the ability (and choice) to build — and rely on — cred of “authority,”*** one can intelligently proceed based on the merits of the instant writings.

    *** this last in response to Gene’s reply. Gene certainly has worked hard to establish his bona fides, while the pseudonymous person has not. This is NOT to say though that any and all anonymous and pseudonymous writings MUST be inferior to writings by those who choose their real names, as such is clearly falling to the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. My point is that the content itself controls.

    Sure, working hard to establish bona fides DOES have its benefits, as I have ALSO (long) championed the view that an informed opinion is far more valuable than a mere opinion (chastising those commentators that refuse to allow themselves to become informed).

  • [Avatar for Pro Say]
    Pro Say
    May 18, 2023 07:53 pm

    “Being ignorant of how this procedure works” and “getting personal (even insulting judges).”

    Given the level of knowledge of IPW’s readers, your conflation, mischaracterization, and misdirection will not work here, LeBrawn.

    Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, et. all., however would welcome you with open arms. Feel free to take your baloney there.

    “will never stop Gene from giving us his “’hot take’”

    Thank goodness. For truth, justice, and innovation, may he never stop.

    Ever.

  • [Avatar for Gene Quinn]
    Gene Quinn
    May 18, 2023 03:00 pm

    Anon-

    I understand your desire (and likely need) to stay anonymous.

    I am not going to apologize for calling out the anonymity of someone who erroneously says that what we publish is wrong and misleading. Essentially call us liars and staying anonymous is not going to stand unchallenged.

    I suspect I know who that individual is, and they have a particular agenda. What I will point out is that they do not point out what we have said that is misleading or wrong, just that we are essentially lying.

    Any lawyer, and any judge, should see the inherent and inescapable conflict of interest here. If this is about removing a mentally incompetent judge there is no reason why Judge Moore, who is a necessary witness, should continue to be complainant, investigator and decision maker. That is precisely why in other situations matters like this are routinely transferred to another Circuit.

    This belief that one set of rules applies to the bar and another set of rules regarding clear and obvious conflicts applies to judges must stop.

  • [Avatar for LeBrawn]
    LeBrawn
    May 17, 2023 07:43 pm

    Being ignorant of how this procedure works will never stop Gene from giving us his “hot take” or getting personal (even insulting judges).

  • [Avatar for Anon]
    Anon
    May 17, 2023 06:19 pm

    Gene,

    No need to do the “out yourself” routine – see my past (granted, it’s been awhile) defense of anonymous and pseudonymous postings.

    Sticking to the merits of WHAT has been said (regardless of WHO) provides you with ample room to solidify your point and render FCP’s position to be a nullity.

  • [Avatar for Gene Quinn]
    Gene Quinn
    May 17, 2023 04:54 pm

    Federal Circuit Practitioner-

    Nothing that we have published is inaccurate or misleading, and is backed up to diligent verification.

    The person that looks bad is Chief Judge Moore who is damaging herself and significantly hurting the Federal Circuit as an institution.

    And, for the record, I’m happy to debate you about this issue any time. I suspect I know who you are. So why don’t you just stop hiding and use your real name? I’m put my name to everything I say and welcome those who are not afraid to publicly debate me on the propriety of being the complainant, witness, investigator and decision maker. Regardless of the merits that is simply not acceptable under the U.S. system.

  • [Avatar for Pro Say]
    Pro Say
    May 17, 2023 04:14 pm

    And yet . . .

    These include that Trump and Biden are paranoid and convinced that people are hacking into their computers; that their phones were being bugged; that they have mentally deteriorated to the point of not remembering how to log on to their computers; that they repeatedly failed a simple security awareness training test; that they often forget to bring necessary materials to meetings; “seem lost and confused”; that they disclosed confidential employee matters to others; that they forgot their attorneys ended their service and demanded they be returned to their service ; that they were abusive to their staff and then threatened to have them all arrested; and that they both generally “seem confused and suspicious and to be struggling to comprehend what they are being told.

    Thank goodness it’s so much easier to qualify to be the President of the United States . . . than it is to be a CAFC judge.

    Thank. Goodness.

  • [Avatar for Anonymous]
    Anonymous
    May 17, 2023 11:52 am

    Judge Newman is paranoid about someone out to get her, so the remainder of the Fed Cir proves they are out to get her.

    The Fed Cir railroads inventors worse than it has treated Newman.

    “Real damage to the image of the court” is nothing compared to the real damage the court does to inventors.

    Perhaps Chief Judge Moore can complain about obvious cognitive incompetence of Biden, Fetterman, and Feinstein, too.

  • [Avatar for Disgusted at the Fed Cir.]
    Disgusted at the Fed Cir.
    May 17, 2023 11:44 am

    Federal Circuit Practitioner

    You are very misguided. The “common folk” who have been subjected to the Fed. Circuit have walked away and found themselves convinced that it’s nothing more than a clown show.

    “doing real damage to the image of the court?” Too late! Look at the number of times the Fed Circuit rules in favor of large corporations, especially Big Tech. Are they truly that righteous? OR…is the Fed Circuit that misguided? Sadly, my experience with them is the latter.

    My company has appeared before them in three instances. In each of the three, they dismissed our argument even though we just didn’t have a smoking gun, we had the video of the culprit firing.
    In Judge Moore’s ruling, she referred to our evidence as “mere speculative.”

    HA! The Fed Circuit creation was based on a good idea, but it has failed. End the Kabuki Court.

    We deserve justice and competent judges.

  • [Avatar for Anon]
    Anon
    May 17, 2023 11:42 am

    FCP,

    I would posit that it is your posts that are biased and misleading.

  • [Avatar for Federal Circuit Practitioner]
    Federal Circuit Practitioner
    May 17, 2023 11:24 am

    The bias and misleading blog posts here are unprofessional.

    It is the ENTIRE Federal Circuit backing the investigation of Judge Newman. The new allegations of paranoia and other serious cognitive issues should be the focus of “reporting”.

    The Court itself appears to be undertaking its duty to investigate the disability allegations — that it what a Judicial Conference should do.

    A few of Judge Newman’s clerks continue to fan the flames which does nothing except make Judge Newman look bad.

Varsity Sponsors

IPWatchdog Events

Patent Portfolio Management Masters™ 2024
June 24 @ 1:00 pm - June 26 @ 2:00 pm EDT
Webinar – Sponsored by LexisNexis
August 22 @ 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm EDT
Women’s IP Forum
August 26 @ 11:00 am - August 27 @ 5:00 pm EDT
IP Solutions, Services & Platforms Expo
September 9 @ 1:00 pm - September 10 @ 2:00 pm EDT

From IPWatchdog